proceedings from permata negara · proceedings from permata negara ... in poverty can shape a...
TRANSCRIPT
CONTENT
Page
Proceedings from PERMATA NEGARA
Policy for Early Childhood and the Wealth of Nations 2
Professor Edward Melhuish
Quality Assurance in Early Childhood Care and Education 22
Prof. Emerita Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Dr. Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hasan Shahabudin
Engaging STEM Education in Early Years 24
Professor Dr. Ong Eng Tek
2
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
PLENARY:
POLICY FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS
PROFESSOR EDWARD MELHUISH
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD
We live in a rapidly changing world where the skills that children need to learn in order to have
good life chances are increasing and becoming more complex. However, there are great
differences in children’s health and development linked to their social origins. Many studies
give a consistent picture that adversity in early life leads to: poor adult mental and physical
health, adult mortality, anti-social and criminal behaviour, substance abuse and poor literacy
and academic achievement. Children from poor families are less likely to be successful in
school and are more likely to have poorer health and to engage in crime and other problem
behaviour later in life (Holzer, Schanzenbach, Duncan, & Ludwig, 2007). The stress from living
in poverty can shape a child’s neuro-biology, leading directly to poorer outcomes in adulthood
(Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Despite several decades of social, educational and public health
reform, the impact of social origins on child outcomes and well-being persists and is even
increasing. This produces an enormous waste of talents as the potential of children in
disadvantaged circumstances is never fully realized.
Additionally, there is an extra load on society’s resources as these individuals who mature into
disadvantaged youths and adults will show greater need for state resources throughout their
lives as their well-being is often compromised. Thus, there is both a moral dilemma - how to
reduce inequality and make peoples’ lives more fulfilled, - and a social and economic dilemma
in that a society with a high proportion of disadvantaged individuals, and poorer level of skills
throughout the population, is less able to adapt to a world demanding higher levels of
productivity to maintain living standards. These problems are exacerbated over time as
increasingly technologically advanced societies need more and newer skills from the
workforce. Hence there is an increasing need for more adaptable and technically skilled
populations. The aims of equality and future productivity merge in policy in realizing that
learning capabilities are primarily formed during the first years of childhood. Thus, improving
life chances in early childhood can serve both the goals of reducing inequality and raising the
productive capacity of a society.
3
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
Why should we focus on the early years? One reason is the accumulation of evidence that
indicates that the child’s experience in the early years has profound consequences for later
life. There are now many studies that present a consistent picture indicating that adversity in
early life, such as frequently accompanies child poverty, is linked to: poor adult mental and
physical health, adult mortality, anti-social and criminal behaviour, substance abuse and poor
literacy and academic achievement.
To quote two well-known social scientists
Esping-Anderson (2005)
“If the race is already halfway run even before children begin school, then we clearly need to
examine what happens in the earliest years.”
And the Nobel prize winning economist James Heckman (2004)
“Like it or not, the most important mental and behavioural patterns, once established, are
difficult to change once children enter school.”
In reviewing the evidence on ECEC, the research evidence for children 0-3 years is mixed
with some studies indicating benefits, some indicating negative effects and some studies
indicating no effects at all. The discrepant results for studies of childcare for children 0-3 years
probably reflects different effects for different populations, different ages, different types of
children as well as differing qualities of childcare for differing settings and differing populations.
When studies of ECEC for children over 3 years are considered the evidence of benefits for
children is clear and there are almost universal benefits for children associated with the various
forms of group-based ECEC attended by children from 3 years upwards. Also, the benefits
increase the greater the quality of the pre-school provision defined in terms of how well the
centres serve children’s developmental needs, (Melhuish et al., 2015)
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) in the UK
Early childhood education and care (ECEC) in the UK can be regarded as a mixed economy,
in that it is partly financed and organised by the central and local government, partly by private
individuals and organisations, and partly by voluntary organisations (e.g., community groups,
charities). ECEC in England includes a wide range of services. Formal provision includes day
nurseries, nursery schools, nursery classes, playgroups, children or family centres and
childminding. Informal provision includes grandparents, friends and neighbours, nannies or
other home carers. This list details the range of provision available:
4
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
Day nursery: centre-based provision for children under five years
Playgroup: usually part-time, for children between two and four years
Nursery class: class in primary school for 3-4-year-old, mostly part-time
Nursery school: separate pre-school for 3-year-olds to start of primary school.
Children’s Centre: multi-purpose facility for children and families, including ECEC 0-5 years
sometimes, and family support and possibly other services.
Childminding: family day care for all ages
Home carers: family, neighbour, friend; nannies
Reception class: first year of primary school, may take four-year-old
Childcare for school-children: out-of-school care; group or individual.
Essentially prior to 1998 there was no statutory obligation for the state to provide any early
childhood education or childcare for children under the statutory starting school age of 5 years.
However, there were a range of provision such as local authority day nurseries catering for ‘at
risk’ children, as well as in some nursery schools and nursery classes for 3 and 4-year old,
typically in more disadvantaged areas. These services were provided at the discretion of
individual local authorities and hence their availability was haphazard around the country.
