REVIEW OF THE LONG DAY MODEL OF IMPLEMENTING UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Transcription

1 REVIEW OF THE LONG DAY MODEL OF IMPLEMENTING UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA Authored by Pam Winter, with the assistance of Debbie George, Cameron Mitchell and Gaynor Hellier

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A review of the long day model of implementing Universal Access to early childhood education in South Australia was undertaken by the Department for Education and Child Development (DECD) in Universal access to early childhood education is an Australian Government commitment to provide all children with access to a quality early childhood education program, delivered by a degree qualified early childhood teacher, for 15 hours per week, 40 weeks a year, in the year before fulltime schooling. The long day model of providing Universal Access offers families their children s 15 hours of preschool per week entitlement over two days of 7.5 hours. By July 2012, all 395 of DECD funded preschools were implementing Universal Access. When planning to introduce Universal Access, site leaders were advised and supported to choose a service delivery model which would meet the needs of children and families in their community. Site leaders were expected to involve their staff, governing council and wider parent community in consultation before finalising their implementation plan. Eighteen preschools (4.5% of South Australian preschools) adopted the long day model of Universal Access and all were included in the review. Seven of the trial sites offered the long day preschool model exclusively (with no other choice). The other eleven preschools in the review offered a mix of models for children to use their 15 hours of preschool entitlement per week. This mix of models was a confounding factor in the data analysis as the data relating to children/centres using only the long day model were not isolated from the data from the centres offering a mix of models. In addition,.there was a mixed response by sites to the collection of data. Less than half the sites (44%) completed and returned all data sets. The quality of the data also varied significantly across sites and subjects. These factors raise questions about bias, representativeness and authenticity in the findings which therefore need to be considered with some caution. However, the review gives a valuable snapshot of what was happening for the staff, families and children participating in the long day model of Universal Access at a given point or two in time. The review of the model was in no way an evaluation, but rather an exploratory, qualitative research project with an interpretative perspective. The purpose of the review was to gain an understanding of the impact of providing children with their 15 hours of preschool a week over two long days. As noted above, the quality of the data was inconsistent. However, trends, patterns, themes and relationships in relation to the review s objectives can be found in the data. 1

3 The review s objectives were to investigate, in the context of the long day model outcomes for children children s attendance workforce issues staff wellbeing family satisfaction consistency with the objectives of the Universal Access initiative. Outcomes for children In the context of the observations made for rating children s wellbeing, some patterns emerged including children s wellbeing was generally well supportive of learning and stable across the day children s programs were generally more intense in the morning and more relaxed in the afternoon parent comments regarding children s tiredness little mention of teacher engagement with children other than at group and pack up times which were generally teacher lead or directed children not being observed demonstrating a range of wellbeing signals critical to learning and development including pleasure in sensory experiences, confidence and self esteem, persistence/robustness. Questions worthy of further investigation include Why were there not more opportunities to observe children demonstrating some important signals of wellbeing? Why were there very few notations of educators sharing joint attention/being engaged with children? These questions may not be questions alone for the long day model of preschool. Children s attendance From the attendance and the observation data some consistent patterns were found including some children consistently arriving late and/or leaving early, resulting in them not accessing up to 1 ½ hours of their preschool entitlement per day and for some children missing up to 2 ½ hours per week. For some children this may represent up to a quarter of their preschool hours. a considered service of flexible times being offered by preschools to meet child/parent/family needs. There was a strong theme in both the parent and director responses that this flexibility is a very valued aspect of preschool (non compulsory) early education. 2

4 As noted by the directors, the pattern of children arriving late/leaving early is not new to the Universal Access long day model. It, in the main, reflects clashes with school drop-off/pick-up times and other family/work commitments. It appears from the data, that if there has been any change in attendance since introducing the model, it has been an improvement. There was a continuum of responses from parents from not being able to access their child s 15 hours entitlement without two long days, to two long days making it impossible to access their child s entitlement. Workforce issues From the directors surveys it is clear that their leadership, knowledge and commitment to their staff ensures that industrial conditions are generally being met. Of the eighteen preschool directors in the review, sixteen were confident that staff were aware of their award conditions and that the conditions were being met. One director said that industrial conditions were not being met, but this was not due to Universal Access, and it was no worse than before. It appears lunch breaks were the main problem. Staff surveys show that of the 86 responses, approximately a third of staff did no extra hours during the survey week, a third were required to do extra hours and a third were required and chose to do extra hours. Staff wellbeing Staff made very few negative responses to the direct survey questions about their wellbeing. Qualitative responses indicating a detrimental impact on staff wellbeing included long days not working well for their own families a feeling of providing cheap childcare physically tiring lack of information as staff meetings are in non working time pressure to complete all work in paid time. Responses that indicate the long day model has a positive impact on staff wellbeing included director being very aware of staff wellbeing extra non contact time half day off flexible working hours relaxed rhythm of longer days An aspect of the implementation of the trial of the long day model that made it workable for most staff was that, on the whole, all staff involved were on board prior to the introduction of the model. They participated in preparatory discussions, 3

5 exploration of options, decision making and negotiating. Directors themselves acknowledged the dedication of their staff, making comments such as it would have been impossible to implement this model without staff support. Family satisfaction Preschool directors and staff s perceptions about parents overwhelming support for the model were somewhat at variance with parents themselves. Nearly a third of parents wanted more choice and flexibility. Parents seem most satisfied when they were offered a range of models from which to choose their child s 15 hours of preschool entitlement, rather than being offered just one long day model. Although parents were generally satisfied with children s experience at preschool, the unanswered questions which have arisen from the data are worthy of further research across a broader range of settings. The opportunities children have to be engaged in meaningful sensory and self regulation experiences and challenges as well as the relationships and experiences that strengthen their identities and sense of being are worthy of further investigation. It would also be interesting to examine any correlations between preschool patterns and patterns in the Australian Early Development Index. Consistency with the objectives of Universal Access A key objective of the Universal Access initiative is that there will be access to a quality early childhood education program for all children. The findings of the review suggest that long day model may not be in the best interests for some children. In particular preservation of some of preschools extra early learning programs such as playgroup, pre-entry and occasional care may be at risk for some centres with the long day model. Families with children whose learning and development is at risk benefit from access to these programs. For children who are entitled to commence preschool at three years of age (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and children who are under the Guardianship of the Minister), two long days may not be the best option, given that some older children struggle with tiredness over the two long days. National and international research on the effects of different models of preschool provision, the intensity and the time children spend in preschool are limited. There is general support for the notion that long preschool days help children transition to the long school days and that children from the most disadvantaged families may benefit more from the longer days of preschool. Variables, including the quality of the program and the circumstances of the families confound the findings and the conclusions that can be drawn from research studies. However, from the research cited for and the findings of the review, it could be confidently assumed that one size does not fit all. 4

6 Recommendations The Long Day model continues as an individual preschool community choice. If preschools wish to continue to offer 2 long days of preschool they also offer a workable alternative for those family and children for whom it does not fit. Preschool is a non-compulsory year of early education. The Department s position on the importance of full uptake of each child s entitlement requires consideration and communication. For children who attend two long days of preschool each week, the level of their attendance and their engagement, particularly at the beginning and end of each day and during lunch time, requires attention to ensure that they are accessing their full entitlement and spending their 15 hours in quality early education experiences. If staff set up and pack up their daily program during, and include lunch time in children s preschool entitlement, the experience for children should be tightly aligned with and assessed against their learning and development outcomes and embedded in quality relationships and worthwhile engagement. Further investigation is undertaken across the range of preschool delivery models, into the cognitive load of activities, educator engagement and sensory input opportunities for children across day. Preschools are supported to ensure that staff have a suitable space for retreat and breaks from children. Strategies are put in place for staff to take the breaks during the day to which they are entitled. An exploration of teaching and non contact time across all models of preschool, is undertaken to ensure that all preschool staff have the resources to access their entitlements and fulfill their roles including their professional learning and the planning, preparation, assessment and reporting of children s learning and the meeting of their regulatory and policy obligations. 5

7 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 1 FIGURES AND TABLES... 7 INTRODUCTION... 8 Background to the Universal Access Initiative... 8 The model under review The purpose of the review Review objectives and questions WHAT DOES THE LITERATURE SAY? THE REVIEW The preschools in the review The review process Response Rates Data Analysis FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION What impact does the long day model have on children s wellbeing and learning outcomes? No opportunity to observe Educators pedagogy What are children s attendance patterns? Less than 15 hours Impact of Long Day model on other services provided by preschools How does it impact on staff employment entitlements? Hours per week Lunch Break Non contact time How does it impact on staff wellbeing? How satisfied are parents? Does it meet the objectives of the Universal Access initiative? Access to a quality early childhood education program for all children

8 Children will acquire basic skills for life and learning through engaging in quality playbased early learning programs Early learning facilitates the transition to primary school and has a direct and positive effect on future educational, employment and health outcomes Existing barriers to participation, including cost, access and convenience for parents, will be addressed What are the strengths and challenges of the model? Should the long day model continue? What do stakeholders say? Should the long day model continue? CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS APPENDIX 2 ADVISORY COMMITTEE APPENDIX 3 REVIEW PRESCHOOLS APPENDIX 4 PRESCHOOL DIRECTORS SURVEY APPENDIX 5 PARENT SURVEY APPENDIX 6 STAFF SURVEY APPENDIX 7 AEU SURVEY APPENDIX 8 WELLBEING OBSERVATION SCALE FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1 Percentage of South Australian preschools delivering the long day preschool model Figure 2 Preschool mean wellbeing scores Time 1 (Term 3) and Time 2 (Term 4) Figure 3 Children s morning and afternoon activities Figure 4 Wellbeing Domains and Signals where there was no opportunity to observe Figure 5 Parent perceptions of the long day model of preschool Table 1 Number of children and number of minutes missing preschool at start and end of day at Time 1 and Time Table 2 Preschool services offered Table 3 Extra staff hours per week Figure 6a Parent Survey responses Figure 6b Parent Survey responses

