QUALITY?

Money used from Government funding cuts has been sidestepped to Tamaki where the Government says nearly 40% of children are missing out on ECE. Education Minister Anne Tolley says that while Government spending in the past 5yrs has hugely increased in ECE, participation has increased by less than one per cent. NZ Childcare Association (NZCA) Chief Executive Nancy Bell welcomes this project, taking place in Waitakere and Northland in low socio-economic communities, but is very concerned that it is coming at the expense of centres employing higher numbers of qualified teachers. She argues that it is ‘quality’ that will suffer. http://www.nzca.ac.nz/news/press/2010/increased-participation In another media release Nancy Bell states that “the impact on quality with ratios, professional development and the amount of qualified teachers [is] on the line.”  http://www.nzca.ac.nz/news/press/2010/Fees-up-quality-down-according-to-new-ECE-sur 

This government’s emphasis on involving young children in early childhood education and care is admirable but what is happening to the large numbers of children that are already involved in early childhood education? Are they getting the best care possible? This is defined by the perception of quality? Ceglowski and Bacigalupa (2002) define quality child care as having positive effects on children’s language ability, sociability and cognitive thinking skills. However they consider quality from four perspectives: researchers and professionals, parents, child care staff and children in childcare (Katz, 1993, as cited in Ceglowski and Bacigalupa, 2002).

Researchers and professionals use a top-down perspective. They look at the importance of attachment, child/teacher ratios, staff qualifications and stability, health and safety in the environment, adult/child interactions and parent-caregiver communication. These studies dominate current views of child care quality. Because many of today’s parents work, parents are strongly influenced by program flexibility and staff responsiveness to their family needs. Child care staff are concerned about their relationships with administration, colleagues and parents and children are concerned with comfort, acceptance and their activities.

Pence and Moss (1994, as cited in Ceglowski and Bacigalupa, 2002 ) state that our perception of quality has been dominated by the professional perception. They state that quality is “subjective in nature and based on values, beliefs, and interest, rather than an objective and universal reality” (Pence and Moss, 1994, p. 172).

So what are these researchers and professionals saying? Kagan, Brandon, Ripple, Maher, and Joesch’s (2002) American model of quality suggest that quality is caught up in the trilemma or “tension among program quality, staff compensation and affordability of care” (p. 58). Kagan et al. state that resources are inadequate and they consider how the resources have been spent. Their expectation has been that funds would be spent to increase numbers of children in childcare. Their suggestion is that not all staff members need to be qualified. However to maintain quality they strongly suggest pay parity for trained teachers with degrees, ongoing professional development and regulation to “ensure a basic threshold of protection for each child” (p.62). 

Boocock, Barnett and Frede (2001) agree that the “increased participation of mothers in the labor force, dwindling family size and disappearing extended family support that have transformed American family life” (p. 43) today is also relevant for many in other international countries. They say that worldwide “governments face intense pressures to economize on preschool services by reducing support or relaxing standards” (p. 43).

All the different international countries agree that attendance at high-quality preschool programs show cognitive and socioemotional development. However high-quality is differently defined by different countries. Consistent results continue to be maintained in Sweden where about half of all young children go to supervised, subsidized childcare. Later success in schools is “explained by the fact that public programs are well funded and have well-prepared staff and small group sizes” (p.46). Boocock, Barnett and Frede (2001) state that although Americans invest in rigorous research, children however get “the childcare you pay for” (p. 49).

So in what direction is Early Childhood Care and Education in NZ headed? 
Funding cuts in NZ seem to indicate clearly a change of direction. It also appears important then to see where we have come from?

References

Boocock, S., Barnett., & Frede, E. (2001). Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs in other nations: Lessons for Americans. Young Children, September, 43-50.

Ceglowski, D., & Bacigalupa, C. (2002). Four Perspectives on child care quality. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30, 87-92.  

Kagan, S., Brandon, R., Ripple., Maher, E., & Joesch, J. (2002). Supporting quality early childhood care and education: Addressing compensation and infrastructure. Young Children, May, 58-65.

Media Releases. (2010). Increased participation at the expense of quality.  Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa / NZ Childcare Association. Retrieved 17 March, 2011 from http://www.nzca.ac.nz/news/press/2010/increased-participation 

Media Releases. (2010). Fees up, quality down according to new ECE survey. Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa / NZ Childcare Association. Retrieved 17 March, 2011 from http://www.nzca.ac.nz/news/press/2010/Fees-up-quality-down-according-to-new-ECE-sur 

Ministry of Education. (2010). ECE funding boost for Tāmaki. Education Gazette: Tukutuku Kōrero, 21, 7.