Some of these services were the hangover of policies started and then rescinded during or
shortly after the Second World War. Outside the public sector, some children used private
fee-paying nursery schools and classes, and many attended voluntary sector playgroups,
which often kept fees low by using volunteers. Full-time paid day-care was also available from
the private sector. Voluntary and private provision was regulated according to the criteria
within the 1989 Children act and from 2005 by the Office for Standards in Education, Children's
Services and Skills (Ofsted).
From the late 1980’s ECEC started to re-emerge occasionally as a topic on the government
policy agenda. State involvement in ECEC has gradually gathered momentum over recent
decades.
The 1989 Children Act set out the basic regulations for the registration and regulation of all
early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings. This formulation of the ECEC regulations
within this Act had been influenced by a government-funded longitudinal study undertaken in
the 1980’s, the London Day Care Project, which had shown how the quality of care in ECEC
and home settings was related to children’s developmental outcomes, particularly language
development (Melhuish, Lloyd, Martin, & Mooney, 1990).
5
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
The Foundation Stage, which was a national curriculum covering ages 3-5 years was
introduced in 2000. In 2008, this was expanded as the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS)
covering 0-6 years. In the last year of EYFS, the reception year in primary school, children are
rated by teachers on the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP), which is an
assessment involving scales for 13 areas of development. The procedure for the EYFSP is
detailed in a 90-page handbook. It has been assumed that the EYFS and the EYFSP would
be delivered uniformly across the country, although pre-school staff are often not certified in
early childhood studies. The EYFS and EYFSP were revised in 2012.
The government stated its aim to upgrade the ECEC workforce in the Children’s Workforce
Strategy (HM government, 2005), and some improvement in the level of qualifications of the
ECEC workforce occurred. An ECEC Providers survey (Brind et al., 2011) shows that by 2010,
for the educationally-oriented sector for 3-5 years, about 40% of staff had a level 6 qualification
or higher, i.e., graduate teachers, and about 40% were at level 3 or below, i.e., assistants.
Whereas in the childcare sector, up to 8% had a level 6 qualification, and about 50% had a
level 3 qualification, with the remainder having level 2 or less. Early Years Professionals
started to appear in the workforce, but were under 4% in 2010. Around 25% of heads of full-
time services had a level 6 qualification (i.e. graduates), with 9% of supervisors and 2% of
other workers. In summary, the workforce is still not well-qualified, even though some
improvements have occurred, and a limiting factor has been the increased pay that increased
qualifications would require.
This process of ECEC reform has led to increasing public expenditure on ECEC. This can be
illustrated by taking public expenditure on childcare and early educational services for children
from 3 years of age to the start of school from the bi-annual OECD Social Expenditure data
collection and the annual UOE (UNESCO/OECD/Eurostat) data collection on education
(OECD, 2014). However, it only covers expenditure on pre-primary education (ISCED-0) not
on childcare for the under 3s. In order to get a better comparison of childcare support,
indicators were adjusted for cross-national differences in the compulsory age of entry into
primary school.
Using data from 2009, of the European countries, which include the top seven spends (% of
GDP) in the OECD, only Denmark (2%), Iceland (1.6%), Sweden (1.5%), France (1.2%),
Norway (1.2%) spend more than the UK (1.1%), which is equal to Finland (1.1%). Hence the
UK is substantially above the average for European and OECD countries in terms of the
%GDP spent on ECEC. In addition, since 2009, which is the year upon which these country
comparisons are made, there has been substantial increases in the UK ECEC spend, e.g.,
the extension of a free part-time ECEC place to 2-year-olds in the most deprived 40% of
6
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
families in 2013/2014, and by 2017 the 15 hours/week free ECEC place will be increased to
30 hours/week where a parent works 16+ hours/week.
EPPE (EPPSE) project (www.ioe.ac.uk/research/153.html)
A large-scale longitudinal study had a strong influence on UK government policy. This was
the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE, later EPPSE) project (Sylva et al,
2004; 2010; 2014; Melhuish et al., 2008).
The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project was originally authorised by
the conservative government in 1996 to provide evidence relevant to the pilot voucher scheme
for nursery places for 3-4-year-old that had been originally authorised in 1994. After the 1997
general election, the new Labour government killed the voucher scheme, but took an interest
in the EPPE project as ECEC was a central policy interest of the new government, and they
increased the EPPE funding. The longitudinal study started in 1997 and has followed over
3000 children from age 3 years, with retrospective data back to birth. As the children went into
primary school the project became the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education (EPPE)
project, and as the children moved into secondary school it became the Effective Pre-school,
Primary and Secondary Education (EPPSE) project until its end when children were 18 years
old. Hence, in its entirety, it constitutes a birth to 18 years’ longitudinal study. Hereafter, we
will refer to it by its latest acronym, EPPSE. It has focused particularly on the effect of different
kinds and quality of group-based ECEC provision, age of starting, and hours of attendance.