9 REVIEW OF THE LONG DAY MODEL OF IMPLEMENTING UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA INTRODUCTION This report documents the findings of a review of one model of implementing Universal Access to early childhood education in South Australia. Universal access to early childhood education is an Australian Government commitment to provide all children with access to a quality early childhood education program by June The programs are delivered by a degree qualified early childhood teacher, for 15 hours per week, 40 weeks a year, in the year before full-time schooling. In South Australia the year is known as preschool (and sometimes kindergarten). Preschool is a structured educational program provided by a qualified four-year trained early childhood teacher in a variety of settings. BACKGROUND TO THE UNIVERSAL ACCESS INITIATIVE In an effort to deliver significant improvements and outcomes for all Australians, in 2007 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) established a partnership between the Australian Government and the state and territory governments to encourage substantial reform in the areas of education, skills and early childhood development. In 2008, COAG endorsed a comprehensive set of goals, outcomes, progress measures and future policy directions in the area of early childhood education (ECE). This included a commitment to ensure that every child in Australia has access to a quality ECE program. This Universal Access commitment will ensure that by 2013, each child will have access to a preschool program that is delivered: in the 12 months prior to full-time schooling, also referred to as the Year Before Formal Schooling (YBFS) by a four-year university-qualified early childhood teacher for 15 hours a week, 40 weeks a year across a diversity of settings in a form that meets the needs of parents at a cost that does not present a barrier to participation (COAG, 2008). The objectives of the Universal Access initiative are access to a quality early childhood education program for all children. children will acquire basic skills for life and learning through engaging in quality play-based early learning programs. early learning facilitates the transition to primary school and has a direct and positive effect on future educational, employment and health outcomes. existing barriers to participation, including cost, access and convenience for parents, will be addressed. 8

10 all indigenous four year olds in remote communities will have access to an early childhood education program. over the longer term, early childhood education generates substantial cost savings through improved health and productivity and reduced expenditure on social services. (Department of Education Employment & Workplace Relations (DEEWR) SA Fact Sheet) The Department for Education and Child Development (DECD) is the agency responsible for leading the implementation of the Universal Access to Early Childhood Education strategies in South Australia. South Australia is using three key approaches to implementing the Universal Access initiative: 1) Expanding service provision in existing preschool services: Children enrolled in government funded preschools will have increased provision from 11 hours to 15 hours of preschool per week. 2) Expanded service provision to provide new preschool places: New partnerships will be entered into with child care operators and non-government schools to help deliver access to early childhood education to children currently not accessing, or unable to access, government funded preschools. 3) New service delivery options for remote and isolated children, and children with complex needs: Particular emphasis will be given to meeting the needs of children who are geographically or socially isolated, as well as children with complex needs who are unable to access mainstream services. By July 2012, after a two and a half year, five stage roll out, all 395 DECD funded preschools were implementing Universal Access. Site leaders were supported in developing a service delivery model which would meet the needs of children and families in their community. Six months prior to their implementation, each site leader received an Implementation Information Pack, a Central Office contact person for support and support from their regional early childhood consultant as well as an increase in their budget to implement the initiative. The keystone of Universal Access is that children have access to quality preschool for 600 hours (or more) in the year before full-time school. Subject to the welfare and learning and development needs of the children, the needs of the parents, and the capacities of the service providers, there is some flexibility, including the way the 15 hours for 40 weeks are provided (DEEWR Fact Sheet). Preschools in South Australia were advised to choose a model of providing Universal Access that met their community s needs. Site leaders were expected to involve their staff, governing council and wider parent community in consultation before finalising their implementation plan. This has meant that the 15 hours of preschool a week are being provided through various combinations developed locally, most typically in five x 3 hour sessions. A popular combination is two x 6 hours plus one x 3 hours sessions per week. While the DECD Universal Access team provided a number of 9

11 different service delivery models for sites to consider, the list was not exclusive and sites were encouraged to explore models with their communities to find the best fit. THE MODEL UNDER REVIEW This report documents the findings of a review of one model of implementing the first of the key approaches listed above, that is, expanding service provision in existing preschool services. The model which is the subject of this review offers families their children s 15 hours of preschool per week entitlement over two days of 7.5 hours. This model has become known as the long day model. The model is a significant departure from South Australian preschool models which have historically offered children sessional preschool over four, (up to three hour) sessions per week. The first site to propose the long day model was Prospect Kindergarten, (Term 3, 2011). Subsequently, a number of other sites expressed an interest in the model. In response to concerns raised in a number of arenas including DECD and the Australian Education Union (AEU) about the industrial entitlements of staff and children s learning, a trial of the model was established. Sites choosing the model were informed that the delivery of preschool using the long day model was to be time limited (for one year) during which time the model of service delivery was to be reviewed. Some sites were well progressed in their implementation of the model before receiving this information. There is no debate in the literature that attendance at a quality preschool program advantages children, improving their learning, health and behaviour with benefits reaching into their adult life. However, there is little conclusive research on the impact of different models of providing children with their preschool hours per week. THE PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW The purpose of the review was to gain an understanding of the impact of providing children with their 15 hours of preschool a week over two long days. A range of issues was investigated including outcomes for children children s attendance workforce issues staff wellbeing family satisfaction consistency with the objectives of the Universal Access initiative. 10

12 REVIEW OBJECTIVES AND QUESTIONS Six objectives were identified and data relevant to the objectives were collected for analysis. 1. What impact does the long day model have on children s wellbeing and learning outcomes? Are learning outcomes for children developmentally appropriate? 2. What are children s attendance patterns? 3. How does it impact on staff employment entitlements? 4. How does it impact on staff wellbeing? 5. How satisfied are parents? 6. Does it meet the objectives of the Universal Access initiative? Are children able to participate in 15 hours of preschool? WHAT DOES THE LITERATURE SAY? A limited, desk based literature review was undertaken drawn from web based, publicly available material relating to intensity of time spent in preschool. The search found a limited body of research relating to the effects of long day preschool on children s wellbeing and learning. Within the limited body of research, there is considerably more available on full day preschool programs which have operated in UK, France, Scandinavia and Canada. However some of these programs although universal have reverted to half day preschool programs due to reduction in government funding. The Effective Preschool and Primary Education Project (EPPE ) noted in their extensive research that there was no evidence that full day attendance led to better development than half day attendance (Sylva, et al., 2004a:3) and that fulltime attendance led to no better gains for children than part time provision, however combining education and care promoted better intellectual outcomes and social development for children (Sylva, et al., 2004a:1). Sylva et al (2004a) also noted that the quality of the preschool program in addition to the quantity, that is, more months but not more hours/day in high quality preschool resulted in improved outcomes for children and was stronger for academic skills than for social development (Sylva et al. 2004a.ii.). The authors recommended that children engage in an extended time at preschool on a part time basis rather than a shorter period of full time preschool, as they found that this had a significant positive link with children s reading and maths abilities. They also found that extended preschool time resulted in significant benefits in preparing young children for a better start to school and that such children continue to show better progress (ibid:40). In a literature review about optimal quantity of early childhood education and care conducted for the New South Wales Brighter Futures Working Group undertaken by UnitingCare Children, Young People and Families (2011), the author suggests an 11

13 assumption of two days of preschool a week would not be appropriate for every child. The review cited research by Sylva, et al (2003) and Loeb, et al (2007). The research by Sylva, et al (2003) suggested that an extended period of pre-school experience on a part time basis is likely to be more advantageous than a shorter time period of full-time provision. Loeb, et al (2007) concluded that while half day programs may be beneficial for children from higher-income families, full day programs better serve children from lower-income families. A limitation of both studies was the untested quality of the centres. The UnitingCare review concluded that no particular model or particular number of hours is appropriate for all children and that each family should be assessed for their individual circumstances (ibid, 2011:3). In reviewing the effects of full day preschool programs on 4 year old children, Herry, et al (2007:2) found that the full day program had a positive effect on children s language and academic learning, particularly in the development of vocabulary. They also found that teachers observed that children who had attended these programs adjusted better and more quickly to school life. Herry, et al (2007) proposed that teachers in the full day programs may have had a stronger focus on preparing children for academic learning and less on play based learning which focussed more on the child s overall development and as a result children had less time to develop their social skills and/or motor skills. The authors suggest that the findings could be explained by a higher level of fatigue among children who attended the full day program (ibid: 12). Both parents and teachers commented that children were tired at the end of the day, whereas this was not a comment received by parents of children attending half day sessions. Parents in general were satisfied with the organisation of the full day program, as compared to parents of children in the half day program. Da Costa and Bell (2001) cited in Pascal (2009) claim that in USA and Canada full day preschool programs promote children s successful transition to school. Pascal (2009) claimed that these children performed better academically and socially as they transitioned to school than did children in half day programs. Da Costa and Bell (2001) also discovered that children who attended full day programs were less attentive, had a decrease in listening skills and were more hyperactive than children who attended half day programs. There did not appear to be any effect on children s social skills, did not improve children s behaviour and had a diminishing effect on their motor development, compared to children who attended half day programs. Harrison, et al (2012:4) found from a review of international and Australian research that there are few differences in school readiness achievement for part time compared with fulltime preschool attendance, or for full day compared with half day programs. In summary, research on the effects of different models of preschool provision, the intensity and the time children spend in preschool are limited. Variables, including 12

