Published by the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education

Transcription

1 IN SEARCH OF QUALITY: MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES FINAL REPORT CENTRE FOR SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY REPORT SUBMITTED TO: CENTRE FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION (CECDE) KAREN MAHONY AND NÓIRÍN HAYES MARCH 2006

2 Published by the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education The Gate Lodge, St. Patrick s College, Drumcondra, Dublin 9. Tel: Fax: [email protected] Website: ISBN: X ISBN-13: The Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the CECDE. Funded by the Irish Government and part financed by the European Union under the National Development Plan

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION Project Origins Objectives of the Project Report Structure Project Outcomes CONTEXTUALISING EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE 18 & EDUCATION 2.1 Introduction Contextualisation The Irish Policy Context of Quality Early Childhood Provisions Defining Quality Determinants of Quality Benefits of Quality Provision Researching Children Conclusion METHODOLOGY Introduction Sampling Procedures Field Researchers Consultative Advisory Group The Research Instruments Observable Quality Perceived Quality Conclusion 59 3

4 4 MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES THE FAMILY UNIT Introduction Findings Children Birth to Six Years Children s Day-to-Day Experiences Sense of Welcoming to the Service Children s Favourite Parts of the Setting Favourite Time of the Day A Sense of Belonging A Sense of Acceptance Feeling Understood Feeling Protected A Sense of Respect Children s Experiences of Activities Children s Overall Satisfaction of the Experience/Contentment in the Setting Camera Work and Photographs Findings - Children Birth to Three Years (Pilot Tool) Background Methodology Findings Future Action Findings Parent/Carers Perspectives Selecting an ECCE Setting Aspects Contributing to Good Quality Settings Aspects Contributing to Poor Quality Settings Immediate-term Benefits of Providing Quality ECCE Long-term Benefits of Providing Quality ECCE The Role of Statutory Authorities in Quality ECCE Provision The National Quality Framework The Importance of Various ECCE Elements Parent/Staff Relations Most Important Aspects Contributing to ECCE Quality Conclusion 89 4

5 5. MULTIPLE PERPSPECTIVES EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION SETTINGS Introduction Observable Quality Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (Revised) IEA Pre-primary Observation Tool Perceived Quality Contribution of ECCE to Birth to Six Year Olds Selecting an ECCE Setting Important Criteria Aspects Contributing to Good Quality Settings Aspects Determining Poor Quality Settings Immediate-term Benefits of Providing Quality ECCE Long-term Benefits of Providing Quality ECCE The Role of Statutory Authorities in Quality ECCE Provision The National Quality Framework The Importance of Various ECCE Elements The Importance of Staff Development Elements Contributors to Quality Provision The Most Important Aspects of Quality Conclusion MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES THE STATE VIEWPOINT Introduction Policy Makers Perspectives on Quality Understanding of the Term Early Childhood Care and Education Contribution of ECCE Settings to Birth to Six Year Olds Criteria Important to Parents in Selecting ECCE Settings The Contribution of Parental Criteria to Quality Aspects of Good Quality ECCE Settings Aspects of Poor Quality ECCE Settings Benefits of ECCE Provision The Role of Statutory Authorities in Quality ECCE Provision The National Quality Framework Indicators of Quality Key Personnel s Perspectives on Quality Aspects of Good Quality Provision Aspects of Poor Quality Provision The Most Important Aspects of ECCE Relating to Quality The Role of Statutory Authorities in Quality ECCE Provision The National Quality Framework Conclusion 146 5

6 7. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Introduction Contribution of ECCE to Birth to Six Year Olds Criteria Important in Selecting ECCE Settings Aspects of Good Quality ECCE Settings Aspects of Poor Quality ECCE Settings Benefits of Quality ECCE Provision Statutory Role in the Provision of Good Quality ECCE The Most Important Aspects Contributing to ECCE Quality A Review of the Main Findings Comparative Analysis of ECERS(R) and IEA Findings Conclusion Issues for Further Research Policy and Practice Implications 170 BIBLIOGRAPHY 171 APPENDICES 183 Appendix One: NVCO Quality Initiatives 183 Appendix Two: City and County Childcare Committee Initiatives 188 Appendix Three: IEA Management of Time Categories 191 Appendix Four: IEA Child Activity Categories 194 Appendix Five: IEA Adult Behaviour Categories 196 Appendix Six: ECERS(R) Code Allocation 198 Appendix Seven: Settings: Initial Letter of Contact and Acceptance Form 203 Appendix Eight: Parents/Carers: Initial Letter of Contact and Consent Form 207 Appendix Nine: Child Data Gathered 211 Appendix Ten: IEA Management of Time Observation Schedule 213 Appendix Eleven: IEA Child Activity Observation Schedule 215 Appendix Twelve: IEA Adult Behaviour Observation Schedule 217 Appendix Thirteen: Child Interview Schedule 219 Appendix Fourteen: Parental Interview Schedule 222 Appendix Fifteen: Practitioner Interview Schedule 226 Appendix Sixteen: Policy Maker Interview Schedule 232 Appendix Seventeen: Focus Group Schedule 235 Appendix Eighteen: IEA MOT (Whole Group) Cross-tabbed with Parents Most Important Aspects 242 Appendix Nineteen: IEA MOT (Personal and Social) Cross-tabbed with Practitioners Most Important Aspects 245 Appendix Twenty: ECERS (Interaction) Cross-tabbed with Practitioners Most Important Aspects 247 LIST OF TABLES 7 LIST OF FIGURES 9 LIST OF ACRONYMS 10 6

7 LIST of TABLES Table 3.1: Designated Research Counties 42 Table 3.2: Management of Time Categories with Examples 48 Table 3.3: Child Activity Categories with Examples 49 Table 4.1: Children s Photograph Categories 68 Table 4.2: Criteria Important to Parents in Selecting an ECCE Setting 76 Table 4.3: Aspects Contributing to Good Quality Settings 77 Table 4.4: Aspects Contributing to Poor Quality Settings 78 Table 4.5: Immediate-term Benefits of Quality ECCE Provision 79 Table 4.6: Long Term Benefits of Quality ECCE Provision 80 Table 4.7: Statutory Role in the Provision of Good Quality ECCE 81 Table 4.8: Parental Perspectives on the Importance of Various ECCE Elements 83 Table 4.9: The Most Important Aspects Contributing to ECCE Quality 89 Table 5.1: Number of Settings by Geographical County 90 Table 5.2: Total Average Score for All Settings 92 Table 5.3: ECERS(R), Total Number of Scores by Activities 93 Table 5.4: ECERS Average Item Score Statistics 93 Table 5.5: Descriptive Statistics Proposed Activities 98 Table 5.6: Descriptive Statistics Group Structure Proposals 100 Table 5.7: Descriptive Statistics Child Activities 101 Table 5.8: Group Structure 103 Table 5.9: Descriptive Statistics Adult Behaviour 104 Table 5.10: Contribution of ECCE to Birth to Six Year Olds (Practitioners Perspectives) 107 Table 5.11: Important Criteria in Selecting ECCE 108 Table 5.12: Aspects contributing to a good quality ECCE setting 109 Table 5.13: Aspects Determining Poor Quality Settings 110 Table 5.14: Immediate-term Benefits of Quality ECCE Provision 111 Table 5.15: Long-term Benefits of Quality ECCE Provision 112 Table 5.16: Statutory Role in the Provision of Good Quality ECCE 113 Table 5.17: Practitioners Perceptions of Importance relative to Various Elements 115 Table 5.18: Practitioners Perceptions of the Importance of Staff Development Elements 117 Table 5.19: Contributing Factors to the Quality of Settings 119 Table 7.1: Practitioners compared with Parents Aspects of Good Quality ECCE Settings 152 Table 7.2: Practitioners compared with Parents Aspects of Poor Quality ECCE Settings 155 Table 7.3: Practitioners crossed with Parents Most Important Aspects 160 7

8 Table A.1: IEA Management of Time Category Examples 192 Table A.2: IEA Child Activity Category Examples 195 Table A.3: Adult Behaviour Categories and Examples 197 Table A.4: Child Data Gathered 212 Table A.5: IEA MOT (Whole Group) Cross-tabbed with Parents Most Important Aspects Contributing to Quality 244 Table A.6: IEA MOT (Personal and Social) Cross-tabbed with Practitioners Most Important Aspects Contributing to Quality 246 Table A.7: ECERS (Interaction) Cross-tabbed with Practitioners Most Important Aspects Contributing to Quality 248 8

9 LIST of FIGURES Figure 4.1: Counties of Parental Participants 74 Figure 4.2: Parental Setting Types 75 Figure 5.1: Types of Participating Settings 91 Figure 5.2: Overall Average ECERS(R) Score by Type of Setting 92 Figure 5.3: Sample by County 106 Figure 5.4: Setting Type 106 Figure 7.1: Highest Rating IEA Management of Time Categories 162 9

10 LIST of ACRONYMS A.B. A.D.M. B.C.C.N. C.A. C.C.C. C.E.C.D.E. C.S.E.R. C.S.O. D.E.S. D.I.T. D.J.E.L.R. E.C. E.C.C.E. E.C.E.R.S. E.C.E.R.S.(R.) E.O.C.P. G.D.P. H.B. H.S.E. I.C.C. I.E.A. I.E.A./A.B. I.E.A./C.A. I.E.A./M.O.T. I.E.A./P.P.P. Adult Behaviour (IEA Observation Tool) Area Development Management Ltd. Border Counties Childcare Network Child Activities (IEA Observation Tool) County/City Childcare Committee Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education Centre for Social and Educational Research Central Statistics Office Department of Education and Science Dublin Institute of Technology Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform European Commission Early Childhood Care and Education Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale (Revised) Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme Gross Domestic Product Health Board(s) Health Service Executive (International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement) International Co-ordinating Committee International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement Adult Behaviour Tool International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement Child Activities Tool International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement Management of Time Tool International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement Pre-Primary Project 10

11 I.P.P.A. M.O.T. N.C.C.A. N.C.O. N.E.S.F. N.Q.F. N.V.C.C. N.V.C.O. O.E.C.D. U.N. U.N.C.R.C. U.N.E.S.C.O. Irish Pre-school Play Group Association Management of Time (IEA Observation Tool) National Council for Curriculum and Assessment National Children s Office National Economic and Social Forum National Quality Framework National Voluntary Childcare Collaborative National Voluntary Childcare Organisation(s) Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development United Nations United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 11

12 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT ORIGINS In the past number of years, the issue of quality early childhood care and education has progressed considerably, both nationally and internationally. Research and policy have developed rapidly in the area and advocacy for children s right to (as well as the benefits of) high quality early childhood care and education (Vandell and Wolfe, 2000; Whitebrook, Howes and Phillips, 1989) are now widely recognised and accepted. Despite increased attention and commitment to the field of early childhood care and education (ECCE), European developments have far superseded developments within the Irish context. This highlights the need for relevant research to guide Irish policy and practice developments within the field of ECCE. Throughout the 1990s, Ireland experienced landmark economic growth. Between 1994 and 2002, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased by 9 per cent annually, the highest rate of GDP growth of any Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) country at this time (Rabushka, 2000). Despite this strong economic growth and unprecedented increases in labour market participation, workforce shortages were repeatedly highlighted as a threat to the sustainability of the economy. Women, including mothers, were regarded as a core potential group to redress such labour force shortages. However, the lack of affordable quality childcare was simultaneously recognised as a barrier to accessing this supply. In 1996, the Department of An Taoiseach through its Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness recognised the need to address the issue of childcare, both in response to equality rights for women and promoting equal rights in the workplace (Government of Ireland, 1996:30). A predominant result of the partnership agreement was the establishment of the Expert Working Group on Childcare under the auspices of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In 1999, this working group produced the first major policy document relating to early childhood care and education; the National Childcare Strategy. The publication was predominantly concerned with the long-term consequences and benefits of providing good quality childcare i.e. economic and social outcomes. 12

13 Within the same period a National Forum for Early Childhood Education assembled, which consulted a broad range of early childhood care and education stakeholders, including, for example, persons from the teaching and childminding profession, and those concerned with the education and care of birth to six year olds. The consultation process resulted in the publication of the Department of Education and Science s educational paper Ready to Learn: A White Paper on Early Childhood Education (1999). One of the more prominent recommendations of the paper was the establishment of an Early Childhood Education Agency to oversee, advise and guide the early childhood care and education sector. In 2001 the Minister for Education and Science requested the Dublin Institute of Technology and St. Patrick's College, Drumcondra to jointly establish and manage the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (CECDE). In essence, the CECDE was established to achieve the following core functions: 1. To develop a quality framework for early childhood care and education. 2. To develop interventions on a pilot basis targeted at children who are either educationally disadvantaged or have special needs. 3. To actively prepare the foundation for the establishment of an Early Childhood Education Agency as envisaged by The White Paper on Early Childhood Education (CECDE, 2001). More specifically, the central task of CECDE is to develop the quality of early childhood care and education, including both static and dynamic elements, all of which impact on child outcomes. It aims to accomplish this through its National Quality Framework which will offer guidance for all ECCE settings on the necessary requirements to operate quality childcare services. The Centre also aims to promote and facilitate the inclusion of parents in early childhood care and education settings, particularly focusing on the provision of services to educationally disadvantaged children and those with special needs. In order to accomplish its objectives, the Centre has undertaken its own research inhouse, and commissioned external organisations with the appropriate expertise to conduct further research, promoting best practice in relation to all aspects of quality 13

14 childcare provision. In 2004, the CECDE invited tenders for four projects which aimed to address the needs of educationally disadvantaged children or children who have special needs. Under Strand One of the research, an open tender call invited submissions from appropriate agencies and personnel to conduct a research project, entitled In Search of Quality: Multiple Perspectives. The aim of this project was to provide a greater understanding of quality in the Irish context and in particular to access multiple perspectives on the meaning of quality within a variety of early childhood care and education settings in Ireland. In mid-2004, the Centre for Social and Educational Research (CSER) was contracted to conduct the research on behalf of the CECDE. Established in 1997, the CSER is a dynamic and innovative research and development centre committed to improving the quality of life of children, families and society. The Centre works to achieve this through applied research and through the development of a greater understanding of the needs of local communities. The CSER is particularly concerned with the protection of the rights of children within the family and broader social contexts. The project In Search of Quality: Multiple Perspectives was directed by the Director of the Centre, Dr. Nóirín Hayes. Ms. Karen Mahony (Researcher) led the project and acted as primary researcher and author. Research support was provided by Ms. Patricia O Reilly and Ms. Eilish Dolan (CSER Research Assistants). The project team was supported by five social science field researchers to assist with the task of conducting the fieldwork. Those researchers involved in the field work stage of the project were Ms. Eilish Dolan, Ms. Helen Fitzgerald, Ms. Elaine Harris, Ms. Siobhan Keegan and Mr. Finian McNamara. In addition, Ms. Siobhan Bradley and Ms. Siobhan Keegan provided comments and feedback on the various drafts. 1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT The project aimed to primarily focus on the issue of defining and understanding quality in the ECCE sector according to the perspectives, experiences and approaches adopted by all key stakeholders including policy makers, key personnel currently driving quality initiatives at both national and regional levels, early childhood practitioners, parents and children. Research sought to gather data from a variety of 14

15 ECCE settings both sessional and full day care which cater for children from birth to six years. The tender also proposed to include samples of children from both designated disadvantaged and non-designated disadvantaged areas. Where time constraints allowed children with special needs were also proposed to be included. Although the project primarily aimed to gather data on the perceived aspects of quality, it additionally proposed to gather data through structured observational research in participating settings. As outlined by Mooney and Blackburn (2003), there are two approaches to understanding quality one utilises observation scales and external research assessments of effectiveness and the other involves the stakeholders in discussion about the meaning of quality within particular services (Tender in respect of In Search of Quality: Multiple Perspectives ). The project proposed to examine the observable quality through the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scales (Revised Edition) as well as samples of the observation instruments developed and used in the IEA Preprimary Project (IEA/PPP). These instruments intended to assess observable quality within the setting and experienced by the children and the staff. The issue of perceived quality was proposed to be addressed through individual interview and focus groups with the adults in the sample. As the techniques developed for use with adults are not appropriate for children, particularly given the age span involved, it was proposed that children s views be accessed through a variety of techniques which would be piloted before final selection. Techniques proposed included structured conversation, supported conversations and/or the use of line drawings depicting facial expressions (happy, sad, sleepy and cross/angry) as described in Stephen (2003). 1.3 REPORT STRUCTURE The structure of the following report is informed by Bronfenbrenner s Ecological Theory of Human Development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) which states that, human development is not only influenced by a child s immediate environment, but is also dependent on the interactive elements of the larger environment also. That is: The interaction between factors in the child s maturing biology, his immediate family/community environment, and the societal landscape fuels 15

16 and steers his development. Changes or conflict in any one layer will ripple throughout other layers (Paquette et al, 2001:1). Bronfenbrenner refers to the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem and the macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979:514) each of which refer to different structures within the child s own ecology. The first (the microsystem) refers to the immediate environment within which the child develops e.g. the family. The mesosystem then, refers to the next level of ecology; it refers to the connections between a child s microsystems e.g. school, church etc. Bronfenbrenner defines the exosystem as an extension of the mesosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) which incorporates all other social structures. This system does not necessarily contain the developing child, but influences his/her development e.g. the neighbourhood and government agencies. Finally, Bronfenbrenner refers to the macrosystem of human ecology, which he defines as the diffuse socio-cultural practices of the particular society under examination. It includes the belief systems and values of a nation or community, which bear an impact on the developing child. Hence, we can note that all structures within which the child is embedded have a direct influence of the development of that child. The current report structure then, is influenced by the structures/systems which Bronfenbrenner outlines. Chapter Two contextualises the project by providing an overview of the current climate for quality early childhood care and education in Ireland; it also discusses the general climate and discourse underway in the sector in general. Chapter Three provides an outline of the methodological procedures adopted for the project, including a detailed discussion on facilitating the voice of the child. The remaining four chapters were designed under influence of Bronfenbrenner s Ecological Theory of Human Development (1979): chapter four adopts the form of the microsystem i.e. it describes the findings of the study based on the child s immediate system of development, within the context of the family. Chapter Five describes the findings related to the child s mesosystem, the early childhood care and educational setting. The sixth chapter describes the findings relative to the exosystem i.e. the policy-makers, key personnel and government agencies. The final chapter anchors all six preceding chapters by providing a discussion of those chapters and describing the diversity and similarities amongst the different 16

17 stakeholders perceptions. It also provides us an opportunity to assess any distinct similarities between the parents and practitioners perceived concepts of quality against the observable elements present in the settings. 1.4 PROJECT OUTCOMES The research has yielded valid and reliable empirical data on the multiple perspectives of quality held by a variety of key stakeholders in the field of ECCE in the Irish Republic. Those stakeholders range from parties at a national policy level right through to the children attending varied early educational settings in Ireland. In addition the project used a variety of methodologies to gather data and has started the process of pioneering methods for listening directly to very young children. The project has provided a clear view of the perception of quality in Ireland, which will ultimately allow for a more careful consideration of how best to support quality for young children and their families - whilst also allowing different parties to review the way in which others consider quality early education. 17

18 CHAPTER 2: CONTEXTUALISING EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter outlines a contextual description of the historical, economic and social factors within which the stakeholders reside. Such factors have a strong influence on both the stakeholders perceptions and experiences: The social interactions which are the crucible of humanity take place within a larger ecological context of historical, social and economic forces which affect children and families profoundly. The macrosystem consists of the overriding consistencies in beliefs, values and accepted practices within a culture or society. In attempting to frame the experiences which children have, it is useful to reflect on the nature of the macrosystem in which we live (Smith and Taylor, 2000:4). The following chapter provides a comprehensive outline of all major literature relating to quality within the Irish context. A central feature which requires mentioning before the report progresses is that Ireland is unique in its contextualisation. Ireland is an island on the periphery of the European continent. Situated between the United States and the United Kingdom, it has been strongly influenced by both, particularly in the development of childcare and early education policies and debate (Hayes, 2005). While the emergence of both legislation and policy in recent years has increased that debate, research in the area of early childhood care and education, and in particular research pertaining to quality, has not been as emergent (Walsh, 2003). This study on multiple perspectives aims to facilitate the voice of all those involved in ECCE to gain access to a broad variety of views on quality ECCE, including the views of young children themselves and is particularly unique in the national context. 2.2 CONTEXTUALISATION The Irish Policy Context of Quality Early Childhood Provisions The past decade and a half witnessed a period of intense focus on policy relating to ECCE in Ireland. The extent to which this is a recognition that children learn from an 18

19 early age has been reflected in the increasing developments in national policy. Often referred to as childcare and following the lead of the White Paper in Early Childhood Education - Ready to Learn, early childhood care and education is taken to refer to the wide variety of learning environments where children from birth to six years grow and develop including home-based and centre-based early educational provision 1 up to and including the infant classes of the primary school. A central and unique feature of early education, and one which sets it apart from other stages in education, is the interlinked educational role of care and caring role of education (Hayes, 2002). It should be noted that responsibility for ECCE is not integrated under one single government department; a number of departments have distinct responsibilities for early childhood care and education within the Irish state, including the Department of Education and Science who have a particular responsibility for children aged 4 years and over (although, as outlined earlier the majority of children attend primary school from age 4 years), the Department of Health and Children with particular responsibility for the health and safety of preschool settings (Department of Health and Children, 1996:Part VII) and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which under the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme (EOCP) is funding the expansion of childcare places. The following section provides a detailed description of the main policy developments within Ireland in the past number of years. However, it is important to note that up until the mid-1990s the number of policy documents specifically relating to the quality of early childhood care and education were very scarce, therefore many voluntary groups adopted the role of developing and administering quality childcare initiatives within the Irish Republic. In order that this report acknowledges the important role which such programmes played in the ECCE sector over the past number of years, a detailed table has been included in Appendix 1, which outlines and describes the core initiatives managed by the voluntary sector. 1 Early Childhood Care and Education within the Irish context includes all care and education services provided to children aged birth to six years of age. Such services include infant classes in primary schools, Sessional and Full day care (including playgroups/playschools, crèches, Montessori groups, day nurseries and naíonraí (Irish language playgroups), Childminders (providing a childminding service for children in the childminder s own home) and Drop-in centres (shopping centres and hospitals). While childcare also extends to include the after school care of children up to fourteen years of age (DJELR, 1999). 19

20 An audit carried out in 2003 (Walsh, 2003) discovered that, in contrast to international research, there was a considerable dearth of Irish research relating to quality early childhood care and education. This began to change in the early 1990s when the economic boom and the associated increase in female labour market participation led to the development of policies and legislation relating to early childhood care and education with a consequent interest in research. The primary piece of legislation relating to ECCE in Ireland was the Child Care Act, 1991 which provided, for the first time, for the regulation and inspection of early childhood care and education settings (excluding national primary schools) in the Irish context. Section 51 of this legislation stipulates that all early childhood care and education settings are required to inform the local Health Board 2 of the provision of such a service. Such regulation states that local health boards/health service executives inspect the health and safety standards of such settings in order to ensure the health, safety and welfare and promoting the development of pre-school children attending pre-school services (Department of Health, 1991: Section 50, No. 1). A major criticism of the legislation (DJELR, 1999) relates to Part VII, Section 58 which outlines that the following services are excluded from the legislation: (i) relatives or spouses of relatives providing care to one or more pre-school children in their home, (ii) a person taking care of one or more pre-school children of the same family (other than that person's own such children) in that person's own home, or (iii) a person taking care of not more than 3 pre-school children of different families (other than that person's own such children) in that person's home. The exclusion of such childminding services results in regulations which are not fully comprehensive of early childhood care and education settings in Ireland. The exclusion is particularly important in the Irish context, as there is a high reliance on childminding services nationally. According to the Quarterly National Household Survey (2002), 42.5% (73,000) of families with preschool-aged children are availing of childcare services outside the family home and 25.3% (67,500) of all families use non-parental childcare services in respect of their school-going children 3. Of the 2 The former Regional Health Boards are currently known as the Health Service Executive. 3 As discussed earlier the statutory school-going age of children in Ireland is six years, however the majority of families avail of primary school infant classes for children aged between four - six years. 20

21 families with preschool children availing of non-parental childcare services 51,000 utilise some form of childminding service 4. Although inclusive of all primary schoolgoing children (and not strictly under six years), 58,7000 Irish families with schoolgoing children utilise some form of childminding service (paid/unpaid, relative/nonrelative) (Central Statistics Office, 2003:1-2). In 1996, the Child Care (Pre-School Services) Regulations (and amendments, 1997) outlined the specific regulations relating to health, safety and welfare needs of birth to six year old children attending early childhood care and education settings. The 1996 regulations govern the provision of such aspects as adult/child ratios, structural elements of the setting, ventilation, nutrition, provisions for sleeping and specifications relating to space. Three major contributing factors to the quality of a setting include staff qualifications and training (Bowman et al., 2000; Burchinal, Howes and Kontos, 2002; EC Childcare Network, 1996; Epstein, 1999; Evans, 1997; Laevers, 2003; Oberheumer and Ulich, 1997; Olmstead and Montie, 2001), programme curriculum (UNESCO, 2004) and child development outcomes (Laevers, 2003; Malaguzzi, 1993; Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, Taggart, 2004; Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Iram, Taggart, and Elliot, 2003). All three aspects are excluded from both the Child Care Act, 1991 and the Child Care (Pre-School Services) Regulations, In response to the limitations of the 1996 regulations the Western Health Board launched A Guide to Quality Practice in Preschool Services (2000), which focused on both the dynamic and static aspects of quality, as well as child outcomes. The publication guides the implementation of all aspects of quality in early childhood care and education settings. This marked the beginning of a number of policy and procedure documents addressing the wider issue of quality in ECCE settings (Border Counties Childcare Network Limited, 2000; French, 2003). Therefore, the figures for preschool children refer to birth to three year olds, and school-going children refer to four to six year olds. 4 23,000 families with preschool children utilise unpaid relative care, 8,000 utilise paid relative care and 20,000 utilise paid non-relative childminding services. 21

22 In 1992 Ireland ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which paved the way for a more focused policy response to the rights and needs of children. Article 18.2 of that Convention states that: State Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children (United Nations, 1989). Ratification has placed a responsibility on governments to support the development of early educational services towards making them available to all children and families who require it. Internationally the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has had a profound influence on policy-making and reform in relation to children, including to the area of early childhood education and care. In 1996 the EC Childcare Network published a ten-year programme of targets for enhancing the quality of early year s services. Titled Quality Targets in Services for Young Children it states, as a central element of the targets, that a quality early childhood care and education programme can best be achieved if settings are supported within a national framework. In 1999 the publication of the National Childcare Strategy (Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform) and Ready to Learn: White Paper on Early Childhood Education (Department of Education and Science, 1999) led the way towards developing such a framework. It is important to note that although the White Paper on Early Childhood Education is particularly concerned with education (but recognising the important link between education and care, particularly for very young children) (Department of Education and Science, 1999:3), both it and the Childcare Strategy make recommendations for the development of services for children under the age of six years. The Childcare Strategy, in particular, made reference to the importance of good quality childcare and its contribution to the enhancement of children s development as well as the importance of positive adult/child interactions 5. It also made reference to the complexities associated with defining quality and the numerous perspectives which need to be consulted in order to provide an all-inclusive definition of quality. Hence, 5 Particularly interesting is the reference to the interactive environment of childcare settings. Previous documents were primarily concerned with the structural/static elements of early childhood care and education settings with little or no emphasis placed on the dynamic elements. 22

23 as noted by Hayes (2002) the sector was presented with two policies for the one sector i.e. early childhood care and education for birth to six year olds, which combined with the complex network of government departments with responsibility in the sector, increased the level of perplexity. The White paper recommended, among other things, the establishment of an Early Childhood Education Agency.. To this end the Department of Education and Science has funded the Dublin Institute of Technology and St. Patrick's College of Education to establish and develop the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (CECDE) in 2002, which has the responsibility for developing a National Quality Framework for the early childhood care and education sector. The White Paper also recommended the development of appropriate curriculum guidelines for the sector for which the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment have responsibility. Furthermore, it called for a national outline of suitable qualifications and training for staff, along with an appropriate method of inspection to be introduced. Also in 1999, the Revised Primary School Curriculum was launched, which includes direct reference to early education and provides a specified infant curriculum for children aged four to eight years. In 2000, the publication of the National Children s Strategy: Our Children Their Lives (Department of Health and Children) provided a wider national strategic context for working both for and with children. It is guided by the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child aspiring to enhance the status and further improve the quality of life of Ireland s children (Department of Health and Children, 2000:6). While not specific to early childhood it does recognise the central importance of the early years and the need to develop and enhance early care and educational services, particularly for children who may be disadvantaged or have special needs (Department of Health and Children, 2000:51). As a follow-on to the strategy, the National Children s Office (NCO) was established in Its main responsibility was to implement the aims of the National Children s Strategy and hence improve the lives of children in the Irish Republic. The first key publication of the NCO was its national play policy Ready Steady, Play A National Play Policy (NCO, 2004) which outlines the need for the development of play facilities and resources for children. The document also focuses on the issue of quality within childcare settings (including primary schools) in Ireland (whilst also addressing the difficulties associated with 23

24 improving the play facilities of childminding settings), and the need to develop resources within such centres. More recent developments in relation to early childhood care and education include the publication of Quality Childcare and Lifelong Learning: Model Framework for Education, Training and Professional Development for the Early Childhood Care and Education Sector (Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 2002) which presents guidance on the professional development of people working in early childhood care and education, and the OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Care and Education in Ireland (Department of Education and Science, 2004) which makes recommendations in relation to early care and education in Ireland. The thematic review recommendations include the integration of all early education and care policy under one ministry, the establishment of a National Quality Framework including accreditation for voluntary organisations reaching the quality standard, a reassessment of training for early childhood services, and the re-structuring of the current infant schooling as an entity with separate funding and management. The launch of Towards a Framework for Early Learning (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2004) outlines the importance of the development of a national curriculum framework for the early year s sector. More recently the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment launched its Final Consultation Report (NCCA, 2005) which identified supplementary issues for consideration in the development of the curriculum framework. It outlined the importance of supporting both practitioners and parents in their roles in early education and the importance of relationships and the environment in children s development and early learning (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, 2005:31-59). As mentioned earlier, the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education under the auspices of the Department of Education and Science was assigned the responsibility of developing a national quality framework for the early childhood care and education sector 6. Finally, in an effort to bring together recommendations from the growing number of policy documents, the National Economic and Social Forum (NESF) 6 The Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education and the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment have mutual areas of interest in respect of the development of a National Quality Framework by the CECDE and a Framework for Learning by the NCCA. Therefore a close working relationship has been developed between the two. 24

25 established a project team to consider early childhood education. Their report was published in September 2005 and recommended (i) the coordination of policy at national and local levels, (ii) the development of a programme containing specific goals and realistic timelines, and (iii) open budget lines with committed resources that are provided on a multi-annual basis, which they suggested should be implemented over a ten-year period (NESF, 2005:86). The type of early childhood care and education which a child experiences is very much determined by families choice or indeed by that to which they have access to. ECCE can vary from home-care to external settings, which themselves vary in the type of service they provide. The service-type is inextricably linked to the particular aims and objectives of the setting, the duration of the stay (sessional/full-day care), the developmental stage of the child, as well as the skills and education of the setting s staff members. Although the majority of 4-6 year old children in Ireland attend state-funded primary schools, the statutory school-going age in Ireland is six years of age (Department of Education and Science, 1999(a):Section 2(1)). The determinants of choice for parents, particularly in Ireland, are clearly linked to factors such as geographical location and financial means. Because pre-school education is not a statutory provision within this state for all children below the school-going age 7, it is something which parents themselves must provide for Defining Quality The importance of quality in terms of early education services is acknowledged and well documented, however, no single definition of what constitutes quality in early educational provision exists. The concept of a universally accepted standard of quality has been rejected in favour of a more relativist, values based approach which recognises that quality changes over time and contexts: quality in early childhood services is a constructed concept, subjective in nature and based on values, beliefs and interests, rather than on objective and universal reality (Moss, 1994:4). Moss and Pence (1994) suggest that it is more accurate to speak about quality perspectives than a universal standard of quality. 7 Apart from programmes such as Early Start and other early education interventions in designated disadvantaged areas and for special needs groups such as Travellers. 25