Early Results from EPPSE
When children were 3-4 years old their cognitive, language and socio-emotional development
was influenced by demographic factors, such as social class and parent education, as
frequently found previously. However, a variable called the Home Learning Environment
(HLE), derived from parental report of activities in the home, showed a greater association
with all measured aspects of development than the demographic factors. This finding was
summarised as “What parents do is more important than who parents are” (Melhuish et al.,
2001). This reflects the early finding that the HLE had an equal or more powerful effect upon
child development than parents’ education or social class. The HLE was a measure of
learning opportunities provided in the home and its derivation is fully described in Melhuish,
Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, Taggart, & Phan, (2008) and it continued to show powerful
effects upon educational and social outcomes as children became older (e.g., Melhuish et al.,
2008; Sammons et al., 2015).
7
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
When children entered primary school, the EPPSE study (Sammons et al., 2002, 2003) found
that:
• Two to three years of high-quality early years education can provide up to eight months of
developmental advantage in literacy-related outcomes compared to children who enter school
with no pre-school experience, with similar effects on other cognitive and social outcomes.
• While high-quality ECEC experience provided a boost, the greatest predictor of success was
the home learning environment, i.e., the learning opportunities provided at home had the
largest effect on child outcomes.
• The quality of ECEC is correlated with staff qualifications, and higher quality was related to
better outcomes for children.
These findings had several effects upon policy. The first was that the government decided to
provide a free part-time ECEC place for every child from their third birthday, until the start of
school, which came into effect in 2004. Secondly several government officials and politicians
were struck by the power of the effects of the HLE and emphasis on improving the HLE
influenced several subsequent decisions on early years’ provision, including a pilot
programme to improve the early years HLE; including the importance of HLE in subsequent
ECEC staff training programmes; and using the HLE as an outcome of interest in subsequent
programmes. Thirdly the importance of the quality of ECEC and the role of staff training in
developing quality was recognised.
Another finding from the EPPSE project was that a type of ECEC provision called integrated
centres was having particularly beneficial effects upon children at the start of school. The
centres integrated childcare, early education and often family support and sometimes other
family services and they were to become called children’s centres.
Later EPPSE Results
As children in the EPPSE study moved through the school system there was a need to
consider the effects of schooling itself as well as the effects of child, parent, home, area and
pre-school experience variables, which had been used in the earlier reports. Therefore, a
measure of the effectiveness of schools was devised from National assessment data for all
children in England. For some schools’ children, did better than expected, - effective schools
and for some schools’ children did worse than expected - ineffective schools. A continuous
measure of academic effectiveness was derived for all primary and secondary schools in
England. An analytic model represented by the following diagram (Fig. 1) was used to plan
8
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
analyses to understand influences on child outcomes.
Figure 1: Modelling Child outcomes
In such analyses the effects associated with a predictor variable, e.g., pre-school quality, could
be estimated after allowing for the effects of all other variables in the model. Using this
approach successive stages of the EPPSE project showed the continuing long-term effects of
experience in the pre-school period including ECEC experience and the early years HLE, as
well as the effects of demographic factors and school effectiveness. When children are 11
years old in England every child takes a national Key Stage 2 assessment. These assessment
data were used to analyse the effects of a range of variables upon children’s educational and
social development. The following graph (Fig.2) shows the relative size of effects (in standard
deviation units) of a range of variables with strong effects upon children’s achievement in
literacy and numeracy, as measured by National Assessments, at age 11 (Melhuish, 2011;
Sammons, et al., 2008).
9
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
Fig.2 Effects upon children’s literacy and numeracy at age 11 years.
Mother’s education (effect size (ES) = 0.70+ for literacy and numeracy), and the Home
Learning Environment (measured at age 3-4) (ES= 0.68 literacy; 0.42 numeracy) are the
strongest influences upon children’s attainment. However, preschool quality and primary
school effectiveness are also important influences and are very similar in their importance and
account for about half as much variance as home factors. Note that the effects of going to a
high-quality pre-school compared with no pre-school are similar in size to the effects of going
to a high effective versus a low effective primary school, yet a child on average had been in
the pre-school centre for 18 months, but had been at primary school for six years. While the
effects displayed are for attainment in literacy and numeracy, there are also substantial similar
effects upon children’s social development.
A similar strategy was repeated to analyse the effects of potential predictors upon academic
or social development at subsequent stages of the EPPSE project at age 14, 16 and 18 years
10
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
(Sammons et al., 2014a, b; 2015) The results for literacy and numeracy at age 16, derived
from the national GCSE assessments that children take at age 16, are shown in Fig. 3 below.
Fig. 3 Effects upon children’s literacy and numeracy at age 16 years.
As at age 11, mother’s education is still exerting the strongest effect upon literacy and
numeracy, albeit somewhat reduced in size from earlier. Secondary school effectiveness has
become a strong effect revealing the enormous diversity in effectiveness amongst secondary
schools in England. The huge diversity amongst secondary schools makes the choice (or
assignment) of secondary school a critical factor for many children’s chances of academic
success. Also, it is apparent that going to a high-quality pre-school compared to no pre-school
is still having an effect upon child outcomes eleven years after leaving the pre-school.