14 the quality of the program and the social advantage/disadvantage of the families confound the findings and the conclusions that can be drawn. However, from the research cited, it could be confidently assumed that one size does not fit all. There is general support for the notion that long preschool days help children transition to the long school days and that children from the most disadvantaged families may benefit more from the longer days of preschool. THE REVIEW THE PRESCHOOLS IN THE REVIEW All 18 preschools (Appendix 3) in South Australia who adopted the long day model of Universal Access to Early Childhood Education were included in the review. This represents 4.5% of all South Australian preschools. The 18 sites trialling the model entered Universal Access in Rounds 3 (one site), 4 (eight sites) and 5 (nine sites). These preschools are from six DECD regions 15 from metropolitan and 3 from country areas. They provide preschool programs through a range of service models, including part time preschools, stand-alone preschools, children s centres and preschools on school sites. These trial preschools have Category Rankings of 2 (8 sites) and 3 (10 sites). Category Ranking is a priority assigned to each preschool to give an indication of the degree of social disadvantage and geographical isolation of the community in which the preschool is located. Category 1 reflects the centre with the highest need and Category 3 with the lowest need. Seven of the trial sites offered the long day preschool model exclusively (with no other choice). The other eleven preschools in the review offered a mix of models for children to use their 15 hours of preschool entitlement per week (Figure 1). The number of children in the review preschools using 2 long days a week varied between the preschools from 20% - 100% of enrolled children. Figure 1 Percentage of South Australian preschools delivering the long day model 2% 3% 95% UA mix of models not in Review Exclusive long day model in Review Long Day model with choice in Review Sites participating in the review had access to four days (5 for country sites) of staff (ECW) release time for briefing and data collection and responsibilities required to meet their obligations in relation to this Review. 13

15 THE REVIEW PROCESS An Advisory Committee representing major stakeholders (Appendix 2) was established to provide advice on the Review, specifically in relation to the scope and design of the review data collection methodologies consultation processes with participating sites and key stakeholders alternative models of service delivery the final report and recommendations to the Head of Child Development action that may be taken in response to emerging issues. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected from staff, children and parents for the review over a six month period in 2012 using rating scales, documentation analysis, interviews and surveys. Data sources included preschool director interviews (Appendix 4) parent surveys (Appendix 5) staff surveys (Appendix 6) attendance records Australian Education Union survey (Appendix 7) children s wellbeing observation rating scales (Appendix 8) Preschool Director Interviews were all conducted by a DECD Senior Policy Officer who was accompanied by an Early Childhood Consultant on two occasions. Parent Surveys were delivered by the Preschool Director to parents accessing the Long Day Program, with a confidential reply paid envelope to be returned to DECD. However, a number of directors collected the surveys and returned them as a package. The majority of the surveys were completed by parents themselves, with a small number being completed with the support of bilingual staff. The surveys collected both nominal and qualitative data. Staff Surveys were delivered by the Preschool Director to staff working in the Long Day Program, with a confidential reply paid envelope to be returned to DECD. However, a number of directors collected the surveys and returned them as a package. Attendance Records were collected over Weeks 2 and 6 in Term 3 and Term Australian Education Union Survey was sent to sites from the Union and findings were analysed by the Union and a summary provided to DECD. 14

16 Children s observation rating scales using the Respect Reflect Relate (RRR) Wellbeing Scale were used by the DECD RRR Project Officer, and/or Preschool staff. The schedules provided two types of data - occurrence and rating. Data were collected twice at Time 1 (August 2012) and Time 2 (October 2012). A half day training session (with a TRT) was provided for a staff member from each site, to ensure that the Wellbeing Scale was applied consistently across all participating sites. Each site also had access to a TRT for each of the two data collection periods. The review of the model was in no way an evaluation, but rather an exploratory, qualitative research project with an interpretative perspective. There were no previous or comparative data captured or examined. Causation and correlations cannot be assumed or deduced. However, the review gives a valuable snapshot of what was happening for the staff, families and children participating in the long day model of Universal Access at a given point or two in time. RESPONSE RATES There was a mixed response by sites to the collection of data for the review. Less than half the sites (44%) completed and returned all data sets. This was significant in the use of the observation scale to rate children s wellbeing. Of the 18 preschools in the review 18 (100%) Preschool Directors completed the Director Interviews 16 (89%) sites returned Staff Surveys 16 (89%) sites returned Parent Surveys 14 (78%) sites completed Respect Reflect Relate data* at Time 1 (Term 3) 7 (38%) sites completed Respect Reflect Relate data* at Time 2 (Term 4) 12 (67%) sites completed all Attendance Data, providing 52 records 56 records in total DATA ANALYSIS In depth statistical analysis of the data was challenging because the quality of the data collected varied across sites and because of the empirical nature of the review. The quantity and methods of recording and returning data also varied across sites and included many non-responses, meaning most data sets were incomplete. Therefore, the findings and discussion which follow are based on manual processing (reduction and organising) of the data and professional judgement for interpretation rather than statistical procedures and computer aided analysis for summarising and relating the data. The data were examined for trends, patterns, themes and relationships in relation to the review s objectives. 15

17 Being cognisant of the fact that eleven of the eighteen preschools in the review offered a mix of models, a confounding factor in the data analysis was that the parent, director and staff surveys did not refer their responses exclusively to the long day model. The response rate, the quality of the data and the fact that the data was collected about a range of models raises questions about bias, representativeness and authenticity in the findings. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION WHAT IMPACT DOES THE LONG DAY MODEL HAVE ON CHILDREN S WELLBEING AND LEARNING OUTCOMES? Are learning outcomes for children developmentally appropriate? Through a planning and review process, do educators respond to the data collected and reflect on the environment created for the children, making changes to meet the needs of children? The wellbeing of the children was used as an indicator of the quality of the setting in the context of the principles, practices and learning outcomes of the Early Years Learning Framework. Children s wellbeing and their involvement are key indicators of quality for educational settings and processes (Laevers, 2006). A focus on wellbeing and involvement gives immediate feedback about the effect of educators approach and the environment they establish, giving them the opportunity to make contemporaneous adjustments for children s learning and development. Using the RRR Observation Rating Scale to observe a sample of children and gain an holistic score gives a focus to the global quality of the curriculum and a profile of the setting, rather than to the competencies of individual children. For the purpose of the review only wellbeing data were collected. This has given an incomplete picture of the quality of children s learning environment in relation to how supportive it was for children s learning and development. In addition, the collected wellbeing data sets were incomplete. Of the 18 sites in the review RRR data was returned by 14 sites at Time 1 and 7 sites at Time 2, giving a total of 56 child observations for analysis. In seven sites data were missing from the last one or two observation periods of the day as children were collected before the end of the preschool session. Wellbeing is one of the five learning outcomes identified in the Australian Early Years Learning Framework, which preschools are required to use to plan for, monitor and report on children s learning. Wellbeing includes good physical health, feelings of happiness, satisfaction and successful social functioning. It influences the way children interact in their environments. A strong sense of wellbeing provides children with confidence and optimism which maximise their learning potential. It encourages the development of children s innate exploratory drive, a sense of agency and a desire to interact with responsive others. Wellbeing is correlated with resilience, providing children with the 16

18 Wellbeing score capacity to cope with day-to-day stress and challenges. The readiness to persevere when faced with unfamiliar and challenging learning situations creates the opportunity for success and achievement. (EYLF 2010:30). The data collected for the review reveals some strong patterns and themes concerning children s learning and development which raise a number of further questions. Figure 2 Preschool mean wellbeing scores Time 1 (Term 3) and Time 2 (Term 4) RRR Score supportive Time RRR Score Time 2 0 The mean wellbeing score across all centres that returned data was 4.01 at Time 1 and 4.29 at Time 2. This is above the 3.5 level, which is deemed to be supportive of children s learning and development. A score below 3.5 indicates that children are not functioning as well as they should, with the environment not meeting their needs. Only one preschool returned data (Time 1) just below the supportive level. Although the mean wellbeing scores were generally satisfactory and the individual preschool mean scores for wellbeing were, with one exception, generally stable across the day, the data does not reveal the cognitive load of children s learning experiences and the children s level of engagement (the intensity of their mental activity) and what relationships the children had with staff across the day. These three factors along with wellbeing are fundamental to children s learning and development. The Directors Interviews provided further insight into children s wellbeing and some of the benefits they perceived of longer days of preschool. A strong theme in directors comments included having consistent groups of children and longer days provided children greater opportunities to develop and build stronger friendships with other children, enhance their relationships with staff and experience more continuity in their learning with longer periods of uninterrupted play. Packing up is more relaxed than previously, usually done once per day with children sharing the responsibility by working with staff. In a few preschools children also help staff with setting up in the morning. Directors reported that the need for fewer transitions and to pack up less often during the day contributed to children s engagement in learning projects and experiences such as constructions and in their depth of play. 17

