STARTING STRONG IV Monitoring quality in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Montserrat Gomendio Deputy Director Directorate for Education and Skills OECD

• Why do countries monitor quality in ECEC?

• How do countries monitor and what are the consequences?

• What are the challenges faced and lessons learnt?

Today’s focus

• Why do countries monitor quality in ECEC?

• How do countries monitor and what are the consequences?

• What are the challenges faced and lessons learnt?

Today’s focus

Early years are pivotal for child development

Source: Council for Early Childhood Development, 2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Bel

gium

Fran

ce

Nor

way

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Swed

en

Ital

y

Ger

man

y*

New

Zea

land

Kor

ea

Slov

enia

Net

herl

ands

Port

ugal

Japa

n

Luxe

mbo

urg

OE

CD

ave

rage

*

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Finl

and

Chi

le

Irel

and

Mex

ico

Aus

tral

ia

2012 2005%

Enrolment rates in early childhood education at age 3 (2005 and 2012)

Note: For Germany, the year of reference is 2006, rather than 2005. The graph only shows countries covered by the OECD Network on ECEC’s “Online Survey on Monitoring Quality in Early Learning and Development”. The OECD average refers to all OECD member countries.

Enrolment from age 3 is on the rise in OECD countries (2012)

Jurisdiction Starting age of

compulsory school

Age of children

Entitlement to a place in ECEC

Entitlement to free access

Legal access entitlement

Hours/week Free access entitlement

Hours/week

Belgium-Flemish Community

6 2.5-5 universal 23.33 unconditional 23.33

Belgium-French Community

6 0-2.5 none m conditional m

2.5-5 universal 28 unconditional 28

Czech Republic 6 5 universal 50 unconditional ≥40 France

6

0-2 none a conditional 40 3-5 universal 24 unconditional 24

Italy 6 3-5 universal 40 unconditional 40 Luxembourg

4 0-3 none a conditional 3 3-5 universal 26 unconditional ≤26

Netherlands 5 0-4 none a targeted 10 Norway 6 1-5 universal 41 none a Slovenia 6 11 months-5

years universal 45 conditional 45

Sweden

7 1-2 universal 15-50 none a 3-6 universal 15-50 unconditional 15

UK-England

5

2 none a conditional 15 3-4 none a unconditional 15

UK-Scotland 5 3-4 universal 16 unconditional 12.5

Increasingly extensive legal entitlements to ECEC

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

Den

mar

k1

Icel

and

Spai

n

Latv

ia

Rus

sian

Fed

erat

ion

Slov

enia

1

Luxe

mbo

urg

Chi

le

Swed

en

Pola

nd

Fran

ce

Isra

el1

Arge

ntin

a

Belg

ium

Mex

ico

New

Zea

land

Aust

ria1

Ger

man

y

OEC

D a

vera

ge

Nor

way

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Col

ombi

a

Italy

Slov

ak R

epub

lic

Uni

ted

Sta

tes1

Finl

and

Net

herla

nds

Esto

nia

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Kore

a

Japa

n

Aust

ralia

Hun

gary

1

Braz

il1

Portu

gal

Switz

erla

nd

Private expenditure on educational institutions in percentage of GDP Public expenditure on educational institutions in percentage of GDP

Total% of GDP

Elevated expenditure on early childhood educational institutions (2011)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Belgium-Flemish Community -Pre-primary educationBelgium-Flemish Community -Day-care centres

Belgium-Flemish Community -Family day-care providers

France -Pre-primary schoolFrance -Community crèches

France -Discovery garden

Germany -Child day-care centres

Italy -Pre-primary school

Japan -Nursery centresJapan -Kindergarten

Kazakhstan -All public ECEC settings

Korea -Childcare centreKorea -Kindergarten

Luxembourg -Early childhood education programmeLuxembourg -Compulsory preschool education

Luxembourg -Day-care familiesLuxembourg -Day-care centres

Mexico -Federal home-based early education for 0-3 year-olds (CONAFE)Mexico -Federal centre-based ECEC for 0-6 year-olds of state workers (ISSSTE)

Mexico -Public child development centres for 0-5 year-olds (CENDI)Mexico -Mandatory preschool