Additionally, the effects of the early years (3-4 years old) HLE is still powerful, many years
after it was measured. The HLE was measured in later years also and while these later HLE
measures did exert some effects it was the early years HLE (measured at age 3 years) that
exerted the most consistently powerful effects across the age range of the EPPSE study up
to age 18 years.
11
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
The evidence from the EPPSE study was supported by a parallel study using similar methods
in Northern Ireland. The Effective Pre-school Provision in Northern Ireland (EPPNI) project
(Melhuish, Quinn, Hanna, Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford, Sammons, & Taggart, 2006; Melhuish,
Quinn, Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2010; 2012) was a longitudinal study of
child development up to 11 years. It investigated the effects of different kinds of preschool
provision, and related experience in preschool to child development. In EPPNI, 683 children
were randomly selected from 80 preschools, and 151 children were recruited without
preschool experience. Progress was then followed up to age 11. Preschool experience was
related to age 11 performance in English and mathematics. High-quality preschools show
consistent effects that are reflected not only in improved attainment in English and
mathematics but also in improved progress in mathematics over primary school. Children who
attended high-quality preschools were 2.4 times more likely in English, and 3.4 times more
likely in mathematics, to attain high grades than children without preschool experience.
Throughout the study high quality ECEC experience was found to have benefits for
educational and social development, as found in the EPPSE results.
Conclusions from EPPSE
1. From age 2 all children will benefit from pre-school education.
2. The quality of preschool matters.
3. The duration of preschool, i.e. number of months, also matters.
4. Part-time preschool has equal benefit to full-time.
5. For medium and high quality preschool the benefits last into adulthood.
6. High quality preschool can partly protect a child from the consequences of attending
low effective school.
Other International evidence
Several studies documents how the benefits of ECEC for long-term educational,
occupational and social outcomes for disadvantaged children persist into adulthood (Barnett,
1992, Reynolds, et al., 2011). Such programmes are cost-effective in that the savings
outweigh any costs (Heckman, 2006). The benefits in adulthood can include those relating to
incomes, status, health and crime. They can extend to subsequent generations too, for
instance, through their impact as parents on their children’s education. General population
studies find benefits for school readiness (Gormley, Phillips, & Gayer, 2008; Magnuson,
Meyers, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2004) are greater if pre-school started between 2 and 3 years of
age (Loeb, et al., 2007).
12
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
A meta-analysis of 125 early childhood education studies in the USA (Camilli, Vargas, Ryan,
& Barnett, 2010) found that early childhood education was associated with substantial effects
for both cognitive and socio-emotional outcomes. Pre-school programmes appear to have
more impact if they have an emphasis on educational experiences directly delivered to the
child. The effects associated with ECEC provision are long-term. Studies have associated
attending a pre-school with increased qualifications, employment, and earnings up to age 33
(Goodman, & Sianesi, 2005). In France, pre-school (école maternelle) is a universal, free
education programme with access from age 3. During the 1960s and 1970s, large-scale
expansion led to the proportion of 3-year-olds enrolled increasing from 35% to 90%, and of 4-
year-olds from 60% to 100%. State-collected data reveals sizeable and persistent effects, with
pre-school helping children to succeed in school and obtain higher wages in the labour market.
Pre-school also reduced socio-economic inequalities, as children from less advantaged
backgrounds benefitted more than the more advantaged (Dumas & LeFranc, 2010). Likewise,
in Switzerland, pre-school expansion was associated with improved inter-generational
educational mobility. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds benefited most (Bauer, &
Riphahn, 2009). In Norway, differential implementation of pre-schools by municipalities
revealed that pre-school was associated with strong benefits for later educational and labour
market outcomes (Havnes, & Mogstad, 2009).
Similar evidence exists outside the developed world. Pre-school has been shown to boost
primary school achievement in Bangladesh (Aboud, 2006), with similar results being reported
for ten other countries (Montie, Xiang, & Schweinhart, 2006). Examination of pre-school
expansion in Uruguay and Argentina has also revealed clear benefits in terms of improved
educational attainment (Berlinski, Galiani, & Manacorda, 2008; Berlinski, Galiani, & Gertler,
2009).
The benefits associated with high quality ECEC are wide-ranging, covering cognitive,
educational and social development. This is because different aspects of a child’s
development are inter-related so that development in one area helps development in another.
What makes ECEC effective?
The EPPSE study was able to identify the most effective ECEC centres that produced the
most developmental benefit for children. Qualitative case studies of the most effective and
average centres investigated what processes were associated with those that were
particularly effective. In these case studies (Siraj-Blatchford, Sylva, Taggart, Sammons,
Melhuish, & Elliot, 2003) the researchers did not know which ECEC centres had been
identified as effective or ineffective, so their observations were not biased. These case studies
identified 5 areas that were particularly important for effectiveness in ECEC centres.