19 Directors reported that streamlining processes enabled the long day program to operate smoothly. Having two consistent groups of children with the same staff on the same days enabled each staff member to take responsibly for a group of children, including their individual programming, assessment and reporting, learning stories and parent interviews. Although the data generally shows no lapse in children s wellbeing across the day, the educators annotations about the context of each observation suggest that the intensity of the children s learning program and the cognitive load of activities fades towards the end of their preschool day. This could well suggest that staff have adjusted their programs to reflect their observations of children s energy levels. Comments made by directors in their interviews support this notion. Some directors reported that there are more teacher-directed learning experiences planned in the mornings when children are more engaged and available for this type of teaching and learning. The morning sessions are often extended to 12.15pm and incorporate more small and large group times and intentional teaching with more relaxed childinitiated learning in the afternoon when some children were showing signs of tiredness. Directors explicitly noted that they use evaluation and reflection to tweak the program regularly to ensure [they are] meeting the needs of the current group, that they monitor children s energy levels and plan for relaxation, that the end of day program is guided by wellbeing levels that they are still tweaking at the beginning and end of the day depending on the day and group of children present and that they are using RRR data that showed that [we] needed more and longer uninterrupted play periods and less programmed group times and more quiet times after lunch. Ways directors have adapted their programs to suit children s needs include having cushions and/or similar for children to rest if they choose, providing relaxation opportunities, for example yoga and tai chi. They have learned that children need at least two breaks for snacks plus a lunch break during the day. It was noted by some directors that children are often tired when starting in the long day program but usually settle when have been attending for a while. The graph below, (Figure 3) gives an overview of the experiences in which children were engaged while being observed across the day. It shows that in the morning there were more children engaged in solitary play, construction and small toys, and games, technology, art and collage activities, while in the afternoon there were more group and packing up times, more settled children and more absent children. Figure 3 Children s morning and afternoon activities 18

20 Morning Number of Children Afternoon Number of Children Number of children observed = 56 NO OPPORTUNITY TO OBSERVE The RRR Wellbeing Observation Rating Scale operationalises for observation, domains, signals and indicators of wellbeing. Observers use one of four checkmarks to record whether the indicator was observed occurred positively was observed - occurred negatively was not observed - a missed opportunity to occur was not observed no opportunity to observe. In making their observations it is expected that educators will not have the opportunity to observe every indicator at each 5 minute observation period. However, across the 6 observations per child in a day, it is expected in a supportive learning environment all signals will be observed occurring positively, at some time. If an indicator is not observed it does not affect the rating as it has a neutral value. However, if the indicator/signal is mostly absent, questions are raised about the why this may be so. There is any number of reasons including the children s demonstrations are not being noticed by the observer there are no opportunities (such as absence, whole group time) for the children to demonstrate the indicator/signal. For some children, three of their six observations were taken through group times and pack-up time. children have learned to be compliant which can suppress their innate exploratory drive and identities (including expression of ideas and feelings) the children are so comfortable in their environment that their equilibrium is not challenged there is a problem with the instrument (although no records have been located of the phenomena across sites over the10 years of use of the instrument). 19

21 Raw data was returned for 56 children across the review sites. The following graph (Figure 4) records the number of children and the signals of wellbeing where educators had no opportunity to observe more than half of the indicators for the signal (see Appendix 8 for details of Wellbeing domains, signals and indicators). The signals that significant numbers of children were not observed demonstrating more than half of the indicators for the signal include Confidence and self esteem Ability to rest/relax Assertiveness Coping/flexibility Pleasure in sensory experiences Persistence/robustness. As these signals are important to children s learning and development why are there not more opportunities to observe them? This question is worthy of further investigation and may not be a question alone for the long day model of preschool. Of particular concern is the high number of children who do not have the opportunity to demonstrate pleasure in sensory experiences. The findings of neuroscience provide compelling evidence that all children s learning depends on sensory input. It is the only way they take in information to process into memory, knowledge and understanding. Also of concern is the high number of children who were not observed demonstrating their abilities in coping and flexibility. These are important aspects of self-regulation which is increasingly being seen as the key to school readiness. Children are not born with self-regulation. It is a fundamental part of brain development learned through experience and practice. 20

22 Figure 4 Wellbeing Domains and Signals where there was no opportunity to observe more than half of the indicators Total number of children = Signals with more than 50% of indicators not observed Signals with more than 66% of indicators not observed The other four signals of concern are all connected with a sense of being, (one of the three themes of the Early Years Learning Framework) and a sense of identity (one of the five learning outcomes of the EYLF. [Being} is about the present and [children] knowing themselves, building and maintaining relationships with others, engaging with life s joys and complexities, and meeting challenges in everyday life.(eylf2010:7) Children s sense of identity grows when they feel safe, secure, and supported develop their emerging autonomy, inter-dependence, resilience and sense of agency develop knowledgeable and confident self identities learn to interact in relation to others with care, empathy and respect (EYLF 2010:21) EDUCATORS PEDAGOGY In scanning the raw data for patterns and themes, there was very little mention of teacher engagement with children other than at group and pack up times which were generally teacher lead or directed. Although teachers pedagogy was not a focus of the review it has been shown to be the most influential factor in children s learning (Hattie 2003). Therefore, scanning the Review s qualitative data for pedagogical 21

23 practices was a significant factor in answering the question What impact does the long day model have on children s wellbeing and learning outcomes? The Early Years Learning Framework explicitly details the pedagogical principles and practices, (noted below) that assist all children to make progress in relation to the Learning Outcomes. (EYLF 2010:12) Principle 1 Secure, respectful and reciprocal relationships Educators who are attuned to children s thoughts and feelings, support the development of a strong sense of wellbeing. They positively interact with young children in their learning (ibid: 12) Practice Responsiveness to children Responsive learning relationships are strengthened as educators and children learn together and share decisions, respect and trust. Responsiveness enables educators to respectfully enter children s play and ongoing projects, stimulate their thinking and enrich their learning (ibid: 15). Practice Intentional Teaching Educators who engage in intentional teaching recognise that learning occurs in social contexts and that interactions and conversations are vitally important for learning They actively promote children s learning through worthwhile and challenging experiences and interactions that foster high level thinking skills. They use strategies such as modelling and demonstrating, open questioning, speculating, explaining, engaging in shared thinking and learning (ibid: 15). Data from four of the director s interviews indicate that the model allows for more intensive engagement with children for longer periods, better relationships [for children] with staff, more robust curriculum and increased intentional teaching, However, content analysis of observers annotations about the context of each observation, showed that teacher engagement with a child was noted 20 times in the 305 recorded observations. Two parents commented that, the long day model compromised children s learning program, including less 1:1 and less learning activities. These findings raise more questions than answers... Is this phenomenon particular to this model of preschool, or is it more widespread? What is the real level of joint attention and the relationship between educators and each child? What are the strategies and scaffolds that teachers use to teach intentionally and monitor the effects of their intentional teaching? Parents were not asked directly to respond to the question What impact does the long day model have on children s wellbeing and learning outcomes? However, 22

24 their perceptions regarding the question can be deduced from their responses to the following survey questions Question 2. Do the times offered by the kindergarten for children to attend meet the needs of your child? Question 4. How does your child respond to the delivery of preschool over two days? Question 7. Other comments? Parent responses 256 (64%) parents commented that children were engaged in learning and enjoying their preschool experiences. 48 (12%) parents reported that their children were tired after attending the long days 27 (7%) parents said children were used to long days as they had experience in childcare 30 (7%) parents commented that the long days prepared their children for school 26 (6%) parents commented that the longer days were less disruptive for children, children were more settled, and children had better relationships with other children 19 (5%) of parents felt that 15 hours of preschool was not enough and most of these would like more, with one commenting that it is cheaper than childcare. Other positive responses where less than 5% of parents made comments included children are learning more (8 parents). Three of these parents used English as a second language commenting that their child s English had noticeably improved. Negative responses where less than 5% of parents made comments included concern that the 7.5 hour days were longer than a school day (16 parents) children s learning program was compromised, including less 1:1 and less learning activities (2 parents). Suggestions from parents for improvements in the model where included more rest/sleep time (3 parents) long days only for older 4 year olds (2 parents) a child s long days not to be consecutive (5 parents). Across the centres, there was a very strong theme of parents appreciation of the fantastic work of preschool staff and the wonderful environments that they establish. Figure 5 Parent perceptions of the long day model of preschool 23

25 Parents commented that children were engaged in learning and enjoying their preschool experiences. Parents reported that their children were tired after attending the long days Parents said children were used to long days as they had experience in childcare Parents commented that the long days prepared their children for school Parents commented that the longer days were less disruptive for children, were more settled, had better relationships with other children Parents felt that 15 hours of preschool was not enough and most of these would like more, with one commenting that it is cheaper than childcare. Parents n = 401 WHAT ARE CHILDREN S ATTENDANCE PATTERNS? Attendance data of varying quality were returned from 16 of the 18 review sites. Ways of recording and the details of children s attendance varied making analysis challenging. Across the sites it appears that attendance was not consistently understood to be the actual number of hours that children were present. At times it appears to have been interpreted as being present during the day. The expectation was that sites submitted their data on their Early Year System attendance sheets with actual arrival and departure times of the children marked (that is, parents recording the precise times they delivered and collected their children and signing the sheet against their child s name). Ten sites met this expectation. LESS THAN 15 HOURS After analysing the available data, the Table 2 below shows the number of children who are missing some of their 15 hour entitlement a week because of late morning arrival or early afternoon pickup in the 10 preschools that provided detailed data. In the 10 preschools there was a consistent pattern of children not accessing up to 1 ½ hours per day and in 4 sites some children were missing up to 2 ½ hours per week. On one particular day, in one centre 12 children were arriving up to 45 minutes after the commencement of the session while in another centre 19 children were leaving up to 45 minutes early. In 8 of the 10 sites at Time 2 between 1 / 3 and 2 / 3 of children were arriving late and in 6 sites 1 / 3 ½ of the children were leaving early. For some children, particularly those picked up early, this may represent up to a quarter of their preschool hours. Three preschools referred to the late starts/early finishes as flexible times - a considered service offered to meet child/parent/family needs. 24