26 There has been extensive debate within the early childhood care and education sector regarding what constitutes quality. Historically the trend has predominantly afforded prominence to a narrower range of experts who control the process of definition and evaluation on the basis of technical expertise: the power of different stakeholders often determines the influence they have in the process: power can come from various sources, including economic resources, political or administrative position and professional status and expertise. Some stakeholders may be totally excluded, or if included, they may have little influence (Moss, 1994:4). It is the consumers of any service who are experiencing the service directly on an introspective and personal level that ultimately have the power to present such experiences in a truly subjective manner. To attempt to truly understand quality within any particular geographical context, multiple perspectives should be accessed. The concept of quality has generated great debate amongst academics and professionals alike. People differ in their definition of what constitutes quality, and have different expectations in relation to early education. However, Irish research data is quite sparse in relation to both quality itself (Walsh, 2003) and perceptions of quality amongst different groups of Irish people in particular (CECDE, 2004). Furthermore, even internationally, only a small body of research has been completed which facilitates the voice of the child as valued stakeholders in determining quality in the provision of early childhood care and education (Clarke, McQuail and Moss, 2003; Hennessy, 2001; Mooney and Blackburn, 2003; Stephen, 2003). The inclusion and empowerment of children in defining and evaluating quality assists in balancing power relations amongst all stakeholders in the process of defining quality early education, whilst also providing a subjective, experienced outlook of early education settings: the actual or true predictor of a program s effects is the quality of life experienced by each participating child on a day to day basis (Katz, 1993:5). Perceptions of what constitutes quality in ECCE can vary immensely, and will depend greatly on the cultural values of a particular society, as well as the purpose of a 26

27 particular early education setting. For example, what constitutes a high quality service will differ in a society which views childhood as a time in and of itself, compared with a society which views childhood as a process of becoming; involving the preparation of the child for his/her future role in society. Also, the functions of a particular early education setting will determine perceptions of quality, for instance settings which promote the development of children versus settings which meet the needs of parents for affordable care. Therefore, the concept of quality needs to be contextualised spatially and temporally to recognise cultural and other forms of diversity. In 1990, Farqhuar identified that multiple perspectives exist in relation to quality early education, and that although such perspectives may overlap somewhat, they can exert significantly different emphases. Such perspectives can include: (i) The child development perspective, which includes the perspectives of all those involved in the development of children, including researchers and evaluators; (ii) The government or regulatory perspective, which directs national standards for early educational services and monitors compliance to such; (iii) The social services perspective, including the perspectives of all those concerned with providing adequate early education for the needs of disadvantaged populations; (iv) The parental perspective, which can vary in its needs e.g. fitting-in with family commitments, meeting family culture and morals, concerns about child development and preparation for school; (v) Child perspective, which defines children s day-to-day experiences of early education (the child s perspective is often ignored in the quality debate); (vi) The social policy perspective, which is primarily concerned with measurable returns to the state; (vii) The staff perspectives, which often relates to satisfactory working conditions and relationships amongst staff, children and parents; (viii) And finally the cultural perspective, which defines quality in terms of social norms and the values, customs and beliefs of the particular community being examined (Farqhuar, 1990; Katz, 1992). 27

28 At the staffing level also what is perceived as quality early education can vary depending on the professional background of the practitioner and the setting in question (Hayes, O Flaherty and Kernan, 1997). Unfortunately, because of the diverse nature of its stakeholders the diversity of perspectives can often lead to conflict and disagreement amongst and between them. Within an ideal democratic context all stakeholders would exercise their power relative to the size of their stake. Often direct democracy i.e. those forms of government in which all full adult members 8 of a society or organisation make up the policy-making body (Jary and Jary, 1999:154) is not a realistic option. Therefore, democratic societies tend to rely on referenda and consultative fora to consult with its citizens. Jary & Jary (1999) argue that referenda can lead to misrepresented accounts because the content of such consultative mechanisms is determined by the organising committee/government. In a less perfect world however the reality is that those stakeholders with the economic, political and administrative power as well as those with the professional expertise represent the perspectives of the mass population and therefore are assigned, or hold the greatest level of power (Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence, 1999; Moss, 1994). History accords us the details pertaining to the limitations and restrictions placed on particular citizens in relation to democratic rights. In the past women contested such limitations and pursued their ultimate goal of full citizenship and inclusion in democratic society. In review, perhaps we are witnessing a return to such conflicts of limitations and incomplete citizenship, particularly in relation to the younger members of our societies. Power dynamics are not solely evident between different stakeholders; as researchers of childhood we must be aware that power struggles also exist between persons within the same group of stakeholders. Veale (2005:253) outlined the concept of a multiplicity of childhoods which maintains that socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity and popularity differentials exist between children as it does between adults. Therefore it is equally important that our project ensured that minority children were representative of the population being examined. 8 Even direct democracies do not allow for the voice of the child. 28

29 The inclusion/participation of children and young people as citizens of society is very much determined by the society within which they live and the level of support they receive in relation to the development of democracy (Smith, Taylor & Gollop, 2000). As outlined by Langsted (1994): while structures and procedures are needed for ensuring children's involvement they depend on a cultural climate which values children's opinions. Ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) by the Irish Government in 1992 has paved the way for considering children s rights in the Irish policy context. The prelude to the Convention states that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity (United Nations, 1989) which provides that children must be granted civic, political, social and economic rights. In the Irish context, the National Children s Strategy was launched in 2000 by the Department of Health and Children in response to the UNCRC, which is primarily concerned with the voice of the child and understanding children and childhood. It is important to note that although the UNCRC is the basis for the Strategy document and it aspires to make children and young people aware of their rights, it is ultimately a needs led document and not a rights based one: The National Children s Strategy is the means to work together to ensure that every child is afforded the respect and the quality of life needed 9 to develop and sustain within them a spirit of optimism, pride and confidence (Department of Health and Children, 2000:8). In 1998 the Education Act recommended the establishment of School Councils in second-level schools. Such councils aim to promote the interests of the school and the involvement of students in the affairs of the school, in co-operation with the board, parents and teachers (Department of Education and Science, 1998:Sect.27 (4)). Notwithstanding this, the Act in itself contributes to the development of limitations because only post-primary schools have been accorded such rights. Children of a 9 Emphasis placed on the word needed 29

30 younger age, primary level children have not been granted the right to establish such nascent democratic forums. However, as argued by Morrow and Richards (1990) children s age should not (and must not) determine their level of inclusion. Smith and Taylor add that Assessments need to be made on the basis of age, maturity and understanding of the particular child, rather than on generalised assumptions concerning cohorts of children (Smith and Taylor, 2000:14). The primary goal of the National Children s Strategy was that all children will have a voice in matters which affect them and their views will be given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity (Department of Health and Children, 2000:30). Such an aim follows from Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that: State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express their views freely, in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. In 2000 the National Children s Office (NCO) was established under the auspices of the Department of Health and Children to oversee the implementation of such a strategy. It is concerned with implementing the three goals of the strategy, notably: (i) that children will have a voice in matters which affect them, (ii) that children s lives will be better understood, through evaluation, research and information on their needs, rights and the effectiveness of services, (iii) that children will receive good quality supports and services to promote their holistic development. However, the NCO s primarily role is the implementation of goal one, and supporting the participation of children and young people in decision making. In 2001 the first Dáil na nóg (Young People s Parliament) was established. This forum provided a national platform for children and young people aged seven to 18 years the opportunity to discuss and deliberate issues of concern to them at a national level. In 2002 the then Minister for Children directed each City and County Development Board to establish a regional Comhairle na nóg (Young People s Councils) through which children and young people were to be democratically elected by their peers for the subsequent Dáil na nóg (2002). Previous to the establishment of the regional 30

31 Comhairle na nóg there were no set procedures for the democratic selection of Dáil na nóg delegates. The following year (2003) witnessed the formation of the initial Dáil na bpáisti (Children s Parliament), which provided a medium for children aged seven to twelve years the opportunity to discuss more relevant topics to their chronological age group. In 2002, the Ombudsman for Children Act was passed. This followed the ratification of the UNCRC. The proposed aim of the Office was the promotion of children s rights, the investigation of complaints, as well as researching the adequacy of service provision for children and young people in Ireland. In 2003 the position of Ombudsman for Children was advertised. Fifteen children and young people were autonomously elected through regional Comhairle na nóg to participate in the process of selecting Ireland s Ombudsman for Children. The first Ombudsman for Children took up office in March We can deduce from recent activity, legislation and policy that the atmosphere is ripe within Irish society for the integration of children s perspectives on quality early education. The inclusion and empowerment of children in defining and evaluating quality assists in balancing power relations amongst all stakeholders in the process of defining quality early education whilst also providing an experiential outlook of early education settings. The development of a framework which considers the diverse perspectives of all stakeholders is a challenge, but one which must be considered. The National Quality Framework being developed by the CECDE must consider all those perspectives, whilst striking a balance of the common objectives of those perspectives Determinants of Quality The quality of early education settings varies enormously in Ireland reflecting the ad hoc nature of developments in this sector. It is determined by a combination of static and dynamic elements, quantifiable and less-quantifiable factors. The static, more easily quantifiable elements include the physical and structural characteristics of a setting: the building itself and the surroundings; the equipment available for use to the staff and the children; the safety of those surroundings and that equipment; and the other quantifiable elements such as the number of children enrolled in the setting, the 31

32 child-staff ratios, and the education and training of the staff members. These factors are easily regulated and monitored, making continuous evaluation of settings in relation to such elements reasonably straightforward. However, although contributing to the status of a high quality early education setting, these static aspects are neither sufficient nor the most significant determinants of quality. On the contrary, it is the process variables of any setting and their interaction with and influence on the static variables which primarily determine its quality and reflect the day-to-day occurrences within a setting (Howes and Smith, 1995; Kontos and Keyes, 1999). Such elements are far more difficult to define and measure, and include the style of practice; the day-to-day experiences of the children; the pedagogical approach of the staff; the approach to management; communication styles and relationships (Hayes, 2004:59). That is, the dynamic relationships within a setting; how the children interact with one another and with the adults, but also how the adults interact with the children and one another. Such elements are not easily measurable using traditional quantifiable methods, and therefore appropriate observable methods must be developed in order to provide a greater breadth of data from which to evaluate quality. The aforementioned regulations devised by the Department of Health and Children (1996) (currently under review) allow for assessment of settings primarily in relation to the static elements outlined above. However, the absence of quality guidelines, supports and regulations governing both the static and the process variables of early education and care will contribute to the continued variance of quality nationally. The most significant outcomes of ECCE settings can be measured through the impact on overall child development, the family and the local community. Therefore, to strive for such an outcome the setting must establish the best means of achieving it, notably, a balanced curriculum (UNESCO, 2004), the recruitment of suitably qualified staff (Laevers, 2003), the provision of in-service training (Epstein, 1999) and healthy dynamics (Malaguzzi, 1993) between all involved in the delivery of ECCE. It is essential that staff working in the field of ECCE have some level of training and education in child development (Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 2002), and that training opportunities are provided at pre-service and in-career level: 32

33 High-quality early childhood services depend, in part, on well-trained personnel using coherent and developmentally based educational approaches (Epstein, 1999:102). The level of training held by early childhood practitioners greatly determines both the outcomes for young children (Laevers, 2003; Malaguzzi, 1993; Sylva et al., 2004; Sylva et al., 2003) and the standard of quality of a setting (Bowman et al., 2000; EC Childcare Network, 1996; Oberheumer and Ulich, 1997). Research proposes that good quality early educational settings allow children to explore independently, whilst also allowing adult assistance when required. This method of learning allows children to draw on their existing skills, whilst also enabling them to expand their skills and explore new and more complex tasks Benefits of Quality Provision It has been internationally documented (Field, 1991; Kelleghan, 1977; O Flaherty, 1995; Schweinhart, 2004) that the benefits of providing comprehensive and quality early education are twofold, providing both short- and long-term benefits for the target groups. Attendance of young children at high quality early childhood care and education settings can result in temporary and immediate consequences for the child s learning and overall wellbeing, but also lasting and enduring consequences for the child s future. In relation to full-time day-care, research has documented immediate-term findings in relation to children including high self-esteem; emotional stability; higher degrees of social development (positive correlation between day-care attendance and the number of friendships a child develops); low rates of depression; children engaged in more extra-curricular activities; greater assertiveness; and greater leadership abilities (Field, 1991). Field (1991) in her research on the outcomes for children attending quality early education ascribes the development of social proficiency and confidence of children with their peers to the fact that the children have more experience with their peers at an early age, compared to their non-day-care-attending peers. Others, including Sylva et al. (2002) and Leseman (2002), also indicate that children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds can greatly benefit from attending even half-day, structured settings. They suggest that benefits include cognitive and language development, as well as socio-emotional maturity. 33

34 In a separate study, Field (1991) found that there were also (although still immediateterm in nature) longer-term benefits to children attending quality ECCE settings. The study found that children (average age 11.5 years) who had attended full-time stable infant care were characterised by their teachers as being more assertive than their peers, displaying higher rates of emotional well-being, acquiring higher grades in maths and being assigned to a programme for gifted children. While there has been only limited research into the longitudinal impact of early education in the Irish context, Kelleghan and Greaney (1993) reported on a follow-up study of children who had attended the Rutland Street project. Evidence emerged of a connection between child attendance and gains in IQ and academic attainment for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The authors also identified developed reasoning and problem-solving skills amongst such children compared to those who had not attended the Rutland project. Much research points to the value of a more socially based provision of early education, which contributes to a child s disposition to learn, to develop a sense of self-worth and indeed to their general overall development (Laevers, 2003; Marcon, 2002 and 1999). The impact of such developments has also been proven to impact on academic/school performance (Sylva et al., 2004; Sylva et al., 2003). In 2004, the most recent findings from a longitudinal study confirmed the lasting nature of positive impact. The study followed a sample of children who attended a High/Scope Perry Pre-School, and a control sample who did not attend such a programme. The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study (Schweinhart, 2004) found that the majority of participants in its study (now average age forty) displayed positive social and emotional development, increased economic performance and reduced perpetration of crime, when compared with their peers who had not attended a similar quality early education setting. Some interesting findings relating to the sample at age 40 years include the following: 1. 65% of programme group attendants graduated from high school, with only 45% of non-programme group attendants graduating % of female programme attendants graduated from high school, whereas only 32% of non-programme female attendants graduated. 34

35 3. At age 40, 70% of the programme males were employed, whereas only 50% of the non-programme males were employed % of the programme females were employed, with just 55% of the nonprogramme counterparts in employment. 5. Annual earnings were also higher for the programme group than it was for the non-programme group ($20,800 vs. $15,300). 6. Of those who reported time spent in prison by the age of 40 years, participants from the programme group had spent fewer months in prison for committing felonies (7% of programme attendants vs. 25% of non-programme attendants). 7. Less programme attendants than non-programme males reported using sedatives, sleeping pills, or tranquilizers (17% vs. 64%), marijuana or hashish (48% vs. 71%) or heroin (0% vs. 9%). Other studies, including research carried out by a team led by Laevers (2003) indicate that high quality ECCE settings conducted through suitably trained practitioners can have permanent learning achievements for children throughout life. The benefits of providing quality ECCE have not alone immediate-term and medium-term effects, but indeed durable and long-lasting effects on children who are fortunate enough to access such settings. The Highscope Perry Preschool Study is just one of a number of longitudinal studies reporting such findings. Other longitudinal studies with similar findings include the US Head Start Programme (Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997) and the Carolina Abecedarian Project (Ramey and Campbell, 1991). A central feature of all studies has been that robust impacts (whether short or long term in nature) dependant on the quality of the ECCE setting. Findings such as those outlined above can illustrate the benefits of providing and supporting quality ECCE settings nationally Researching Children There has been extensive debate in the ECCE sector regarding what constitutes quality, however, the voices of parents and children have been less evident than those of researchers and early childhood care and education experts and policy-makers. As outlined earlier, this is attributable to the presence of power dynamics present in the sector which presents opportunity to the experts controlling the process of definition and evaluation on the basis of technical expertise (Dahlberg, Moss, and 35

36 Pence, 1999; Moss, 1994). Ratification of the UNCRC (1992) and the launch of the National Children s Strategy (2000) initiated a new era in Irish child policy. The National Children s Strategy states that children and young people should be given a voice in matters which affect them and views will be given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity (Department of Health and Children, 2000:30). In light of this it is interesting to note that only a small body of research has been completed which facilitates the voice of children, particularly as valued stakeholders in determining quality in the provision of early childhood care and education (Clarke, McQuail and Moss, 2003; Mooney and Blackburn, 2003; Stephen, 2003) with virtually none in Ireland (Hennessy, 2001). The inclusion and empowerment of children in defining and evaluating quality assists in balancing power relations amongst all stakeholders in the process of defining quality early education whilst also providing a subjective, experienced outlook of early education settings. Irish society is progressively placing emphasis on the need to consult and engage with a wider representation of the population, including those persons aged under eighteen years. The inclusion of children s voices in decision-making and the on-going provision of explanations and feedback to children by society recognises the importance of children s rights within society. However, different cultures place different levels of influence on children s abilities which determines the level of child participation and the child s development of such skills (Smith and Taylor, 2000:4). Adults have a responsibility to identify and encourage the development of such skills so that children may become informed and conscientious citizens. Facilitating children with a voice can exist at many levels. Hart (1992:) outlined levels of child participation ranging from manipulation and the use of children s ideas without feedback, right through to child initiated and shared decisions with adults when children initiate strategies and solutions/ideas for improving their life experiences and share the continuation with assistance from adults. The initial step to ensuring children are afforded their right to participation begins with society and a change in the macrosystem ideals and values to which they belong (Hayes, 2002; Smith and Taylor, 2000). The commitment to children through ratifying the UNCRC places an obligation on society to treat children as equal citizens within society with 36

37 equal rights, commensurate with their age and maturity. Adults have a responsibility to engage with children on matters affecting them and should not ignore or dismiss children s perspectives. If children are not provided with the opportunity to express their opinions and have those opinions considered, then children should be provided with reasonable explanations for such a decision. Too often the clause (that consideration of their views is subject to their age and level of maturity), permits adults to suppress, devalue or attribute little or no weight to the child s perspective (Hayes, 2002; Smith and Taylor, 2000). Nor is it sufficient to research children as entities within a family, or simply as units of analysis, and so deny[ing] the existence of real differences between individuals within families (Oakley, 1994:18). Children should be studied as independent social actors rather than as lesser adults progressing towards adulthood through the process of socialisation in families and schools (Smith and Taylor, 2000:2). The Irish Constitution (Bunreacht na héireann, 1937:Articles 40-44) outlines that parents have primary responsibility for children which has been interpreted widely to mean that children are considered entities within and of the family rather than distinct beings with individual rights (Ombudsman for Children & Shannon, 2005; South Eastern Health Board, 1993) The assurance of children s successful participation in society can only be facilitated through the development of civic and life skills. Development of such skills depends on the following: (i) The provision of adequate information to children based on their level of maturity, rather than their chronological age (ii) The provision of opportunities to explore options (iii) Actively and respectfully listening and considering children s views as well as explaining how their views will be considered (iv) Following up with any resulting outcomes with divergent outcomes explained and rationalised (v) And finally the provision of sincere avenues of complaint (Lansdown, 1994:38-39). The development of analytical skills cannot be taught to children via adults, they can only be developed through children s participation in civic activities (Department of Health and Children, 2000:31). Where opportunities to participate are given, even to 37

38 very young children, a rich, alternative view of the environment can emerge (Carr, 2000). Although research exists which disputes the extent to which provision of quality childcare contributes to the positive development of children aged birth to six years (Deater-Deckard, Pinkerton and Scarr, 1996; Scarr and Eisenberg, 1993), a greater amount contradicts such findings. The acknowledgement of emotional and biological development processes for children between birth and six years attending good quality early childhood care and education settings in research 10 (Field, 1991; Neaum and Tallack, 2002; Shore, 1997) contributes to the importance placed on early facilitation of the voice of the child. The encouragement of participation and empowerment of children develops an atmosphere of trust amongst children and adults whilst also encouraging active enquiry, as well as communication and negotiation skills. Such skills actively contribute to the overall development of an independent child with high self-esteem contributing, in time, to positive civil participation (Harte, 2004:206). The participation of children in both research and early childhood care and education assessment procedures is a unique starting point for children attending early childhood care and education settings. Such processes need to be followed through with the active participation of children in civil activities e.g. children s parliaments and other policy development projects to ensure children are afforded their right to active citizenship. 2.3 CONCLUSION In conclusion we can note that the subject of quality is becoming quite a topical subject in Ireland presently. This is not solely the result of recent national policy developments, but also through international influence where definitions of quality are temporal, evolving in response to changes in society (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence, 1999; Moss, 1994; Urban, 2004). It is not acceptable to provide a universal definition for all, but rather subjective definitions based on stakeholders values, beliefs and interests must be sought (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence, 1999; Horgan and Douglas, 2001; Moss and Pence, 1994). As discussed, the provision 10 Equally, poor quality settings have been found to have negative effects on children (Sims, Guilfoyle and Parry, 2005; Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 1999; Stipek et al, 1995; Sylva and Wiltshire, 1993; Belsky, 1986). 38

39 of early childhood care and education generates various benefits and outcomes for children, both immediate-term and long-term in nature. The inclusion of children in considering quality ECCE by facilitating them with a voice in defining quality within their own personal contexts is a challenge. 39

40 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES 3.1 INTRODUCTION Despite increased debate and a resultant increase in the number of policies and initiatives over the past number of years in relation to early childhood care and education, there exists a relative dearth of research in the area. This study aims to contribute to the research base by investigating multiple perspectives on quality an area of ECCE which is attracting much international attention (Clarke, McQuail & Moss, 2003; Helburn, 1995; Mooney & Blackburn, 2003; Moss, 1994; Stephen, 2003). Gathering the views of a range of stakeholders provides an explicit and comprehensive outline of the weight which different stakeholders place on different aspects of quality. Such an approach assists in defining quality appropriate to the climate under which it is being examined, which will assist policy makers, practitioners and regulators in the provision of responsive and appropriate early childhood care and education services. This chapter sets out a variety of methodologies considered by the research team. It outlines the methodologies drawn upon including both the sampling procedures utilised within the project and the instruments used for the collection of raw data. 3.2 SAMPLING PROCEDURES This research gathered data from all key stakeholders within the ECCE sector. It also gathered data directly from a variety of settings within the Irish context including both sessional and full-day services providing a service to children aged birth to six years of age. The types of settings visited included primary school infant classes, Early Start preschool classes, Naíonraí (Irish language preschools), childminding settings, crèches, Montessori schools, sessional/preschools, full day care, afterschool settings and playschools/ playgroups. The sample also included settings from both designated disadvantaged and non-designated disadvantaged areas as well as settings catering for children with additional needs. Although not proportionate to the population, traveller children, foreign nationals and other ethnic minorities were also included in the sample. 40

41 As well as including the perspectives of those at the experiential level the project, the sample also included input from policy makers and key personnel currently driving quality initiatives at national level, as well as those professionals working in a supportive capacity to early childhood care and education settings. Representatives from the Department of Education and Science, Department of Health and Children, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, as well as from the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), also participated in the study. Delegates from services such as the Department of Health and Children s preschool inspectorate, the Department of Education and Science inspectorate, the County Childcare Committees, representatives of the National Voluntary Organisations, ECCE Professional Educators and PhD students were also included in the sample 11. In order to gain access to the views of practitioners, parents and children on their perceived understanding of quality, the research team modified and utilised a sampling method developed in 2003 by Christine Stephen entitled the nested design. This design identifies a number of settings and gathers data from stakeholders within those settings to yield a rich source of raw data (the nested design is quite similar to the design used in the IEA/PPP (Hayes, O Flaherty & Kernan, 1997). Initially the research team chose four provincial counties within the Border Midlands Region and four within the South and East Region to ensure the geographical spread provided a diverse mix of urban and rural regions within the Irish context, whilst also providing an even representation of the country as a whole. The successful completion of the pilot phase of the project and the richness of the data collected within the Dublin area permitted the inclusion of a fifth county within the South and East Region of the Republic. A sample of various settings was accessed through the County Childcare Committees, who each provided a database of early childhood care and education settings within the designated counties outlined in table 3.1. Each participating setting was asked to provide the research team with access to only one practitioner and two families (ideally both parents and one child aged birth to six years). Those settings providing a service to children with special needs, from minority ethnic 11 A more detailed count of the representatives and stakeholders who participated in the study is contained in the relevant findings chapters. 41

42 groups e.g. Traveller preschools, and children accessing playgroups in hospital settings were only asked to provide access to one participating family. Table 3.1: Designated Research Counties South and East Region Border Midlands Region Clare Limerick Carlow Dublin Meath Donegal Leitrim Roscommon Galway All early childhood care and education settings on the database were initially contacted by telephone and an outline of the project was provided. A follow-up letter was then distributed which contained a letter of explanation for the management and practitioners of the setting and a participation form to be returned by those settings interested in participating. Upon receipt of the participation forms each setting was sent a pack which included a letter of explanation for parents and a consent form for those parents who chose to participate in the project. There are two limitations of this method of sampling (i) a possible bias towards selection of high quality ECCE settings by the County Childcare Committees which might result from allowing the committees the freedom to select the setting sample 12 and (ii) the settings themselves determined which families and ultimately which children were included in the research therefore restricting the research team s access to, among other things, a wider distribution of chronological ages. Although it was explained by the research team that all families utilising the service should be offered equal opportunities of participating in the project, the setting ultimately selected the families who participated. A total of twenty-eight settings chose to participate in the project. 3.3 FIELD RESEARCHERS The field research was conducted between May and August 2005 by the research team and five trained field researchers. Training for the field researchers took place in April 2005 over a two-day period and involved instruction on interview ethics, the 12 See section (A) for a more detailed discussion on this limitation. 42

43 project background, progress to date, instruction on the use of each of the research instruments, child protection and other ethics on researching children. All field researchers were provided with an opportunity to discuss any issues or queries during the training sessions, and all were made aware of, and encouraged to utilize support provided by the CSER throughout the duration of the research. 3.4 CONSULTATIVE ADVISORY GROUP A consultative advisory group was established to advise and steer the project In Search of Quality: Multiple Perspectives at strategic stages of the research process. The established group consisted of various experts in the field of early childhood care and education, academics in the area, policy-makers and other key personnel. The committee included Anne Colgan (National Parents Council, Primary), Geraldine French (Early Years Specialist), Ashling Hooper (National Voluntary Childcare Collaborative), Denise McCormilla (Border Counties Childcare Network), Annette McDonnell (Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education), Damian McKeon (Childcare Directorate, DJELR) and Máire Mhic Mhathúna, (Dept. of Social Sciences and Legal Studies, DIT). Other members of DIT academic staff contributed valuable comments and assistance throughout the project. 3.5 THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS There are two distinct approaches to understanding quality within any geographical context (Mooney and Blackburn, 2003). One such approach draws on standardised observation scales and external research assessments of effectiveness and the second involves the participation of stakeholders in discussions about the meaning of quality within particular services. For the purpose of this research, both the observable and perceived aspects of quality were examined. 1. The observable methods employed were (i) The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (Revised) and (ii) The IEA Pre-primary Observation Tools, an integrated process covering Management of Time (MOT), the Child Activities (CA) and the Adult Behaviour (AB). 2. The perceived methods used were: (i) Individual face-to-face interviews with the adult population. (ii) Focus group discussions with a broader adult sample. (iii) Individual face-to-face interviews with children. 43

44 (iv) An observation tool which was also piloted with very young children. A pilot phase was conducted which allowed for the testing of each of the research instruments. It also gave each of the field researchers the opportunity to practice the research skills learned during training (including conducting the child-friendly research and completing the ECERS(R) rating scale and IEA/PPP observation tools). The only amendments made to the instruments related to the parent and practitioner interview schedules, both of which were reduced in length as a result of the pilot phase OBSERVABLE QUALITY The project drew on two tools, which are outlined in greater detail below, to measure the observable quality within the early childhood care and education settings. The first was the ECERS(R) (Harms, Clifford and Cryer, 1998) and the second was the integrated observation instrument developed and used in the IEA/PPP (Hayes, O Flaherty and Kernan, 1997). The ECERS(R) tool allowed the research team to assess the more static aspects of the settings under examination. This proved useful for emphasising and classifying the structural elements of the participating settings. The ECERS(R) methodology was not however without limitations. The tool concentrates largely on the childcare environment and alone does not guarantee high quality interactions and experiences for the child. Also it simply provides a snapshot (Douglas, 2004:185) view of the early childhood care and education setting. Observation takes place over a number of hours rather than a number of days. While the researcher can examine what resources are available for children in the setting, it is not possible to conclude how often and to what extent these resources are utilised. In order to address this shortcoming, observation tools developed within the IEA/PPP to assess observable dynamic quality within settings were employed over a three-day period. The IEA tools aim to advance from using check-list rating scales and progress towards the examination of dynamic/interactive quality using a tool which 44

45 allows the researcher to spend time in the setting, experiencing the interactive elements of the service being provided. A. Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale - Revised Edition (ECERS(R)) The original Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (Harms and Clifford, 1980) was probably the most widely used tool for observing quality within early childhood care and education settings. The instrument was criticised for a number of reasons including its failure to address the use of media-related education, its cultural insensitivity and its lack of consideration for parental involvement (Brophy and Statham, 1994; Sakai, Whitebook, Wishard & Howes, 2003). As a result of such criticisms the original scale was revised by its authors (Harms, Clifford and Cryer) in 1998 (ECERS(R)). The revised edition has been used successfully in many studies relating to early childhood care and education over the past number of years (Cryer, 1999; Galinsky, Howes, Kontos and Shinn, 1994; Helburn and Howes, 1996; Statham and Brophy, 1992; Tietze, Cryer, Bairrao, Palacious and Wetzel, 1996). Observation tools generally examine the aspects of quality which the child directly experiences i.e. process quality (Helburn, 1995; Rossbach, Clifford and Harms, 1991). The ECERS(R) instrument primarily examines the resources and structures contributing to such processes, as well as moderately assessing the processes themselves (Tietze, Cryer, Bairrao, Palacious and Wetzel, 1996). Although critiques of the rating scale particularly relate to its poor examination of process quality, it has been frequently adopted for use in numerous projects and has successfully assessed the static aspects of early childhood care and education centres both internationally (Howes, Phillips and Whitebook, 1992; Rossbach, 1990; Tietze, Cryer, Bairrao, Palacious and Wetzel, 1996) and more recently in some small studies nationally (Hennessy and Delaney, 1999). For this reason the rating scale was one of two observation tools adopted for the current project. The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS) revised in 1998 (ECERS(R)) is one of the most widely used observational tools for the measurement of quality. The instrument looks at forty-three items under seven sub-headings (space and furnishings, personal care routines, language-reasoning, activities, interaction, programme structure and parents and staff) and scoring is on a seven-point scale (seven=excellent to one=inadequate). 45

46 B. IEA Observation Tools The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) is a non-governmental, non-profit institute of research. The organisation has institutes in over 50 countries internationally and has been conducting research for over 30 years in relation to education. The IEA/PPP was designed to assess aspects of the development of children at aged four and seven, with the overall aim of examining the impact of early childhood care and education on later child development. A total of 17 countries participated in the research, with Ireland participating in strand two (which studied the quality of early childhood care and education environments for children aged four years) and strand three (which was a follow-up study documenting the influence of pre-primary experiences on children s development at age seven years) (Weikart, 2003). The quality of a setting is not determined by the provision of static indicators/elements alone, but is also hugely affected by dynamic elements such as adult/child interactions, the setting environment and the teaching styles of practitioners. A central goal of the IEA/PPP was to expand the search for elements which contribute to the quality of early childhood care and education settings by assessing both the static and dynamic elements of representative settings (Hayes, Montie and Claxton, 2002). The project did this by developing a number of specific research instruments which assessed the dynamic elements acting as indicators of quality within ECCE settings. Three of those instruments included the management of time, child activity and adult behaviour observation tools. In order to comprehensively address quality within ECCE in Ireland, the research team drew on the IEA/PPP Observation Systems, which allowed for the generation of quantitative data on child and adult behaviour. The theoretical frameworks underpinning the IEA study required the use of a complex integrated observation system so that simultaneous attention could be paid to the context, the setting, the individuals in that context and the processes that link both context and individuals and that are part of the interactions between those individuals (Hayes, 2004:168). Unlike the ECERS(R) instrument the IEA/PPP instrument is not based on the observer/researchers judgements, but rather on time sampling procedures which produces a count of both the children s and adults behaviours and the adults 46