13
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
1. Quality of adult-child verbal interaction.
2. Staff knowledge and understanding of the curriculum.
3. Staff knowledge of how children learn.
4. Adult skills in helping children resolve conflicts.
5. Helping parents to support children’s learning at home.
Also in the observations of adult-child interaction in effective ECEC centres a particular kind
of interaction called sustained shared thinking was observed. It was not observed in
ineffective centres. The term ‘sustained shared thinking’ was first coined by Siraj-Blatchford,
et al., (2003) arising from the qualitative analysis of data. Sustained shared thinking involved
an adult interacting with two (or more) children in a process of solving a problem or creating
something. The adult would structure the situation and provide limited input but enough to
facilitate the child’s problem-solving or creative activities, so that the child could arrive at a
desired goal. Being able to engage in sustained shared thinking with a child was recognized
as a key skill of the staff in early childhood settings who were effective in supporting children’s
socio-emotional and cognitive outcomes. The skills of practitioners in terms of how they
interact with children and support their learning and development are central to high quality
provision.
Sustained Shared Thinking and Emotional Well-being (SSTEW) scale
It had become apparent through the experience of the EPPSE and other studies that the
established measures of quality of early years’ provision, as used in many previous studies,
were useful in many respects but that they missed out on aspects of staff-child interaction that
were likely to be important for the child’s longer-term development. Hence it was decided to
develop new scales that could fill this gap. The findings from the EPPSE case studies of
effective centres were used as the starting point in the development of a new observational
measure of quality in ECEC centres. This instrument was called the Sustained Shared
Thinking and Emotional Well-being (SSTEW) scale (Siraj, Kingston & Melhuish, 2015), and
although originally designed for 2-5 year olds it has been found to be particularly relevant for
provision for children 2-6 years old. Engaging in sustained shared thinking (SST), which
includes the successful support of a child’s thinking and learning, undoubtedly requires a
highly skilled and knowledgeable practitioner. A practitioner who is skilled in assessing,
monitoring and supporting children’s socio-emotional, linguistic, and cognitive development
and who also ensures that the child feels safe, comfortable, interested and stimulated, as
these are necessary conditions for the child to be ready to learn (Melhuish, 2004) and to be in
a position to think deeply. Also, the EPPSE study had found that a child’s self-regulation
abilities at the start of school were very predictive of later educational and social development
(Melhuish, Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, Taggart, & Phan, 2007), and these self-
14
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
regulation abilities appeared to mediate the effects of high quality ECEC experience as well
as the HLE. Hence the SSTEW scale included activities likely to foster the child’s self-
regulation abilities.
The developmental domains within SSTEW include social and emotional development as well
as cognitive and language development and give rise to the following five sub-scales:
Building trust, confidence, and independence and
Social and emotional well-being.
Supporting and extending language and communication
Supporting learning and critical thinking, and
Assessing learning and language.
While there are important differences in development between children aged 2–6 years, the
SSTEW scale focuses on common practices that will support and nurture children within this
age range when suitably adapted to the individuals involved.
Further Policy Influence
The early EPPSE evidence, which has been repeatedly reinforced by international evidence
(Melhuish et al., 2015) influenced the universal provision of a free part-time ECEC place for
children from their third birthday, and this has affected the lives of millions of children. It also
influenced the establishment of children’s centres. As EPPSE evidence accumulated further
policy influence occurred (Taggart et al., 2008). The Early Child Matters from 2003, and the
Ten Year Childcare Strategy in 2004 and 2009, contain references to EPPSE evidence that
clearly influenced the proposals in these documents. Amongst the government policies
influenced by EPPSE was the government’s efforts to increase the qualification levels of
ECEC staff as EPPSE had shown that quality of provision was related to staff qualifications
(Sylva et al., 2004).
Following the election of a new government in 2010, which had a cost-cutting agenda, the
EPPSE evidence was crucial in the decision to maintain spending for the early years. Thus
in 2012 this government not only kept existing ECEC provision but extended the free part-time
ECEC place down to two-year-old for children in the 40% most disadvantaged families,
following the EPPSE evidence that high quality ECEC from age two years was beneficial. This
policy started in 2013.
Conclusions and lessons learned
A country’s future depends on how it treats children. It is almost always cheaper, more
effective, and more sustainable to prevent problems rather than to try and cure them later.
15
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
The most effective approach to ECEC is high-quality universal services, with additional
individual focused support for those who need it, in a “progressive universalism” approach.
A child’s development is strongly influenced by patterns of interactional experience.
Interactions drive development. For the 0-3 age group, interactions where adults respond
appropriately to the behaviour and communications of the child are a particularly important
aspect of the quality of care, and this is related to children’s language, social and emotional
development. As children get older interactional experience will continue to drive
development. Hence effective practice is largely based on relationships – between parent and
child, practitioner and parent, practitioner and child, parent and parent, because relationships
are based on interactions. This is why lack of stability in childcare is so disruptive to quality of
care, because relationships require stability. Good quality of care is impossible without stability
of care. If we support these relationships, we will help our children to grow up well. That is the
foundation of prosperity and a high quality of life for all.