26 There was a strong theme in both the parent and director responses that this flexibility is a very valued aspect of preschool (non compulsory) early education. Table 1 Number of children and number of minutes missing preschool at start and end of day at Time 1 and Time 2 PRESCHOOL NUMBER OF CHILD SESSIONS PER WEEK* *based on each child being enrolled for 2 long days per week NUMBER OF CHILDREN ABSENT MORNING LATE ARRIVAL MINUTES NUMBER OF CHILDREN AFTERNOON EARLY PICKUP MINUTES NUMBER OF CHILDREN MORNING LATE ARRIVAL MINUTES NUMBER OF CHILDREN AFTERNOON EARLY PICKUP MINUTES NUMBER OF CHILDREN MORNING LATE ARRIVAL 75 PLUS MINUTES NUMBER OF CHILDREN AFTERNOON EARLY PICKUP 75 PLUS MINUTES NUMBER OF CHILDREN T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T These attendance patterns are consistent with parent responses where 22 (7%) of parents found the start/finishing times of the session inconvenient mainly because they clashed with school drop off and pick up times. RRR data where 17 (5%) of children were absent for their final observations for the day. A range of reasons could explain the children s attendance patterns including, but not limited to children s tiredness, mentioned by 12% of parents clashes with school drop off/pick up times, mentioned by 7% parents competing family priorities fitting in with other childcare arrangements. As noted by the directors (see below), the pattern of children arriving late/leaving early is not new to the Universal Access long day model. It appears from the data, that if there has been any change in attendance since introducing the model, it has been an improvement. Informal, anecdotal evidence suggests that, historically, it has not been uncommon for some children to arrive after and be collected before formal preschool session times in some preschools. 25

27 Sixteen of the directors from the 18 review sites responded in their interviews to the question Talk to me about your attendance patterns (Are children accessing 15 hours of preschool? What was attendance like when you first began the model? Has attendance changed over time? If there are attendance issues can you identify why children are not attending? Is attendance different to prior to UA?) Of the directors who made comment on attendance patterns, 11 stated that there was no change, 2 stated that attendance/enrolments had increased and 2 commented that attendance was good/very regular since introducing Universal Access. Some directors made the comment that children have always arrived and left at irregular times to fit in with other family commitments. IMPACT OF LONG DAY MODEL ON OTHER SERVICES PROVIDED BY PRESCHOOLS The data collected in the Directors Survey for the review show that the implementation of 15 hours of preschool has impacted on other services provided by preschools. The data does not indicate change. With some confidence it can be inferred that some centres no longer offer Occasional Care and Pre-Entry and that all centres offer a comprehensive lunch program. In some preschools, the offering of Playgroup. Pre entry and Early Entry was dependent on capacity. Table 3 shows the range of services offered by preschools and the number of preschools offering the service. Table 2 Preschool services offered SERVICE OFFERED* NOT OFFERED* MISSING DATA OCCASIONAL CARE PLAYGROUP PRE-ENTRY LUNCH PROGRAM EARLY ENTRY *Number of preschools = 18 HOW DOES IT IMPACT ON STAFF EMPLOYMENT ENTITLEMENTS? Award entitlements which are considered in the context of the review include Teacher/director hours per week ECW hours per week 37.5 Lunch break per day 20 minutes Non-contact time 10% of contact time Preparation & pack up time 10% of contact time Meetings Planning time and staff discussion to be within weekly Award hours of work 26

28 The long day model operates on 7.5 hours per day which is 0.25 hours above that which has been the normal preschool teachers hours per day and the hours covered by scheduled payments made to temporary relief teachers. The AEU wrote to all preschool staff reminding them of their entitlements as the model was introduced and also conducted a survey during the review period. The following information was provided by the AEU. In Term , the AEU conducted a survey of members in the majority of the centres involved in the DECD trial of 15 hours preschool education over two days. The majority of respondents identified positive outcomes in relation to parent support and learning outcomes for children. However, members identified the following as issues of concern and potential barriers to access to the full 15 hour entitlement: the need to reconfigure sessions and staff rosters to ensure that staff received breaks as per entitlements the capacity of the system to pay TRTs appropriately when they agree to work hours in excess of a 7.25 hour day the non-alignment of session times with hours of schooling and school bus schedules that centres offering alternate configurations of 15 hours were not subject to similar scrutiny as those in the trial. All 18 preschool directors responded to their survey question Are you confident that staff are aware of their award conditions and are you confident that they are being met? Of the 18 review centres, 16 directors definitively answered this question with a YES, some qualifying it with absolutely, extremely and one fairly. One director stated it would be addressed at the next staff meeting and one said industrial conditions were not being met, but this was not due to Universal Access, and it was no worse than before. It appears lunch breaks were the main problem. Staff were rostered to take a lunch break but many chose to stay with children. Two directors stated that staff prefer to sit with children during their lunch breaks and two directors noted that there was no suitable place for staff to retreat. One preschool had plans to rectify this. Staff surveys were returned from 16 preschools. All staff from 10 of these centres recorded positive responses to all questions related to awareness of industrial entitlements (hours of work, lunch breaks, non-contact time and preparation/pack up time). Of the 86 staff surveys returned from all preschools negative/unsure responses to each question about industrial conditions were very low varying between an aggregated total of 6 and 9 across the six sites that had negative responses. From the directors surveys it is clear that their leadership, knowledge and commitment to their staff ensures that industrial conditions are generally being met. Directors themselves acknowledged the dedication of their staff, making comments 27

29 such as it would have been impossible to implement this model without staff support. However awareness and reality are different. HOURS PER WEEK Staff surveys show that of the 86 responses, approximately a third of staff did no extra hours, a third were required to do extra hours and a third were required and chose to do extra hours during the survey week (see Table 4 below). The extra time worked varied from half an hour to 48 hours with an average of 6.8 hours. Eight staff were paid for their extra hours and five received time off in lieu of the hours worked. Nearly all other staff did not expect to be paid or have time off to compensate for the extra hours. Two staff members expressed dissatisfaction that they would not be compensated for the extra hours, but there was an expectation that they would do them. Fifteen staff members (29%) of staff that did extra hours stated explicitly that the extra hours were not related to Universal Access or the long day model. They have always worked extra hours and the general workload and political pressure and initiatives for accountability of excellence and quality was increasing. Three staff members stated that the extra hours were due to Universal Access. Reasons for the extra hours were consistent across the centres and included preparation and planning time staff meetings documentation of children s learning report writing research, professional learning, NQS administration, including enrolments, policy requirements, replenishing stock, maintenance fund raising, community events Governing Council meetings relieving absent staff IT frustrations personal commitment and work satisfaction human resource management Table 3 Extra staff hours per week NO RESPONSE NO EXTRA HOURS REQUIRED EXTRA HOURS CHOSE EXTRA HOURS REQUIRED & CHOSE EXTRA HOURS 28

30 Staff n = 86 Directors used a range of strategies to ensure industrial conditions were met including flexible rostering employing extra staff to cover lunch breaks (which varied from minutes) involving staff in preparatory discussions negotiating, recording and banking hours and then taking time off in lieu or receiving extra pay systems to ensure everyone s voice is heard. The long day model initially raised some issues regarding Temporary Relieving Teachers (TRT s) as the preschools days are 15 minutes longer than the hours covered by scheduled payments. For contract and permanent teachers this is managed through flexible rostering over a fortnight. For TRTs the issue was resolved by DECD Human Resources agreeing to pay TRTs for a minimum of 3 hours and in ¼ hour increments. As the funding for Universal Access has provided preschools with the opportunity to employ some extra teaching hours, this has impacted on the pool of available TRTs. Sixteen directors noted that they used Universal Access funds and eleven used site funds flexibly to employ additional teachers and/or ECW s to cover the increased responsibilities of the Universal Access program including extra teaching and teacher support hours, administrative support, cover for staff breaks, and noncontact time and children s lunch care. LUNCH BREAK Although some directors commented that only having one official break from children was often not enough, some also commented that staff chose not to take a break, but rather sit with children during their breaks. Most preschools employed lunch care staff to enable preschool staff to have lunch breaks on a rostered basis and to meet National Quality Standards regulations. NON CONTACT TIME Four directors stated that teachers had more non-contact time, with more flexibility than previously. Two directors noted there was less time at the end of the day for documentation, child records, planning and changing the learning environment, and one noted that they were working far more hours than they were being paid for. HOW DOES IT IMPACT ON STAFF WELLBEING? 29