47 proposal of activities. Counts of these behaviours expressed as percentages of the total observations made, can provide a quantitative measure of several aspects of quality in early childhood settings (Hayes, Montie and Claxton, 2002:234). The IEA/PPP Observation System tools can be used as both a research instrument and an assessment tool and moves beyond the rating scale by observing the dynamic elements of the settings over a period of days. The three main observation systems are intended to yield information on the practitioner s management of time through the Management of Time System (MOT), on child activities within the setting through the Child Activity System (CA) and adult (i.e. practitioner(s)) behaviour within the setting through the Adult Behaviour System (AB). The following section provides a description of the IEA/PPP Observation Tools. It describes each of the categories under which the children and adults of the settings, which participated in the research, were coded. The detailed information provided below is largely drawn from the IEA/PPP Training Manual (The International Association for the Evaluation and Educational Achievement (IEA), 1992). (i) The Management of Time (MOT) Observation System This tool provides a complete picture of how the adult organises the children s time during a 3.5 hour session. The International Co-ordinating Committee (ICC) of the IEA Project recommended that the observer conduct the MOT observation (1) simultaneously with Child Activities, Adult Behaviour and during breaks between each instrument, (2) for two days, and (3) for a maximum of three and a half hours per day if possible (Hayes, O Flaherty, Kernan, 1997:63). The Multiple Perspectives Research Team adhered to these recommendations to maximise the quality of data. The focus of the observation is the adult s organisation of children s time. Each activity proposed by the adult was noted, as well as the type of child involvement proposed and the time of each change of activity. The group structure for each activity was also recorded i.e. whether the adult proposed the activity for the entire group, part of the group, the child alone, or the adult and child together 13. Table 3.2 below outlines the main categories of management of time/proposed activity. 13 See appendices ten, eleven and twelve for a sample of each of the IEA/PPP observation tools. 47

48 Table 3.2: Management of Time Categories with Examples Category Example Physical Gross Motor Running, Climbing Fine Motor Puzzles, Building with Small Blocks Expressive Dramatic Play Role Plays, Moving Like Animals Arts and Crafts Painting, Cutting/Gluing Materials Music Singing, Playing Instruments Storytelling/Language Listening Listening to Stories, Rhymes Preacademic Reading Reading Letters, Independent Reading Writing Writing Letters, Practice with Pencils Numbers/Maths Counting, Adding/Subtracting Physical Science Planting Seeds, Weather Lessons Social Science Visiting Local Fire-stations Other Calendar Time, Memory Games Religious Praying, Attending Services Media Related Watching Film Strips or Television Personal/Social Personal Care Washing Hands, Eating Snacks Social Show and Tell, Sharing Materials Discipline Sitting in Time Out, Discussing Misbehaviour Domestic/Economic Domestic Set-up/Clean-up of Materials Economic Farming, Selling Produce Transitional Lining Up, Moving Between Activities Waiting Waiting in Line, Waiting for Materials Free Activities No Specific Activities Proposed Mixed Activities Two or More Activities at the Same Time As mentioned above, the group structure, for which the adult proposed activities was also recorded and categorized as follows: (a) Whole Group Activity (WG): The adult proposed an activity for the entire group of children. (a) Partial Group Activity (PG): An activity was proposed for only part of the group of children. This activity included a minimum of three children. (b) Joint Activity (JA): Such a proposal included the participation of the child in an activity with one other person, either adult or child. (c) Alone Activity (A): The activity proposed by the adult was proposed for one sole child. 48

49 (ii) The Child Activities Observations (CA) The children s activities were recorded over three days for periods of ten minutes at a time (maximum of 40 minutes). The ten-minute periods were conducted at different times of the child s day to ensure the researcher experienced a variation of activities and experiences. The CA was conducted simultaneously with the MOT system. The activities of the target child were the focus of the observation and were recorded at thirty second intervals. The CA tool specifically produces data relating to the amount of time spent on particular activities e.g. content activities, routine activities or free activities, as well as information outlining the percentage of time the observed child spends interacting with other children and/or adults. The main activities which the children participated in are coded as per 1-7 in management of time above. However, the following additional codes were also assigned to the child activity observation tool: Physical Gross Motor Fine Motor Expressive Dramatic/Imaginative Arts and Crafts Music Language/Storytelling Preacademic Reading Writing Number/Maths Physical Science/Environment Social Science/Environment Others Religious Media Related Personal/Social Personal Care Social Activities Discipline Expressions of Emotions Positive Emotions Negative Emotions Child Helper Activities Domestic Economic Transitional Accidents Waiting Table 3.3: Child Activity Categories with Examples Cycling, Jumping, Running and Building with Big Blocks Stringing Beads, Building Lego Blocks Play-acting, Dressing-up Using Creative Materials, Painting. Singing, Dancing, Playing Instruments Listening to/reading Stories Sounding out words, Learning to Read Practicing Pencil-holding, Writing Letters Counting, Learning Sizes/Shapes Using Microscopes, Planting Seeds Visiting a Fire Station Memory Games, Calendar Reading Singing Hymns, Praying Watching Television, Using Computers Toileting, Washing Hands Show and Tell, Reporting News Time Out Hugging, Kissing, Seeking Comfort Screaming, Fighting, Crying Meal Preparation, Clean-up Farming, Selling Produce Moving Towards New Activity/Place Unintentional Tripping, Falling Uninvolved in any Activity 49

50 The social context of the child s participation in activities, as well as the presence/absence of verbalisations, was also recorded for the observed child. The following are a list of the interactive structures under which the child was observed: (a) With One Child (WC): Interaction with one other child. (b) In a Small Group (SG): Interaction in a small group of 2-6 children. (c) In a Large Group (LG): Interaction in a large group of seven of more children. (d) With One or More Adult(s) (WA): Interaction with one or more adults. (e) Group Response (GR): Child responds as part of a group. (f) Verbalisation (T): The frequency of the observed child s verbalisations. (iii) The Adult Behaviour Observations (AB) The AB Observations recorded the behaviour of the main adult per setting over three days, for two thirty-minute periods of observation. This data was collected simultaneously with the MOT system. All activities of the primary adult in the setting were the focus of the observation behaviour regardless of whether or not their behaviour directly involved the children. The tool allows for data collection on the general behaviours of the teachers/caregiver, the specific behaviours directed towards each target child, and the nature of the adult s general involvement with children. The main categories within the Adult Behaviour tool are 14 : (i) Informational/Facilitative Teaching (ii) Participation and/or Shared Activities (iii) Nurturance/Expressions of Affection (iv) Child Management (v) Supervision (vi) Transitional Activities (vii) Routine Activities (viii) Personal Activities Observations were conducted over three separate days to encapsulate the variation of the programme. Although used for research purposes in the current project, the data produced from the observations can also be used in reflective early childhood care and education practice by practitioners and management to assess the amount of time 14 A more detailed description of the main categories within the Adult Behaviour tool is contained in Table A.3 in appendix five. 50

51 spent on activities and the amount of time spent interacting. This data can then be compared against the setting s ethos, policies and practices to assess whether or not the setting is adhering to those aforementioned values/missions. In some countries, a low level of interaction between peers may be a desirable setting feature (i.e. children are sitting quietly while listening to the adult). In others, high percentages of child-child interaction (i.e. supporting social and language development) would more closely match goals and standards set by educators (Hayes, Montie and Claxton, 2002:237). The three observation tools outlined above were carried out simultaneously to provide an overview of the adult proposal of activities, the children s activities in response to the proposal and the main adult s behaviour. The tools also assessed the interactions which took place between adults and children, and the children themselves. The Management of Time tool recorded the social contexts of the main adult s proposals. It has been noted that used in conjunction with one another these observation tools provide a rich overview of the interactive environment experienced by the children in the early childhood care and education settings (Hayes, 2004; Hayes, O Flaherty & Kernan, 1997; Weikart, Olmsted, Montie, Hayes & Ojala, 2003). The current project also provided an opportunity to assess the suitability of the IEA observation tools for use with birth to six year olds, as their previous use had been confined to children aged three to five years (Hayes, Montie and Claxton, 2002). The IEA/PPP Observation tools (and the ECERS(R)) allowed the research team to assess the quality (both dynamic and static) of the participating settings in the current project, however, this study was not an assessment of quality in ECCE in Ireland but rather a study aimed at obtaining the perspectives of stakeholders in relation to quality. The observation tools allowed the research team to assess the extent to which any relationship existed between perceived and observed quality PERCEIVED QUALITY The importance of accessing the multiple perspectives of all stakeholders in the early childhood care and education sector has been outlined above. Semi-structured faceto-face interviews were conducted with practitioners, parents and policy makers. Focus group discussions were also carried out with a broader sample of professionals including preschool and primary school inspectors, County Childcare Committee and 51

52 National Voluntary Organisation representatives, early childhood care and education professional educators as well as PhD students. The focus group discussions were carried out upon completion of the setting field work and the semi-structured schedules were informed by the results of the face-to-face interviews, the child participation methods and the literature review. These methods allowed the participants the freedom to discover and address issues which matter to them (Morgan, 1997), consequently providing the research team with access to their multiple perspectives on quality. In addition to drawing on observation instruments as a source of data on the meaning of quality to children the research project also encouraged the participation of children across the age range in the research. In the past few years the importance of consulting directly with children as important stakeholders in the early childhood care and education sector has been recognised. The project consulted a number of research reports which accessed children s perspectives in determining quality in early childhood care and education (Clarke, McQuail & Moss, 2003; Mooney & Blackburn, 2003; Stephen, 2003). Such research outlined that as well as having strong personal opinions about their lives, providing children with the opportunity of participating in research can help to improve the quality of their lives (Langstead, 1994). According to Langsted (1994), and more recently Stephen (2003) and Mooney and Blackburn (2003), children regard other children as important factors in determining the quality of their early childhood care and education experiences. A. Face-to-Face Adult Interviews Various groups of people define quality differently and have multiple perspectives on what constitutes quality within early childhood care and education. It is evident from the literature review (chapter 2) that there is a dearth of data relating to different peoples/groups perceptions of quality in Ireland (Walsh, 2003). The literature also emphasised that a universal standard of quality is not adequate and that a more relative approach is required to ensure a comprehensive and applicable definition of quality (Moss, 1994). The current study has taken into consideration all potential perspectives in ECCE in Ireland via semi-structured face-to-face interviews which were designed to assess the views of the various adult stakeholders identified. The interviews were conducted with a sample of setting practitioners, parents and policy 52

53 makers (Department of Health and Children representatives, Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Area Development Management, Údarás na Gaeltachta and the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment). The interviews ensured that the perspectives of key stakeholders informed the research. Large amounts of data relating to specific experiences and opinions were gathered from those stakeholders who play a predominant role in ECCE on a daily basis. Although unique interview schedules were designed for the individual stakeholder groups i.e. parents, practitioners and policy makers 15 within the research sample, common opening questions were incorporated for each participating group and these were primarily related to generic early childhood care and education and quality questions. Question fourteen onwards specifically focused on each stakeholder group and dealt with issues relating to quality which were dictated by the literature review. The final two questions were common to all groups and allowed the participants the opportunity to summarise their main ideas/perspectives relating to quality. The presence of generic questions has allowed the research team to cross-analyse the perspectives of each of the particular groups interviewed. Although the field researchers interview schedule was pre-coded, all interview questions were openended to encourage thought, reflection and personal opinion. A total of 78 adults were interviewed face-to-face for the current study (27 practitioners, 45 parents and six policy makers). B. Focus Group Discussions On completion of the semi-structured interviews a series of focus groups were conducted with a broader sample of early childhood care and education stakeholders (representatives of the County Childcare Committees and the National Voluntary Childcare Organisations, the Department of Health and Children s preschool inspectorate, the Department of Education and Science s inspectorate, Early Childhood Care and Education Professional Educators and PhD students). Each County Childcare Committee, National Voluntary Childcare Organisation, ECCE Training Institution, Department of Health Preschool Inspector Coordinator, as well as the Department of Education Inspectorate, practitioners who participated in the 15 See Appendices thirteen, fourteen, fifteen and sixteen for interview schedules. 53

54 main body of the research and individual PhD students were offered the opportunity to participate in the focus group discussions. The focus group schedules were informed both by the results of the semi-structured interviews and the literature review. Although focus groups do not allow for data as detailed as face-to-face interviews, they do provide more concentrated data within a shorter period of time, as well as (i) allowing for the introduction of ideas which hitherto may not have been considered by the research and (ii) permitting the researchers the opportunity to run the provisional findings of the face-to-face interviews by a broader sample of ECCE stakeholders. The focus group discussions were semi-structured, but entirely open-ended in nature i.e. although guided to an extent, the participants greatly determined issues of importance to themselves. Each focus group was conducted by a research moderator who directed the discussion and a second fieldworker who recorded the sessions and took notes as required. All focus group discussions were recorded and transcribed to ensure comprehensive compilation of the information discussed. All participants were made aware of and were agreeable to this process, and assurances were given that the tapes would solely be used for the purpose of the current research. The moderator facilitated the group discussion throughout, encouraged the participation of all participants and ensured participants views were not influenced or led. A total of five focus group discussions were held in Dublin, Waterford, Limerick, Sligo and Athlone, and 32 key personnel attended the sessions. C. Researching Children Although the perspectives of parents and other stakeholders are invaluable to the current study so too are the experiences of the children themselves: children should be studied as independent social actors rather than lesser adults progressing towards adulthood through the process of socialization in families and schools (Smith and Taylor, 2000:2). Different societies place different levels of emphasis on children s abilities it is such contexts which determine (i) the levels of consultation with children and (ii) the successful development of such skills. There is no denying that although we must trust that children can make decisions independently, we, as adults, have a responsibility to provide assistance when required, thus allowing the child to progress through their Zone of Proximal Development. This will allow children to 54

55 draw on their existing skills, whilst also expanding their decision-making skills, in turn exploring new and more complex tasks (Vygotsky, 1978). Children s capabilities are very much influenced by the expectations and opportunities for shared participation offered by their culture, and by the amount of support they receive in acquiring competence. They need the opportunity and space to practice decision making, for example, or they will remain unskilled (Smith and Taylor, 2000:2). There has also been a tendency to bequeath rights and responsibilities on children and young people based on their age and levels of maturity: there is a tendency to rely too heavily on a presumption of children s biological and psychological vulnerability in developing our law, policy and practice, and insufficient focus on the extent to which children s lack of civil status creates that vulnerability (Lansdown, 1994:35). However, as argued by Lansdown (1994), such a tendency may contribute to the perception of children s ineptness whilst also diminishing the child s views, and over-riding the child s expression with the adults values / emphasis on value. The consultation with young children conducted throughout this study, provided an insight into the actual experiences of children rather than relying on generalisations/assumptions developed by parents and staff. Consulting in general enhances the decision-making process by making possible for a fuller picture of all the relevant issues to emerge and being considered. It also recognises the fact that children generally have some awareness of the problems facing their family and allows any distress, anxiety or uncertainty to be properly voiced and sensitively dealt with in a reciprocal two-way process. Also, participation by children helps them to accept the decision made about them and facilitates their growth toward mature and responsible adulthood (Smith and Taylor, 2000:14). One particular limitation of researching children/providing children with a voice is the interpretation of the findings. There is a risk of misinterpreting their views and thoughts with adults interpretations. For this reason each researcher firstly ran the child s answers (or indeed the researcher s interpretation of the child s answers) by the child him/herself, followed by the main adult in the setting to examine if there were consistencies amongst both (Greene and Hogan, 2005). 55

56 To access children s perspectives on the meaning of quality within a variety of ECCE settings, the team adopted a combination of consultation tools. As the children involved were very young (0-6 years) it was necessary to move away from the written word, and to concentrate on the spoken word, visual methods and sensory methods. The team utilised puppetry (Measelle, Ablow, Cowan and Cowan, 1998), Happy/Sad faces (Stephen, 2003), cameras (Clarke, McQuail and Moss, 2003; Clarke and Moss, 2001; Kernan, 2005), and arts and crafts (Veale, 2005) as proven methods of consulting young children (Mooney and Blackburn, 2003). However such methods were predominantly used with children in the three to six age cohort and children whom the researchers felt were developmentally mature enough to engage with face-to-face. As will be outlined in the findings, the main consultation tool developed was unsuitable for a number of children who were too young, developmentally immature or lacked understanding/comprehension of the use of the method. For this reason, and to ensure that all children were equally offered the opportunity to participate, an observational method, which looked at young children s behaviour as the source of their voice on quality, was developed and piloted. The researchers who utilised this pilot tool observed play as a language of childhood, and drew on the concept of 'embodiment' i.e. the body is the voice of the child (Laevers, 2002). It is important to note that the development of this observation tool is very much in its infancy and its refinement will very much depend on future funding and the availability of time allocation. The following procedures were involved in researching the participating children. Firstly, the children whose parents had consented to their involvement were approached and asked if they would like to talk with the field researcher. Those children who chose to participate were seated in an area where the researcher could talk in privacy and quietness with the child, but where (for child protection and safety reasons) both were still within view of the practitioners within the setting. A small number of the field researchers chose to conduct some of the child interviews in the presence of a practitioner, which they felt eased the process. However, such a procedure was generally discouraged as it questioned the child s right to confidentiality and was only used with the agreement of the participating child. An 56

57 unstructured interview schedule was designed for use with the participating children 16 which predominantly assessed the children s satisfaction with different daily events and activities within the ECCE settings. Each child interview was recorded to provide the research team with access to recordings upon analysis. The children were also asked to outline their favourite activity in the past few days, as well as their favourite place and person within the setting. All field researchers were provided with a number of tools, which provided them with access to a variation of methods to facilitate the voice of the child: 1. Happy/Sad faces (Stephen, 2003) - when utilised the researcher either invited the children to draw a boy/girl with a happy face, followed by a boy/girl with a sad face. Alternatively, where the researcher felt the child was incapable of drawing a face him/herself, he/she (the researcher) drew a happy and sad face and asked the child to confirm the relevant expressions. The faces were then used with the children to express how they felt at particular times of the day e.g. when dropped off in the morning, when collected in the evening. 2. Puppetry (Measelle, Ablow, Cowan and Cowan, 1998) puppets were originally intended to be used with children who felt uncomfortable talking in the first person. Although this method is particularly effective for use with children discussing sensitive issues, it was not particularly successful in the current study. The method was not drawn upon very often. One particular situation where it was used successfully was with a child with special needs whose interaction with the researcher was limited. Production of the puppets encouraged the child s participation. 3. Crayons/paints/markers (Veale, 2005) the success of art and crafts materials varied. Some children interacted particularly well whilst colouring/drawing pictures. Others were too distracted whilst drawing to interact/converse so the researchers were compelled to replace the method with a different one. 4. Camera-work/photography (Clarke, McQuail and Moss, 2003; Clarke and Moss, 2001; Kernan, 2005) the camera work was the most successful of all methods outlined above (followed by the happy/sad faces). At the end of 16 See appendix thirteen for unstructured child interview schedule. 57

58 each child interview a camera was introduced and every child was offered the opportunity to take photographs of the people, places and things which they outlined as being their favourite aspects of daily life in the ECCE setting. Each field researcher walked around with the child and encouraged him/her to take the photographs. Children were provided with a disposable camera with 15 exposures and were encouraged to take as many photographs as they wanted. The children were content having taken between three to twelve photographs (average 5.3 photographs), with some taking less and others taking considerably more. It was obvious that a minority of children had previously used a camera and knew how worked immediately. The remaining children, who had never used a camera, picked it up quickly and easily. Each camera was labelled after each interview to simplify the process of matching the photographs to the relevant child interview. Each field researcher labelled the developed photographs accordingly. A total of 46 children participated in the research 43 of whom participated in faceto-face interviews, and three of whom participated in the pilot observation tool. D. Ethical Considerations Additional to the general principles of ethical research, particular issues had to be considered by the research team prior to involving children in the research. These included the use of selection procedures, which were as inclusive and equitable as possible. Informed consent was sought from the parents and guardians of children, but also, where appropriate, from the children themselves (particularly children aged 3+). In relation to the children from whom consent was not gained, it was necessary that researchers were always aware of the child s body language. Because of the child s age and possible limited verbal communication skills it was necessary that researchers were continuously aware of the child s behaviour and use of their body as a source of their voice. If the researcher felt it was obvious that a child did not feel comfortable participating the field researcher withdrew. Involvement in the research was completely voluntary on the child s behalf, and he/she was made aware of their freedom to withdraw should they wish to do so. Every effort was made to ensure that the purpose and nature of the research were as clear and transparent as possible. Mechanisms for feedback to participants, in the form of the final report, were outlined 58

59 prior to participation, and will be followed through upon completion of the final report. The extent of both confidentiality and anonymity were outlined to all participants prior to carrying out the fieldwork. A particular awareness in relation to confidentiality on the children s behalf was emphasised during the fieldwork training. As children themselves were guaranteed confidentiality, it was essential that researchers drew attention to a child s right to confidentiality when parents or practitioners made enquiries subsequent to carrying out the fieldwork with the children. In relation to the issue of child protection, all researchers applied to the Gardai under Section 4 of the Data Protection Act 1988 and 2003, for Garda clearance. Training on Children s First (Department of Health and Children, 1999) was also provided to field researchers prior to carrying out the pilot phase of the research. It was agreed that should child protection issues arise during the research phase that procedures outlined in the Children First guidelines would be followed through. 3.6 CONCLUSION In conclusion, the current project was designed to obtain the perspectives of all stakeholders in the early childhood care and education sector. However, a secondary aim of the project was to observe the quality of the participant settings and to compare the observable quality against the perceived aspects of quality to assess whether or not a relationship existed between the two. Two observation scales were drawn on to assess the observed quality, primarily the ECERS(R) to assess the static elements of quality and secondly a sample of the IEA/PPP tools which assessed the dynamic elements of quality. To assess the perceived quality of early childhood care and education in the Irish context, face-toface interviews were carried out with the adult population of the sample, child interview methods were conducted with the children in the sample (including face-toface unstructured interviews drawing on a number of researching children methods) and an embodiment observation tool was piloted with a number of very young children. Finally, focus group discussion groups were held at the late stages of the field research, which allowed the team to research a broader sample of stakeholders in the ECCE sector. 59

60 CHAPTER 4: MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES THE FAMILY UNIT 4.1 INTRODUCTION Chapter Four presents the main findings of the research conducted with the families who participated in the current study. A total of 45 families participated in the research, with 44 parents/sets of parents 17 participating in the parental interview strand and 46 children 18 aged birth to six years of age participating in one of the two child interview/observation methods 19. The chapter is presented in three main sections. The first section details the findings of the research carried out with the birth to six year olds, the second section discusses the piloting of a tool designed for use with very young children (predominantly birth to three years of age), and the final section presents the findings of the research carried out with the children s parents. Further analysis and discussion on the main findings is contained in chapter seven. 4.2 FINDINGS CHILDREN BIRTH TO SIX YEARS This section outlines the main findings of the research carried out with children. It was considered as pivotal to the comprehensiveness of the study, that children s voice be included and inform the research. Primary data was collected on experiential information relating to children s daily experiences, and their satisfaction/dissatisfaction with defined aspects of their daily lives. The child interviews took place with children aged birth to six years of age attending a variety of early childhood care and education settings including primary school infant classes, Early Start preschool classes, Naíonraí (Irish language preschools), childminding settings, crèches, Montessori schools, sessional/preschools, full day care, afterschool settings and playschools/ playgroups. The primary tool used to research the children s voices was a face-to-face unstructured interview. However, having initially conducted the interviews with a number of children (in particular two children aged 17 Forty-five parents volunteered to participate in the parental interviews originally, however, one parent later opted out but still gave consent for his/her child to participate. 18 Two of the participating children were twins, therefore only one set of parents were interviewed as representing that particular family. 19 Child interview or piloted child observation tool. 60

61 one year of age, and three children with special needs), it was recognised that a distinct tool would be required for facilitating the voice of very young children. As a result, an observation tool was piloted which viewed children s behaviour as the source of their voice 20. All fieldworkers were provided with an outline of key topics to be addressed within the interview. The conversations/interviews with all children were recorded 21. Following the interview process a review sheet containing the twelve key topics were completed to capature the main thrust of the interview. The twelve topics were as follows: 1. Children's day-to-day experiences - To give a sense of the daily routine for the children e.g. drop-off, settling in and so on. 2. Sense of welcoming to the service- To report on how the child feels on arrival to the setting. 3. Favourite part of the setting - To ascertain which places in the setting are liked best. 4. Favourite part of the day - Information on this was gathered by giving the child the opportunity to report on what was good about yesterday. 5. Sense of belonging - Information on this was accessed by talking to the child about friends and who they like to spend time with. 6. Sense of acceptance by staff and peers - This topic was addressed by reference to feeling good or bad about others attending the setting. 7. Sense of feeling understood - To establish information on this interviewers were asked to report on how children respond if unable to do something or when feeling sad. 8. Sense of protection - To address this interviewers reported on who or what children indicated helped them or made them feel safe. 9. Sense of respect - This topic was approached by asking the children how they respond to someone who upset them and what, if anything happens. 10. Experience of activities - The intention here was to elicit a selection of favoured activities and their challenge. 20 Due to time constraints and limitations the research team were confined in the further development of the observation tool, which in itself warrants further, more detailed investigation. A more elaborate description of this tool is contained within chapter three. 21 The conversations/interviews were recorded with parental written consent. 61

62 11. Overall satuisfaction of the experience & 12. Overall contentment of being present. Both these topics were intended to get an overall sense of the extent to which each child liked going to the setting and felt happy there. The information given under each of the above topics was a shorthand review of the overall interview and often drew on data from different times during the process. While data for most of the topics was specific in the event the last two topics merged into one. Table A.4 in appendix nine provides an overview of the child data gathered. It provides an outline of the children s age, geographical location, setting type as well as their participation in a child interview and their use of cameras for the research. A total of 46 children participated in the study, three of whom did not participate in the strand currently under discussion, but participated in the strand incorporating the piloted observation tool Children s Day-to-Day Experiences Of the 43 children who participated in this strand of the research, 24 children were dropped to their setting by a family member. It was generally the child s mother who dropped him/her off, although fathers and grandmothers also featured. Two of the sample were dropped to the afterschool aspect of a setting by bus. There was no data available for the remainder of the child sample. The children s arrival at a setting was clearly a period of bustle and establishing oneself for the day/morning/afternoon. Many of the children s replies outlined a wide variety of activities which were available to them on arrival (including indoor and outdoor activities as well as playing with their friends). Arrival time was a period of great social activity: 'I like to come. meet friends' [DC31 22 : 4 years]. Generally, the children interviewed indicated a general sense of happiness when arriving at the setting, as well as happiness to be going home at the end of the session. 22 Each participant was provided with a specific code to which the current findings will refer. Adoption of such a code was necessary to protect the child s identity. 62

63 4.2.2 Sense of Welcoming to the Service The majority of children s responses to this topic i.e. sense of welcoming to the service, mentioned teachers and friends. Such people were very much a source of the children s happiness upon arrival at an early childhood care and education setting. One child reported: Teacher says Hi! [RP12: 4 years], while another notes that she always gives her teacher a fright when she comes in that's the best fun [GE11: 5 years]. Two of the children s responses suggested that they felt the settings were not particularly welcoming upon arrival. In one case [LE11: 4 years] the child indicated that she liked coming to school, however when she was asked to point to either a happy or sad face, she pointed to a sad face. It became evident later in the interview that the child could easily distinguish between the happy and sad faces. In general, the tone of the report on this particular child suggested some ambivalence about the setting which she attends. In the case of another child [CC12: 3 years] there was a more explicit report of other children not liking her. The interviewer reported that the child continuously sits at a table with her mother and tends to play alone rather than with other children. Notwithstanding, the child herself indicated that she is happy when she is in the setting Children s Favourite Parts of the Setting There was a wide variation in responses obtained for this particular topic. The majority of children referred to activities rather than specific sections or spaces of the settings in question. However, two particular children nominated specific spaces, notably the quiet room and the nappy changing room. No further elaboration was provided on why such spaces were favoured by the children. The participating children identified a number of toys which they especially liked in the setting. Such toys ranged from specific character toys such as Barney and Barbie, through to certain types of toys e.g. balls, blocks, tractors and dolls. The 63

64 children also outlined activities such as football 23 and bouncing, as well as more mundane activites including sweeping and tidying-up. In 14 of the total number of responses, the outside space, as well as outside activities were named as favourite parts/activities of the setting. In a number of the school settings children nominated work with numbers and letters as well as making words out of letters as their favourite part of the setting. One child nominated the classroom as his favourite part of the setting Favourite Time of the Day To access information on this topic children were asked what they felt was good about the previous day (yesterday) during their time in the setting. The space outside featured in 16 of the 38 responses given. Colouring and painting were also quite prominent with 10 of the 38 providing such a response. Six children specifically identified lunch as their favourite part of the day: I like to play at lunchtime kicking football [LI11: 6 years], whilst one child described how she liked lunch time because there was so much stuff to eat and drink [CLC22: 4 years] A Sense of Belonging In order that the researcher could capture an idea of the sense of belonging which children had in a given setting, the child was asked about (and listened for general references to) the favourite people within the setting. Many of the children named specific friends and playing with such friends as important They are my friends 'coz we play and don't fight [CLC21: 5 years]. Ten, of the total number of 38 children who responded, provided information on this topic; they named one or two of their 'best' friends within the setting. One child attending a primary school indicated a preference for the preschool setting which she previously attended by saying I liked small school - we played all the time [CLI12: 4 years]. The child [LE11: 4 years] who (as outlined in section 4.2.2) was not particularly happy in the setting replied to this particular topic and noted that the teacher shouted a lot. The child [CC12: 3 years] who felt that the other children did not like her (see above) named one child as her best friend saying She is nice. 23 Those children who chose football as their favourite activity tended to be male children aged three to six. 64

65 4.2.6 A Sense of Acceptance A total of seven children gave no information under this current topic. However, in general, the children who did respond noted that everyone was nice in the setting and that they all liked each other. To elaborate, children mentioned specific children, playing particular games and getting hugs from their teachers 24. Some of the children were shy when asked if they were liked by their teacher, however not one child indicated that they felt disliked. One child [LE11: 4 years] talked about running with friends and pointed to a number of photos of her friends Feeling Understood Ten of the child participants did not provide any information on this topic. The remaining 33 children indicated that they were happy to ask the teacher for help if they were sad: Teacher will help me open my lunch [GE11: 5 years]; If the computer doesn't work the teacher will help me [LE12: 4 years]. A small number of children outlined that they would get a friend to help them if they needed My friend helps me and I do things for myself [LI11: 6 years] Feeling Protected An overwhelming sense of children feeling safe and protected in the settings which they attended was evident throughout the replies obtained from children on this topic. Almost all the children were happy that the teacher would help them if they fell. The children felt that the teacher would put a plaster on a cut knee, spray a cut or give hugs and consolement as necessary. Some children felt it important to point out that they did not necessarily need help: I am very brave [DC31: 4 years]. Also under this topic, children mentioned wearing coats when going outside and not being able to go outside when it is raining A Sense of Respect The main idea behind this specific topic was to gauge a general sense of how well respected the children felt in the settings they attended, as well as understading how listened to they felt. For many children there was a clear understanding of what to do if someone was bold or scribbled on their work. In the main the children understood 24 The term teacher was used by children for any adult in any type of setting children did not restrict its use to primary school teachers. 65

66 that they should inform their teacher who would sort out the difficulty, or indeed put a stop to the behaviour which was making a child unhappy. Fourteen of the 36 reponses to this topic said that no one was ever bold: Everyone is nice [CLC21: 5 years]. A small number of children were clear that they would say stop to anyone who was bold or annoying them. One particular child [LEA12: 6 years] outlined that she would walk away if anyone was bold. The replies from some children indicated clearly that bold behaviour was not allowed in their setting: They scream at him [CC22: 4 years] or Teacher would put him in the corner and be cross [CLI11: 4 yrs.] Children s Experiences of Activities This topic focused particularly on specific activities and a wide range of answers were provided by the children. Some of the more specific activities outlined were particularly unique: Planting seeds [LP12: 4 years] or Making Father Day Cards [CC21: 3 years]. Such activities may reflect a novel or 'once-off' activity within the setting, which continued to interest the child's imagination. Overall, ball games, playing with friends and colouring/painting were particularly popular amongst the participating children. Playing with dolls, cars/truck and puzzles also rated highly. The experiences which the children reported were predominantly experiences of enjoyment and fun. Some of the children s replies informed the researcher of the extent to which the activities challenged the children: I like 'hard' jigsaws [DGNU12: 3 years], whilst other children mentioned getting help from their teacher if they felt a task was too difficult Children s Overall Satisfaction of the Experience/Contentment in the Setting Four of the children did not respond to this topic, three other replies were ambivalent and lacked clarity. The remaining 36 children reported feeling happy or very happy in their settings: I like going to school [CI21: 6 years]; I like school - we do draw pictures [CLI11: 4 years]; I never feel sad when I m in school [CLI12: 4 years]; Sometimes I'm bored, but I love school 'coz I get to play all the time [GE11: 5 years]. 66