Netherlands -ChildmindingNetherlands -Childcare

Netherlands -Childcare for children of disadvantaged backgrounds

New Zealand -Māori language nestNew Zealand -Kindergarten

New Zealand -PlaycentreNew Zealand -Education and care

New Zealand -Home-based

Norway -Kindergarten, family kindergarten

Slovak Republic -Kindergarten

Slovenia -Kindergarten (integrated ECEC setting for 1-5 year-olds)Slovenia -Childminding of preschool children

Sweden -Preschool classSweden -Preschool

State (central, regional, local levels) Parents Other

Share of cost to parents and state of ECEC

BE

FR

DE IT

JP

SI

SE

KZ KR

LU

MX

NL

NZ

NO SK

Mainly monitored to i) enhance the level of quality in settings; ii) inform policy makers and the general public about the state of

ECEC in their country

Purposes of monitoring service quality

0 10 20 30

Accountability purposes without explicit sanction or reward

Identifying learning needs for children

Identifying learning needs for staff

Improving staff performance

Enhancing child development

Accountability purposes with explicit sanction or reward

Informing general public

Informing policy making

Improving level of service quality

Number of times cited by jurisdictions

Child development is less frequently monitored to inform policy making, the public, and for accountability purposes, but rather to

enhance child development (16/21), identify learning needs of children (16/21), and improving the level of service quality (15/21)

Purposes of monitoring child development

0 5 10 15 20

Accountability purpose, with sanctions/ rewards

Accountability purpose, without sanctions/ rewards

Informing general public

Identifying learning needs for staff

Informing policy making

Improving staff performance

Improving level of service quality

Enhancing child development

Identifying learning needs for children

Number of jurisdictions

• Why do countries monitor quality in ECEC?

• How do countries monitor and what are the consequences?

• What are the challenges faced and lessons learnt?

Today’s focus

• Funding of monitoring systems mostly public, sourced from different levels of government

• Monitoring quality is mostly done by public institutions or agencies such as ministries of education or inspectorates

• In decentralised systems, local authorities play a key role in monitoring

• Most commonly monitored are service quality and staff quality – child outcomes less frequently

• Areas of monitoring are often integrated: Monitoring service quality, staff quality and child outcomes are usually not monitored independently

Governance and funding

• Wide differences in approaches to monitoring and which tools are used

• Structural aspects/ regulation compliance: most frequently monitored…but increasing attention to monitoring process quality

• External assessors usually receive comprehensive training, while internal assessors not always in all aspects of their monitoring tasks

• Countries are increasingly applying a common approach to monitoring across different types of ECEC provision (e.g. via a framework)

• The results of monitoring quality, especially service quality, increasingly available to the public

Evaluators and approaches

• Inspections (24/24) and self-evaluations (19/24) are most common, parental surveys less popular (15/24)

• Frequency of monitoring service quality internally or externally is not regulated in most countries – usually depends on last monitoring result

• Service quality results have to be made public in most countries (16), although in some countries only general or aggregated results are shared rather than the results of individual settings

Implementation of monitoring service quality

Inspections focus largely on regulatory aspects, such as staff-child ratios, safety regulations, minimum staff qualifications,

health and hygiene regulations, and minimum standards for space

Aspects of service quality monitored through inspections

0 5 10 15 20 25

Working conditionsHuman resource management

Financial resource managementImplementation of a curriculum

Planning of work/ staffLearning and play material in use

Indoor/ outdoor spaceStaff-child ratios

Health and/or hygiene regulationsMinimum staff qualifications

Safety regulations

Number of jurisdictions that monitor the aspects

Service quality aspects inspected in child care and nursery settings (or integrated settings for countries with an integrated system)

Frequency usually depends

on last monitoring

result

Inspections use various tools: • Observations, interviews and analysis of

internal documentation are used in inspections by 87,5% of jurisdictions

• Checklists and results of self-evaluations are fairly often used (by two-thirds)

• Rating scales and survey results, conducted by evaluators, staff/management or parents, are less popular

Tools for monitoring service quality through inspections

Self-evaluations feed into inspections, but especially seek to foster quality : • Self-reported surveys, self-reflection reports

or journals, and checklists are often used (by 12/19)

• A little less than half use portfolios (8/19) • Video feedback not often used (3/19)

Monitoring service quality through self-evaluations

Curriculum implementation, staff-child interactions and the quality of teaching are the key areas countries monitor with regard to process quality across different types of settings.