31 From the question in the staff survey about the maintenance of staff well being (can approach leaders about concerns/grievances, forums to express views/opinions, contribute to decision making, manage work demands without ongoing significant distress, reporting of psychological injuries) all staff from seven of the 16 centres that returned surveys answered positively to all of the wellbeing sub questions. Aggregated negative responses were very low for questions 1 (1 negative), 2 (3 negative) and 3 (5 negative). Question 4 It is possible to manage work demands without experiencing ongoing, significant distress and Question 5 I understand I can report psychological injuries using the IRMS drew 10 and 9 negative responses respectively across the nine centres with negative responses. Qualitative responses indicating a detrimental impact on staff wellbeing included long days not working well for their own families not being good for staff wellbeing the days being too long a feeling of providing cheap childcare physically tiring lack of information as staff meetings are in non working time pressure to complete all work in paid time. Responses that indicate the long day model has a positive impact on staff wellbeing included director being very aware of staff wellbeing extra non contact time half day off flexible working hours relaxed rhythm of longer days Through their surveys, the directors reported on their own perceptions of their staff, reporting that they were generally happy with working longer days. Most of the staff in the review participated in the preliminary, exploratory discussions before the model was agreed on for their preschool, giving them the opportunity to work together towards an agreed staffing pattern. Directors raised the concern that when new staff commenced at their centre the staffing pattern may be well embedded with little room for flexibility and this may be a problem down the track. However, for the purposes of this review, staffing arrangements appear to be working reasonably well with some staff making comments such as they like the flexibility of early/late start times, they have more non-contact time and more staff preparation time. On the other hand four directors noted that their staff were more tired and had less time for planning, assessing, documenting and meeting together. Staff often worked longer hours to get everything done. Two mentioned that staff would benefit from more break times. 30

32 HOW SATISFIED ARE PARENTS? A total of 401 Parent surveys were returned from 16 of the 18 sites in the Long Day Review. Responses were sought to eight questions. Five survey questions were forced response questions providing yes/no answers. Two questions required qualitative responses. One question related to providing further information. Five of the review sites reformatted the survey and modified some of the questions. All data received was included in the collation, analysis and reporting of the review. 22 (7%) parents found the start/finishing times of the session inconvenient mainly because they clashed with school drop off and pick up times. This was supported in the attendance and RRR observation data where there was a pattern of children arriving late, leaving early. Four parents commented that they needed to use outside help with pick up times. Three parents commented on the lack of quality learning experiences and one on the use of television during these times. 11 (4%) parents found the session times fitted in well with their school drop off/pick up times 39 (13%) parents found the two long days suited their work, family and other commitments 51(17%) parents commented on the approachability of staff and their support and flexibility in negotiating UA preschool models for individual family circumstances 74 (30%) parents requested that the preschool offer more flexibility with UA models, for example more half day sessions, full day programs should not be longer than 6 hours, spread the 15 hours over 3 days, programs which offer longer than 7.5 hour days, change to shorter day model option for non-working parents in preschools where only the long day model is offered, more flexibility in delivery and collection times, long day model does not offer flexibility of sessions for children with additional needs,. Positive responses where less than 5% of parents made comments included two long days is the only way they could access 15 hours (5 parents) adjacent childcare centres worked well with the preschool to provide a long day service for their families (5 parents) Negative responses where less than 5% of parents made comments included two long days made it too difficult to access their child s 15 hours entitlement (4 parents) a feeling of being forced into the model, with no choice (2 parents) other services traditionally offered by preschools were sacrificed, such as playgroup, occasional care, pre-entry, (3 parents) 31

33 A suggestion for improvement in the model where less than 5% of parents made comments was preschool to add on after session care (3 parents) Figure 6a Parent Survey responses Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Are you aware that your child is entitled to enrol in 15 hours of preschool? Do the times offered by the kindergarten for children to attend meet the needs of your child? Are the times offered by the service accessible for your family? Do you know Do you feel that who to contact if you can you have any approach the concerns about staff if you have the preschool? concerns? 4 Figure 6b Parent Survey responses Parents Parents commented commented on that they would the excellent like other staff and their options than approachability the full day Parents happy with the service and staff Parents commenting on the variety of session models offered Works well having Universal Access as it works well with the child care centre next door DOES IT MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF THE UNIVERSAL ACCESS INITIATIVE? Are children able to participate in 15 hours of preschool? The objectives of the Universal Access initiative are 32

34 access to a quality early childhood education program for all children. children will acquire basic skills for life and learning through engaging in quality play-based early learning programs. early learning facilitates the transition to primary school and has a direct and positive effect on future educational, employment and health outcomes. existing barriers to participation, including cost, access and convenience for parents, will be addressed. all indigenous four year olds in remote communities will have access to an early childhood education program. over the longer term, early childhood education generates substantial cost savings through improved health and productivity and reduced expenditure on social services. (DEEWR SA Fact Sheet) For the purposes of this review, only the first four Universal Access objectives are addressed. ACCESS TO A QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM FOR ALL CHILDREN As noted above, four (1%) parents in the review centres stated that 2 long days of preschools made it impossible for their children to access their 15 hours entitlement of preschool. On the other hand, 5 parents said two long days is the only way their child could access their 15 hours entitlement. Twenty (36%) of the children observed during the review were missing up to 75 minutes of their 7.5 hours of preschool a day. One preschool ceased to offer the long day program as families were not utilising the model and their 15 hours of preschool. Many of the children who attend this regional preschool are transported by bus. However, as the long day program operates longer than a school day and the school bus service could not start earlier and finish later to accommodate these preschool children, the long day model was not feasible. The Director, staff and Governing Council investigated other UA models and decided to adopt a model that met the needs of their local community, which involved a 6.5 hour day, 3 days one week and 2 days the next. In the eleven centres that offered parents a choice of models to access their children s 15 hours of preschool, there is no doubt that the objective is met. In the other seven centres, it was noted by directors that attendance patterns have not changed since introducing the model, leading to the deduction that the model has not reduced access to preschool. CHILDREN WILL ACQUIRE BASIC SKILLS FOR LIFE AND LEARNING THROUGH ENGAGING IN QUALITY PLAY-BASED EARLY LEARNING PROGRAMS 33

35 The observational data threw up some gaps which are worthy of further investigation related to the quality of children s experiences. The gaps were primarily related to opportunities to demonstrate pleasure in sensory experiences a fundamental aspect of early learning, and aspects of identity and self regulation which are critical to school and life success. There is no way to conclude from the data if this pattern is exclusive to the long day model of preschool. EARLY LEARNING FACILITATES THE TRANSITION TO PRIMARY SCHOOL AND HAS A DIRECT AND POSITIVE EFFECT ON FUTURE EDUCATIONAL, EMPLOYMENT AND HEALTH OUTCOMES. The only data collected in relation to this objective were additional comments provided by parents where 30 (7%) parents commented that they thought the model was a good preparation for the longer days of school. From a multitude of international studies and reports (see for example NSCDC 2007) we can confidently assume that 15 hours of preschool will have direct and positive effects on children s future educational, employment and health outcomes The essence of quality in early childhood services is embodied in the expertise, skills, and relationship building capacities of their staff (NSCDC 2007:12-13). The small number of review observations where staff were present and interacting with children deserves further investigation in order to be confident that for all children there are rich learning experiences with intellectual engagement and warm reciprocal relationships with a staff member. EXISTING BARRIERS TO PARTICIPATION, INCLUDING COST, ACCESS AND CONVENIENCE FOR PARENTS, WILL BE ADDRESSED From the parent responses the long day model appears to have made access to preschool somewhat easier for some parents. Nearly a third of parents wanted more flexibility in the hours offered. Three parents noted that some of the services previously offered by preschools were no longer available. Early access to early learning programs has been demonstrated to be especially critical for children from homes where positive, rich learning experiences are limited. The long day model may in some ways be increasing barriers to participation in an early learning program for some children who would benefit greatly from the programs. Parent responses included two long days is the only way they could access 15 hours (5 parents) two long days made it too difficult to access their child s 15 hours entitlement (4 parents) other services traditionally offered by preschools were sacrificed, such as playgroup, occasional care, pre-entry, (3 parents) 19 (5%) of parents felt that 15 hours of preschool was not enough and most of these would like more, with one commenting that it is cheaper than childcare 34

36 74 (30%) parents requested that the preschool offer more flexibility with UA models, for example more half day sessions, full day programs should not be longer than 6 hours, spread the 15 hours over 3 days, programs which offer longer than 7.5 hour days, change to shorter day model option for non-working parents in preschools where only the long day model is offered, more flexibility in delivery and collection times, long day model does not offer flexibility of sessions for children with additional needs, Fees per term for the long day program range from $75 to $320, which is inclusive of a lunch care fee. One preschool provides a healthy nutritional lunch cooked at the preschool by a site employed cook with produce grown in the garden. No comments were made regarding fees in the survey responses. WHAT ARE THE STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES OF THE MODEL? SHOULD THE LONG DAY MODEL CONTINUE? WHAT DO STAKEHOLDERS SAY? SHOULD THE LONG DAY MODEL CONTINUE? * *As stated previously the data could not be disaggregated to provide answers exclusively for the model offering only two long days Parents were not asked the question directly. However, from their general comments it could be inferred that 14 % would say YES (13% suited their work commitments, 1% only way they could access 15 hours) 36 % would say NO (30% want more flexibility, 5% had no choice 1% cannot access 15 hours) Staff were asked directly Do you think this model should continue YES/NO? Of the 86 surveys returned responses included 69% (59) said YES 14% (12) said NO 9% (8) were UNSURE 8% (7) nil response Although the majority of staff supported the continuation of the long day model, their comments indicated that they had many reservations but support it as it suits families. Comments made by staff included that the longer hours are too long for children, they don t make the best use of the time, that kindergarten is becoming more like childcare, that staff are just managing day-day, parents like it it s cheap childcare, there s very little educational advantage as there are very few children in the first and last hour of the day, the families love it, staff would prefer not to continue but will as the parents overwhelmingly support it, the various pick up times make it 35