67 Camera Work and Photographs All 43 children who participated in this particular strand of the research were provided with the opportunity to take photographs of their favourite places, people and things within the setting. Forty of the total number of children chose to take part. Table 4.1 below provides an outline of the main aspects/categories photographed by the forty children. The content of the photographs taken by the children was very varied within their own selection and across the sample in general. The participating children photographed their setting friends/peers more often (8% of total number of photographs) than any other category, with teachers photographed nine times (representing 3% of the photographs). This was followed by dolls/teddies (8%), art materials/creations (7%) and cars/trucks/tracks (6%). Building blocks, word charts/games and maths/number work each represented 5% of the photographs. The least photographed category/aspect of the participating settings were bikes/trucks/climbing frames/room views (each photographed three times), dolls houses/large blocks/musical instruments/general photos of people (each photographed two times), as well as a balloon/floor mat/scissors/toy phone/water play utensils/woodwork tools which were each only photographed once. A balance of indoor/outdoor spaces was also exhibited in the children s photographs. 67

68 Note: Total N 265; Duplicates 6; Total Analysed Table 4.1: Children s Photograph Categories Content * Represented in Photograph N % Friends 21 (8%) ** Dolls/Teddies 20 (8%) Art 19 (7%) Cars/trucks/tracks 16 (6%) Building blocks 13 (5%) *** Word charts/games 13 (5%) Maths/number work 12 (5%) Outdoor scene 11 (4%) Shelving/equipment 10 (4%) Books/Book corner 9 (3%) Teacher 9 (3%) Jigsaw/puzzels 8 (3%) Furniture 7 (3%) Home corner/dress-up 6 (2%) Candles 5 (2%) Work desk/table 5 (2%) Computer 4 (-)^ Flash Cards 4 (-) Sand 4 (-) Shape Board 4 (-) Bikes/Trucks : Climbing Frame: 3 Times Room view:- each reported Dolls House, Large Blocks, Musical Instruments, Photos of people:- 2 Times each reported Balloon, Floor Mat, Scissors, Toy Phone, Water Play, Woodwork Tools:- 1 Time each reported Random/unclear Photos 36 (12%) TOTAL 259 * Content judged by shared view of main focus of photo; if inconclusive allocated to 'random' category. ** Percentages rounded up. *** Where similar prevalence occurs the category is presented in alphabetical order. ^ Where percentage is less than 2% no figure is given. 68

69 4.3 FINDINGS CHILDREN BIRTH TO THREE YEARS (PILOT TOOL) Researching children's experiences through direct engagement with children themselves has become more commonplace over the last decade (Christensen & James, 2000; Clarke & Moss, 2001; Greene & Hogan, 2005; Harker, 2002). In such studies, it has been necessary to develop creative research methodologies that move beyond simply allowing children to give opinions on matters of interest and move towards researching with children in a way that allows results to emerge from a truly collaborative approach. Despite increased attention to this research area, the main attention has been to working with children over the age of four years. This may be explained by the fact that a rich variety of methods for engaging meaningfully with older children have been developed and their validity confirmed. Researching the experiences of the very young child has been less frequently reported (Clarke & Moss, 2001; Gillespie Edwards, 2001; Rich, 2004). As part of the Multiple Perspectives on Quality project the team agreed to review possible methods for engaging with children under three years of age Background The basis for this aspect of the project was that efforts should be made to listen to the voices of very young children in ECCE settings. The work was carried out in the belief that children communicate effectively through a wide variety of expressions and behaviours and not just through the more usual verbal communication. This challenged us to look to other forms of communication such as body language, expression and behaviour in general. The idea of accessing voice through embodiement was one that interested the project team when addressing the development of a tool to improve access to the voice of very young children. The idea that we could access a child's experience of and response to quality through careful observation of embodiement as voice 25 was an appealing one. In this regard the use of observation as a tool was considered appropriate. In using observation there are a number of issues concerning reliability, validity and ethics which must be considered (Hill, 2005). In addition, one must be cautious in any inferences derived 25 The phrase embodiment is one which was drawn on by the research team to express the notion of a child displaying his/her voice through his/her bodily actions. Collins English Dictionary defines embodiment as a representation or expression of (Collins, 1988:159). 69

70 from the analysis of records collected, recognising the power of the adult to interpret on behalf of children. The report presented here is a summary of the findings of a small pilot study at a very preliminary stage, while the reliabiliy and validity of the instrument developed have yet to be determined. To inform the development of the observation instrument the team reviewed the work of a number of different authors who have written on the topic of infants and understanding their behaviour (Dunn, 2005; Laevers; 2003). Laevers has, through his own work and that of those who have used his 'experiential education' approach in varied settings, presented a strong argument for the importance of child wellbeing and involvement as measures of quality in early years settings. He argues that it is possible to determine the extent of child wellbeing and involvement across a wide age range of children in early years settings and infuence practice and curriculum design using the insights gained. His work proved a valuable source to the team in their considerations regarding access to the views of the very young, particularly his belief that aspects of wellbeing and involvement link to quality and can be measured. Dunn (2005), in her work on the social development of very young children, has stressed the importance of the social context to the value one can ascribe to observations. She notes that 'it is...important to plan to sample a broad range of different kinds of behaviour in a variety of social settings' (Dunn, 2005:96) to enrich the data base from which findings are derived. In designing the observation instrument, the team also drew on the expereinces of applying the integrated observation tool developed for the IEA/PPP (Hayes, O'Flaherty and Kernan, 1997; Weikart, Olmsted & Montie, 2003). This observation tool was developed to simultaneousley record the plans of the adult for activities in a setting while at the same time recording adult behaviour and child activity. Using this integrated approach it is possible to gather detail on the match between plans and observed activities and to assess the extent to which a setting facilitates interactions between adults and children. The IEA/PPP observation tool was devised for use with children of four years and, although not directly relevant to the pilot study, was found to be a useful guide. 70

71 The development of the observation instrument was discussed among the team and also with the advisory board. Sample observation sheets were drawn up and refined over time and a final instrument containing eight areas for observation was developed. The areas identified for observation were Setting drop off; Meal/Snack times; Pick up; Activities; Adult relationship/interactions; Child relationship/interactions; Dissatisfaction; Satisfaction. The researchers were required to observe children of 0-3 years or children with special needs under the areas outlined above, over a two-day period. The prinicple objective of the pilot was to assess the extent to which the observation tool gave useful information on the topic of accessing the child's voice in respect of the quality of the settings Methodology The observation tool was successfully piloted with three children aged 8 months, 10 months, 14 months and 2 years in two different settings. Consent was sought and received from the children's parents and the settings. Observers were given training and guidance on the aim of the instrument and the main issues of interest at this pilot phase. The observation record sheets were designed to allow the observer make comments on the sheets as the observations were being made. The returned sheets all had some explanatory comments about the use and value of the headings and some suggestions regarding ways the instrument could be improved. Each child was observed on two separate occassions using the schedule developed. In addition to the observations of children in settings the observers were asked to carry out an interview with the adult bringing the child to the setting, in all cases the mother. The intention was to get a sense of the child's daily routine, favourite places/activities and general feeling regarding the setting Findings The adults interviewed all considered that their child had a positive experience in the setting and each was able to identify certain aspects that their own child particularly liked and behaviours unique to them. One parent reported that her daughter did not like sharing and yet liked to be with the older children. Another parent noted that her 71

72 child was particularly happy on the play mat where she could crawl around. It was also clear that the adults themselves found the settings satisfactory for their children. In general the observation findings suggest that the instrument assisted in the ordered recording of the pattern of the child's day - arrival/departure; eating routines; general activities and interactions. It was possible over the two days to note observations under most of the headings although in two of the observations there was no observation of dissatisfaction. The tool also allowed for noting the facial expression and body movement of the children in a context that allowed the observers to interpret the behaviour. Positive expressions were noted using words such as 'smiling', 'relaxed', 'contented' 'delight' 'eagerness'. Positive behaviour included 'laughing' and 'moving arms'. Negative expressions recorded included 'sad', 'frowning', 'discomfort', 'frustration' and negative behaviours noted were 'crying', 'agitated', 'turning away' and 'shouting'. Within the records it was evident that many of the positive expressions and behaviours recorded occurred where the baby was being held, cuddled or fed although the record itself did not always allow for the social context to be noted. In light of the increasing importance placed on interactions to positive child outcomes the role of the physical connection between the adult and the child is noteworthy. The inclusion of the child s reaction to all adult interactions was suggested as an important aspect for increased emphasis in future studies. From the findings of this pilot a more refined and less directive observation system can be developed for further use with childern aged birth to three years of age Future Action A number of issues arose from using the observation instrument developed for this pilot study. Researchers were required to note the child s behaviour using the eight areas identified, however questions emerged as to the value of the sections requiring observations of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The other headings used in the instrument were related to the child s behaviour at different times, events or in various contexts. Under the heading of satisfied and dissatisfied the researcher was required to make additional observations and detailed notes using the subcategories 72

73 very satisfied, satisfied and not very satisfied. It was suggested that this may have removed the focus from the behaviour and the context in which it arises. Findings from the pilot study has also highlighted the need for the inclusion of a 'social context' sub-heading under the main headings to capture the extent of the relationship between social context and expressions and behaviours that are positive and negative. Given the very small scale of this pilot it is not possible to make any interpretations as to the voice of very young children with respect to the quality of the settings they were observed in. However, the data collected was rich in examples of expression and behaviour which - when located within clearly defined contexts - can be interpreted in ways that allow for careful extrapolation from the observed to the voice. The observers suggested that the record sheet might be redesigned to allow for the inclusion of explicit reference to concentration and distraction. Also, it was felt that a subheading of overall comfort, both physical and emotional, might also be explicitly identified for comment. A more focused approach to recording observed interactions was also suggested. This pilot represents the first and very basic steps in developing an observation tool that accesses the voice of very young children. The sample was too small to derive any valuable data for inclusion in the overall study but there are some trends which have emerged that could be explored in detail in a more robust piloting of a refined instrument. The team believe that it would be useful to bring together a small group of the researchers interested and experienced in observing very young children to explore methodologies for accessing the voice of young children in the wider debate about quality early childhood care and education. 4.4 FINDINGS PARENT/CARERS PERSPECTIVES A total of 44 parents/carers (or sets of parents in some cases) whose children were included in the study, also agreed to participate and be interviewed. The following counties were represented by the parental sample: Dublin, Limerick, Clare, Carlow, Galway, Roscommon, Leitrim and Donegal. Limerick and Carlow represented the highest number of respondents (20.5% and 18.2% respectively). Dublin, 73

74 Roscommon, Galway and Leitrim represented 9.1% each, with Donegal and Clare representing 11.4% and 13.6% respectively. 5 4 Dublin Limerick Clare Carlow Galway Roscommon Leitrim Donegal Figure 4.1: Counties of Parental Participants The majority of parents interviewed were female (37). Only two men participated in the interview process, with five sets of parents i.e. both parents, participating in this particular strand of the research. Twenty-seven percent of the parental participants represented full day care settings, followed closely by infant classes (20.5%). Only one child participated in the hospital playgroup setting, therefore only one parent was interviewed in that setting. Five parents (11.4%) represented sessional/preschool settings, four (9.1%) represented both childminding and Early Start classes, and three (6.8%) represented Montessori schools. The remaining six parents were represented evenly amongst Naíonraí, Aftershool settings and playschool/playgroup settings (two parents from each type of setting). 74

75 Full Day Playsch/Playgr. Early Start Childminder Montessori Naionra Afterschool Infant Class Hospital Playgr. Sess./Presch. Figure 4.2: Parental Setting Type Selecting an ECCE Setting All parental participants were asked to outline the criteria which were most important to them in selecting an early childhood care and education setting for their child(ren). The safety of the setting was outlined as the most important criteria by over half (56.8%) of all parental participants. Half of the parents highlighted both the approach/friendliness of the staff, and the teaching style/pedagogical approach of the teachers as being important criteria. As outlined in Table 4.2 overleaf, 11.4% of all parents felt the number of children enrolled/size of setting, the provision of a closeknit community type setting, and the responsiveness of the setting to gender, family language, culture, morals or religion were all important criteria in the selection of an ECCE setting. Practicalities such as the opening times (29.5%), cost (27.3%) and the geographical location of the setting (25%) were also mentioned as important determinants in the selection of an early childhood care and education setting. 75

76 Table 4.2: Criteria Important to Parents in Selecting an ECCE Setting N=44 Count % of % of Responses (N) Responses Respondents 26 Safety of the Setting Approach/Friendliness of the Staff Teaching Style/Pedagogical Approach of the Teacher(s) Staff Training/Qualifications Child/Staff Ratios Resources/Equipment/Space Available Nature of Child Development/Education Provision Opening Times Provision of Outlet for Engagement with Parents/Carers Cost Geographical Location Provision of Family-like Support Staff Trained in First-Aid Approach/Friendliness of Owner Accommodation of Children s Health Needs Number of Children Enrolled/Size of Setting Close-knit Community Setting Responsiveness to Gender, Family Language, Culture, Morals or Religion Other TOTAL Aspects Contributing to Good Quality Settings In relation to parents perceptions of aspects contributing to good quality settings, more than half (52.3%) of all parents felt the safety of the setting building/structure was an aspect contributing to a good quality setting. Fifty percent felt the provision of adequate space for children to play contributed to the quality of a setting, an identical number felt the equipment available contributed, whilst a further 50% felt the presence of a homely, family-type, caring environment contributed to the overall quality of an early childhood care and education setting. The other main aspects outlined as contributing to the quality of a setting included the education/training of 26 The % of Respondents column is present in multiple response tables i.e. questions for which respondents were invited to give multiple responses to a question. It refers to the percentage of respondents who outlined such a response. 27 Other includes: Staff turn-over (4), Positive atmosphere within setting (4), Provision of nutritious food (3), Age group of other children (1), Provision of an interactive environment (1) and an ability of parents to trust staff (2). 76

77 the staff (47.7%), interaction between the children and adults/practitioners (43.2%), the safety of the surroundings and garden (40.9%), the presence of positive staff communication styles/personalities (40.9%), interaction between and amongst children (36.4%) and adult child ratios (34.1%). The remaining findings are displayed in the Table 4.3 below. Table 4.3: Aspects Contributing to Good Quality Settings N=44 Count % of % of Responses (N) Responses Respondents Safe Building Adequate Space for Children to Play Equipment Available for Staff and Children Homely, Family-type, Caring Environment Education and Training of Staff Interaction Between Children & Practitioners Safe Surroundings and Garden Communication Styles/Positive Staff Personalities Interaction Between/Amongst Children Child-Staff Ratios Style of Practice/Pedagogical Approach Good Day-to-Day Experiences for Children Cleanliness Availability of Garden/Outdoor Area/Ventilation Provision of Routine Acceptable Disciplinary Procedures Interaction Between/Amongst Adults Provision of Nutritious Food Approach to Management Other TOTAL Other includes: Number of children enrolled (3), Variation of activities (2), Openness surrounding policies and procedures (2), Flexible opening and closing hours (1), Program inclusive of diversity (4), Parental involvement (1), Convenience of location (1), Regulated & monitored setting (2), Diverse agegroup of children (2) Child development record keeping (1), Affordability (1) and the presence of a curriculum/program (1). 77

78 4.4.3 Aspects Contributing to Poor Quality Settings Over 90% of all parents interviewed felt poor quality was evident where there was a lack of a positive dynamic quality to the environment i.e. that it was unfriendly, unhomely, uncaring, neglecting. Over half of the parents interviewed (60.5%) felt a lack of resources and facilities contributed to poor quality, whilst 51.2% of the sample felt the structural aspects of the setting i.e. the building itself, determined such levels of quality. Table 4.4: Aspects Contributing to Poor Quality Settings N=44 Count % of % of Responses (N) Responses Respondents Neglecting, Uncaring, Unfriendly, Unhomely Environment Poor Resources and Facilities Poor Setting Structure Poor Adult/Child Ratios Lack of Staff Qualifications/Training Lack of Programme/Structure for the Year Business-Type Approach Setting Too Big Poor Health and Safety Procedures Poor Staff/Management Relations with Parents Other TOTAL Just under half of the respondents felt poor adult/child ratios (48.8%), a lack of staff qualifications/training (46.5%) and a lack of programme/structure for the year (41.9%) contributed to poor quality settings. The remaining aspects outlined by parents as contributors to poor quality included (as outlined in Table 4.4 above): the presence of a business type approach (23.3%), large settings (18.6%), poor health and safety procedures (14%) and poor staff/management relations with parents (11.6%). 29 Other includes: Poor outdoor space/play areas (4), poor staff/management relations/support structures (4), sending kids home for unnecessary reasons (3), poor indoor space/play areas (3), provision of unhealthy food (3) and poor outcomes for children (2). 78

79 4.4.4 Immediate-term Benefits of Providing Quality ECCE As outlined in the table below, more than three-quarters (84.1%) of all the participating parents felt the development of social skills was an immediate-term benefit of quality ECCE provision. Just less than three quarters (72.7%) felt that heightened self-esteem was an immediate-term benefit, with over half (56.8%) believing the development of independence was such. Eighteen of the 44 participating parents felt that developed reasoning/problem-solving skills were an immediate-term benefit. Table 4.5: Immediate-term Benefits of Quality ECCE Provision N=44 Count % of % of Responses (N) Responses Respondents Development of Social Skills High Self-Esteem Independence Developed Reasoning & Problem-Solving skills Emotional Stability Grater Assertiveness Gains in IQ/Higher Academic Attainment Higher Rates of Participation in Extra Curricular Activities Higher Grades in Primary School Better Developed Child Routines Increased Preparation for Primary School Other TOTAL The development of emotional stability (29.5%), greater assertiveness (29.5%), gains in IQ/higher academic attainment (27.3%) and higher rates of participation in extracurricular activities (25%) were outlined by just over one quarter of the respondents as immediate-term outcomes for children. The remaining immediate-term benefits as outlined by parents included better-developed child routines (11.4%) and increased preparation for primary school (11.4%). 30 Other includes: Developed communication skills (3), developed practical skills e.g. tying shoe laces (3), increased levels of stimulation (2), better behaved children (2), low rates of depression (1), greater leadership abilities (1), increased positivism (1) and better health increased nutrition (1). 79

80 4.4.5 Long-term Benefits of Providing Quality ECCE The following section outlines the long-term benefits of early childhood care and education provision as identified by participating parents. Overall, the majority of the parents (88.4%) felt that positive social development was a long-term benefit of ECCE provision, followed closely by positive emotional development (81.4%). Just under half of all parents (18) cited the increased likelihood of second-level school completion as a long-term benefit, whilst thirteen felt that third-level school completion were long-term benefits of quality early childhood care and education provision. Eight parents felt that reduced perpetration of crime and seven parents thought increased economic performance were long-term benefits of providing good quality early childhood care and education. Table 4.6: Long Term Benefits of Quality ECCE Provision N=44 Count % of % of Responses (N) Responses Respondents Positive Social Development Positive Emotional Development Second-Level School Completion Third-Level School Completion Reduced Perpetration of Crime Increased Economic Performance Other TOTAL The Role of Statutory Authorities in Quality ECCE Provision Parents were asked to describe how they felt the government might help to ensure that all early childhood care and education settings are of high quality. More than half of all parents (67.4%) felt that compulsory staff qualifications for practitioners working in the field would ensure high standards of quality in ECCE settings. The provision of public funding (24) and the development of a National Quality Framework (23) were also outlined by more than half of the respondents. Twenty parents felt that government provision of tax incentives or subsidisation for parents would assist in the development of high quality ECCE. More than a third of 31 Other includes: Reduced rates of drug use (4), increased financial returns to state (4), positive attitude to learning (3), educational advancement (2), increased parental socialisation (2), increased levels of discipline (2), positive attitude to life generally (1) and other (3). 80

81 the respondents felt that the provision of a child development curriculum/programme (39.5%), a child development assessment strategy (37.2%) as well as ongoing monitoring and evaluation (34.9%) would ensure the governments help to ensure high quality ECCE provision. Table 4.7: Statutory Role in the Provision of Good Quality ECCE N=44 Count % of % of Responses (N) Responses Respondents Compulsory Staff Qualifications Provision of Public Funding for Public and Private Settings Development of a National Quality Framework Provision of Tax Incentives/Subsidisation Child Development Curriculum/Programme Child Development Assessment Strategy Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation Staff Supervisory Support Compulsory Adult/Child Ratios Relationship/Rapport Building Between Parents and Staff Accreditation Schemes Integration of ECCE Under One Regulatory Dept Capitation Fee Linked to Qualifying Criteria Provision of Paid Professional Development Other TOTAL More than a quarter of respondents felt staff supervisory support (27.9%), and compulsory adult/child ratios (25.6%) contribute to good quality ECCE. Relationship or rapport building between parents and practitioners (20.9%) and the introduction of an accreditation scheme (20.9%) were highlighted as potential contributors to quality by more than a fifth of parents. Eight parents felt the integration of early childhood care and education under one regulatory government department would contribute to the provision of high quality early childhood care and education, seven felt the provision of a capitation fee which was linked to qualifying criteria would assist, and 32 Other includes: Increase staff remuneration/benefits/equality with primary teachers (4), build awareness of cultural/socio-economic diversity (3), regulations surrounding health and safety (2), recognition of specific needs based on geographical location (2), development of resources for special needs (2), integration of ECCEs with primary schools (2) and increased numbers of Early Start places (1). 81

82 six parents felt the provision of paid professional development of practitioners working in the field would ensure high quality ECCE provision The National Quality Framework All 44 parents were briefly told about the National Quality Framework which is currently being developed by the CECDE (on behalf of the Department of Education and Science) for evaluating the quality of all the early childhood care and education settings. Parents were then asked for their views regarding the framework. Thirtynine (92.9%) of all participants responded positively to its development 33, with only one person responding negatively she felt that the framework might lead to rigidity and not allow for flexibility. When asked what the framework should include, this respondent felt that parental and practitioners opinions should be included in its development, she also felt the framework should not be too clinical and should advocate/encourage the development of a homely environment within settings. Over half (52.3%) of the participants felt that encouraging the development of a homely environment should be an aspect of the framework for quality. Twentythree respondents felt the framework should be a basic set of guidelines which allow for flexibility/expansion on the settings behalf, depending on the type of service being provided. Twenty-one (48.3%) of the respondents (50%, including the respondent who responded negatively above) felt the opinions of parents and practitioners should be included in the development of the framework, and 31.8% felt that Ireland should draw on international experiences where such tools have been developed. Over one-quarter (27.3%) of respondents felt the framework should place an emphasis on education, whilst 22.7% felt the framework should not be too clinical. Nine of the respondents felt standardisation guidelines should be included for the regulation, evaluation and funding of early childhood care and education settings. Sixteen percent of parents felt regulations concerning the training of practitioners should be incorporated in to a National Quality Framework Missing Answers. 34 Other responses which were outlined less frequently by respondents include: Consult children/allow their voices to be heard (3), regulate adult/child ratios (3), equality/inclusiveness of cultural/socioeconomic backgrounds (2), regulation re: indoor & outdoor space (2), encouragement of learning/education through play (2) and regulation surrounding special needs assessment (2). 82

83 4.4.8 The Importance of Various ECCE Elements Parents were asked to provide their views on the importance of a number of elements within ECCE settings including safety of the setting, importance of adult/child ratios, learning and play resources, compatibility to family commitments, cultural supports and preparation of children for formal schooling. Table 4.8 below outlines the main findings. Table 4.8: Parental Perspectives on the Importance of Various ECCE Elements N=44 Elements Very Important N (%) Important N (%) Not Important N (%) Missing Responses N (%) Safety 40 (90.9) 2 (4.5) 0 (0.0) 2 (4.5) Adult/Child 18 (40.9) 20 (45.5) 1 (2.3) 5 (11.3) ratios Learning/Play 20 (45.5) 19 (43.2) 1 (2.3) 4 (9.1) Resources Compatibility 16 (36.4) 17 (38.6) 2 (4.5) 9 (20.5) to family Commitments Cultural 6 (13.6) 23 (52.0) 5 (11.4) 10 (23.0) Support Preparation of Children for Formal Schooling 18 (41.0) 16 (36.4) 1 (2.3) 9 (20.3) (a) The Importance of Safety - Of the 42 parents who felt that safety was either a very important / important aspect of early childhood care and education, fifteen felt that knowing a setting was safe gave parents peace of mind. Eight of the parents felt that a safe setting provides for optimum care and learning for the child, whilst three felt that safety measures within a setting ensured that staff were capable of dealing with first aid events as they occurred. (b) The Importance of Adult/Child Ratios Thirty-eight respondents felt that adult/child ratios were either important/very important in an early childhood care and education setting. Of those, 29 felt higher ratios of adults to children allowed for increased levels of attention for children, and two felt it encouraged increased social development for children. 83

84 (c) The Importance of Learning and Play Resources Nineteen of the parents who felt that learning and play resources were important/very important in ECCE settings, felt the provision of such resources aided the development of children. Eleven felt they contributed to the children s overall levels of stimulation, and six felt it assisted the development of children s creativity and imagination. Two respondents felt learning and play resources help to prepare children for formal schooling. (d) The Importance of Compatibility with Family Commitments Thirty-three parents felt that compatibility of ECCE settings with family commitments is important/very important. Of these, nine felt that it was important for a setting to be flexible around parental needs, as this allowed parents to attend courses or to advance their careers. Two respondents felt that the compatibility of a setting to family needs/commitments allowed parents and children to get a break from one another, whilst two also felt that it encourages good dynamics between the setting and the parents. Thirteen of the respondents felt that the provision of an ECCE setting which was compatible with family commitments provided parents with greater flexibility around dropping children off and picking them up. (e) The Importance of Cultural Support Twenty-one of the twenty-nine parents who felt that cultural support in a setting was important/very important understood that such support encouraged acceptance, understanding and awareness surrounding diversity. Four of the respondents felt that it was important to acknowledge the Irish language and Irish music within settings. Of the five respondents who did not feel that cultural support was important within a setting, two stated that this was because it was not an issue within their particular setting. The vast majority of respondents (93.2%) felt that practitioners are accepting of all children/cultures/beliefs and races. Ten of those parents felt that practitioners displayed their acceptance by interacting with all children in an equal manner. Forty parents felt the practitioners working in the setting which their child(ren) attend(s) are inclusive of children from diverse backgrounds, which they believe the setting accomplishes by enrolling children of diversity (6), incorporating a variety of cultural play (3) and by encouraging open-mindedness, inclusiveness, sensitivity and tolerance amongst children. Those parents felt the practitioners 84

85 accomplished such acceptance by displaying patience with diversity (3), incorporating cultural play activities into the setting (5), not displaying favouritism towards children (1) and by not segregating children (2). They also felt that acceptance, inclusiveness and tolerance of diversity contribute to the quality of an early childhood care and education setting. (f) Importance of Preparation of Children for Formal Schooling Fourteen of the 34 parents who felt that ECCE Settings were important in the preparation of children for formal schooling, felt that early childhood care and education settings assisted in the provision of a basic academic education. Eleven parents felt early childhood care and education settings helped to prepare children socially for formal schooling, whilst eight felt attendance at an ECCE setting helped to ease the transition to primary school for children. Six parents outlined that children s attendance at early childhood care and education settings provided children with routine and discipline, whilst four felt it resolved unhealthy attachment to parents. Three respondents highlighted that ECCE settings prepare children for formal schooling by nurturing an interest in education and one felt early care and education settings help to develop a sense of respect for teachers. To conclude, all parents felt that safety, adult/child ratios, learning and play resources, compatibility to family commitments, cultural support and preparation of children for formal schooling all contribute to the provision of high quality early childhood care and education Parent/Staff Relations The following section outlines the elements relating to parent/staff relationships, and parents perceptions relating to such issues. It includes the main findings relating to parent/staff relationships, respect, patronisation, openness, expression of goals and values as well as greeting at times of drop-off and collection. (a) Relationships - Thirty-nine (88.6%) parents felt they had a very good relationship with the practitioners in their child s setting. Three felt they had a good relationship, whilst one felt she had a fair relationship with the 85

86 practitioners in her child s setting 35. Forty-six percent of parents felt their relationship was good because the practitioners are approachable, flexible, friendly and kind. Twelve of the parents felt so because communication is open and respectful. Sixteen percent of parents outlined that discussion regarding all aspects of their children s behaviour with parents contributes to a positive relationship. (b) Respect All parents felt the practitioners in their child s setting treat them with respect. Seven of the parents felt the practitioners treat them with respect by providing feedback in a professional and respectful manner, four felt the practitioners displayed respect by taking time to discuss issues with parents, whilst three others felt that by embracing parental reservations regarding their children was evidence of respect. Fourteen percent of parents felt that practitioners treat parents with respect by ensuring they do not insult or patronize them, whilst 11.5% outlined that practitioners encourage friendship/accommodate parents. (c) Patronising Behaviour Forty-one of the total number of respondents stated that they never felt that the practitioners in their child(ren) s setting patronize them. Two respondents stated that they felt patronized, and one parent outlined that he/she felt patronized sometimes. (d) Openness Thirty of the 44 parents interviewed felt the practitioners have been very open with them and a further thirteen felt they were open 36. Of the 43 parents who felt the practitioners were open, 44% outlined that the provision of feedback on their child s progression/behaviour, as well as allowing parents to visit the setting display, was evidence of openness. Five respondents felt the staff were open by interacting regularly with parents/carers, whilst 9.3% of the 43 felt being friendly, confidential and flexible with parents supported an atmosphere of openness (and cooperation). All forty-four parental participants felt that openness was an important aspect of high quality settings. 35 One Missing Answer. 36 One Missing Answer. 86

87 (e) Parental Goals and Values Over half (63.6%) of all parents interviewed felt that they have / have had the opportunity to express their goals and values for their children within the setting, while one quarter of parents felt that they have not/do not have such opportunities. The main contexts outlined by parents, within which the expression of goals took place included: informally (6), at all times (6), at meetings (4) and through a suggestion box (1). Thirty-two percent of all parents felt it is important to express parental goals as it allows parents to outline their concerns, seven percent of parents felt expression of goals and values was important because it allows parents and practitioners to support each other, and finally 4.5% of parents felt it was important to express goals and values so that parents can feel listened to. Thirty-seven of the 44 parents felt the allowance of parents to express goals and values was an important aspect of high quality provision, the remaining seven respondents did not feel it contributed to the quality of a setting. (f) Sense of Welcoming More than half of all parents outlined that they are greeted by practitioners more than once a day, 20.5% stated that they are met once a day, whilst one said he/she was greeted every other day. Forty-one (93.2%) parents felt that greeting is an important aspect of a high quality setting, whilst one felt it wasn t 37. Of the 41 parents who felt greeting was an important aspect of a high quality setting, 15 stated that it was important because it allows parents and practitioners to exchange information, twelve felt that it helps to reassure parents/carers, four outlined that it helps to develop a sense of trust between the practitioner and parent, whilst four stated that it allows parents to make practitioners aware of their child s arrival/makes the child feel part of the setting Most Important Aspects Contributing to ECCE Quality Overall, more than half of the respondents (56.8%) felt that the provision of a safe building was an important aspect contributing to good quality early childhood care and education. Safe surroundings and gardens were mentioned by twenty-three (52.3%) of participants, whilst exactly 50% felt positive staff personalities were an important aspect of the quality of a setting. The education and training of 37 Two Missing Answers. 87

88 practitioners were highlighted by 45.5% of all parental respondents, whilst the provision of a homely, caring loving environment was outlined by 17 parents (38.6%). Thirty-six parents felt the style of practice/pedagogical approach of the staff contributed to the overall quality, whilst 31.8% felt the equipment available to practitioners and parents were one of the most important aspects contributing to ECCE quality. Adult/child ratios and the provision of a variation of activities for children were highlighted by twelve of the parents. A further five parents outlined other practicalities including cost. Eleven parents mentioned the presence of positive interactions between/amongst children as the most important contributor to quality. A further ten parents stated that they felt positive interactions between practitioners and children contributed to the quality, whilst eight felt interactions between practitioners and parents did so. Positive child outcomes (9), hygiene (8), education, learning, development and stimulation outcomes (7), a programme inclusive of diversity (7) and the provision of nutritious food (6) were also outlined as being the most important aspects contributing to quality early childhood care and education. 88

89 Table 4.9: The Most Important Aspects Contributing to ECCE Quality N=44 Count % of % of Responses (N) Responses Respondents Safe Building Safe Surroundings and Garden Positive Staff Personalities Education/Training of Practitioners Homely, Caring, Loving Environment Style of Practice/Pedagogical Approach of Staff Equipment Available to Practitioners and Children Adult/Child Ratios Variation of Children s Activities Interaction Between/Amongst Children Interaction Between Children and Practitioners Positive Child Outcomes Interaction Between Practitioners and Parents Hygiene Education, Learning, Development and Stimulation Programme Inclusive of Diversity Provision of Nutritious Food Cost Other TOTAL CONCLUSION Chapter four presented the main findings related to the research carried out with the families who participated in the study. In particular, it outlines findings from the research with the birth to six year olds, along with a discussion on the piloting of a tool designed for use with very young children. Finally, results from interviews with the parents of children participating in this study are examined. A more detailed analysis and discussion of all the findings can be found in Chapter seven. 38 Other includes: Openness surrounding policies and procedures (5), approach to management of setting (4), positive communication styles and relationships (4), flexible opening/closing hours (3), convenient location (2), child development record keeping (2) and sense of welcome (1). 89