Areas of process quality monitored

0 5 10 15 20

Sensitivity (warmth, attentiveness, etc.)

Age-appropriateness of practices

Collaboration between staff and parents

Responsiveness to children’s individual needs

Collaboration between colleagues (staff)

Pedagogy

Overall quality of teaching/ instruction/ caring

Relationships and interactions between staff and children

Implementation of curriculum

Number of jurisdictions (out of 23 jurisdictions)

Process quality aspects monitored in pre-primary education (or integrated settings)

• Direct assessments are done through testing (in 9/21 jurisdictions) or screening (9/21)

• Narrative assessments consist of storytelling practices (11/21) or portfolios (14/21)

• Observations make most commonly use of checklists (17/21) and rating scales (12/21)

• Monitoring children’s views when assessing child development has become a more widespread practice (11/21)

Varied tools used for monitoring child development

Direct assessments are mostly applied to testing language and literacy, while observations and narrative assessments tend to

focus on a broader range of skills

Areas of child development monitored

0 5 10 15 20

ICT skillsScience

Practical skillsHealth development, e.g., overweight

Well-beingCreative skills

AutonomyNumeracy skills

Language and literacy skillsSocio-emotional skills

Motor skills

Observations and narrative assessments Direct assessments

Number of jurisdictions

Most common consequence of monitoring results is: i) centre or staff must take measures to address shortcomings; ii) follow-up inspections or other monitoring practices, or in extreme cases;

iii) close-down or denied renewal of license to operate

Consequences of monitoring service quality

0 5 10 15 20

Competitive advantages in comparison with other services

Aligning monitoring to increased remunerations or demotions

Funding consequences: additional funding

Funding consequences: cuts in funding

Obliging management/ staff to participate in/ receive training

Closure of services/ settings or non-renewal of license to operate

Follow-up inspection or other follow-up monitoring practices

Take measures to address shortcomings

Number of jurisdictions

It is common that settings/staff have to address their shortcomings after a staff monitoring practice, comply with

follow-up monitoring exercises, and that staff/management should take up on training

Monitoring staff quality - consequences

0 5 10 15 20 25

Additional funding

Competitive advantages in comparison with other services

Aligning monitoring to increased remunerations or demotions

Cuts in funding

Obliging management/ staff to participate in/ receive training

Closure of services/ settings or non-renewal of license tooperate

Follow-up inspection or other follow-up monitoring practices

Take measures to address shortcomings

Number of jurisdictions (out of 23 jurisdictions)

Consequences of monitoring early childhood education and care staff

• Why do countries monitor quality in ECEC?

• How do countries monitor and what are the consequences?

• What are the challenges faced and lessons learnt?

Today’s focus

• Defining and establishing a complete picture of quality:

- Setting out clear and comprehensive quality goals - Gathering input from parents - Monitoring children’s views • Ensuring a coherent monitoring system: - Developing national standards or regulations - Developing a central monitoring framework - Standardising monitoring tools • Monitoring to inform policy reform: - Collecting data that can inform policies and strategies - Providing training to underperforming settings or staff

General challenges in monitoring service quality

• Creating an accurate and complete picture of child development:

- Using multiple instruments - Continuous assessment of child development • Recognising children’s individual development: - Tailoring monitoring to the individual child - Using developmentally appropriate tools

Challenges in monitoring child development

1. Balance the purposes for monitoring 2. Highlight good practice to promote understanding of what quality

entails 3. Develop a coherent monitoring framework for different settings 4. Consider the potential advantages and disadvantages of delegating

to local authorities the responsibility of monitoring quality 5. Design a monitoring system to inform policy and the general

public 6. Link monitoring of staff quality to professional development 7. Do not underestimate the demands that monitoring places on staff 8. Value the voices of staff, parents and children 9. Use continuous monitoring for teaching and learning strategies

that support child development.

Lessons learnt in monitoring quality in ECEC

Contact: OECD ECEC team (ECEC@oecd.org)

www.oecd.org/edu/earlychildhood

Thank you for your attention