37 very disruptive, it s not in the best interests of children, the flexibility suits parents, the longer days leave little time for reflection, documentation and preparation. Directors were not asked the question directly but were prompted to talk about intentions to continue/change the model. From the 18 returned surveys 10 said YES they would definitely continue 3 could be an assumed YES from their responses 2 were unsure 3 nil response In their survey responses, six directors made positive comments such as, since the introduction of the model they have seen more of fathers and working parents, they have better connections with parents and it meets the needs of children and families. The majority of directors reported that the model was working for them, their staff, families and children and that they would not want to give it up, one Director stated that I do not necessarily think it s the best model of preschool delivery in terms of educational outcomes Educationally, staff believe that the best model would be 5 x ½ days, but this does not suit this community s needs. CONCLUSION It is difficult to be confident that all of the review findings reported above belong exclusively to the long day model of preschool provision. Data that pertained exclusively to the long day model was not isolated from data pertaining to long day combined with mixed models. The quality and quantity of collected data and the way it was recorded varied across centres and many data sets were incomplete. The review of the long day model of providing Universal Access to early childhood education provided staff with a forum to raise a number of work related issues, the main one being a workload that was being found as increasingly difficult to manage in paid hours. Nearly one third of the staff that did extra hours nominated that the extra hours had nothing to do with the long day model. The literature was equivocal about advantages or not of attending long days of preschool. The available research supported comments from parents about the level of tiredness which children experience when attending the long days. Children s fatigue may well interfere with their capacity to engage in planned learning experiences. There is some consensus in the literature that children from the most challenging circumstances benefit most from longer hours in high quality preschool programs. Preschool directors and staff s perceptions about parents overwhelming support for the model are somewhat at variance with parents themselves. Nearly a third of 36

38 parents wanted more choice and flexibility. Parents seem most satisfied when they are offered a range of models from which to choose their child s 15 hours of preschool entitlement, rather than being offered just one long day model. Many parents felt two long days was too long for their children making their children tired, grumpy and uncooperative An aspect of the implementation of the trial of the long day model that made it workable for most staff was that, on the whole, all staff involved were on board prior to the introduction of the model. They participated in preparatory discussions, exploration of options, decision making and negotiating. It will be important that the Department and their preschool directors continue to work together on strategies such as those noted above to sustain the model successfully through staff changes.. Work will need to continue on industrial conditions including staffing patterns and expectations. Preservation of some of preschools extra early learning programs such as playgroup, pre-entry and occasional care requires consideration. Families with children whose learning and development is at risk benefit from access to these programs. For children who are entitled to commence preschool at three years of age (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and children who are under the Guardianship of the Minister), two long days may not be the best option. The unanswered questions which have arisen from the data about the opportunities children have to be engaged in meaningful sensory and self regulation experiences and challenges as well as relationships and experiences that strengthen their identities and sense of being are worthy of further research across a broader range of settings. It would also be interesting to examine any correlations between preschool patterns and patterns in the Australian Early Development Index. The long day model of preschool is a model worthy of ongoing implementation as an option supporting Pascal s (2009:50) proposal that the benefits of full day learning will accrue not just to individuals, but to all as we develop our human capital for a more prosperous economy and our social capital for a more inclusive and respectful society. RECOMMENDATIONS The Long Day model continues as an individual preschool community choice. If preschools wish to continue to offer 2 long days of preschool they also offer a workable alternative for those family and children for whom it does not fit. 37

39 Preschool is a non-compulsory year of early education. The Department s position on the importance of full uptake of each child s entitlement requires consideration and communication. For children who attend two long days of preschool each week, the level of their attendance and their engagement, particularly at the beginning and end of each day and during lunch time, requires attention to ensure that they are accessing their full entitlement and spending their 15 hours in quality early education experiences. If staff set up and pack up their daily program during, and include lunch time in children s preschool entitlement, the experience for children should be tightly aligned with and assessed against their learning and development outcomes and embedded in quality relationships and worthwhile engagement. Further investigation is undertaken across the range of preschool delivery models, into the cognitive load of activities, educator engagement and sensory input opportunities for children across day. Preschools are supported to ensure that staff have a suitable space for retreat and breaks from children. Strategies are put in place for staff to take the breaks during the day to which they are entitled. An exploration of teaching and non contact time across all models of preschool, is undertaken to ensure that all preschool staff have the resources to access their entitlements and fulfill their roles including their professional learning and the planning, preparation, assessment and reporting of children s learning and the meeting of their regulatory and policy obligations. 38

40 BIBLIOGRAPHY Australian Education Union, SA Branch. (2012) It s All Happening in Early Childhood in Early Childhood Focus. November 2012 p. 14. Commonwealth of Australia. (2009) Belonging, Being & Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for the Council of Australian Governments: Canberra Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (2008) National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood viewed on 12/3/13 da Costa, J.L. & Bell, S. (2001) A Comparison of the Literacy Effects of Full Day vs Half day Kindergarten. in Pascal, C. E (2009) With Our Best Future in Mind: Implementing Early Learning in Ontario. Queens Printer: Ontario. Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2011) 2011 Annual Report For The Bilateral Agreement On Achieving Universal Access To Early Childhood Education South 8&rlz=1T4ADSA_enAU498AU498&q=2011+Annual+Report+For+The+Bilateral+Agreement+On+Achi eving+universal+access+to+early+childhood+education+south+australia+%282012%29+#q=2011 +Annual+Report+For+The+Bilateral+Agreement+On+Achieving+Universal+Access+To+Early+Childh ood+education+south+australia+(2012)&hl=en&rlz=1t4adsa_enau498au498&ei=mue- UYHfGMHpkAXqqYCQBw&start=10&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv ,d.dGI&fp=7f557d5 6038fe934&biw=1014&bih=451 viewed on 12/3/13 Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2011) Universal access to early childhood education: Questions and answers for providers of early childhood education and child care services. Fact ons_and_answers_for_providers_of_early_childhood_education_and_c.pdf viewed on 11/3/13 Department of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations (DWEER) Universal Access to Early Childhood Education in South Australia; Fact Sheet. MyChild viewed on 12/3/13 Harrison, L J., Goldfeld S, Metcalfe, E and Moore, T. (2012) Early Learning Programs That Promote Children s Developmental and Educational Outcomes. Closing the Gap. Clearinghouse. Australian Government. Australian Institute of Health & Welfare. Australian Institute of Family Studies: Melbourne. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers Make a Difference: What is the Research viewed on 12/3/13 Herry,Y, Maltais,C & Thompson, K. (2007) Effects of a Full Day Preschool Program on 4 year Old Children. Early Childhood Research & Practice. Vol. 9. No. 2. Faculty of Education, University of viewed on 12/3/13 Kamerman, S. B. (2008).School Readiness and International Developments in Early Childhood Education & Care. Encyclopaedia on Early Childhood Development. Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood viewed on 12/3/13 Laskin, S. (2011) Fact sheet Full Day Kindergarten. Toronto District School %20Full%20Day%20Kindergarten.pdf viewed on 312/3/13 Laevers, F (2006). Making care and education more effective through wellbeing and involvement: an introduction to Experiential Education. Research Centre for Experiential Education: University of Leuven, %20an%20introduction.pdf viewed on 19/2/13 39

41 Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B. & Ruberger, R. (2007) How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers on children s social and cognitive development in Economics of Education Review, 26, pp Maguire, B & Hayes, H. (2011) Access to preschool education in the year before full-time school in LSAC Annual Statistical Report 2011 Australian Institute of Family Studies: Melbourne National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (NSCDC) (2007.) The Science of Early Childhood viewed on 11/3/13 Ontario Ministry of Education (2010) Full Day Early Learning Kindergarten Program for Four and Five year Old: a Reference Guide for Educators. Issue 1.Queen s Printer for viewed on 12/3/13 Ontario Ministry of Education ( ) The Extended Day Program. Full Day Early Learning Kindergarten Program Draft version. Queen s Printer for viewed on 12/3/13 Pascal, C. E. (2009) With Our Best Future in Mind. Implementing Early Learning in Ontario. Report to the Premier by the Special Advisor on Early Learning. Queens Printer for viewed on 12/3/13 Sylva, K, Melhuish, E, Sammons, P, Siraj-Blatchford, I and Taggart, B.(2004a) The Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) Project Findings from Preschool to end of Key Stage 1. Institute of Education, University of London & University of Oxford. Sure Start. Sylva, K, Melhuish, E, Sammons, P, Siraj-Blatchford, I and Taggart, B. (2004b) The Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) Project: Technical Paper 12 the Final Report: Effective Preschool Education. Abstract. London: DfES/Institute of Education, University of London: Nottingham. Sylva, K, Melhuish, E, Sammons, P, Siraj-Blatchford, I and Taggart, B. The Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) Project: (2004c) Technical Paper 12 the Final Report: Effective Preschool Education. A Longitudinal Study funded by the DfES London: DfES/Institute of Education, University of London: Nottingham. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Blatchford, I S., Taggart, B. and Elliot, K., (2003) The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Findings from the Pre-school Period, Institute of Education, University of London: Nottingham. Toronto District School Board. (nd) Full Day Kindergarten. Frequently Asked df viewed on 12/3/13 UnitingCare Children, Young People and Families (2011) Policy and research on optimal quality of early education and care provision. Policy Briefing Note. Social Justice Unit Paramatta EC_quantity.pdf viewed on 12/3/13 40