90 CHAPTER 5: MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND EDUCATION SETTINGS 5.1 INTRODUCTION The following chapter presents the main findings relating to the twenty-eight settings examined through the course of this study. Although the majority of settings participated in most of the strands of research, some opted out of particular strands for various reasons. The two charts below outline the geographical locations of the participating settings (table 5.1) and the types of settings involved in the research (figure 5.1). This chapter is presented in two distinct sections: section 5.2 outlines the main findings relating to the observable quality of the participant settings. It includes findings relating to the static aspects of quality as observed using the ECERS(R), as well as the dynamic aspects recorded using the IEA Observation Tools. The final section (Section 5.3) presents the practitioners perspectives on quality and outlines their perceptions of determinants of good and poor quality settings. Table 5.1: Number of Settings by Geographical County County Number of Settings per County Border Midlands Western Region 9 Donegal 3 Leitrim 2 Roscommon 2 Galway 2 South and East Region 19 Clare 3 Limerick 7 Carlow 5 Meath 1 Dublin 3 TOTAL 28 90

91 Childminder, 4 Infant Class, 5 Playsch/Playgr, 1 Montessori, 2 Early Start, 2 Afterschool, 1 Naionra, 1 Full Day Care, 7 Hospital Playgroup, 1 Sess./Preschool, 4 Figure 5.1: Type of Participating Settings N= OBSERVABLE QUALITY Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Revised (ECERS(R)) As outlined in Chapter 3, the ECERS(R) rating scale consists of seven subscales: (i) space and furnishings, (ii) personal care routines, (iii) language-reasoning, (iv) activities, (v) interaction, (vi) programme structure, and (vii) parents and staff. Each subscale consists of a number of items (43 in total) covering structural elements to provisions for parents (Harms, Clifford and Cryer, 1998). The overall goal of the observational strand of the project was to assess the observed quality of the settings, which participated in the research. As displayed below, the type of setting being observed does not have an impact on the quality of the setting. 91

92 Infant Class Early Start Naionra Childminder Sessional Preschool Full Day Care Afterschool Montessori Hospital Playgroup Average Score 4 Average Score 5 Average Score 6 Figure 5.2: Overall Average ECERS(R) Score by Type of Setting A total of 26 settings participated in the observation strand of the research. The average scores obtained by the settings are contained in table 5.2 below. According to the rating scale presently under discussion, a score of seven depicts an excellent standard of quality, five represents a good quality setting, three represent a minimal standard of quality, and one describes an inadequate level of quality. The mean score for all settings was 5.9, the standard deviation (the average amount by which each score deviates from the mean score) was The settings range in relation to their average scores was 2.83, with the minimum being 4.05 (between minimal and good) and the maximum being 6.88 (on the verge of excellent). Therefore the settings scores varied slightly, which suggests less homogeneity between the settings. Such a finding questions whether or not the level of variation is related to lack of regulation of quality in ECCEs in Ireland. Table 5.2: Total Average Score for All Settings Label Frequency Percent TOTAL

93 Not one of the settings which participated in the research obtained a score of below 4 i.e. none of the settings scored a minimal or below. Four settings scored between minimal and good (4 4.9), eight (30.4%) scored a good quality rating ( ) and fourteen scored between good and excellent ( ). Six of the settings were on the verge of scoring an excellent rating. The table below illustrates the total number of scores obtained under each of the activities, whilst table 5.4 displays the descriptive statistics for each ECERS item. Space & Furn. Table 5.3: ECERS(R), Total Number of Scores by Activities Personal Language Activities Interact. Prog. Care & Structure Routines Reasoning Parents & Staff TOTAL TOTAL Table 5.4: ECERS Average Item Score Statistics Space and Personal Language Activities Interaction Furnishing Average Score Care Average Score and Reasoning Average Average Score Average Score Programme Structure Average Score Parent and Staff Average Score Score N = 26 Valid Missing Mean Median Mode * Std. Deviation Range Minimum Maximum * Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown. 93

94 A. The Space and Furnishing Subscale assesses the indoor space and furnishings available for both routine care and relaxation, the arrangement of the room in relation to children s play, the adequacy of space for privacy, the amount of childrelated display, as well as the space available for both fine and gross motor skill development. As can be noted above, only one setting scored a mark of excellent in relation to such items. However, only four settings scored below the minimal mark. B. Personal Care Routines include the presence or absence of salutations (on arrival and departure), the provision of meals and snacks, naps and rest times, toileting and diapering facilities and the health and safety practices of the practitioners. Twenty-five (96%) of the settings assessed ranged from good to excellent. The remaining one setting was on the verge of being rated as good (4.8). C. The Language-Reasoning subscale consists of the items, books and pictures, encouraging communication amongst children, the utilisation of language to develop reasoning skills, as well as the informal use of language. Only one setting was rated between minimal and inadequate, two were rated between minimal and good, and the remaining settings scored between good and excellent. Thirty-one percent of the 26 settings examined scored an excellent mark (7), with 50% on the verge of scoring such a rating ( ). D. The Activities subscale includes the presence or adequacy of each of the following items: fine motor skills, art and crafts, music and movement, blocks, sand and water, dramatic play, nature and science, maths and numbers, the use of TVs, videos, and/or computers, as well as promoting acceptance and diversity. A large majority of settings (61%) scored between good and excellent. E. The Interaction subscale includes such items as supervision of gross and fine motor activities, general supervision of children, discipline, staff-child interactions and interactions amongst children themselves. All settings scored between good and excellent in relation to this subscale, with just over 69% scoring an excellent rating. 94

95 F. Programme Structure measures adequacy (or the presence) of the setting schedule, free play, group time and provisions for children with disabilities. Almost 54% were awarded a score of excellent (23%). G. The Parents and Staff subscale included the provisions available for parents, the provisions available for the personal needs of staff, staff interaction and cooperation, supervision and evaluation of staff and the opportunities present within the setting for staff professional development. Only one setting scored between minimal and inadequate. Seven settings scored between minimal and good, and 38% scored between good and excellent. Only one setting scored a rating of excellent in relation to parents and staff provisions. A more detailed analysis of the ECERS(R) Rating Scale findings can be found in Chapter 7 Discussion and Conclusion. However, it should be noted that overall, very few settings scored an inadequate rating within the subscales described. Also, in a number of cases some settings scored quite highly. Other than regulation relating to the static/structural aspects of early childhood care and education settings (by Regional Health Service Executives), the regulation and support of quality in settings throughout the country remain unmonitored by the state, and other aspects of quality support and monitoring is largely carried out by voluntary childcare organisations. The high quality rating findings evident for the participating settings, in this study, is surprising. The achievement of such high scores of quality may be attributable to a number of reasons. We can only speculate that as a result of the sampling procedures utilised for the research, the ECERS(R) strand of the research was somewhat limited in its application. The research team surmise that the relatively high rating scores obtained by a large number of settings on a large number of items (which does not coincide with similar Irish studies (Hennessy and Delaney, 1999), may have been a result of (i) allowing the County Childcare Committees (CCCs) the freedom to select the list of settings from which the research team drew its sample, and (ii) the introduction of the Child Care (Preschool) Regulations, 1996 which may be impacting on the structural quality of settings nationwide (O Kane, 2004 and 2005). As mentioned earlier, the reliability in the application of the instruments can be assured, as the lead researcher 95

96 spent time visiting the settings to conduct the research in tandem with the other field researchers to ensure proper application of the research instruments. The absence of a not applicable section in relation to a number of the items also proved confusing. That is, some of the items under review were not particularly applicable to some of the settings e.g. infant classes and the provision of sleeping facilities. Therefore the field researchers were compelled to give such settings very low scores (which contributed to the overall rating for that setting), as a not applicable section was not provided. One particular item which the research team had difficulty with was the supervision and evaluation of staff. A certain proportion of the settings did not have written evaluative procedures. Therefore, the ECERS(R) scale was a little restrictive in that it only provided for an absence of evaluative procedures or the presence of written evaluative procedures. Although the tool is intended to be an objective, check-list type instrument, some of the items are not as black and white as one would assume. Many of the items require human judgement in order to rate the specific items under assessment IEA Pre-primary Observation Tool The IEA/PPP tool was utilised in a total of 27 settings. Within each setting two children were selected as participants in the research 39, the total number of children involved in the IEA/PPP observation process was 45. As described in Chapter 3, three specific observation tools were utilised in conjunction with one another, to gather data relating to (i) the main adults management of time / activity proposal (MOT), (ii) the observed child s activities (CA), and (iii) the main adult s behaviour (AB). Therefore, each tool gathered unique data relating to the child s daily experiences of early childhood care and education. The following section outlines the main observation findings within the settings involved in the research. Each tool was used for a specified period of time in each setting; the MOT tool was carried out over two days, for two hours per day (total of four hours). Both the CA tool and the AB tool were carried out simultaneously with the MOT tool. The CA tool was also carried out over two days, for 20 minutes per day 39 For a small number of settings only one child was involved with the research. This was particularly evident in settings providing a service for minority groups e.g. Traveller pre-schools and hospital playgroups. In order to ensure the research sample was representative of the child population within the Irish Republic, it was essential that only one child was involved from such settings. 96

97 (four ten-minute measures, totaling 40 minutes over the two-day period). Similarly, the AB tool was carried out simultaneous to the MOT tool over two-days; it was carried out for one thirty-minute period per day i.e. one hour in total. Both the All observations were carried out at various times over the course of two-days to capture a variety of activities and child experiences. It should be noted that although the above time schedule was allocated for each participating child, for reasons beyond the field researchers control, reduced measures of observation time were carried out with a minority of children. Therefore, the results below are displayed as a percentage of the time for which each individual child was observed, rather than a percentage of the proposed measure of time. It is also important to consider that for many of the findings the activity or the mode of interaction was unobserved. This does not suggest that such activities/processes of interaction never occur within the setting, but rather that they did not occur during the period of observation. The information pertaining to the categories outlined below is drawn from the IEA/PPP Training Manual (The International Association for the Evaluation and Educational Achievement (IEA), 1992). A. Management of Time (MOT) The focus of the MOT observation was the main adult s organisation of the children s time within the setting. It recorded each activity proposed by the adult as well as the proposed structure of the group i.e. whole group, partial group, sole activities or joint activities. The main activity proposals observed within each setting are outlined in Table 3.2 on page : Table 5.5 overleaf shows the average percentages of time that practitioners propose children spend participating in each of the general categories. 40 The management of time activity categories were explored in greater detail in Chapter 3. 97

98 Table 5.5: Descriptive Statistics Proposed Activities N=45 Range Mean Median Std. Deviation Category % % % % Physical Expressive Storytelling/Language Preacademic Religion/Ethics Audio-visual/Media Related Personal/Social Domestic/Economic Transitional Waiting Free Activities Mixed Activities Practitioners proposed mixed activities more than any other activity category. An average of 17.4% of all practitioner proposals related to a mixture of child activities. The least proposed activity was Audio-visual/Media Related activities, with a mean of 0.3% of practitioner proposals relating to such activities. Personal and Social Activities were proposed an average of 15.5% of the time, with expressive activities (incorporating dramatic play, arts and crafts, and music) being proposed an average of 13% of times. The following list contains more in-depth findings relating to the specific categories: (i) Action/Movement Six of the twenty-seven adults proposed physical activities between % of the time i.e. both fine and gross motor neuron activities. Two of the adults proposed physical activities an average of 54 62% of the time. The mean percentage of action/movement proposals was 10.7%. (ii) Expressive Activities Eighteen of the adults proposed expressive activities % of the time. Eight of the adults did not propose any expressive activities during the observation period, and two adults proposed such activities between 36 53% of the time. Almost a quarter of all the adults observed made proposals relating to expressive activities fewer than ten percent of the observed time. 98

99 (iii) Storytelling/Language - Almost one quarter of the adults observed did not propose any storytelling/language activities throughout the observation period. (iv) Pre-academic Activities - One of the observed adults proposed preacademic activities 40.5% of the time. (v) Religion/Ethics Just thirteen adults proposed activities relating to religion or ethics, while almost three quarters (71.1%) of adults observed made no such reference. (vi) Media-related Activities - Three of the observed adults made any mediarelated proposals during the observation periods. (vii) Personal and Social Skills During the entire observation period of one of the settings, the main adult did not make any personal and social activity proposals, whereas for two of the adults, 33-41% of their total number of proposals related to such activities. (viii) Domestic/Economic Activities Seven (26.4%) of the adults made domestic and economic activities between % of the time. One adult proposed economic activities, however such propositions were made 1.82% of the time. (ix) Transitional Activities Six of the observed adults did not propose any transitional activities throughout the observation period. (x) Waiting Twenty (74%) of the observed adults proposed waiting activities less than 10% of the time. (xi) Free Activities - One of the observed adults made proposals relating to free activity 85% of the time. One quarter of the adults did not make any free activity proposals. (xii) Mixed Activities - Eight of the adults proposals related to mixed activities between 40 65% of the time. However, almost one quarter of the adults did not propose any mixed activities. The IEA/PPP Observation Tool was primarily drawn on for the current project to assess the level of observable dynamic quality within the participating settings. The Group Structure element of the observation tool allowed the research team to observe the percentage of overall proposals which the main adult made relative to the children s group structure, during the observation period. The findings are as follow: 99

100 Table 5.6: Descriptive Statistics Group Structure Proposals N=45 Categories Range % Mean % Median % Std. Deviation % Whole Group Partial Group Joint Activity Alone The practitioners proposals related to whole group activities an average of 67.7% of the time. Just over one quarter (27.1%) of the practitioners mean number of proposals related to partial group activities, 6.9% related to alone activities and the least proposed group structure were joint activities, which were proposed an average of 2.2% of the time. The group structure of practitioners proposals varied greatly from setting to setting. The main findings relative to group structure proposals are as follow: Four of the practitioners proposed the children work as an entire/whole group 92-98% of the time. One adult did not propose any whole group activities throughout the observation period. Forty-four of the observed adults made partial group proposals up to 75% of the time. More than half of the adults observed within the research did not propose any joint activities for the children within their settings, with the remaining adults only making such proposals between 1-10% of the total time. Almost 63% of the adults observed did not propose any alone activities for the children within the settings, therefore that same number ensured children were interacting with other children/adults at all times. One adult proposed the children work alone 100% of the time. B. Child Activities (CA) The core focus of the child activities observation tool was the activities the children being observed engaged in. The children s activities were recorded at 30-second intervals. The social context of the child s activities (with one other child, in a small group of 2-6 children, in a large group of seven of more children, with one or more adults, or when the child responds as part of a group) was also noted. The frequency 100

101 of the observed children s verbalisations was also recorded. Table 3.3 on page 38 provides examples of some of the CA activities. A total of 45 children were observed for the Child Activity observation section. The following are the findings related to the activities observed within the settings 41 : Table 5.7: Descriptive Statistics Child Activities N=45 Range Mean Median Std. Deviation Categories % % % % Physical Expressive Language/Story Preacademic Religious Media Related Personal/Social Expressions of Positive Emotions Expression of Negative Emotions Domestic Activities Economic Activities Transitional Accidents Waiting An average of 27.7% of the children s time was spent engaging in physical activities, this was followed by personal and social activities a mean of 18.6% of the time. In total, 16.7% of the observed children s time was spent engaging in expressive activities, whilst 11.5% was spent participating in preacademic activities. The activities, which children spent the least amount of observed time participating in, were religious (an average of 0%) and economic (also an average of 0%). From a total of 45 children, 15 (33%) participated in physical activities between % of the time. Twenty percent of all children participated in physical activities between % of the total time observed. Only three children were not observed participating in any physical activities (including fine and gross motor activities) throughout the observation period. Twenty-two percent of the 45 children did not participate in any expressive activities throughout the observation period. An almost 41 A more detailed description of the activities within which the observed children participate is contained within Chapter

102 identical number (20%) participated in such activities between % of the total observed time. Overall a small amount of time was spent engaging in language/storytelling activities, with over half of the children (51.1%) not participating in such activities throughout the observation period. For those children who did engage in such activities the greatest percentage of time spent doing so was 32.5% of the observed time (2 children). Pre-academic activities played quite a big role in the settings observed, with almost three quarters of all children (73.3%) participating in such activities at some stage during the observation period. However, no children participated in any religious activities during the observation period. Three children engaged in media-related activities and the maximum number of time spent doing so was 24.3% of the total observed time. Quite a substantial number of children (43) participated in personal and social skills during the observations. The amount of time spent doing so ranged between % of the total amount of time. More than half of the children observed displayed positive emotions during the observation period. However, 46.7% did not display (or were not recorded displaying) positive emotions throughout the observation period. Just over thirteen percent of all children displayed some negative emotions during the fieldwork. A huge majority of children (86.7%) did not display any such emotions during the period. More than half of all children (53.2%) were observed participating in domestic activities e.g. cleaning up, preparing for meals etc. The maximum amount of time spent doing so was 20% of the total amount of observed time. Only one child participated in any economic activities during the observation period and was witnessed doing so for 1.3% of that time. A further 84.4% of all children engaged in some transitional activity; two of the children spent between % of the total observed time engaged in transitional activities. Just over eleven percent (11.1%) of all children were observed having accidents e.g. tripping, falling or knocking something over unintentionally. Forty of the children did not have any accidents during the observation period. Almost 80% (36 children) of the participants were observed spending time waiting for an activity, waiting for role-call or wandering aimlessly about the setting. For 11.1% of those children up to 37.5% of their total observed time was spent doing so. 102

103 The following table outlines the social contexts within which the children were observed: Table 5.8: Group Structure N = 45 Range Mean Median Std. Deviation Categories % % % % Adult/Child Interaction Interaction with One Child Interaction with Between Children Interaction with 7 or More Children Verbalization Group Response An average of 53.2% of the total amount of children s activities were spent interacting with one/more adult(s). This was followed by interaction with between two to six children, with an average of 37.1% of children s time spent doing so. A mean 21% of the observed time was spent interacting with seven or more children, with 10.1% spent interacting with one child. Just over twenty percent (20.3%) of the observed children s time was spent talking, with 5.3% of their interactions taking place as a group response. The amount of time which children spent interacting with other children varied greatly between settings. The following is an overview of the main findings: Eight of the 45 children spent up to 38% of the total observed time engaging with one child. One child spent almost 98% of his/her total time interacting with between two to six children. Three children spent between 87 98% of their time interacting with seven or more children during the observations. Sixteen of the children (35.6%) did not spend any time interacting in a larger group, or at least were not observed doing so. Sixteen of the children spent 100% of their time interacting with one/more adult(s). Twenty-eight children did not verbally respond in a group structure throughout the observation periods. 103

104 Forty-two children (93%) spent between % of their time talking to another child or an adult during the observation period. C. Adult Behaviour (AB) The activities of the main adult within the setting under observation were the focus of this observation tool. All activities were recorded on a 30-second interval, regardless of whether the adult was directly interacting with the children or not. Due to its size, a table (Table A.3) containing a brief description of the categories subsumed under the adult behaviour observation tool are contained within appendix five. The following are the findings relative to the adult behaviour instrument 42 : Table 5.9: Descriptive Statistics Adult Behaviour N = 45 Categories Range % Mean % Median % Std. Deviation % Teaching Participation Nurturance Management Supervision Transition Routine Personal An average of more than 34% of practitioners time was spent teaching the children at the participant settings. Just over twenty percent (20.5%) of the adults observed time was spent engaging in routine activities, which includes planning and managerial activities related to the daily operation of the setting. This was followed by a mean of 12.2% of their time spent participating in activities with children. The lowest average time was spent engaging in personal activities which involve non-child related activities e.g. drinking tea, making personal phone calls. In relation to the behaviour of adults during the observation, the following is an outline of the main findings: One adult was not observed engaging in any informational/facilitative teaching strategies during the adults observed time period. Therefore forty-three 42 A more detailed description of each of the categories is provided in Chapter

105 (96%) practitioners spent some time teaching, facilitating, guiding and eliciting information from children during the observation period. Forty-one of the 45 adults spent time participating and/or sharing activities with children whilst being observed. Forty-three (95%) of the adults engaged in some nurturance/expressions of affection towards children during the observation period. One of the adults under observation spent half of her/his time doing so. The remaining adult spent between % of his/her time engaging in friendly or affectionate behaviour/support. Forty-three of the 45 adults under observation engaged in child management behaviour (giving orders, solving problems and conflict, establishing rules) during the time they were observed. The amount of time doing so ranged from % of their total observed time. Thirty-seven of the 45 observed adults spent between % of their time displaying supervisory behaviour i.e. checking on children, supervising play, watching from a distance. Ninety percent of the adult participants were observed engaging in transitional activities between % of their time. Forty-one of the 45 adults spent between % of their time engaging in routine activities e.g. preparing meals, cleaning up, making lesson plans etc. Four of the adults were not observed partaking in such behaviour during the observation periods. Twenty-seven (60%) of the adults engaged in some personal activities whilst being observed by the field workers. However, the maximum percentage of their total observed time spent doing so was 17%. A detailed analysis and discussion on the major findings can be found in Chapter 7. Overall we can note that a certain level of interaction took place between children and children, as well as between adults and children in the settings observed. We can also note that variation exists between all the observed settings in relation to the activities which both children and adults engage in. The main adults management of time is quite consistent and varies little between the types of activities being observed. 105

106 5.3 PERCEIVED QUALITY The following section outlines the perspectives of participating practitioners, all of who were female, and were located in a variety of urban and rural geographical areas (see Figure 5.3 below). Limerick Meath Carlow Roscommon Dublin Leitrim Clare Galway Donegal Figure 5.3: Sample by County A diverse range of practitioners were interviewed from a variety of early childhood care and education settings, all of whom were female. Almost a fifth of those interviewed worked in sessional/pre-school services (18.5%) and full day care services (18.5%). Fifteen percent were childminders (14.8%) or worked in infant classes in the formal education system (14.8%). The remainder of practitioners were employed in Montessori (11.1%), early start classes (3.7%), naoínraí (3.7%), afterschool (3.7%) and hospital play groups (3.7%) Sess/Presch 2 5 Playsch/Playgr Full Day 1 Hospital Playgr Infant Class Afterschool 5 Childminder Naionra 4 1 Montessori Early Start Figure 5.4: Setting Type 106

107 5.3.1 Contribution of ECCE to Birth to Six Year Olds Twenty-six of the total number of practitioner participants responded to the question relating to the contribution of early childhood care and education. Of those 26, 22 (84.6%) felt early childhood care and education enhances children s social skills, 42.3% felt it is the beginning of the learning process, 34.6% felt it enhances children s levels of self-esteem and confidence, whilst 30.8% (eight) felt it assists in the development of independence. The contribution which ECCE makes to birth to six year olds levels of interaction rated quite highly amongst practitioners, 23.1% (six) believing it contributes to levels of interaction amongst children s peers and 19.2% (five) believing it contributes to interaction with adults other than children s parents. Although only outlined by a small number of respondents, the contribution which early childhood education makes to children s development of routine (one), the early identification of physical and educational difficulties (one) and the development of concentration skills also featured. Table 5.10: Contribution of ECCE to Birth to Six Year Olds (Practitioners Perspectives) N = Count % of % of Response Responses Respondents 44 Enhances Social Skills Beginning of the Learning Process Enhances Self-Esteem and Confidence Development of Independence Peer Support and Interaction with Children Interaction with Adults other than Parents Assists in the Transition to Primary School Personality Development Language Development Enhances Creative Learning through Play Opportunity to Experience Diversity Space to Permit Physical Development Provision of Consistency for Children Other TOTAL One Missing Answer. 44 The % of Respondents column is present in multiple response tables i.e. questions for which respondents were invited to give multiple responses to a question. It refers to the total percentage of respondents who outlined such a response. 45 Others include: Development of routine (1), early identification of physical and educational difficulties (1) and development of concentration skills (1). 107

108 5.3.2 Selecting an ECCE Setting Important Criteria: Practitioners were asked to identify the criteria that would be most important to them personally if selecting an ECCE setting. Almost two thirds (63%) identified staff training/qualifications and/or the safety of the setting as the most important criteria. More than half of all practitioners felt child development/education curriculum (55.6%), resources, equipment and available space (55.6%), and/or teaching style/pedagogical approach (51.9%) would be amongst the most important personal criteria in their choice of setting. Less than 10% of practitioners highlighted the presence of a child s friend in the setting (7.4%), the provision of an interactive environment (3.7%), a purpose built facility (3.7%), funding for administration (3.7%) and/or the provision of early assessment for children (3.7%) as important to them in their personal choice of ECCE setting. While respondents selected specific criteria that they would identify as important in their personal choice of ECCE setting, all practitioners, when asked, agreed that all of the criteria listed in Table 5.11 below would contribute to the quality of a setting. This is despite the fact that not all were highlighted as of importance in their personal selection of a setting. Table 5.11: Important Criteria in Selecting ECCE N = 27 Count % of % of Response Responses Respondents Staff Training/Qualifications Safety of the Setting & Environment Resources/Equipment/Space Available Child Development/Education Curriculum Teaching Style/Pedagogical Approach of the Teach Child/Staff Ratios Accommodation of Gender/Fam lang/culture/morals/religion Accommodation of Child s Health Needs Cost Opening Times Number of Children Enrolled Approach/Friendliness of Staff Positive, Fun, Homely Atmosphere Geographical Location Other TOTAL Note: Other includes: Ability to trust staff (4), Engagement of parents/carers (4), Presence of child s friends in setting (3), Provision of an interactive environment (1), Purpose built building (1), Funding for administration (1) and Provision of early assessment for children (1). 108

109 5.3.3 Aspects Contributing to Good Quality Settings: Practitioners were asked to list the aspects which they feel contribute to a good quality ECCE setting. The vast majority of respondents (81.5%) believed a safe building, surroundings and garden were priority aspects contributing to the quality of a service. A majority also felt that appropriate equipment for children s use (66.7%), staff education and training (59.3%) and/or communication styles and positive relationships (51.9%) counted as aspects of good quality ECCE settings. Table 5.12: Aspects contributing to a good quality ECCE setting Responses Count % of Responses % of Respondents Safe Building, Surroundings & Garden Equipment Available for Children s Use Staff Education and Training Communication Styles & Relationships / Positive Staff Personalities Interaction Between Children & Adults Interaction Between Children Child/staff Ratios Style of Practice/Pedagogical Approach of Staff Day-to-day Experiences of Children Interaction Between Staff Members Number of Children Enrolled in Setting Availability of Garden/outdoor Area/ventilation Approach to Management of Setting Interaction Between Practitioners & Parents Environment of Setting (including homely, caring, welcoming and comfortable) Enough Space to Play Other TOTAL Less than ten percent of practitioners selected openness surrounding policies and procedures (7.4%), parental involvement (7.4%), low staff turnover (7.4%), provision of a routine (3.7%), disciplinary procedures (3.7%), a regulated and monitored setting (3.7%), adherence to curriculum/programme (3.7%) and consideration of parental 47 Other includes: Cleanliness (3), Provision of routine (1), Disciplinary procedures (1), Provision of nutritious food (1), Variation of activities (3), Openness surrounding policies and procedures (2), Program inclusive of diversity (3), Parental involvement (2), Regulated & Monitored setting (1), Low staff turn-over (2), Adherence to curriculum/program (1), Consideration for parental needs (1) 109

110 needs (3.7%) as aspects which contributed to/or influencing the provision of good quality ECCE settings Aspects Determining Poor Quality Settings: Practitioners were asked to identify from a list of aspects which they felt would contribute to a poor quality ECCE setting. More than half identified poor resources and facilities (66.7%), lack of staff qualifications (63%) and/or a non-nurturing, uncaring, unfriendly environment as aspects of poor quality ECCE. More than a third of all practitioners identified poor health and safety procedures (44.4%), bad outcomes for children (37.0%) and/or a poorly structured setting (37.0%) as aspects, which they felt, contributed to poor quality ECCE settings. Table 5.13: Aspects Determining Poor Quality Settings Response Count % of Responses % of Respondents Poor Resources and Facilities Lack of Staff Qualifications Non-nurturing, Uncaring, Unfriendly, Nonhomely Environment Poor Health and Safety Procedures Poor Outcomes for Children Poor Setting Structure Poor Outdoor Space/play Areas Lack of Annual Programme/Curriculum/Structure Poor Staff Relations with Parents Poor Indoor Space/play Area Low Adult/child Ratios Other TOTAL Less than ten per cent of all practitioners selected a lack of cleanliness (7.4%), a large setting (3.7%), lack of monitoring/supervision of staff (3.7%), poor outcomes for children (3.7%), provision of unhealthy food (3.7%) and/or a lack of an all-inclusive policy (3.7%) as aspects determining a poor quality ECCE setting. 48 Others include: Setting too big (1), Adoption of a business type approach (3), Lack of monitoring & supervision of staff (1), Poor staff & management relations/support systems (3), Lack of cleanliness (2), Provision of unhealthy food (1), Lack of feedback to parents (1), Lacking an all-inclusive policy (1), Other (2) 110

111 5.3.5 Immediate-term Benefits of Providing Quality ECCE: As outlined in the table below, more than half of all practitioners identified the development of social skills (59.3%) and/or emotional stability (51.9%) as immediate term benefit(s) of quality ECCE provision. More than a third of practitioners also identified high self-esteem (48.1%), greater assertiveness (40.7%), the development of reasoning and problem-solving skills (40.7%), independence (37%) and/or higher rates of participation in extra-curricular activities as immediate-term benefit(s) of quality ECCE provision. Less than ten per cent of participants selected positivity (3.7%) and/or better developed routines as an immediate term benefit of ECCE. Respondents were asked to outline benefits for children aged birth to six years, therefore we cannot distinguish if practitioners perspectives differ depending on the child s age. Table 5.14: Immediate-term Benefits of Quality ECCE Provision Response Count % of Responses % of Respondents Development of Social Skills Emotional Stability High Self-esteem Greater Assertiveness Developed Reasoning & Problem-solving Skills Independence Higher Rates of Participation in Extra-curricular Activities Higher Grades in Primary School Greater Leadership Abilities Gain in IQ/academic Attainment Low Rates of Depression Increased Preparation for Primary School Other TOTAL Other includes: Better developed communication skills (3), Positivity (1), Better developed routine (1), Increased levels of stimulation (3) 111

112 5.3.6 Long-term Benefits of Quality ECCE Provision: Almost 90% of respondents selected positive social development (88.5%) and positive emotional development (69.2%) as long-term benefits of quality ECCE provision. Almost a quarter of practitioners (23.1%) selected an increased economic performance on behalf of the child as a long-term benefit of ECCE. Less than ten per cent of practitioners selected the development of a positive attitude towards learning (7.7%), increased involvement in extra-curricular activities (7.7%), completion of third-level schooling (3.8%), reduced drug use (3.8%), increased socialisation for parents (3.8%) as perceived long term benefits of good quality ECCE provision. Table 5.15: Long-term Benefits of Quality ECCE Provision Response Count % of Responses % of Respondents Positive Social Development Positive Emotional Development Increased Economic Performance Second-level School Completion Educational Advancement Independence Increased Levels of Discipline Reduced Perpetration of Crime Other TOTAL The Role of Statutory Authorities in Quality ECCE Provision The following table outlines the main findings relating to practitioners perspectives on the role of statutory authorities in the provision and support of good quality early childhood care and education. Over fifty-five percent (55.6%) of practitioners felt the government could ensure high quality Early Childhood Care and Education through the development of a national 50 Others include: Third-level School Completion (1), Reduced Rates of Drug Use (1), Returns to State (3), Development of a Positive Attitude to Learning (2), Development of a Positive Attitude to Life (3), Increased Socialisation for Parents (1), Increased Extra-curricular Activity (2), Development of Respect for Others (3), Other (2). 112