In most OECD countries, there is a broad range of options that parents can choose from to
cater for their childcare needs. It seems that parents prefer flexibility of care options, and often
combine various childcare instruments. The use of particular care arrangements often
depends on a child’s age, labour market opportunities and the cultural and social norms
relating to the role of women and childcare provision. Some parents prefer full-time care
whereas for others part-time provision is sufficient. Part-time work when children are young
can help with being economically active and managing childcare responsibilities. Also, full-
time participation in formal childcare is not prerequisite for high female labour force
participation. It is clear that one model of childcare will not suit all parents and that countries
cannot be overly prescriptive regarding particular types of childcare. It is essential that policies
cater to the preferences of parents and the needs of children. At the same time, it is important
that policies reflect best knowledge about child development and promote options that help all
children achieve their full potential.
To meet the needs of parents, governments should support a range of different childcare
options, and provide opportunities for women to enter and remain in the labour market if they
wish. It is the responsibility of public policy to make sure that choice is available for parents
and that mothers, are not excluded from the labour market or forced to work part-time due to
the lack of childcare provision. It is crucial that equal working conditions and opportunities for
professional development and career progression are provided for parents across sectors and
occupations. This would ensure that those who are temporarily out of the labour market (for
instance on childcare leave) or working part-time (voluntarily or involuntarily) are not
disadvantaged compared to full-time workers without childcare responsibilities. As parents
16
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
prefer flexibility in reconciliation, the state should ensure that all parents are provided with
suitable childcare provision and supported in their labour force participation.
Considering the discussed challenges, a number of key conclusions and lessons learned
emerged from this Peer Review:
Good-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) are part of the
infrastructure for a successful society. So is good parenting. The first 3 years are
crucially important to development, particularly language development. Children with
good language development do better later on in terms of literacy and most educational
outcomes. Across the OECD in 2009, 15-year-olds who had attended pre-school were,
on average, a year ahead of those who had not. Research also points to fewer
behavioural problems and less delinquency, crime and drug use among those who
attended pre-school, as well as higher earnings and lower welfare dependency. So
investment in ECEC can reduce other costs to government.
Disadvantaged children benefit greatly from high-quality ECEC.
Family policy, gender equality and the employment of women are
interconnected policy areas.
Greater integration between education and care in early childhood can yield
benefits. Split models may produce less continuity during children’s lives. They may
also lead to lower-quality services for the younger children, due to lower staff
qualifications, the lack of a curriculum and higher staff turnover.
Adequate public investment in ECEC can help to avoid a trade-off between
quality and quantity.
Supply-led ECEC provision tends to be more expensive than demand-led, but it
also tends to deliver more uniform quality. Under a demand-led approach, capacity
can be rapidly increased, but quality is a problem. As private suppliers are involved,
strong regulation, standard-setting, monitoring and inspection are needed. There is no
evidence from continental Europe that increased commercial competition in ECEC
automatically produces higher quality. Indeed, a for-profit approach can lead to lower
investment in quality.
Where there is a shortage of ECEC capacity, a decision may be taken to give priority
to quantity over quality. But once capacity has been created, quality needs to be
ensured. In 2014, the European Commission proposed a framework for quality, with
provisions on access, professionally trained staff, child-staff ratios, curriculum,
monitoring and inspection.
Cooperation among all the ECEC stakeholders is essential, and especially the full
involvement and empowerment of the parents.
17
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
Also, enhancing the quality of childcare will affect language, social and emotional
development. As these aspects of development, particularly language development, are the
foundation for later educational and social development, then there are longer-term
consequences for development. Such impacts may well affect longer-term goals through
improving children’s outcomes including reducing early school-leaving and improving access
to higher education, which in turn may lead to overall poverty reduction, and enhanced social
inclusion, resulting from improved employment amongst the population.
References
Aboud, F. E. (2006). Evaluation of an early childhood pre-school in rural Bangladesh,
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 46–60.
Barnett, W. S. (1992). Benefits of compensatory preschool education, Journal of Human
Resources, 27(2), 279–312.
Bauer, P. C., & Riphahn, R. T. (2009). Age at school entry and intergenerational educational
mobility. Economics Letters, 103, 87–90.
Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., & Manacorda, M. (2008). Giving children a better start: Pre-school
attendance and school age profiles. J. Pub. Econ., 92, 1416.
Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., & Gertler, P. (2009). The effect of pre-primary education on primary
school performance. J. Pub. Econ., 93, 219
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early
education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112,
579–620.
Dumas, A., & Lefranc, A. (2010). Early schooling and later outcomes: Evidence from pre-
school extension in France, Thema Working Paper n°2010-07, Université de Cergy Pontoise:
France. http://thema.u-cergy.fr/IMG/documents/2010-07.pdf
Esping-Andersen, G. (2004). Untying the Gordian Knot of Social Inheritance. Research in
Social Stratification and Mobility, 21, 115–139.
Goodman, A., & Sianesi, B. (2005). Early education and children’s outcomes: How long do
the impacts last? Fiscal Studies, 26, 513–548.
18
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
Gormley, W., Phillips, D., & Gayer, T. (2008). Preschool programmes can boost school
readiness. Science, 320, 1723–1724.
Havnes, T., & Mogstad, M. (2009). No Child Left Behind: Universal Child care and Children’s
Long-Run Outcomes, Discussion Papers No. 582, Statistics Norway: Oslo.
www.ssb.no/publikasjoner/pdf/dp582.pdf.