42 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Background information to the Universal Access initiative and the delivery of preschool in South Australia has been primarily sourced from the Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the South Australian Department of Education, and Early Childhood Development (DECD). Members of the DECD Universal Access Team who have led and supported the implementation of Universal Access to early childhood education in South Australia and the review of the long day model include Helen Leo Debbie George Chris Markos Gaynor Hellier Cameron Mitchell 41

43 APPENDIX 2 ADVISORY COMMITTEE The Advisory Committee provided advice on the review in, particularly in relation to the scope and design of the review data collection methodologies consultation process with participating sites and stakeholders alternative methods of service delivery the final report and recommendations to the head of child development action that may be taken in response to emerging issues Membership of the group included representatives from the following stakeholder groups DECD Universal Access team DECD Early Learning and Quality Reform team (Lynda Matthews) Australian Education Union, South Australian Branch (Howard Spreadbury) Preschool Directors Association (Marilyn Clarke) Preschool Sites (Betty Elsworthy) 42

44 APPENDIX 3 REVIEW PRESCHOOLS The 18 preschools (directors, staff, parents and communities) who participated in the Review were: Adams Road Children s Centre (Northern Adelaide Region) Ballara Park Kindergarten (Southern Adelaide Region) Barbara Kiker Memorial Kindergarten (Western Adelaide Region) Bertram Hawker Kindergarten (Eastern Adelaide Region) Frieda Corpe Kindergarten (Southern Adelaide Region) JB Cleland Kindergarten (Eastern Adelaide Region) Kensington Gardens Kindergarten (Eastern Adelaide Region) The Lady George Kindergarten (Eastern Adelaide Region) McKellar Stewart Kindergarten (Eastern Adelaide Region) Michelle DeGaris Memorial Kindergarten (Limestone Coast Region) Mitcham Village Kindergarten (Southern Adelaide Region) Newland Park Kindergarten(Eastern Adelaide Region) Prospect Kindergarten (Eastern Adelaide Region) Pt. Elliott Kindergarten (Fleurieu & Kangaroo Island Region) Strathalbyn Outreach Kindergarten (Fleurieu & Kangaroo Island Region) The Hub Preschool (Southern Adelaide Region) Vale Park Preschool (Eastern Adelaide Region) West Beach Kindergarten (Western Adelaide Region) 43

45 APPENDIX 4 Site Name: PRESCHOOL DIRECTORS SURVEY Date: Director's Name: 1. Context of the Site Location: Community profile, i.e. working families Days service operates Hours of Operation Fees - preschool - lunch care if applicable Category ranking Capacity of site What other programs do you offer: occasional care playgroup preentry lunch care Early entry Total number of children enrolment in the term of the interview: 44

46 Number of staff employed over a typical week including PSS & Bilingual Warranted Staffing: Does your warranted staff cover the delivery of 15 hours? How can families access 15 hours of preschool 2 full days % of enrolments 5 1/2 days % of enrolments 2 full days & 1/2 day 0% of enrolments Other % of enrolments 2. Consultation with Parents 2a. How did you determine the community needs in relation to the delivery of 15 hours of preschool?(what families wanted) parent survey parent discussion Governing council involvement 2b.Do you have processes in place to check with your parents that the model suits their needs? parent survey parent discussions Governing council involvement Have any of your parents expressed dissatisfaction about the model 45

47 2c.Talk to me about your attendance patterns. Are children accessing 15hrs of preschool? What was attendance like when you first began the model? Has attendance changed over time? If there are attendance issues can you identify why children are not attending? Is attendance different to prior to UA? 3. Consultation with Staff 3a.How did staff access information about industrial rights and grievance procedures? Was information shared from the Universal Access info pack, i.e. circular 32 DECD web site - awards staff discussions AEU 3b. Are you confident that staff are aware of their award conditions and are you confident that they are being met? 3c. When do you have staff meetings? Are staff happy with these arrangements? ECWs historically have had non-contact, this is not an award condition, has this impacted on your site. Staff breaks 3d. Has there been any staff turnover, was it as a result of long days? 46

48 3 e. How were the staff involved in developing the model to deliver 15 hours of preschool? what consultation processes did you use staff discussions at staff meeting ad hoc discussions was the whole staff involved 3f. What strategies are in place to seek feedback from staff regarding the appropriateness of the delivery model? surveys discussions what elements of the delivery model are you reviewing are you collecting data 3g. Have you been able to recruit staff to meet the staff roster requirements, including TRT staff have you had any staff changes if yes - was the new staff member satisfied with the roster expected to be worked. 3h. Have you had any difficulties employing TRT staff? 3i. Have you had to make accommodations when employing TRT staff? i.e. changing regular staff work times 3j. I take it you think the model is working? Reading it correctly you intend to continue this model next year if you could do anything different what would it be? 4. Changes to service delivery 47

49 4a. Have there been any adjustments made to the program in response to the community or staff's level of satisfaction with the model? Changes to set up and pack up timetable changes organisational changes what do you think is happening for children energy levels in the PM 48

50 APPENDIX 5 PARENT SURVEY Long Day Review Parent Questionnaire Universal Access to Early Childhood Education is a Coalition of Australian Government (COAG) commitment to provide access to a quality early childhood education program for all children by 2013, delivered by a university trained early childhood teacher, for 15 hours a week, 40 weeks a year, in the year before formal schooling. The major key strategy to achieve Universal Access in South Australia was to increase the previous preschool education entitlement of 11 hours to 15 hours per week. Your child is enrolled to access their 15 hours of preschool over two 7.5 hour days. The Department for Education and Child Development (DECD) is conducting a review of this model. Parents are an important part of this review and we would appreciate your views to the following questions, the information will be used in general terms and the review report will not identify individuals. YES NO 1 Are you aware that your child is entitled to enrol in 15 hours of preschool? YES NO 2 Do the times offered by the kindergarten for children to attend meet the needs of your child? YES NO 3 Are the times offered by the service accessible for your family? 49

51 4 How does your child respond to the delivery of preschool over two days? YES NO 5 Do you know who to contact if you have any concerns about the preschool? YES NO 6 Do you feel that you can approach the staff if you have concerns? 7 Other comments 8 If you would be willing to participate in a short phone survey conducted by the Department for Education and Child Development regarding the delivery of 15 hours of preschool over two days please complete the following details. Name: Phone No: Best time to be contacted: Thank You for taking the time to this survey 50

52 APPENDIX 6 STAFF SURVEY Long Day of Preschool Review Background Within the context of the Universal Access to Early Childhood Education initiative, a number of preschools are trialling the delivery of preschool over seven and a half hours per day. This model has been developed in response to local community needs and specifically in response to the needs of working parents and children travelling on school busses. Trails of this model are being conducted during 2012 and a review will be undertaken to examine the suitability of the model in meeting the learning outcomes of children, the impact on staff and whether the model meets the needs of parents. This staff survey will contribute to the review information gathering and findings: Objective 3. Staff entitlements are maintained 1. Are you aware of your industrial entitlements about : Hours of work Lunch breaks Non contact time Preparation and pack up time Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No If no, please identify areas where you believe that your industrial rights, are possibly, not being maintained.. 2. Do you have staff meetings? Yes No 51

53 When are staff meetings held?.. Are meetings held during your normal rostered hours? Yes No Are staff meetings counted as hours worked? Yes No Any Other Comments:. 3. How many rostered hours did you work this week? Where you required to work additional hours? Yes No Did you work extra hours over the week? Yes No How many hours? Did you expect to be paid for these hours? Yes No Did you expect to be given time off in lieu? Yes No Why did you work the extra hours?. 52

54 Objective 4. Staff wellbeing is maintained YES NO 1. I am able to approach and speak to leaders about concerns and grievances. 2. There are forums at this site where I can express my views and opinions. 3. I have opportunities to contribute to site decision making which impacts on my work. 4. It is possible to manage work demands without experiencing ongoing, significant distress. 5. I understand I can report psychological injuries using the IRMS. 4. Do you think this model should continue? YES No Comment: Please return the questionnaire, in the prepaid envelope provided, to DECD Early Childhood Development, Universal Access Team. If you would prefer to verbally respond to this questionnaire please contact Chris Markos on (08) Name (voluntary):..telephone (voluntary): Position:.Permanent / Contract Employee Hours: No. of Please note: Contact information will only be used if clarification of details is required. The information on this form will be used in general terms and the review report will not identify individuals. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. 53

55 APPENDIX 7 AEU SURVEY 54

56 APPENDIX 8 WELLBEING OBSERVATION SCALE 55 CONFIDENTIAL INTERNAL DRAFT REPORT NOT FOR EXTERNAL CIRCULATION OR CITATION

57 56 CONFIDENTIAL INTERNAL DRAFT REPORT NOT FOR EXTERNAL CIRCULATION OR CITATION

58 57 CONFIDENTIAL INTERNAL DRAFT REPORT NOT FOR EXTERNAL CIRCULATION OR CITATION

59 58 CONFIDENTIAL INTERNAL DRAFT REPORT NOT FOR EXTERNAL CIRCULATION OR CITATION

60 59 CONFIDENTIAL INTERNAL DRAFT REPORT NOT FOR EXTERNAL CIRCULATION OR CITATION

61 60 CONFIDENTIAL INTERNAL DRAFT REPORT NOT FOR EXTERNAL CIRCULATION OR CITATION