113 guiding framework for quality and/or through a child development curriculum (51.9%). There was also strong support for ongoing monitoring and evaluation (48.1%), compulsory adult/child ratios (44.4%) and/or compulsory staff qualifications (44.4%) as strategies the government might use to ensure high quality ECCE. Table 5.16: Statutory Role in the Provision of Good Quality ECCE Response Count % of Responses % of Cases Develop a National Quality Framework Child Development Curriculum/Programme Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation Compulsory Adult/Child Ratios Compulsory Staff Qualifications Provision of Public Funding for Both Private & Public Settings Integration of ECCE under one Regulatory Dept. Child Development Assessment Strategy Capitation Fee linked to Qualifying Criteria Staff Supervisory Support Accreditation Schemes Increase Staff Remuneration & Benefits/Equality with Primary Teachers Other TOTAL Less than ten per cent of practitioners selected the building of a rapport between parents (7.4%), the development of awareness around cultural/social issues (7.4%), consulting with parents and staff (7.4%), regulations around health and safety procedures (3.7%) and/or the guarantee of indoor/outdoor play space (3.7%) as strategies which the government could adopt to ensure high quality ECCE provision. 51 Others include: Provision of professional development (3), Relationship/Rapport building between parents & staff (3), Develop awareness around cultural/socio-economic diversity and inclusiveness (3), Integration of ECCE with formal school settings (1), Regulations around Health & Safety procedures (1), Ensure provision of Indoor/Outdoor play (1), Subsidisation for parents (3), Increase choice of settings (1) and Consult with parents & staff (2). 113

114 5.3.8 The National Quality Framework Researchers explained the development of the National Quality Framework to the participating practitioners, and asked them to comment on whether or not they viewed such a development in a positive light. All practitioners interviewed supported the development of the National Quality Framework and agreed it is a positive step in terms of the development of ECCE in Ireland. In relation to the contents of the framework, two thirds of the practitioners believed it should include a standardised set of guidelines providing for regulation, evaluation and funding. Almost half (48.1%) of the respondents felt that regulations regarding staff training should be included in the framework, with a quarter believing the regulation of child/staff ratios and/or regulation regarding health and safety should be included. Less than one fifth of practitioners felt an emphasis on education (18.5%), consultation with/participation of children (18.5%) and/or provision of equality and inclusiveness (both cultural and socio/economic background) (18.5%) should be included in the framework. Less than ten percent of practitioners mentioned the framework should advocate for a homely environment (7.4%), benchmarking for practitioners (3.7%), the provision of basic structural standards (7.4%), regulation surrounding special needs and child protection assessment (3.7%) the conduction of unannounced evaluations (3.4%) and/or the opinion of parents (3.7%) The Importance of Various ECCE Elements Practitioners were asked to rate the importance of a number of outlined features in early childhood care and education settings, including safety, adult/child ratios, learning and play resources, compatibility with familial commitments, cultural supports, the preparation of children for school, staff pre-service training, staff inservice training, staff supervision and staff support. The results are presented in Table 5.17 overleaf. 114

115 Table 5.17: Practitioners Perceptions of Importance relative to Various Elements N=27 Element Very Important (N) Important (N) Not Important (N) Missing Responses (N) Safety Adult/Child Ratios Learning/Play Resources Compatibility with Familial Commitments Cultural Support Preparation of Children for Formal Schooling (a) Safety In the majority of cases (58.3%), practitioners rated safety as important within a setting because it ensures an overall safe environment. A fifth of practitioners (20.8%) felt safety was important because of the reassurance it provides for parents around the safety of their children, while a further 16.7% felt that it provides for optimum care and learning for children. Less than ten per cent of practitioners felt that safety was important because (a) it assists children in the development of knowledge surrounding safety and/or (b) because it is essential that staff are trained to cope with accidents. (b) Adult/Child Ratios Almost three-quarters of practitioners (73.7%) rated adult/child ratios as important, largely because high adult ratios ensure increased attention and support for children. More than a quarter of all practitioners felt adult/child ratios were important in terms of adult supervision of children (26.3%). Five percent of practitioners felt ratios ensured increased social development and increased opportunity for stimulation of children. (c) Learning & Play Resources - More than three-quarters of the respondents (76.5%) felt that play and learning resources are important because they facilitate active learning through play. Additional reasons for the importance of learning and play resources according to practitioners (albeit on a much reduced scale at 5.9% of the sample), include the role they play in ensuring easy implementation of the curriculum, their ability to build children s confidence and their provision of variation of choice for children. 115

116 (d) Compatibility with Family Commitments - Sixty per cent of the sample provided reasons for the importance of a setting being compatible with family commitments. The majority (56%) rated being compatible with family commitments as important because it creates a good dynamic between the parents and the setting. A quarter outlined that it allowed for parental needs and 12.5% stated that it s important because it provides flexibility to allow parents to pursue careers/qualifications and/or to provide flexibility around drop-off and pick-up of their child. (e) Cultural Supports - More than half of all respondents felt cultural support was very important within a setting while a further 40% felt it was important. Five per cent of respondents felt it was not very important. Sixty-three per cent of all respondents provided further details for rating the importance of cultural support. Of this group, almost two-thirds (64.7%) felt that the provision of cultural supports encourage acceptance and awareness of diverse cultures. A small number of practitioners (11.8%) felt that generating cultural awareness amongst children helps them to maintain their sense of culture. The one practitioner who felt the provision of cultural support is not important, felt so because she did not feel it affected her particular setting. (f) Preparation of Children for Formal Schooling - Of the 81.5% of practitioners who responded to this question, almost half felt that ECCE is very important in preparing children for school. More than a third of respondents rated it as important, while 13.6% of the sample did not feel ECCE was important in preparing children for school. The majority of respondents who elaborated on such a topic (55.6% of 67%) felt that ECCE prepares children for school by easing the transition to primary school. A further 38.9% of respondents stated that early childhood care and education prepares children for socialisation in school, while more than a quarter (27.8%) outlined that ECCE provides children with a basic education in preparation for formal schooling. Only 5.6% of respondents felt ECCE prepared children for school by improving their levels of concentration. 116

117 The Importance of Staff Development Elements All practitioners were provided with the opportunity to express the importance which they placed on the following staff development elements: pre-service training, inservice training, staff supervision and staff support. Table 5.18 below outlines the level of importance which the participants placed on such elements. Table 5.18: Practitioners Perceptions of the Importance of Staff Development Elements N=27 Element Very Important (N) Important (N) Not Important (N) Missing Cases (N) Staff Pre Service Training Staff In Service Training Staff Supervision Staff Support (a) Staff Pre-Service Training - The vast majority of all practitioners rated preservice staff training as very important (96.3%), while one respondent rated it as important. Almost half of those practitioners who elaborated on this topic (43.8% of 67%) denoted importance to the fact that pre-service training helps child development through increased practitioner awareness. Almost a fifth (18.8%) of respondents outlined pre-service training as important because it helps staff to remain current regarding regulations and curriculum developments, because the training can have an influence on children, and/or because pre-service training helps to develop staff confidence. (b) Staff In-Service Training - The majority of surveyed practitioners felt in-service staff training was either very important (81.5%) or important (14.8%). Only one respondent did not feel in-service training was important. Of the 85% of practitioners who provided more in depth information, almost three quarters (73.7%) felt in-service training was important because it assists staff in the development of new/fresh ideas. More than a quarter (26.3%) outlined that it helps to increase staff awareness, and the remaining ten percent of respondents felt 117

118 in-service training was important because it is a way of establishing regular practices and keeping them in place. (c) Staff Supervision - The majority of practitioners considered staff supervision as either very important (57.7%) or important (38.5%). One practitioner rated staff supervision as being of average importance and one respondent did not answer this particular question. Seventy per cent of all practitioners elaborated on their reasons for considering staff supervision as important. Almost half of those respondents (44.4%) felt that regular staff appraisals benefited staff. A further 16.7% felt that good supervision contributed to a happy environment and in turn happier children, with two believing that such was necessary for supporting new staff members and two understanding that supervision allowed staff share concerns. For the remaining four responses, reasons included the assurance of child safety, the provision of support, the encouragement of staff and the monitoring of the success of the service. One respondent felt that staff supervision was not important because management have to be able to trust staff. (d) Staff Support - The majority of interviewed practitioners considered staff support to be either very important (88.9%) or important (7.4%). One practitioner felt that staff supervision was of average importance. Although the level of further elaboration in respect of this question was quite low, 11.1% of those who felt staff support was important felt this to be the case because the presence of communication amongst staff is paramount for the effective running of any service. When asked if they felt the aspects outlined above contributed to the quality of a setting, all respondents (27) answered positively. 118

119 Contributors to Quality Provision The following section outlines an analysis of the elements which practitioners felt contribute to the quality of early childhood care and education. Table 5.19 below outlines whether the practitioners felt the different elements contribute to quality. Table 5.19: Contributing Factors to the Quality of Settings N=27 Contributes to Quality Does not Contribute to Factor (N) Quality (N) Trust Amongst Staff Members Relationships with Children 26 1 Staff Working Conditions 27 0 Researchers further probed each of the topics with the participating practitioners, asking them to elaborate on a number of topics. The following is a descriptive narrative of the main findings. (a) Trusting Colleagues - The majority of practitioners (95.8%) felt they could trust their colleagues. The remaining 4.2% felt they could trust their colleagues only sometimes. All respondents emphasised the importance of trust as an important aspect of high quality settings. All practitioners felt that good relationships between staff members contributed to the overall quality of a setting. (b) Children in Settings - The vast majority of practitioners (92.6%) said they were satisfied with the relationship they have with the children in their setting. The remaining 7.4% were happy with the relationship they had with the children either sometimes or generally. Only one practitioner felt that the relationship between children and the practitioner is not very important to the quality of the setting. The vast majority (85.2%) felt it was very important and the remaining 11.1% felt it was important. (c) Staff Working Conditions - The vast majority of respondents felt that working conditions contributed to the quality of a setting (96.3%). One respondent did not feel this to be the case. Of those practitioners who responded, all felt that positive staff support, supervision and training contribute to the quality of the setting. 52 Three missing answers/non-responses. 119

120 The Most Important Aspects of Quality The majority of respondents (73.1%) felt that safe buildings, surroundings and gardens were the most important aspects of an early childhood care and education settings, with 61.5% considering the equipment available for staff use as of importance. Just over half of all respondents (57.7%) classify positive staff personalities as the most important aspects of an ECCE setting, and three-quarters (76.9%) classify the education and training of practitioners as the most important aspects. The presence of a homely, caring and loving environment was classified by 30.8% of the practitioners as one of the most important aspects of a good quality setting. Fifteen and a half percent of the practitioners rated such aspects as communication styles and relationships; interaction between children and adults; and hygiene as some of the most important aspects of a setting. Just under a quarter (23.1%) felt the interaction between adults working in the setting were important aspects, and 11.5% felt the style of practice; approach to management; a programme inclusive of diversity; parental involvement; regulated and monitored settings; record keeping of children s development; and positive child outcomes as important aspects of any setting. One quarter (23.1%) of all practitioners felt that adult/child ratios were one of the most important aspects determining the quality of a setting CONCLUSION Chapter five contains the main findings of the observations conducted in the participating early childhood care and education settings. Two tools were utilised to gain an understanding of the observable aspects of quality within the participating ECCE settings; they were the ECERS(R) to assess the more static elements of the setting, and the IEA Observation Tools to assess the dynamic aspects. The practitioners perspectives of what constitutes quality are also contained in the chapter. An analysis of the various stakeholders perspectives of quality against the observable quality is contained within the discussion chapter (chapter seven). 53 A small portion of participants felt the provision of nutritious food (1), a variation in activities (2), openness surrounding policies and procedures (2), convenience of location (1) and low staff turnover (1) are important aspects of a setting. 120

121 CHAPTER 6: MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES THE STATE VIEWPOINT 6.1 INTRODUCTION To address the multiple perspectives on quality, it is essential to incorporate both the views of those who formulate and implement policies pertaining to early childhood care and education in Ireland and the key personnel supporting and driving quality initiatives at local level. Six key policy makers with policy responsibility in the field of early childhood care and education participated in semi-structured face-to-face interviews with the research team, outlining their experiences and perspectives on what constitutes quality within ECCE, and what policies are required to ensure quality is incorporated into the everyday operation of early childhood education and care services. Key personnel were also accessed for their perspectives on quality through regional focus group discussions in Dublin, Waterford, Limerick, Sligo and Athlone. The six key policy makers included representatives from the Equality Sector and the Childcare Directorate in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, a curriculum advisor (with particular responsibility for directing the development of the framework for early learning from birth to six years) from the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA), a senior official from Area Development Management (ADM), the agency responsible for the day to day administration of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme (EOCP) on behalf of the Department of Justice, Equality & Law Reform, a representative from Údarás na Gaeltachta (with responsibility for the administration of the Naíonraí) and a representative from the Department of Health and Children. The Department of Education and Science were also offered the opportunity to participate in the research, but were unavailable. Focus group discussions were conducted with representatives of the City and County Childcare Committees, the National Voluntary Childcare Organisations, the Department of Health Preschool Inspectorate, the Department of Education and Science Inspectorate, Early Childhood Care and Education Practitioners, Professional Childcare Educators/Trainers, as well as a sample of postgraduate students. 121

122 The following chapter presents the findings from both strands. Section 6.2 details the main findings from the face-to-face interviews conducted with the policy makers. The remainder of the chapter describes the discussions which took place amongst the key personnel who participated in the focus group discussions. A comparison/discussion of the main findings is contained within chapter seven. 6.2 POLICY MAKERS PERSPECTIVES ON QUALITY This first section details the main findings obtained through face-to-face semistructured interviews, which were conducted with policy makers working in the field of early childhood care and education. The section is divided into ten distinct subsections covering the practitioners understanding of (i) the term ECCE, (ii) the contribution which ECCE settings make to birth to six year olds, (ii) the criteria important to parents when selecting a setting, (iii) the contribution of such criteria to quality, (iv) the practitioners perspectives on determinants of good quality, (v) their perspectives on determinants of poor quality, (vi) their perspectives on the benefits of quality to children, (vii) the role of statutory authorities in quality ECCE provision, (viii) their views on the National Quality Framework, and finally (ix) the practitioners views on the main indicators of quality Understanding of the Term Early Childhood Care and Education Five of the six policy makers emphasised the close link between care and education in early childhood care and education settings for children aged birth to six years. There was a general consensus that not incorporating care and education as vital and intricate components which cannot, and should not, be separated can only hinder the delivery of quality in early childhood care and education settings. The policy makers were of the perspective that many early childhood care and education services currently operational in Ireland draw a distinction between care and education, a distinction which has not only led to inconsistencies in policies and practice, but has also impacted on the existence and delivery of quality within ECCE. The need for care and education to occur simultaneously for children from as early as possible in the life-cycle was emphasised. One policy maker felt the distinction between the concepts of care and education in early childhood care and education is highlighted through multiple government 122

123 departments having responsibility for different aspects of the care and education of children aged birth to six years in Ireland. Another emphasised the importance of the Department of Health & Children and the Department of Education and Science working together on matters related to early childhood care and education. While the link between care and education formed the prominent view of the policy makers, one drew a distinction between the delivery of care and education for birth to six year olds, and argued that care was the central focus for children aged birth to four years. The respondent also felt that upon entry into the formal schooling system, from age four onwards, the emphasis shifts to the education of children. The same respondent however did note a link between care and education within the primary school system, and discussed the more rounded developmental care provided within the formal setting. Another respondent felt that, while it was difficult to define an accurate term to support children and families, confinement of the term early childhood care and education to birth to six year olds represents too narrow a focus. The respondent felt that the age range needs to address the issues adequately by expanding to incorporate older children. The respondent added that the ethos under which her organisation operates focuses on all children aged birth to fourteen years. One respondent discussed the fact that the term early childhood care and education was too narrow, and did not adequately reflect all the necessary components to support the development of children in the most positive/effective manner. Particular emphasis was paid to the need to ensure that care and education also included and acknowledged the diverse needs, experiences and lifestyles of all children in Ireland. The respondent also felt that the incorporation of education with care must reflect the diverse educational needs of children, rather than becoming a systematic/uniform aspect of care i.e. that must be appropriately flexible, so that children are educated in a manner appropriate to, and supportive of, their potentially diverse needs. 123

124 6.2.2 Contribution of ECCE Settings to Birth to Six Year Olds Policy makers were asked to discuss what contribution, they felt early `childhood care and education settings make to birth to six year olds in Ireland. Overall, responses were positive and reflective of the consistently increasing value and recognition of the vital contribution early childhood care and education can have on children s development. There was unanimous agreement on the potentially valuable experience of early childhood care and education. Of particular note was the recognition amongst policy makers of the valuable social, emotional, cognitive and physical stimulation ECCE can provide for young children through the various milestones of development. Much emphasis was placed on the huge contribution such settings can play in supporting the family and in facilitating the development of healthy relationships between the child and the adult (practitioner/parent) and the child and his/her peer group. One respondent mentioned the particularly valuable role in advice and support which early childhood care and education practitioners can provide for first time mothers through the opportunity it provides for them to liaise with childcare specialists and practitioners and get reassurance and advice on their child(ren) s development. The depth and quality of knowledge of practitioners was identified as a vital resource which can contribute to positive childrearing within the home as well as external to the home in this regard. Policy makers held the perspective that the social interaction afforded to children through ECCE settings enhances children s social skills and assists them in establishing healthy relationships with their peer groups. One policy maker in particular made a distinction between the contribution which early childhood care and education makes to children of different ages and held the view that there was much evidence to support the beneficial impacts of quality ECCE services on children of three to six years from disadvantaged backgrounds, which made it appropriate for children living under such circumstances to have access to ECCE. However, reservations were expressed around the appropriateness of early childhood care and education for younger children, who may benefit more from the provision of appropriate stimulation in the home. 124

125 There was an emphasis on the value of education and the contribution which early childhood care and education settings can make to birth to six year olds development, mainly through innovative learning strategies and through professional use of learning through the medium of play. It was believed that play contributes to and enhances children s social, emotional and educational development. One policy maker emphasised the important educational foundation which quality services can provide for children, a foundation, which they believe, will last well into the life cycle Criteria Important to Parents in Selecting ECCE Settings Policy Makers were asked to present their views on the criteria, they felt, would impact on parental choice in selecting an early childhood care and education setting 54. Accessibility was a recurring theme for a number of policy makers. Distance and travel time required to access services and the financial costs of using services were outlined by policy makers as vital criteria in parental decisions around setting selection. The relationship with staff was also recurring; four of the five respondents emphasised their belief that a family-centred environment reflected in staff approach to parental relationships and communication with parents, would influence selection of a setting. How successful the service was in meeting different parental needs throughout the child s early years was also believed to be an important indicator of parental choice. This extended to the provision of advice to parents around the child s needs and how best to support these needs within the home environment. Emphasis was placed on family-friendly environments and friendly, child-centred staff within a setting. Staff training and qualifications and adult/child ratios were also emphasised. One respondent in particular noted that the physical environment, both indoors and outdoors (including quality of equipment, warmth and hygiene of environment) would be influential in the parental decisions around setting selection. 54 One policy maker abstained from participation in this section of the interview, as she felt this was not specifically her field/area of expertise. This discussion in section then refers to the views of the remaining five policy makers. 125

126 Reflecting on the growing diversity in Ireland, another respondent emphasised the importance of accommodation of diverse cultures, responsiveness to family language, morals and religion as important criteria for parents selecting an early childhood care and education setting The Contribution of Parental Criteria to Quality All policy makers interviewed felt that the criteria outlined in the preceding section contribute to the quality of early childhood care and education settings. Policy makers felt that the outlined criteria were based on knowledge of what benefits children, and contribute to the operation of services that are of high quality. The emphasis on the importance of strong adult/child relationships, staff qualifications and training, and sufficient resources to nurture children s development were also emphasised as criteria contributing to quality. The importance of learning through play and the emphasis on education for the child through a child-appropriate (but not too structured) curriculum were also highlighted as strong criteria contributing to quality. Policy makers highlighted criteria relating to parent/child/practitioner relationships as a positive contributor to quality within early childhood care and education Aspects of Good Quality ECCE Settings Policy makers outlined a multiplicity of components which they felt were essential determinants of a good quality setting. Elements included a safe environment (building and garden), good quality and plentiful resources appropriate to the developmental stages, diverse needs and interests of children. Again, the importance of good relationships between practitioners, parents and children were emphasised by all policy makers as critical features of good quality settings. Interactions between adults and children, amongst staff members themselves and between staff and parents were all emphasised as aspects of good quality services. The respondents felt that the presence of good relationships and positive interactions should be influenced by and include ongoing education and training of staff and a holistic approach to the management of the setting. Staff s ability and skills in providing for and responding to the developmental and personal needs of children 126

127 were highlighted, as was an approach to working with children which is all encompassing and impinges on their lives. The value placed on staff, staff management, policies and procedures and appropriate acknowledgement and opportunities for staff were also noted as aspects of good quality. The role and style of practice, the day-to-day experiences of children in early childhood care and education settings and their vital role in contributing to good quality was also discussed. Learning through play and the adaptability of curriculum to the diverging and evolving needs of children were also outlined as determinants. The respondents also felt that a holistic child development curriculum is pivotal to the establishment of a successful setting, with the needs of children being addressed individually. Finally, regular evaluation and planning within early childhood care and education settings were outlined as aspects of good quality. The policy makers believed that evaluation and planning encourages positive and effective outcomes. They also felt that regular evaluation contributes to the quality of a setting through the review of practice and determination of best practice Aspects of Poor Quality ECCE Settings The following aspects were outlined by respondents as indicators of poor quality ECCE provision: (i) A lack of safety or insufficient/inappropriate resources for the developmental needs of the child. (ii) A lack of trained/qualified staff within settings. (iii) Low motivation and commitment of staff as well as poorly managed staff. (iv) Low levels of communication and/or interaction between staff and parents. (v) Poor adult/child ratios. (vi) The strict focusing on routine and plan, rather than the outcomes and experiences for children. (vii) Inflexible and non-adaptable staff. (viii) A poor education/play programme. (ix) Finally, the absence of a child development focus and/or little attention to the individual needs of children. 127

128 6.2.7 Benefits of ECCE Provision There was universal agreement amongst policy makers in this study on several of the immediate term benefits of ECCE, including the social interaction opportunities it affords to children, and the opportunity it creates for the development of good social skills. Early childhood care and education provides for children s first social experience outside of the home and allows children to interact with their peers and develop group interaction and participation skills. It was felt that the development of such social skills assisted children in their transition to primary schooling and that the experiences provided for through pre-school can reduce separation anxiety. Other immediate-term benefits listed by policy makers related to gains in IQ and academic achievement (particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds), affording children the opportunity to develop friendships, interact with others and learn in a sociable and interactive environment. The long-term benefits of early childhood care and education provision identified by respondents included the holistic development of children, including positive social and emotional development, resulting in improved employability of children in later life and the likelihood of a decrease in crime related behaviour. Good quality early childhood care and education can provide children with a strong foundation both for learning and progressing though the life-cycle. A particular policy maker emphasised long-term benefits of ECCE as being universal in nature, and that the long term gains extend to benefit all society through better educated and more participative generations, reductions in crime and lower levels of unemployment The Role of Statutory Authorities in Quality ECCE Provision The provision of funding and appropriate support systems to direct and ensure quality were highlighted by all policy makers in relation to the governments role in the provision of good quality early childhood care and education. In particular, increased funding for capital investment in new services and/or an upgrading of existing services, and the provision of funding towards the training and qualifications of the early childhood care and education workforce were outlined. Although reference was made to the recent accomplishments of statutory authorities through the EOCP Programme, the development of the National Quality Framework, 128

129 the current adult/child ratios (under the Childcare Regulations) and the ongoing inspections of notified childcare services, it was felt that further support could be provided through the enhancement of current regulations and legislation. One policy maker paid tribute to the ongoing discussions relating to ECCE, and of State willingness to interact with and consult with the broad diversity of stakeholders. She felt that the process of generating raw material to assist the government s role eases the formulation of policies in the field. However, despite this richness and the inclusive consultative process in the formulation of policies, difficulties surrounding the slow implementation process were highlighted as an issue. One policy maker felt that certain qualifications and ongoing training should be made compulsory to guarantee quality going forward. It was also stated that statutory authorities could ensure high quality premises through the provision of premises and through increased funding to meet the capital costs of establishing services. Finally, one respondent believed that the state has a role to play in the assurance that early childhood care and education settings meet the diverse cultural needs of children living in Irish society, which can be accomplished through the provision of distinct services for children of distinct cultures The National Quality Framework With the exception of one policy maker who admitted her knowledge around the NQF was somewhat limited, all others were aware of it and had some involvement in the development of it. There was unanimous support amongst policy makers for the development of the framework who believed that it had been designed in an interactive consultative manner and that the partnership approach adopted throughout the design process will benefit the quality of the Framework. All respondents welcomed the framework and believe it will have an important and positive impact on quality in the ECCE sector. The Policy makers listed a variety of components, some unanimous, which they felt should be included in the framework. The following is a comprehensive list of the components outlined: 129

130 (a) The importance of a strong curriculum which emphasised learning though the medium of play. One respondent described the need to ensure the operation of a flexible curriculum, rather than a rigid one which may restrict the children s development and/or creativity. She believed that the curriculum must suit the needs of the individual child, being flexible enough to incorporate these needs. (b) Staff training and supports for staff working within early childhood care and education settings should be included in the development of the framework. One particular policy maker felt that teaching methodologies and staff interaction are essential elements of any staff training programme. (c) Much emphasis was placed on strong and healthy relationships within early childhood care and education. The importance of interaction and strong practitioner/child/parent relationships were emphasised with strategies to facilitate these as essential elements for incorporation in the framework. Strong communication channels for parental involvement in the service were outlined as potential strategies to promote a good quality framework. (d) The measurable elements of the service were mentioned for inclusion in the framework. Such include the health and safety elements, adult/child ratios, appropriate systems for monitoring the implementation of/and reviewing the appropriateness of standards on an ongoing basis. (e) The need for one government department with a leading role to minimise overlap and to ensure greater coherence in standards and procedures across the sector. However, because of the several formal aspects of childhood e.g. education and health, one policy maker did not feel that one department with complete responsibility would be wise Indicators of Quality One section of the policy maker interview schedule was devised as a result of carrying out a review of literature in the area of quality early childhood care and education. The policy makers were presented with indicators/determinants of quality (as outlined in the literature) and asked to comment on their perspectives relative to each of the elements. The following outlines the main findings relative to that section. 130

131 (i) Education - There was unanimous agreement amongst policy makers relating to the importance of education within early childhood care and education settings. Three of the six policy makers emphasised the intrinsic link between care and education and the need for services to operate on the premise of constant provision of a combination of education and care to support the child s development. From their perspective, care and education are not separate/distinct elements but rather occur simultaneously and constantly in ECCE settings. Education was seen as fundamental in providing children with life opportunities, ensuring their highest levels of development. The respondents also outlined that education stretches beyond academic ability and attainment across all competences. (ii) Care - similarly, all policy makers agreed on the importance of care within early childhood care and education settings offering the perspective that it was not, nor should it be, possible to have education without care. Both elements have to work in tandem with one another; the respondents believed that children learn best in a loving and caring environment. The respondents felt that the provision of care is essential and physically necessary for children s development. The importance of emotional care was also mentioned, particularly in the very early years to ensure the well-being and development of children. (iii)protection - There was agreement amongst policy makers on the vital role of protection within ECCE. They identified protection as crucial as children are not able to protect themselves and are vulnerable. They agreed that all appropriate and necessary steps must be taken at all times to guarantee the safety and protection of the child. Staff training and expertise in this area was emphasised as essential in ensuring the protection of children within settings. The respondents felt that the policies and procedures operational within early childhood care and education settings would contribute to (or hinder) the protection of children. 131

132 (iv) Being Responsive to Social Norms, Values, Customs and Beliefs of a Community - All policy makers felt that responses to social norms, values, customs and beliefs of a community was either very important or important. Its growing importance in recent years in light of the growing diversity of cultures in Ireland and the challenge it represents for the sector was also emphasised. Respondents highlighted the need to respect and provide for the growing diversity of cultures within ECCE settings. It was believed that every child and family should feel a sense of belonging to a setting. It is vital that all practitioners encourage and support this sense of belonging. Policy makers felt that responsiveness to the social norms, values, customs and beliefs of a community contributes to quality within settings as it creates an ethos which recognises and respects all children s reality and way of life. Children and families need to feel a sense of belonging to settings, and adhering to such policy which acknowledges and respects diversity while ensuring all children are integrated and feel they belong to a service. (v) Providing for Children Experiencing Disadvantage and Children with Special Needs A variety of potential strategies were outlined by respondents in this regard. Those considered important included: (i) policies of accessibility and affordability to ensure that children experiencing disadvantage are not restricted in service choice because of limited financial means, (ii) the provision of an open and inclusive admissions policy, (iii) the implementation of statutory financial support to parents with limited financial means to ensure that high costs do not restrict parental choice in accessing ECCE services 55, and (iv) staff training to ensure quality socialisation amongst all children within early childhood care and education settings, allowing staff and children to learn from each other and develop healthier relationships. (vi) Staff Working Conditions - With the exception of one policy maker who rated the importance of staff working conditions in determining the quality of the setting as important, all others regarded it as vital and/or very important. The importance of a good staffing structure and a well-managed work force were 55 Of the complete sample of policy makers, three proposed a tiered fee support system to address and respond to the differential income levels of households. 132

133 highlighted. Staff motivation, confidence and the value placed on the work carried out by practitioners were highlighted. Additional staff conditions, which were discussed, included the need to reward staff for their professionalism and the need to professionalise the sector. Without such developments, services are likely to remain of variable quality. One policy maker felt that the role of childcare practitioners should be given the same recognition as primary school teachers, including similar remuneration and other working conditions. It was agreed that non-professionalisation of the sector may result in staff recruitment difficulties and lack of staff retention, which can impact on the overall quality of settings. Without qualified, motivated and committed staff, many policy makers felt that it was simply not possible to provide a high quality service, and that staff form a key determinant of the level of quality in any given setting. All policy makers felt that staff qualifications and training had a role in determining the quality of the setting. One however, emphasised that qualifications and training do not guarantee quality within a setting, but that practitioner personality and approach are also of importance. Emphasis was also placed on the benefits of ongoing professional training as a contributor to quality within ECCE. In relation to staff supervision and support all respondents felt such were important aspects of high quality settings. One policy maker emphasised good leadership as a cornerstone in any business. The promotion and encouragement of staff was also outlined as important, with the provision of support through advice and information as vital. (vii) Relationships There was general agreement amongst policy makers regarding the importance of relationships between parents and staff, and its role in relation to quality. Policy makers felt settings should be family-centred, actively seeking to create a sense of belonging for families within the setting. One respondent deemed the early childhood care and education setting as an extension of the home environment. While some respondents acknowledged that parents were often busy and did not always have time for discussion, they nonetheless felt that services should do everything within their autonomy to encourage this sense of family within settings allowing parents the opportunity to discuss their child(ren) as appropriate. Policy makers emphasised that relationships between staff and parents are crucial for facilitating communication and informationsharing, which ultimately impacts on the well-being of the child both inside and 133

134 outside the early childhood care and education setting. All the policy makers interviewed felt that the relationships between staff and children were paramount/critical in determining the quality of a setting. In summation, there was a broad group of factors identified by policy makers in relation to aspects they would class as most important in contributing to quality within early childhood care and education settings. All policy makers distinguished between the tangible and non-tangible elements involved on this regard with almost full agreement on the tangible elements, including health and safety aspects of the physical environment, good quality and age-appropriate resources (both indoors and out), food and nutrition. A feature common to each policy maker s contribution related to the adult/child relationship, and their perspective that such was one of the most vital elements contributing to quality within settings. Also included under this umbrella was the need to plan for each child so that curricula become responsive and adaptive to the individual needs and abilities of all children, rather than a rigid uniform plan which does not take the unique needs of individual children into account. Also highlighted was the issue of play as a dominant and central aspect of learning and the need for a developmental curriculum, which incorporates all aspects of children s development. Respondents also outlined practitioners roles within the settings as amongst the most important factors contributing to the quality of early childhood care and education settings. Key issues raised under this umbrella included the management of staff, staff relationships with children, parents and other staff members, staff qualifications and their participation in ongoing training. Practitioners levels of maturity, their training level as well as an ability to work in a non-directive way with children were also highlighted. It was also felt that all state provisions e.g. policies and procedures, should take into consideration the child s first language. It was believed that such consideration ensures self-confidence that will stay with children through life. With the exception of one policy maker, all respondents were in agreement that early childhood care and education should be affordable to all children. One policy maker stated that they did not feel Ireland could go from current very limited support to universal support overnight, and that affordability is now at the stage where it has 134