Heckman, J. & Wax, A. (2004). ‘Home Alone’, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 23, p. A14.
Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged
children. Science, 312, 1900–1902.
Holzer, H., Schanzenbach, D., Duncan, G., & Ludwig, J. (2007). The Economic Costs of
Poverty in the United States: subsequent effects of children growing up poor. Institute for
Research on Poverty Discussion Paper no. 1327-07.
www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp132707.pdf
Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B., & Rumberger, R.W. (2007). How much is too
much? The influence of pre-school centers on children’s social and cognitive development.
Economics of Education Review, 26, 52–66.
Magnuson, K., Meyers, M., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2004), Inequality in preschool
education and school readiness. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 115–157.
Melhuish, E. C. (2004). Child Benefits: The importance of investing in quality childcare.
London: Daycare Trust.
Melhuish E. C. (2011). Preschool matters. Science, 333, 299-300.
Melhuish, E.C., Lloyd, E., Martin, S. and Mooney, A. (1990) Type of childcare at 18 months: II
Relations with cognitive and language development. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 31, 861-870.
Melhuish, E. C., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2001). The
Effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project, Technical Paper 7: Social/behavioural
and cognitive development at 3-4 years in relation to family background. London: Institute of
Education/DfES.
Melhuish, E., Quinn, L., Hanna, K., Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sammons, P. & Taggart, B.
(2006) The Effective Pre-school Provision in Northern Ireland Project, Summary Report.
Belfast, N.I.: Stranmillis University Press. Available at
19
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
http://www.deni.gov.uk/researchreport41.pdf
Melhuish, E.C., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Phan, M. (2007).
In EPPE (3-11) Team (Eds.) Promoting Equality in the Early Years: Report to The Equalities
Review. London: Cabinet Office. http://www.equalitiesreview.org.uk
Melhuish, E.C., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Phan, M. & Malin, A.
(2008). Preschool influences on mathematics achievement. Science, 321, 1161-1162.
Melhuish, E., Quinn, L., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., and Taggart, B. (2010).
Pre-school Experience and Key Stage 2 performance in English and Mathematics. Belfast:
Dept. for Education, Northern Ireland. Available at:
www.deni.gov.uk/no_52_2010.pdf
Melhuish, E., Quinn, L., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2012).
Preschool affects longer term literacy and numeracy: results from a general population
longitudinal study in Northern Ireland. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An
International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 24, 234-250.
Melhuish, E., Ereky-Stevens, K., Petrogiannis, K., Ariescu, A., Penderi, E., Rentzou, K.,
Tawell, A., Slot, P., Broekhuizen, M., & Leseman, P. (2015). A review of research on the
effects of early childhood Education and Care (ECEC) upon child development. CARE project;
Curriculum Quality Analysis and Impact Review of European Early Childhood
Education and Care (ECEC). Available at http://ecec-care.org/resources/publications/
Montie, J. E., Xiang, Z., & Schweinhart, L. J. (2006), Preschool experience in 10 countries:
cognitive and language performance at age 7. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 313–
331.
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S., Arteaga, I. A., & White, B. A. B. (2011), School-based
early childhood education and age-28 wellbeing: Effects by timing, dosage and subgroups,
Science, 9 June 2011, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203618.
Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Elliot, K. (2002).
The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project, Technical Paper 8a: Measuring the
impact on children’s cognitive development over the pre-school years. London: Institute of
Education/DfES.
Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B & Elliot, K. (2003).
The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project, Technical Paper 8b: Measuring the
20
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
impact on children’s social behavioural development over the pre-school years. London:
Institute of Education/DfES.
Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., and Hunt, S. (2008).
Influences on Children’s Attainment and Progress in Key Stage 2: Cognitive outcomes in Year
6. London: DCSF
Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj, I., Taggart, B., Toth, K., & Smees. (2014a).
Influences on students' GCSE attainment and progress at age 16: Effective pre-school,
primary and secondary education project (EPPSE). DfE Research Report RR352. DfE:
London.
Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj, I., Taggart, B., Smees, R., & Toth, K. (2014b).
Influences on students' social-behavioural development at age 16: Effective pre-school,
primary and secondary education project (EPPSE). DfE Research Report RR351. DfE:
London.
Sammons, P., Toth, K., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj, I., & Taggart, B. L. (2015). Pre-school
and early home learning effects on A-level outcomes: Effective Pre-school, Primary &
Secondary Education Project (EPPSE). Research Report DFE-RR472A. London: DfE.
Available at
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/472867/RR47
2A_Pre-school_and_early_home_learning_effects_on_A_level_outcomes.pdf
Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D. (Eds.) (2000). From Neurons to Neighbourhoods: The Science of
Early Childhood Development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Taggart, B. Sammons, P., Melhuish, E, & Elliot, K. (2003). The
Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project, Technical Paper 10: Intensive
Case Studies of Practice across the Foundation Stage. London: DfEE / Institute of Education,
University of London.
Siraj, I., Kingston, D., & Melhuish, E. (2015). Assessing Quality in early Childhood Education
and Care: Sustained shared thinking and emotional well-being (SSTEW) for 2-5-year-olds
provision. London: Trentham Books.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). Effective Pre-
school Provision. London: Institute of Education.