135 become a key central policy issue but one which will take time to redress. Policy makers emphasised the importance of affordability in ensuring equality of opportunity for all children, which was determined by the level of government investment in childcare. The respondents felt that the emphasis needs to be on the experiences and benefits of early childhood care and education, that is, the cost of accessing a service should not determine the quality of the service. There was a general consensus amongst policy makers that a tiered fee structure where parents incomes determined their level of childcare costs was a potential strategy to ensure early childhood care and education is affordable to all. 6.3 KEY PERSONNEL S PERSPECTIVES ON QUALITY This section is divided into five subsections which include the participants perspectives on (i) aspects of good quality, (ii) aspects of poor quality service provision, (iii) the most important aspects of ECCE to the participants, (iv) a discussion on the role of statutory authorities in quality ECCE provision, and finally (v) a discussion on the National Quality Framework. The subsections are grouped according to the categorisation of questions contained within the focus group schedule 56. The focus group discussions took place in July 2005 in the following counties: Dublin, Waterford, Limerick, Sligo and Athlone. They were held regionally to gather a cross section of responses from key personnel in the respective counties. All National Voluntary Childcare Organisations, City and County Childcare Committees, Colleges and Training Centres providing childcare training/courses, Department of Health and Children Preschool Inspectors and the co-ordinator of the Department of Education and Science inspectorate were contacted via and telephone, and offered the opportunity to participate in the focus group discussions. Six participants participated in the Dublin region, including one practitioner, two NVCO representatives (Forbairt Naíonraí Teoranta and Barnardos), two education inspectors and one postgraduate student. Participants at the Waterford focus group included one practitioner, four CCC representatives, and one education inspector. There were eight representatives in the Limerick focus group including one practitioner, three County Childcare Committee representatives and one City 56 A copy of the focus group schedule is contained within the appendix (Appendix 17). 135

136 Childcare Committee Representative. The Sligo participants included four CCC representatives, one preschool inspector, one trainer, one education inspector and one practitioner. Finally, representatives at the Athlone focus group included five CCC representatives and one NVCO representative (IPPA). All focus group discussions emphasised the importance of policies and procedures in relation to safety, security and adult/child ratios and the adherence to such policies and procedures as being of importance. These static elements were seen as being readily identified, measured and controlled. Using these headings it is easy to compare service against service and to identify and correct weaknesses and shortcomings. A common thread running through all the discussions (five out of five) was the lack of status given to childcare employees from low pay, lack of access and availability to in-service training and poor (if non-existent) career opportunities. This, the respondents felt, is reflected in the high turnover of staff. It was reported by one participant that over the last period of time a large proportion of childcare workers in Limerick city have left the sector to go elsewhere (Limerick Focus Group, 20 th July 2005). The respondents at the Limerick focus group felt that the fragmented and adhoc approach to early childhood care and education (ranging from care-orientated services, to services placing more emphasis on the educational, social and personal development needs of children) contributed to the low status associated with ECCE. The respondents at four of the focus groups outlined the main contributions which early childhood care and education settings make to birth to six year olds as social, emotional and physical development, encouraged through positive interaction with other children and adults: children would be able to reach full potential having confidence and belief in themselves (Athlone Focus Group, 22 nd July 2005). This primary learning is of enormous benefit to long-term learning and results in children remaining in education for longer time periods. The respondents viewed this as a positive aspect of ECCE as well as for wider society. In relation to parents, some respondents at the Athlone and Sligo focus groups felt that parents are the consumers of the service and they should take responsibility for 136

137 pushing for better quality. Getting daily feedback for younger children was seen as something all parents should expect and participate in at pick-up and drop-off times. Respondents at four of the five discussion groups also saw a need for a single governing department which acts as a department for children. It was felt that the present system, i.e. the involvement of numerous government departments, was lacking cohesion Aspects of Good Quality Provision The participants at each of the focus group discussions outlined various aspects of good quality, and participants were aware of the different elements which interplay within early childhood care and education settings. Four of the focus group discussions stressed the importance of outdoor play areas for children. This area should be reflective of the age of the child and have easy access for all children. It was also suggested at the Dublin discussion that outdoor activities should not necessarily be confined to the setting, but that participation in activities, which are available locally (for example swimming and tennis) could be incorporated into the children s routines. It was also noted that the absence of outdoor play areas is largely obvious in the longer established settings, due to a lack of space. The newer settings, it was felt, tend to be more purpose built and therefore have more up-to-date facilities. In relation to indoor activities it was suggested at the Dublin and Limerick groups that the necessity to store games and toys at a level which children could access was of importance. As well as structured activities emphasis was placed on the access to open-ended materials for example: water, sand and blocks which allow for the development of children s creative potential: open ended materials like water, sand and blocks where you can do anything with them (Limerick Focus Group, 20 th July 2005). Active communication and relationships amongst all those in a setting were seen, at four of the five focus groups, as key determinants of good quality. The participants at those discussions felt that the ability of staff to interact positively with all children, with parents and between themselves is what constitutes good quality within an early childhood care and education setting. Practitioners levels of experience, ability to work according to the child s needs and to relate and interact with children at all 137

138 levels contributes to such quality: There are people who would have no academic qualifications at all and they are just excellent and you couldn t emulate them if you had a Phd they have a natural kind of quality (Athlone Focus Group, 22 nd July 2005). While dynamic quality is difficult to measure, participants at the Limerick, Sligo and Athlone focus groups outlined that a good indicator of success are happy children arriving and leaving the setting. A balance between child-led activities and adult-led activities was taken by respondents as being a key indicator of a good quality setting: It s important that the practitioner knows the difference between support and telling the child what to do and support and doing something for a child (Athlone Focus Group, 22 nd July 2005). Also outlined at four of the discussion groups was the importance of practitioners ability to interact with children as an important determinant of quality, rather than their level of qualification/training: Very often you see people who have an awful lot of qualifications but they are not able to have the relationships necessary as a result of it (Limerick Focus Group, 20 th July 2005). Although all five focus groups stressed the importance of staff training and qualifications, the participants felt that academic qualifications do not, in themselves, equip the practitioner for his/her role, but need to be complimented. Respondents at the Dublin, Athlone and Waterford focus groups also outlined the difference between children s development in view of the environment from which they come. Participants at the Waterford, Dublin, Limerick and Athlone discussions felt that early childhood care and education settings should ideally provide an opportunity for children to socialise with other children and adults which contributes to their level of social learning: they are chatting to friends, there is learning in that, they are learning to socialise they are increasing their vocabulary (Limerick Focus Group, 20 th July 2005). One particular respondent outlined that resources and facilities do not solely determine the quality of settings: If children are really cared for and loved sometimes surroundings don t matter so much if they are getting one hundred percent attention and loving care and physical care that is what matters (Athlone Focus Group, 22 nd July 2005). Overall the focus group participants did not advocate formal structure/programmes, however, they did feel that some structure is required: it s a question of getting the right balance between adult-led and child-led activities. Participants at three of the 138

139 discussion groups felt that having too many children per person was considered a signifier of poor quality; on the other hand they also felt that too many adults could create dependency on the child s behalf. A recommendation of best practice was allowing them to do whatever they can themselves and enabling them to move forward in whatever tiny way they can (Dublin Focus Group, 15 th July 2005). The participants at two focus groups (Dublin and Athlone) discouraged the Velcro model 57 which they felt encouraged dependency on the part of the child. The celebration of cultural festivals, displaying of posters from a variety of cultures and the engagement in dramatic play were outlined at four of the five focus groups as determinants of quality in settings. Also, the ability of staff to relate to children whose first language is not that of the majority and an acceptance of a child s culture were considered as important aspects of good quality settings. Respondent s at all five focus groups felt that the relationship between the practitioners at the setting and the parents was a partnership built on trust. Trust between staff and parents was described as an important aspect this relationship extends to decision making, sharing information and fund raising (Dublin Focus Group, 15 th July 2005), which they felt contribute to and benefit the child. Parents were described as the consumers at two of the five discussion groups, the participants felt that there is a need to raise awareness amongst these consumers. It was felt that awareness raising needs to take place amongst parents, which in turn will encourage them to push for improved quality in the service. Participants at the Dublin discussion group felt that the development of rapport with parents through the provision of appropriate opening and closing times for dropping off and collecting children, giving feedback on children s progress and their participation in activities during the day were all part of building good rapport with parents. It was felt that both parties should take positive steps to build such a relationship, which will ultimately increase the level of quality provision. 57 The Velcro model is a model of support utilised in the past by the Department of Education and Science in supporting children with special educational needs. The model provided support/assistance to children in the form of a Special Needs Assistant who was present with the child at all times. Such a model has since been disregarded in favour of a more relativist support, which prevents the development of dependency and allows the adult to support the child only at times of need. 139

140 6.3.2 Aspects of Poor Quality Provision Indicators of poor quality discussed at all the focus groups included high turnover of staff, inflexible staff and weak management which, it was agreed, leads to low morale among staff, in turn filtering through to influence staff interactions with children: If you have got weak management at the top, for whatever reason, because they are busy or because they are cost driven it s going to filter through even if workers on the ground individually are good, the service will not be great (Sligo Focus Group, 21 st July 2005). However, the participants at the Sligo and Athlone discussion groups agreed that high staff turnover and weak management structures tend to be factors in larger settings. High turnover of staff in itself is unregulated but the respondents at the Waterford, Limerick, Sligo and Athlone discussions felt it was an indicator which needed to be investigated. Lack of staff training and poor working conditions were also seen as contributors to poor quality. Low pay, lack of opportunities for in-service training were also cited at all five focus groups as contributors to low morale and consequently poor quality: the kind of salaries that are generally given to staff are actually below, for instance teaching salaries, they can be maybe less than half (Waterford Focus Group, 19 th July 2005). The focus group participants at the Dublin discussion group agreed that an untidy setting does not determine a poor quality setting, the organisation of the setting is far more important: The most important thing is to look at what is important for the children, while an untidy environment is not a sign of poor quality (Dublin Focus Group, 15 th July 2005). Other indicators of poor quality outlined at the focus groups were low parental involvement and a lack of respect for diversity. Striving to achieve a balance between a totally uncontrolled environment and an over-controlled environment (Dublin Focus Group, 15 th July 2005) is an important aspect of quality. Participants at the Dublin, Waterford, Sligo and Athlone focus groups felt that children need to participate in different activities, too much structure and closed-type activities were considered as determinants of poor quality. It was agreed that a certain amount of adult-led activities are necessary, but that openended material was of greater importance for child development and creativity: all the children are sitting down and they are all doing the same things, that is fine now and again (Limerick Focus Group, 20 th July 2005). One respondent outlined an 140

141 instance in one setting where a memo was sent to the staff saying there is too much running around the yard at play time please make sure that play time is structured outside (Limerick Focus Group, 20 th July 2005). All the participants at the Limerick focus group agreed that this scenario depicts the extreme end of an over-structured environment. However, one could also argue that safety issues should be considered The Most Important Aspects of ECCE Relating to Quality The lack of availability of child places was cited at four of the five focus groups as the most important aspect contributing to quality. It was highlighted that where places were made available, this has not necessarily improved the level of overall quality: the provision of places hasn t improved quality... it hasn t made it affordable or accessible (Limerick Focus Group, 20 th July 2005). Also discussed at five of the focus groups were training issues, respondents stated that while there is some funding available for training, making it accessible to all practitioners is a major issue: there is a course being run by the X County Council and I have got all the details. However, I have to consider first of all can I afford to let this person go for a day every week for six weeks, and have I got somebody else to cover for them? (Dublin Focus Group, 15 th July 2005). While it was felt by respondents that monitoring and inspecting centres was important it was noted that such monitoring needs to be consistent: Monitoring has to be consistent and I think it isn t and I think that s very disconcerting for service providers because they become complacent (Athlone Focus Group, 22 nd July 2005). It was felt that observation type inspections have worked very well in the past and are an excellent way of improving quality. The participants at the Dublin and Waterford discussion groups felt that observation-based inspections could be a useful tool in exploring the dynamic aspects of settings, as the static are more easily assessed. Pay, conditions and training for practitioners were listed as important contributors to quality at all five discussion groups. Four of the focus groups discussed the minimum wage, and noted that it does not adequately reflect the importance and responsibility of the job at hand, which participants felt has a double consequence. Firstly, the role isn t attracting the right kind of people to the role, and secondly, it isn t helping to maintain people in the childcare profession. It was felt that terms and conditions of 141

142 employment, coupled with the absence of promotional opportunities for staff, need to be addressed if quality is to be the sector s main criteria: It really still is a profession for people who want to do it part-time, or else you manage it or you own it for yourself - if you want to get money out of it (Athlone Focus Group, 22 nd July 2005). Respondents from teaching and nursing backgrounds at the Sligo focus group stressed the need for ECCE practitioners to become unionised, which they believed would ultimately give strength and coherence to their overall demands, and as a consequence to the sector as a whole. Some participants (also at the Sligo discussion) felt that the government s focus on childcare is not directly driven by the needs of children themselves, but rather as a response to the need for female participation in the workforce: The reality is that the only reason they paid any attention to it was because of the increase in the need for women s participation in the workforce (Sligo Focus Group, 21 st July 2005). The interaction between the child and the adult (practitioner) in the setting was outlined, at four of the five focus groups, as the most important aspects to the participants themselves. While they agree that qualifications are important and perhaps necessary, they also felt that they do not necessarily guarantee good quality. High levels of experience and child-centred practitioners were viewed as far more beneficial for the social and emotional growth of the children within the settings The Role of Statutory Authorities in Quality ECCE Provision At present the provision of childcare services falls under a number of government departments, the main being the Departments of Education and Science; Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Health and Children which leads to a split between services along the care/education dimension. Respondents stressed that care and education cannot, and must not, be separated: I don t think care and education can be separated, they are just hand in glove (Athlone Focus Group, 22 nd July 2005). The issue of which department should take responsibility for children was a contentious one, a number of respondents at four of the five discussion groups argued that there is a need for one central co-ordinating authority as in a Department for Children which could draw upon and unite this multi-disciplinary approach: a new 142

143 department, a childcare department. Not health, not education, not environment - but one that would unite care and education (Athlone Focus Group, 22 nd July 2005). Some participants at the Dublin discussion felt the Department of Education and Science should take responsibility, whereas other respondents at the same group felt that specific departments have very specific roles therefore inter-departmental responsibility should remain but with greater levels of communication/management. While the initial understanding that responsibility should fall to the government and the service providers, respondents at three of the discussion groups remarked on the lack of interest and awareness shown by parents themselves: It amazes me constantly that they are willing to trust their children to go into any setting without necessarily vetting it (Limerick Focus Group, 20 th July 2005). Parents were described earlier as consumers and respondents felt that they should have a more active role in childcare settings. Respondents at the Limerick, Sligo and Athlone focus groups remarked that a quality childcare service should be resourced in the same way as the health service or the schools are resourced through some direct subsidy to support quality and sustainability. This seems to move the debate from childcare being a service to being a resource that would in turn lead to the greater wellbeing of society. This was emphasised by respondents at three of the discussion groups, who felt that questions should change from the cost of the service to an investment in the resource. Some participants felt that such a transition in thinking is impeded by the perception we don t want money in childcare to professionalise the service; we want the money to get parents back to work (Limerick Focus Group, 20 th July 2005). This debate is against the background of a culture of acceptance that parents are primarily responsible for the care and wellbeing of their children and not the state. Respondents at the Waterford focus group felt resources should be given to the family as a way forward; however, such a statement was counteracted by respondents at the Limerick discussion group who suggested that not all parents would in turn use this money for putting their children into quality childcare. It was felt that those families who have the resources can afford to be selective, but this is dependent on socio-economic and geographical factors. 143

144 Respondents at the Dublin, Waterford and Athlone focus groups felt that the revised role of the Department of Education and Science s inspectors as a support, advice and evaluation role rather than the traditional inspecting role could greatly benefit the ECCE sector. For childcare settings the more measurable/static elements are inspected through the Department of Health and Children mainly in relation to issues of health and safety, but respondents at the Limerick focus group felt that more consistency is required in this area The National Quality Framework (NQF) Participants at the Dublin and Sligo discussion groups expressed their lack of knowledge relating to the National Quality Framework, explaining that their knowledge was insufficient to discuss it in great detail. In relation to the aspects which should be included in the NQF, the respondents had contrasting opinions. In relation to curriculum, respondents at the Limerick and Athlone groups felt the word curriculum is largely associated with education, and hence excludes care. They felt that the outcomes of an academic programme would result in too much structure and educational expectations of children. Participants felt that difficulties in establishing the required flexibility for very young children would result in the use of a structured curriculum. More acceptable to the respondents was a programme which is developed by the children themselves i.e. not an adult imposing a specific structure: it needs to come from the children, it needs not to be adult imposed, it needs to be an observation of children where their interests are, where they are coming from (Athlone Focus Group, 22 nd July 2005). Suggested was the idea of a supervised-type of play rather than a structured curriculum i.e. where children learn through play, socialise and develop through creative play: I mean the children should feel they are playing where the teacher should know what they are learning and I think if you could get a curriculum that did that I think it could work very well (Dublin Focus Group, 15 th July 2005). Also important to the respondents at the Dublin, Waterford and Athlone discussion groups was the idea of a programme which involves socialisation and communication as important aspects. Respondents felt there was too much emphasis on the preacademic/academic even in infant classes. However, some respondents at the Dublin focus group felt that a curriculum with an appropriate adult and correct 144

145 balance could have a positive outcome for children: If the children have a good quality curriculum in place and if they have the staff who respect them and if they are getting the opportunity to develop themselves through interaction with their own peers and getting support from their adult people that s all the child needs to grow and mature (Sligo Focus Group, 21 st July 2005). The participants at the Dublin, Waterford and Limerick discussions also expressed support for a framework which places emphasis on generic staff qualifications, as well as support mechanisms for both private and community childcare facilities, and support for parents. In conclusion, the participants present at the focus group discussions were drawn from a variety of supportive early childhood care and educational roles. Those present at four of the five discussion groups expressed the dynamic aspects of quality as being of pivotal importance to childcare, putting emphasis on the interactive elements between the child and the practitioner - an interaction acknowledging the balance required between adult-led and child-led activities. The dynamic aspects appeared to be considered as more important than aspects of health and safety and the more measurable dimension. They are more transient, more fluid, more difficult to quantify, but were seen as the key aspect to children s social, emotional and physical development. The participants at the Sligo and Athlone discussions outlined observation methods as possible tools of measurement. The static elements were also seen as important, but it was agreed that they alone do not guarantee good quality. This type of quality is more easily attainable through buildings, resources and staff training and development i.e. aspects which are more obvious and measurable. Although many respondents argued that dynamic quality is more important than static elements of quality, participants at the Waterford, Limerick, Sligo and Athlone focus groups did agree that it is an on-going process and not an end in itself. Upon summarising the main discussions, participant s at all five discussion groups felt that one type of quality cannot exist in isolation. Participants agreed that it is not appropriate to compare the elements in relation to levels of importance, primarily because one can not exist without the other therefore deducing that one is as important as the other. 145

146 Pay, conditions and career prospects for practitioners were an important part of the discussions. Participants at the Dublin, Waterford, Limerick and Sligo focus groups felt that there is a wide variety of training available and staff and management are willing to participate, but cost and time are often difficult to negotiate. Most staff are willing to re-train; however, all five discussions outlined that pay and promotional opportunities are minimal and many practitioners opt to leave their roles to take up employment in other sectors for better pay and conditions. In discussing curriculum, respondents at the Dublin, Waterford, Limerick and Athlone discussion groups felt the word curriculum is inappropriate for younger children and that infant classes in primary schools should be more flexible in its use. The term curriculum was seen as too confining, and the word programme was suggested at the Athlone focus group to allow for more flexibility in daily activities. It was felt by participants at four of the five groups that parents should take more of an active role in the advocacy of quality early childhood care and education. Both the Sligo and Athlone discussions expressed that parents are the consumers and therefore should build on relationships with practitioners and engage in daily discussions relating to feedback on their children. 6.4 CONCLUSION The current chapter provided an outline of the main findings gathered via two methods (i) face-to-face semi-structured interviews with representative policy makers and, (ii) focus group discussions with key personnel supporting and administering quality initiatives at local levels. A detailed discussion on the main findings as well as a comparative analysis of the findings against other stakeholders perspectives is contained within chapter seven. 146

147 CHAPTER 7: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 7.1 Introduction The current study consulted those identified as experts in the field of early childhood education. Participants included representatives of government bodies (the Department of Education and Science, Department of Health and Children, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, and the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment). However, professionals in a supportive role, including Preschool Inspectors, representatives of the County Childcare Committees and the National Voluntary Organisations, were also included. A particularly unique aspect of the study for Ireland is the fact that the research team also consulted practitioners, parents and children. This decision was taken in an effort to balance the scales of power relating to discussion and policy development in early childhood education. In addition the research methodology allowed the findings from parents and practitioners on perceived quality to be considered in terms of the observed quality of the various settings. The following chapter presents the key findings relating to the distinct stakeholders perspectives and a synthesis of those findings. The principal aim of the chapter is to examine the similarities or differences between the perspectives of the different groups, whilst a secondary aim is to examine any similarities/divergence between perceived quality and observed quality (Bogdan and Bicklen, 2003). The chapter is divided into seven sections which contain a discussion on the main perspectives of all groups on: (i) the contribution of early childhood care and education to birth to six year olds, (ii) criteria important to parents in selecting an ECCE setting, (iii) aspects contributing to good quality settings, (iv) aspects contributing to poor quality settings, (v) the benefits association with good quality ECCE provision, (vi) statutory roles in the provision of good quality ECCE, and (vii) the most important aspects of early childhood care and education. Finally there is a separate section presenting the findings from observed quality of settings, derived from the ECERS(R) tool and the IEA Observation Instruments. 147

148 7.2 Contribution of ECCE to Birth to Six Year Olds Perceived Quality - Policy makers agreed that early childhood care and education plays an increasingly important role in the social, emotional, cognitive and physical development of birth to six year olds all of which can be enhanced through good quality. They also agreed that ECCE settings play a supportive role to parents, particularly to first-time mothers around child development issues. A distinct contribution, which was reflected in the practitioners and parents own perspectives, was the opportunities afforded for interaction between children and their peers/other adults. The policy makers interviewed noted explicitly that such interactions contributed to children s development of social skills, and the development of healthy relationships with peer groups. Distinct similarities existed between practitioners and parents perspectives of the contribution of early childhood care to birth to six year olds. The enhancement of social skills (84.6% practitioners, 77.3% parents), a beginning in the learning process (42.3% practitioners, 63.6% parents), and the enhancement of self-esteem and confidence (34.6% practitioners, 61.4% parents) were all rated first, second and third (respectively) by both groups. Such perspectives correspond with research in the area which suggest that children develop increased emotional stability (Neaum and Tallack, 2002; Shore, 1997), heightened self-esteem and higher degrees of social development (Bowman, 2000; Field, 1991) as a result of attending early childhood care and education settings. In relation to the practitioners, other features were rated as follows; the development of independence (30.8%), peer support and interaction with children (23.1%), interaction with adults other than parents (19.2%) and assisting in the transition to primary school (19.2%). Parents, however, ordered factors differently and rated the contribution which ECCE makes to the transition to primary school (59.1%) above interactions with other adults (45.5%). Observed Quality - On the topic of social skills, the management of time findings display that, with the exception of mixed activities (which in themselves often included personal and social activities), the main adult proposed personal and social activities more than any other activity (mean = 15.5%). This reflects the emphasis which both practitioners and parents place on the important contribution which ECCE makes to children s social development. Also reflective of the groups perspectives is 148

149 the fact that the next most commonly planned activities were expressive activity proposals (13%), physical activities (10.7%) and preacademic activities (8.1%) which all contribute to the child s process of learning. The interactive contribution which ECCE makes to birth to six year olds is also evident in the management of time group structure a mean of 6.9% of all group structure proposals relate to sole activities, with an average of 63.6% of all proposals relating to whole group activities. The emphasis placed on all three outcomes i.e. the development of social skills, a beginning of the learning process and the enhancement of self-esteem and confidence by parents and practitioners were also reflected in the ECERS(R) findings. Interaction and language and reasoning rated first and second in the overall mean scores (6.7 and 6.3, respectively). 7.3 Criteria Important in Selecting ECCE Settings The initial selection process used in choosing an early childhood care and education setting involved an examination of the variety of settings available to parents. When reviewing the type of service which they believe will best suit their child s needs, parents examine practicalities such as the location of the setting, the cost of service provision, as well as the opening and closing times. Although one of the policy makers abstained from this particular section, the other five policy makers felt that practicalities such as accessibility, travel time, and financial costs rate highly on parental criteria for selecting ECCE settings. These they believed are followed by dynamic elements such as practitioner/parent relationships, meeting diverse parental needs, the provision of advice to parents regarding children s needs, family-friendly environments, as well as the presence of child-centred practitioners. Staff training and qualifications, adult/child ratios, resources to nurture child development, and the presence of a child-appropriate curriculum incorporating play as a method of learning were also noted. Practitioners themselves placed greater emphasis on the training and qualifications of staff, the safety of the setting and environment, the resources available to children and practitioners and the child development curriculum, than they did on the dynamic elements. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that the dynamic features of quality were not considered important as research has shown a strong link between 149

150 qualifications/training of practitioners and dynamic quality within ECCEs (Laevers, 2003; Malaguzzi, 1993; Sylva et al., 2003). The pedagogical approach of the practitioner did not feature as a ranked feature until all elements outlined above were mentioned. This was followed by such quantifiable elements as child/staff ratios, the accommodation of diversity and children s health needs, the cost of service provision, opening times and the number of children enrolled in the setting. In contrast to the parental findings, the personal approach of the staff and the atmosphere itself did not feature until lower down the list of criteria which practitioners felt would be important to parents in selecting an early childhood care and education setting. Two practitioners mentioned engagement of parents, and one practitioner, when highlighting the criteria of importance to parents, suggested the provision of an interactive environment. In contrast, parental participants rated the dynamic elements of settings as huge determinants in the selection of an early childhood care and education settings. On a list of the top fifteen criteria of importance to parents, such practicalities as opening times, cost and location were rated eight, tenth and eleventh respectively. Although the safety of the setting was rated highest (56.8% of parents), the approach/friendliness of the practitioners and their teaching/pedagogical styles were rated second and third. Also of importance to parents were staff training and qualifications (47.7% of parents, rated fourth), adult/child ratios (43.2% - fifth) and the availability of resources, equipment and space (43.2% - sixth). The type of child development/education curriculum was rated seventh and the provision of an outlet for engagement with parents was ninth. For the children themselves, friends were rated most highly (as depicted through the number of photographs taken). Friends were followed by dolls/teddies (20 photographs), art (19 photographs) and cars/trucks/tracks (16 photographs). The outdoor space was rated eighth on a list of 24. Teachers/practitioners were rated eleventh. These findings mirror those of a recent study reported by Clarke, McQuail and Moss (2003) which indicated that children rank friends, the outdoors and food as being of central importance to them. In this study only two children [DP1: 3 Years; CLC22: 4 years] indicated food as their favourite time/activity. The first child s response was later counteracted by the practitioner who indicated that the child was a 150

151 fussy eater 58 and disliked meal times. The remaining children did not rate food as an aspect of importance to them in the current study. 7.4 Aspects of Good Quality ECCE Settings There was strong agreement across all stakeholders in relation to the aspects contributing to good quality early childhood care and education. The initial aspects outlined by practitioners, parents, policy makers and key personnel alike were the safety of the building, the surroundings and the garden. The space outside was also the most predominant answer provided by the children themselves when asked to outline their favourite time of day (16 of 38 responses). In relation to environment, the ECERS(R) instrument findings show that the overall mean score obtained by the settings in relation to space and furnishing was 5.3. In the context of the overall number of items, space and furnishing was rated fifth of seven items - preceded by interaction first, language and reasoning second, personal care third and programme structure fourth. Following the structural aspects outlined above was the importance of the provision of a plentiful supply of resources appropriate to the developmental stages of the children (50% of parents, 66.7% of practitioners, as well as 33.3% of policy makers), and the importance of relationships between practitioners, parents and children, which policy makers believed were influenced by ongoing education and training of staff, as well as the provision of a holistic approach to the management of the setting. Both the practitioners and parents also felt that the education and training of staff contributed to good quality (59.3% of practitioners and 47.7% of parents). Whilst discussions emerging at the focus groups (4 of 5) suggested that although academic qualifications can compliment practitioners roles, they do not necessarily guarantee good quality. The discussion groups highlighted the importance of staff personalities, and an ability to engage well with children, parents and each other. Practitioner communication styles, personalities, relationships and interactions with children, parents and one another also rated quite highly amongst practitioners (51.9%) and parents (40.9%). 58 Perhaps food was close to the child s mind because it was an activity she disliked. 151

152 Table 7.1: Practitioners compared with Parents Aspects of Good Quality ECCE Settings Response Practitioner Response Parent Response N (%) N (%) Safe building, surroundings and garden 4 (9%) 41 (47%) Equipment available for use to staff and 29 (64%) 22 (50%) children Child-staff ratios 20 (44%) 15 (34%) Availability of garden/outdoor 13 (29%) 11 (25%) area/ventilation Style of practice/pedagogical Approach 14 (31%) 13 (30%) Approach to management of setting 14 (31%) 5 (11%) Communication styles and relationships 23 (51%) 18 (41%) Provision of nutritious food 2 (4%) 5 (11%) Cleanliness 6 (13%) 12 (27%) Variation of activities 4 (9%) 2 (4.5%) Openness surrounding policies and 4 (9%) 2 (4.5%) procedures Staff Education and Training 28 (62%) 21 (48%) Number of children enrolled in setting 13 (29%) 3 (7%) Day to day experience of child 15 (33%) 13 (29.5%) Provision of routine 2 (4%) 11 (25%) Disciplinary procedures 2 (4%) 9 (20.5%) Parental Involvement 3 (7%) 1 (2%) Programme inclusive of diversity 4 (9%) 4 (9%) Homely, caring and loving environment 6 (13%) 22 (50%) Regulated and monitored setting 2 (4%) 2 (4.5%) Interaction between children 18 (40%) 16 (36%) Interaction between children and adults 21 (47%) 19 (43%) Adequate space for children to play 7 (16%) 22 (50%) Interaction between staff members 15 (33%) - Interaction between practitioners and 12 (27%) - parents Low staff turn-over 2 (4%) - Interaction between adults - 8 (18%) Flexible opening and closing hours - 1 (2%) Convenience of location - 1 (2%) Diverse age group of children - 1 (2%) Child development record keeping - 1 (2%) The importance which stakeholders placed on the provision of resources, was not reflected in the findings of the ECERS(R) instrument. The mean score of the activities item (which incorporates the availability of fine motor, artistic, musical, gross motor and other resources) was which was the lowest score obtained of all 152

153 seven items. Item five of the ECERS(R) rating scale, interaction, scored a mean score of 6.7 which was the highest score obtained. The type of interactions observed in settings can be seen from the observation data gathered using the IEA instrument, with an average of 53.2% of children s time spent interacting with one/more adult(s), an average of 37.1% of their time spent interacting with between two to six children and an average of 21% of their time spent interacting with seven or more children. Interviews conducted with the main policy makers in the area of early childhood care and education showed the value they placed on early year s practitioners, including the acknowledgement and the provision of staff development opportunities. The presence of effective staff management and the introduction of appropriate policies and procedures were also seen to contribute to the overall quality of a setting. Parents, practitioners and key personnel alike considered adult/child ratios as important determinants of good quality (34.1%, 40.7% and 60% of focus groups correspondingly). Item seven of the ECERS(R) Rating Scale incorporated an examination of the provisions for staff (personal and professional), staff supervision and evaluation, as well as opportunities for professional growth the average score obtained by the participating settings in respect of this item was 5.2, i.e., sixth of the seven items average scores. Following the value of practitioners as a key feature, policy makers also identified the style of practice/pedagogical approach of the settings (37% practitioners, 29.5% parents) as important. Participants at the focus group discussions considered that a healthy balance was required between adult-directed and child-directed practice. The idea that practitioners were available when the children required them was evident in the findings of the child interviews, with almost all children stating that the practitioner would help them if they fell, if they couldn t turn on the computer, or if they couldn t open their lunch boxes. However, a sense of independence was also evident with a small number of children indicating that they would get their friends to help them, and one particular child stating that she was brave enough to take care of herself if she fell. This indicates that children are not totally reliant on practitioners and have an emerging sense of responsibility. The mean amount of time which the main adult spent teaching/facilitating the child (including giving information/demonstrations, offering choices, encouraging activities, providing 153