21
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B., (Eds) (2010). Early
Childhood Matters: Evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education Project.
London: Routledge.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj, I., Taggart, B., Smees, R., Toth, K., Welcomme,
W. & Hollingworth, K. (2014). Students' educational and developmental outcomes at age 16:
Effective pre-school, primary and secondary education (EPPSE). DfE Research Report
RR354. DfE: London.
Taggart, B., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., & Sammons, P. (2008). Influencing
Policy and practice through research on early childhood education. International Journal of
Early Childhood Education, 14, 7-21.
22
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
SYMPOSIA:
QUALITY ASSURANCE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE
PROF. EMERITA TAN SRI DR. SHARIFAH HAPSAH SYED HASAN SHAHABUDIN
SENIOR CONSULTANT ON PERMATA, PRIME MINISTER’S DEPARTMENT
FORMER VICE-CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA AND
CEO OF THE MALAYSIAN QUALIFICATIONS AGENCY
The Permata Negara curriculum has been adopted as the national curriculum for early
childhood education and care (ECEC) through an amendment to the Child Care Centre
Regulations (2012). Since then Child Care Centres known as TASKA, which are registered
under the Child Care Centres Act (1984) have been implementing this national curriculum. To
ensure that good practices in the curriculum are implemented an internationally benchmarked
quality assurance system called Permata Q has been instituted by the Permata Council.
The objective of Permata Q is to inspire confidence in stakeholders that a TASKA is
implementing the Permata curriculum according to the quality standards that have been
established and that the TASKA is sustainable and is continually enhancing standards.
Results of the quality assurance findings are used to improve the training programme and
continuing professional development of TASKA teachers.
The TASKA is evaluated on the six areas that are identified as important in the implementation
of the curriculum. These include: (a) Routine practices and child care (b) Learning and
Assessing children (c) Care and assessing babies (d) Physical Safety and Learning
Resources (e) Human resource and ((f) Management
The evaluation is conducted by two trained assessors who are appointed by the Permata Q
Committee. The observe a strict code of ethics of confidentiality, professionalism, honesty,
fairness and integrity in following the established principles, procedures and rules of quality
assurance in the spirit of collegiality, respect and non-intrusiveness. The aim is to help improve
and not to judge or discipline. They make recommendations to the Permata Q committee
based on evidence gathered over two days.
The TASKA on the other hand is also expected to follow the same code of ethics especially in
disclosing information and facilitating the visit of the evaluators.
23
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
The Permata Q assessment is voluntary and begins with an on-line self-assessment by the
TASKA. Those that achieve the minimum score that has been set are invited to participate in
the external evaluation by the two assessors. Those not reaching the minimum score are
advised to take remedial steps to improve the quality and to submit a report before an external
evaluation is conducted.
A Permata Q Manual has been prepared to guide both evaluators and TASKA operators in a
robust and transparent manner. It consists of the guidelines on standards, evaluation
instruments, the rules of conduct, procedures for evaluation and score sheet, report writing
and decision-making by the Permata Q committee.
The Permata Q Committee deliberates on the report of the evaluators and awards a Certificate
if a TASKA has satisfied the requirements of certification.
Quality Assurance is a very crucial part of the cycle of quality enhancement. The Government,
parents, employers and public at large have invested in ECEC and it is through QA that the
trust and confidence are maintained. Regulatory authorities, people who are managing
Permata and owners and managers of child care centers must not violate the trust that has
been entrusted. A Permata Q system that demonstrates integrity will inspire a greater positive
cycle of trust, respect and confidence.
As Alan Cohen, author of inspirational books said” “You are in integrity when the life you are
living on the outside matches who you are on the inside.” The late Chinua Achebe, Nigerian
novelist and literary titan of African studies at Brown university said” “One of the truest tests
of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised.”
24
PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA
WORKSHOP:
ENGAGING STEM EDUCATION IN EARLY YEARS
PROF. EMERITA DATO’ DR. AMINAH AYOB
PROF. DR. ONG ENG TEK
ASSOC. PROF. DR. NASIR MD IBRAHIM
DR. MAZLINI ADNAN
UNIVERSITI PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS, MALAYSIA
While many teachers and educators know, what STEM is, they are unable to put their
knowledge into coherent classroom practice. This workshop aims to showcase the up-scaling
of current play-based pedagogy of the early childhood education to that of the research-based
and research-validated STEM Pedagogy, namely the Project-Based Inquiry Learning (PIL).
Through the generous research grant by the PERMATA Division of the Prime Minister’s
Department, PIL was conceptualised and its pedagogical efficacy in promoting STEM among
early childhood gems aged 3 to 4+ has been empirically supported. This workshop will provide
not only the hands-on experience for participants to “walk through” the four phases of Project-
Based Inquiry Learning -- Inquiry, Exploration, Invention/Investigation, and Reflection -- using
one of the developed STEM Modules, it will also empower them the ability to interweave
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics in the planning and actual classroom
practice in their endeavour to promote and integrate STEM.