154 assistance when needed, and providing assistance) was observed at 34.3%. Just over twelve percent (12.2%) of the main adult s time was spent participating in the child s activities. This finding corresponds with those of the IEA/PPP study in 1997 (Hayes, O Flaherty and Kernan, 1997). Chapter two of this report provides a descriptive review of the key determinants of quality as outlined in recent literature in the field of early childhood care and education. The perspectives reported here on the key determinant of quality correspond with those identified in literature in the area. The presence of an interactive environment (Howes and Smith, 1995; Kontos and Keyes, 1999; Malaguzzi, 1993), the style of practice, pedagogical approach of practitioners and the management techniques of a setting (Hayes, 2004) all contribute to quality. The provision of training (Bowman et al., 2000; EC Childcare Network, 1996; Epstein, 1999; Malaguzzi, 1993; Oberheumer and Ulich, 1997; Sylva et al., 2003) and levels of qualifications (Laevers, 2003) has also been identified as a key element contributing to quality early childhood care and education. 7.5 Aspects of Poor Quality ECCE Settings In relation to the aspects which contributed to poor quality early childhood care and education, parents, practitioners, policy makers and key personnel s perspectives differed. Parents perceived a lack of positive environmental factors, e.g. neglecting, uncaring, unfriendly environments (90.7%), poor resources and facilities (60.5%), poor setting structure (51.2%) and poor adult/child ratios (48.8%), as indicative of poor quality. Practitioners on the other hand rated poor resources and facilities (66.7%), a lack of staff qualifications (63%), followed by the absence of a positive environment (51.9%), as determinants. The policy makers perspectives were similar to those of the practitioners'; they also rated poor resources and staff training above all other determinants, which they followed with poor staff management and low levels of communication between practitioners and parents. Discussions amongst key personnel predominantly highlighted poor staff management, leading to a high turnover of staff and poor interactive elements for the children attending the settings as indicators of poor quality. Key personnel at all five focus group discussions emphasised that a lack of professionalisation of early childhood care and education practitioners, incorporating low salaries, lack of staff training, and poor working 154

155 conditions are huge contributors to the level of quality of early childhood care and education. The policy makers in particular commented that a lack of professionalism in the sector might result in staff recruitment difficulties and a lack of staff retention which ultimately impinges on quality. They felt that without qualified, motivated, committed staff, good quality early childhood care and education could not be provided as staff are a key determinant of quality in any setting. Also mentioned at four of the focus groups was the idea of cultural diversity. The key personnel felt that a lack of awareness and acknowledgement of diversity contributed to poor quality. They felt that a celebration of diversity and engagement in dramatic, cultural play were key determinants of the quality of a setting. It was felt that it was the responsibility of all settings, regardless of geographical location or setting type to increase awareness amongst children, particularly because of the recent cultural shift in Irish society, Table 7.2: Practitioners compared with Parents Aspects of Poor Quality ECCE Settings Response Practitioner Response Parent Response N (%) N (%) Setting too big 2 (4%) 8 (19%) Low adult/child ratios 10 (22%) 21 (49%) Poor structure of setting 16 (36%) 22 (51%) Adoption of business type approach 5 (11%) 10 (23%) Un-nurturing, uncaring, unfriendly 23 (51%) 39 (91%) environment Lack of staff qualifications 28 (62%) 20 (47%) Poor resources and facilities 30 (67%) 26 (61%) Lack of programme/curriculum/structure 12 (27%) 18 (42%) for the year Poor staff/management relations 5 (11%) 3 (7%) Poor staff/parent relations 14 (31%) 5 (12%) Poor health and safety procedures 19 (42%) 6 (14%) Poor indoor space/play area 12 (27%) 3 (7%) Poor outdoor space/play area 12 (27%) 4 (9%) Bad outcomes for children 16 (36%) 2 (5%) Provision of unhealthy food 1 (2%) 3 (7%) Other 4 (9%) 1 (2%) Lack of feed back to parents 1 (2%) - Lack an all-inclusive policy 24%) - 155

156 Practitioners, policy makers and key personnel alike, placed an emphasis on the importance of staff qualifications, training and development. However, the ECERS(R) findings did not find high levels of provisions for the personal needs of staff, provisions for the professional needs of staff, staff interaction and cooperation, supervision and evaluation of staff or opportunities for staff for professional growth. At a ranking of sixth (5.2) of seven items, this suggests that provisions for staff, e.g., supervision, evaluation and opportunities for professional growth, falls in ranking behind other static provisions within the participating settings. 7.6 Benefits of Quality ECCE Provision There were, overall, similarities between policy makers, practitioners and parents perspectives on the benefits of good quality early childhood care and education provision. All respondents believed that ECCE settings are children s first place to experience social interactions external to the family home, which most saw as contributing to the immediate-term development of social skills, increased levels of self-esteem, independence (37% practitioners and 56.8% parents) as well as emotional stability (51.9% practitioners, 29.5% parents). These responses have been supported by research (Bowman, Donovan and Burns, 2001; Field, 1991; Laevers, 2003; Marcon, 2002 and 1999; Neaum and Tallack, 2002; Shonkoff and Phillips, 2002), which has found that children attending early childhood settings had greater levels of social proficiency and confidence around peers, and correlated with such children interacting with peers at an earlier stage and more frequently than their non-ecce attending peers. These important findings, and indeed the indications of Langstead (1994), Stephen (2003) and Mooney and Blackburn (2003) that children regard other children as important factors determining the quality of their early childhood care and education experiences was evident in the findings from children in this study also. Twenty-one percent of all the photographs taken by the participating children (the largest proportion of all photographs taken) were of their friends, which indicates that the children themselves considered their friends and peers as determinants of the quality of their particular settings. Policy makers also felt that attendance at good quality ECCE would ease children s transition to primary school and reduce levels of separation anxiety. Parents and practitioners felt it contributed, in the short-term, to developed reasoning and 156

157 problem-solving skills (40.7% practitioners and 40.9% parents), which corresponds with international findings that children attending ECCE services achieve higher academic grades in primary school where the quality of the setting is of a high standard (Kelleghan and Greaney, 1993; Sylva et al., 2003). All three groups were also in agreement that early childhood care and education contributes to short-term gains in IQ and higher academic attainment in primary school, which policy makers felt were most obvious for children with special needs and children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. This result reflects the finding from research which also suggests that disadvantaged children experience most improvements in academic achievement and greater levels of performance in mixed social settings (Sylva et al., 2003). In relation to the longer-term benefits of attending early childhood care and education settings, all three groups (policy makers, practitioners and parents) rated positive social development first, followed by positive emotional development. In relation to practitioners, such benefits were followed by more long-term benefits such as increased success in later life through economic performance (23.1%), second level school completion (19.2% of practitioners), and overall educational advancement (19.2%). Parents followed social and emotional development with such long-term benefits as second-level school completion (41.9% of parents), third-level school completion (30.2%) and reduced perpetration of crime (18.6%). Similarly, policy makers followed through with reduced perpetration of crime, improved employability of children in later life and continued educational learning. 7.7 Statutory Role in the Provision of Good Quality ECCE All four groups were asked what role/responsibility the government should play to ensure the provision of good quality early childhood care and education. The key policy makers interviewed, who represented the statutory/government departments with responsibility for early childhood care and education in Ireland, felt that the government s role should be predominantly concerned with funding/capital investment in existing services, or towards the creation of new services. Policy makers also felt the government should have a role to play in the provision of funding towards practitioner training and qualifications, which they believed would contribute to the overall standard of quality in the sector. One particular policy maker felt that 157

158 certain training and qualifications should be compulsory. Although all policy makers agreed that current developments in the field, e.g., improving adult/child ratios, the development of the National Quality Framework for and the ongoing inspection of current services, were important, they also felt that further support was required. Practitioners felt the development of the National Quality Framework would play a key statutory role; they also felt that a national child development curriculum/programme was required 59, as well as continuous ongoing monitoring and development. Similar to the policy makers, practitioners also felt that the development of compulsory staff qualifications should be a responsibility of the government, as well as mandatory adult/child ratios. Top of the agenda for parents in relation to the state s role in the provision of good quality early childhood care and education, were compulsory staff qualifications 67.4% of all parents interviewed felt the state had a key role to play in the introduction of mandatory ECCE practitioner qualifications. The provision of public funding for both public and private settings, the development of a National Quality Framework, the provision of tax incentives/subsidisation followed this for parents (46.5% of parents) and the introduction of a national child development curriculum. Discussions at focus groups revolved primarily around which government department should have responsibility for ECCE. There was no overall sense of agreement on the topic, with some arguing that a new department should be established with sole responsibility for children, others felt the Department of Health and Children should have responsibility, others held the belief that the Department of Education and Science should be responsible. In addition, others felt each department has a unique and key role to play in early childhood care and education, therefore they should retain that responsibility but that greater levels of communication were required between the different departments. The identification of the need for coordination as a central finding is mirrored in recent reports on early childhood care and education in Ireland, such as the OECD report (DES, 2004) and the NESF Report (NESF, 2005) 59 The National Council for Curriculum and Assessment are currently developing a curriculum framework for early childhood care and education settings, which aims to support both practitioners and parents in their roles. It also aims to acknowledge the importance of relationships and the environment in children s development and early learning. 158

159 Many of the respondents at the focus groups felt that resources should be provided to parents in the form of subsidisation and tax incentives, which would ease parental burdens. However, others debated that some parents may abuse provision of financial support to parents in the form of child benefits. Three of the five focus groups discussed the idea of resourcing/providing for early childhood care and education settings directly. It was believed that settings should be viewed as resources in themselves (rather than services), similar to schools or the health service. Participants discussed the idea that ECCE settings provide for the greater wellbeing of society in the future, and hence should be made available, by statutory authorities, with such in mind. 7.8 The Most Important Aspects Contributing to ECCE Quality Both the policy makers and key personnel were in agreement that although the static, more tangible elements of early childhood care and education settings were of paramount importance, they do not alone guarantee quality. Respondents all recognised that the more dynamic, interactive elements were also required to ensure high quality early childhood care and education provision. Both, again, stressed the importance of the practitioners roles within the settings, and their contribution to relationships with parents, children and one another. Policy makers highlighted the importance of effective staff management, whilst key personnel outlined that professionalisation of the sector was required (incorporating increased pay, conditions and career prospects for practitioners). The significance of ongoing training for practitioners and the introduction of mandatory staff qualifications were again mentioned. Key personnel outlined that practitioners are predominantly enthusiastic about training, however, a lack of incentives such as promotional prospects discourages participation. Policy makers also outlined that the introduction of a national learning framework would have to be flexible to individual children s needs, and should incorporate play as a methodology. Key personnel were concerned about the use of the word curriculum with preschool children. They did not consider it appropriate as it had connotations of academia/confinement. Focus group participants (like the policy makers) suggested the word programme be substituted for the term curriculum, as they felt this would be flexible to the individual needs of children and ECCE settings. 159

160 The idea that curricula and frameworks must respect individuality and diversity was widely supported, a point endorsed by UNESCO (2004), which stated that the devising of a framework for quality must incorporate an element of commonality amongst social and ethnic groups, whilst also being aware of the diverse needs and practices of different ethnic and social groups. The curriculum framework currently being developed by the NCCA is being produced through a process of consultation, and the developing team has chosen to use the term 'learning framework' rather than curriculum in the title. Table 7.3: Practitioners Crossed By Parents Most Important Aspects Contributing to ECCE Quality Practitioner Parent Response Response Response N (%) N (%) Safe building, surroundings and garden 19 (73%) 48 (54.5%) Equipment available for use to staff and children 16 (61.5%) 14 (32%) Child-staff ratios 6 (23%) 12 (27%) Education and training of staff 20 (77%) 20 (45.5%) Style of practice/pedagogical Approach 3 (11.5%) 16 (36%) Approach to management of setting 3 (11.5%) 3 (7%) Communication styles and relationships 4 (15%) 2 (4.5%) Provision of nutritious food 1 (4%) 6 (14%) Positive staff personalities 15 (58%) 22 (50%) Variation of activities 2 (8%) 12 (27%) Openness surrounding policies and procedures 2 (8%) 3 (7%) Child development record keeping 3 (11.5%) 1 (2%) Hygiene 4 (15%) 8 (18%) Child outcomes 3 (11.5%) 9 (20.5%) Homely, caring and loving environment 8 (31%) 17 (39%) Programme inclusive of diversity 3 (11.5%) 7 (16%) Parental Involvement 3 (11.5%) - Interaction between practitioners and parents - 8 (18%) Interaction between child and adults 4 (15%) - Interaction between adults 6 (23%) - Convenience of location 1 (4%) - Regulated and monitored setting 3 (11.5%) - Low staff turn-over 1 (4%) - Education, learning, development and stimulation 3 (11.5%) - A curriculum and staff support 4 (15%) - Financial support for proper functioning 2 (8%) - Additional assistants/staff supports 1 (4%) - Other 1 (4%) - Interaction between children - 11 (25%) Interaction between children and practitioner - 10 (23%) Flexible opening and closing hours - 3 (7%) Convenient location - 2 (4.5%) Cost - 5 (11%) Sense of welcoming - 1 (2%) 160

161 Both the parents and practitioners rated the building, surroundings and garden as the most important aspects of early childhood care and education settings. Parents followed this with positive staff personalities, the presence of educated/trained personnel, a homely, caring and loving environment, and the style of practice of the practitioners (see table 7.3 on the previous page). Practitioners themselves rated the resources/equipment available to them in their daily activities, adult/child ratios, and the educational and training levels of staff as the most important aspects of ECCE. An over-riding theme of the interviews/discussions which took place with the various stakeholders in relation to the most important aspects of ECCE was that static, quantifiable elements of settings were used as the primary determinants of quality. However, all groups were adamant that such elements need to be considered along with the less tangible, dynamic elements. It was felt that one cannot, and should not, exist without the other. A purpose-built setting with well-qualified staff, excellent resources and the provision of nutritious food for example does not guarantee good quality. Such a setting needs to be accompanied by dynamic staff with good social skills, the ability to relate well to children, parents and each other and an overall feeling of home, security and comfort. The study also assessed children s experiences of quality using interviews. On analysis of the data, the team found that children outlined the following activities as their favourite during the interviews: dolls and teddies, balls, blocks, tractors, football, outside play, numbers and maths, letters, colouring/painting, food and friends. To allow comparison of such findings against the IEA Management of Time findings, each of the activities above has been coded according to the IEA/MOT code: Dolls and teddies (Expressive Activities), Balls, blocks and tractors (Action/Movement), Football and outside play (Action/Movement), Numbers and maths games (Preacademic Activities), Letters (Preacademic Activities), Colouring and painting (Expressive Activities), Food (Personal/Social Skills) and Friends (Personal/Social Skills). 161

162 Mixed Personal/Social Expressive Physical Free Activities Preacademic 13 Figure 7.1: Highest Rating IEA Management of Time Categories Dolls, teddies, colouring and painting were outlined by the children as some of their favourite activities, and also rated quite highly in the management of time observations (mean 13% - rated third). Balls, blocks, tractors, football and outside play scored a mean of 10.7% in the management of time observations (rated fourth). Children also rated numbers, maths games and letters quite highly, and this was only rated sixth out of twelve IEA/MOT categories. Finally, children also identified food and friends and these scored a mean 15.5% (rated second of all IEA/MOT Activities). Figure 7.1 displays the main highest rated management of time categories observed during the research. Each of the activities outlined by children are rated within those top seven activities observed. 7.9 A Review of the Main Findings There is a great deal of harmony between all groups relative to the contribution of early childhood care and education to birth to six year olds. The importance of interaction between children and their peers, but also between children and practitioners were outlined as key contributions of the ECCE setting. A majority of respondents reported that they felt that such interactions contribute to the development of social, emotional, cognitive and physical skills for children. Different groups placed emphasis on different criteria which may be of importance to parents in the selection of an ECCE setting. Policy makers rated the location, the cost of service provision and the opening and closing times of the settings as particularly important to Table A.7 in the appendix (Appendix 20) displays the findings relative to the interaction item of the ECERS instrument, cross-tabbed with practitioners perspectives on the most important aspects contributing to quality. 162

163 parents. Practitioners rated staff training/qualifications, the safety of the setting and the resources available as criteria in the selection of a setting, whereas parents rated safety as the most important criteria, followed by the approach/friendliness of the practitioner and the teaching/pedagogical style of the staff as important criteria in the selection of an ECCE setting. A strong fusion of perspectives was evident relating to the aspects of good quality early childhood care and education settings, although the order of priority varied. All groups (parents, practitioners, policy makers and key personnel) agreed that the safety of the building, the surroundings and the garden were the most important aspects of good quality early childhood care and education. Children also outlined the importance of the outdoor space as a favoured aspect of their settings. The structural aspects of ECCE settings were followed by the provision of resources appropriate to children s developmental stages and relationships within the settings. Parents, practitioners and policy makers placed an emphasis on the training and qualifications of staff, whereas the key personnel didn t feel the qualifications of staff guaranteed good quality, and felt positive staff personalities and an ability to relate to children were aspects of a good quality setting. Research findings increasingly support a strong link between the qualification of staff and the quality of ECCE settings and the findings here suggest that there is a need to explore this relationship more thoroughly with practitioners. An interesting divergence of views was found amongst the different groups in relation to the aspects of poor quality early childhood care and education settings. Parents perceived a lack of positive emotional and environmental factors (uncaring, unfriendly, neglecting environments), poor resources and facilities and poor setting structure as aspects contributing to poor quality. Practitioners and policy makers also placed emphasis on poor resources and facilities, but also outlined a lack of staff qualifications/training as poor quality aspects. The policy makers felt that poor staff management, a high turnover of staff and poor interactive environments for children are aspects of poor quality settings. Whereas key personnel at the focus group discussions outlined that a lack of 'professionalisation' of the sector incorporating low salaries, lack of staff training, and poor working conditions - are key aspects of poor quality settings. Research has proven that an inextricable link exists between the 163

164 training and qualifications of staff, and good outcomes and/or healthy dynamics for children, which ultimately determines the quality of a setting. The presence of a good quality setting, with highly trained practitioners (with higher salaries), and clear outcomes ultimately contributes to the perception/presence of a professional resource/service (Bowman et al., 2000; EC Childcare Network, 1996; Epstein, 1999; Laevers, 2003; Malaguzzi, 1993; Oberheumer and Ulich, 1997; Sylva et al., 2003). There was strong agreement across all groups relative to the benefits of providing good quality early childhood care and education. Although the same immediate and long-term benefits for children attending early childhood care and education settings were highlighted, the order of rating of such benefits differed relative to the group. Parents and practitioners placed more of an emphasis on a long-term vision regarding the education of children (including attendance at second and third level formal schooling). A clear emphasis was also placed, by all three groups, on positive social and emotional development in the immediate and long term, with associated later success in life. The development of social skills, increased levels of self-esteem, independence and emotional stability were outlined by all groups as immediate benefits of ECCE attendance. Research (including the present study) suggests that children regard other children as key determinants of the quality of a setting (Langstead, 1994; Mooney and Blackburn, 2003; Stephen, 2003), which contributes to the overall social environment. Findings relative to social development coincide with international research (Bowman et al., 2001; Field, 1991; Schweinhart, 2004; Shonkoff and Phillips, 2002), which also found that positive social and emotional development, increased economic performance, reduced perpetration of crime, reduced levels of drug use and increased levels of secondary school completion are all long-term benefits of early childhood care and education attendance. All four groups (parents, practitioners, policy makers and key personnel) acknowledged that the government has a key role to play in early childhood care and education. The incorporation of the sector under a number of government departments, the lack of mandatory qualifications/training standards and the lack of parental support were all outlined by respondents as issues needing to be addressed. Participants also mentioned that the state has a role to play in the development of a child development curriculum and supported the current work of the NCCA, CECDE 164

165 and work relative to the Child Care (Preschool) Regulations. The development of a National Quality Framework was also noted as a positive development. The policy makers acknowledged such current developments as the monitoring of settings under the Child Care (Preschool) Regulation, 1996 and the development of the National Quality Framework. However, they felt greater support should be provided directly to settings. A recent National Economic and Social Forum (NESF) report on Early Childhood Care and Education draws on a number of policy documents and makes a number of recommendations, including the need to coordinate policy through one lead department, the development of a programme for implementation of actions proposed and the provision of resources on a multi-annual basis (NESF, 2005). The static aspects of the ECCE settings (including the building, garden and resources) were rated the highest in relation to the most important aspects contributing to good quality early childhood care and education, followed by the presence of dynamic elements (including positive staff personalities and the practice and style of the practitioners), and then followed by the importance of practitioners roles (including staff training and qualifications). The discussions at the focus groups however, outlined that it is inappropriate to suggest that one type of element (static or dynamic) can contribute to the overall quality of a setting. The participants stated that one could not exist without the other, nor does one guarantee quality alone. It was felt that a combination of static, quantifiable quality with high interactive, dynamic quality would result in a good quality setting Comparative Analysis of ECERS(R) and IEA Findings Like other studies in the past (Farqhuar, 1989; Lera, 1996; Wessels, Lamb and Hwang, 1996), the ECERS(R) observation tool generated low levels of variant scores amongst the settings participating in the current study. It can also be noted that the findings suggest that the settings under examination scored particularly highly on a number of items under review. The research team have considered these findings and suggest a number of explanations including the possibility that the use of County Childcare Committees (CCCs) to select the settings to be included in the research may have biased the sample in favour of higher quality settings as such a sampling procedure gave the CCCs the opportunity to choose high quality settings within their vicinity. It may also be the case that recent developments such as the Child Care 165

166 (Preschool) Regulations, 1996, and a recent increase in awareness relating to quality in ECCE (due to continuous efforts of voluntary childcare organisations and wide consultation across the sector in relation to the development of the National Quality Framework) may have contributed to an increase in the standard of static quality in Irish early childhood care and education standards. In relation to the IEA observation findings, the observed practitioners predominantly proposed mixed activities (mean 17.4% of proposals), personal and social activities (15.5%), expressive (13%), physical (10.7%) and free activities (10.4%). This finding corresponds with the mean percentage of time children spent on various activities: physical was 27.7%, 18.6% on personal and social, 16.7% on expressive activities and 11.5% on preacademic activities. Overall practitioners proposed interactive structures for children. A mean of 6.9% of practitioners proposals related to sole child activities, an average of 63.6% of adults proposals related children participating in activities as a whole group, and 27.1% as a partial group. Such interaction was also reflected in the findings of the children s activities with an average of 53.2% of children s activities taking place in the presence of one/more adult. An average of 37.1% of the observed children s activities took place in the context of between two to six other children, whilst the mean percentage of time spent interacting with seven or more children was 21%. Overall the main adult was proposing interactive activities for the children in the setting. The children responded to such proposals and predominantly interacted with one or more adult and/or between two to six children. Such interactive structures, according to the different groups contribute to the overall quality of a setting, when combined with positive static elements Conclusion The study has provided an insight into the values and belief-systems of those people with a stake in early childhood care and education in Ireland. Based on an ecological approach, the report examined the multiple systems within which the child develops and the ECCE setting is located through direct observation, interviews and a detailed review of current literature, policy developments and discourse in the field. The continuous improvement of quality in the Irish context depends on the continuous assessment of definitions, values and rights. Researchers and policy-makers must 166

167 consult the widest range of groups to ensure the service being provided is appropriate to the service users needs, and is supporting the positive development of the child. It is crucial that all policies, procedures and frameworks endeavour to be inclusive of the cultural climate. This is particularly important in Ireland at the moment given the prevailing cultural changes arising from our economic success. The study examined both perceived and observable quality. In relation to the perceived quality the study found that all stakeholders placed an emphasis on the interactive elements within settings. Children rated their friends and teachers as important aspects, while parents, practitioners, policy makers and key personnel felt interaction between children and their peers and children and the practitioners were important aspects of an ECCE setting which, in turn, contributes to the child s level of social, emotional, cognitive and physical development. In relation to ranking the aspects of good quality, all groups ranked the static/structural elements of settings first, followed by the dynamic/interactive elements, which in turn was followed by the provision of resources appropriate to children s developmental needs. The parents, practitioners and policy makers also placed emphasis on the training and qualification levels of practitioners as aspects of good quality early childhood care and education. A lack of emotional and environmental factors (uncaring, unfriendly, neglecting environment), poor resources and facilities for children and practitioners were outlined by parents as aspects of poor quality settings. Practitioners, on the other hand, emphasised a lack of staff training/qualifications as aspects of poor quality settings. In relation to the benefits of quality ECCE provision, both parents and practitioners placed an emphasis on the long-term benefits, and particularly focused on the completion of second and third-level formal schooling. The development of social skills, increased self-esteem, independence and emotional stability were outlined by all groups as immediate benefits. All adult perspectives gathered felt that the government has a key role to play in early childhood care and education. Although current efforts were acknowledged, some suggestions for further development were highlighted (greater inter-departmental collaboration, the introduction of mandatory practitioner qualifications/training, the introduction of adult/child ratios). Overall, all stakeholder groups highlighted the static elements of a setting as the most important 167

168 aspects, followed by dynamic elements, and finally the importance of practitioners roles. The children themselves outlined dolls and teddies, balls, blocks and tractors, football and outside play, number/maths and letter games, colouring and painting, and food and friends as their favourite activities. Such findings were also reflected in the photographs which the children themselves took. The primary tool used to gain children s perspectives on quality was not appropriate for use with the very young children and for this reason an observation tool was piloted with younger children, which requires further development. In relation to the observed quality, an analysis of the ECERS(R) identified low levels of variant scores amongst settings, it can also be noted that the findings suggest the settings scored highly on a number of items under review. In relation to rating, the settings observed scored, on average, highest on the interaction item, this was followed by language and reasoning, personal care, programme structure, space and furnishing, parent and staff, and finally activities. The IEA observation tools also produced interesting findings; the observed practitioners predominantly proposed mixed activities, followed by personal and social activities, expressive activities physical and free activities. It was found that such proposals corresponded with the children s participation in activities, with children predominantly spending time engaging in physical activities, followed by personal and social, expressive and preacademic activities. In relation to the adults proposals of group structure, the majority of the practitioners proposals related to whole group activities, followed by partial group activities. The children predominantly participated in activities with one/more adults, followed by interaction with between two to seven children. Therefore, as outlined by the groups interviewed; the presence of positive interactive structures, combined with appropriate static elements contributes to the overall quality of a setting. 168

169 7.12 Issues for Further Research Issues for further research emerging from the current study may be summarised as follows: The gathering of data relative to the impact of quality on outcomes for children would provide distinctly Irish data. The research team suggest that the settings with which the National Quality Framework is due to be piloted should be studied against a control group pre- and post-implementation. The concept of multi-cultural awareness and preparation for multi-cultural diversity within settings was discussed with a number of practitioners. This is a topic of increasing importance across all settings in ECCE. The extent to which ECCE settings are aiming to integrate multi-cultural children and how they might be supported would be a valuable study. This should include a review of (i) the prevalence of such, (ii) the procedures and policies in place, (iii) the training needs of staff, and (iv) the role of the practitioner. The perspectives of stakeholders in the current study place emphasis on the qualifications and training of practitioners in the early childhood care and education sector. Research has proven a link between qualifications and its impact on quality, therefore a detailed study of a sample of settings comparing the levels of quality of those settings against the qualifications of its staff is recommended. An examination of whether a relationship exists between process elements and its impact on child outcomes would be a unique study within the Irish context. Although the current study examined children s perceptions of quality, it failed to address an in-depth analysis of children s perceptions of play and space. A study designed to examine the physical environment of settings utilising children as researchers would provide unique data for the Irish context. The child interview schedule, designed for use with children aged birth to six years of age, in the current study was later found to be inappropriate for use with very young children. The research team developed and piloted an observation tool, which currently stands incomplete and requires comprehensive development. The further development of the tool and a more extensive pilot phase is required to guarantee its completion, which would ultimately provide a tool for accessing the perspectives of all children aged birth to six years. 169

170 7.1.3 Policy and Practice Implications In addition to the issues for future research outlined above, a number of policy and practice implications were highlighted during the analysis of the findings. They are as follow: Governmental responsibility for the early childhood care and education sector was an issue which arose during the gathering of data. Discussions relating to which government department should hold responsibility for ECCE were inconclusive. This finding supports the need for action as evidenced by the attention being paid to the issue through such policy reports as the NESF and OECD Reports. The current study found that stakeholders agreed that a lack of regulation and guidelines with respect to practitioner training and qualifications standards contributed to poor quality early childhood care and education. It is recommended that that policy attention to the issue of staff qualifications/training be encouraged which will ultimately lead to the positive development of the professionalisation of ECCE. Stakeholders researched in the current study outlined the important role which ECCE practitioners play in relation to parental support. It was noted that practitioners act in a professional capacity, providing support and information relative to child development and child protection. The findings suggest that greater attention and resources be given to developing provisions to support parents in their child-rearing roles. A number of stakeholders emphasised the issue of funding, and suggested that financial support is required to support parent and early childhood settings. A number of suggestions were made including: direct subsidisation, tax incentives, increased child benefit and increased tax credits. Findings suggest that the current regulations and preschool inspections, which examine the static elements of early childhood care and education settings, are limited. The current study recommends that the monitoring of settings, to examine quality, should be extended to include dynamic elements and child outcomes. The current project gathered information pertaining to the current HSE preschool inspections which take place nationwide. Many practitioners outlined that a level of inconsistency exists between inspections carried out by the different HSE regions. Greater consistency is required across geographical districts relative to inspection. 170

171 BIBLIOGRAPHY Balageur, I., Mestres, J. and Penn, H. (1992). Quality in services for young children: A discussion paper. Brussels: European Commission Childcare Network, Commission to the European Communities. Ball, C. (1994). Start Right: The Importance of Early Learning. UK: The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce. Barnett, W. S. (Ph.D.) (1995). Long Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School Outcomes. In The Future of Children. Vol. 5. No. 3. Winter ( Belsky, J. (1986). Infant Day Care: A Cause for Concern? In Zero to Three Journal. Vol. 7. No. 1. Pp Bennett, J. (2000). Goals, Curricula and Quality Monitoring in Early Education Systems. Paper produced for the Consultative Meeting on International Developments in Early Childhood Education and Care. Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (4th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Border Counties Childcare Network Limited (2000). Information Pack for Preschool Service Providers. Monaghan: BCCN Ltd. Bowman, B.T., Donovan, M.S. and Burns, M.S. (Eds.) (2001) Eager to Learn: Educating our Preschoolers. Washington DC: National Academic Press. Brendekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age eight. Washington DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Brennan, M (2003). Ethics in Early Childhood Education and Care. Paper presented at Our Children Their Future 3, 1-4 May 2003 (Adelaide). Bronfenbrenner, U. and Morris, P. (1998). The Ecology of Developmental Processes. In Damon, W. and Lerner, R.M. (Eds.). Handbook of Child Psychology Volume 1: Theoretical models of Human Development (5th Edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bronfenbrenner,U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Experiments by Nature and Design. UK: Harvard University Press. Brophy, J., and Statham, J. (1994). Measure for Measure: Values, Quality and Evaluation in Valuing Quality in Early Childhood Services. In Moss, P. & Pence, A. (Eds.) Valuing Quality in Early Childhood Services. London: Paul Chapman. 171

172 Burchinal, M., Howes, C. and Kontos, S. (2002). Structural Predictors of Child Care Quality in Child Care Homes. In Early Childhood research Quarterly. Vol. 17. No. 1. Pp Carr, M. (2000). Seeking Children s Perspectives about their Learning. In Smith, A.B. and Taylor, N.J. (Eds.) Children s Voices: Research Policy and Practice. Auckland: Addison Wesley Longman. Central Statistics Office (2003). Quarterly National Household Survey: Childcare, Fourth Quarter, Cork: Central Statistics Office. CECDE (2004). Talking About Quality Report of a Consultation Process on Quality in Early Childhood Care and Education. Dublin: Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education. CECDE (2004). Report of a Consultation Process on Quality in Early Childhood Care and Education. Unpublished Report for the CECDE. CECDE (2001). Programme of Work. Dublin: Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education. Christensen, P. and James, A. (2000). Researching with Children: Perspectives and Practices. London: Falmer Press. Clarke, A. and Moss, P. (2001). Listening to Young Children: The Mosaic Approach. UK: National Children s Bureau. Clarke, A., McQuail, S., and Moss, P. (2003). Exploring the Field of Listening to and Consulting with Young Children. Nottingham: Thomas Coram Research Unit. Collins, W. & Sons (1988) Collins: Pocket Reference English Dictionary. Glasgow: William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. CQO Study Team (1999). The children of the cost, quality and child study go to school. Denver: University of Colorado. Cryer, D. and Burchinal, M. (1997). Parents as Child Care Consumers. In Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Vol. 12. Pp Cryer, D., Tietze, W., Burchinal, M., Leal, T and Palacios, J. (1999). Predicting Process Quality from Structural Quality in Preschool Programs: Across Country Comparison. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Vol. 14. No. 3. Pp Cryer, D. (1999). Defining and Assessing Early Childhood Program Quality. In Helburn, S. (Ed.) The Silent Crisis in U.S. Child Care. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. No Pp Cryer, D., Harms, T. and Riley, C. (2003). All About ECERS(R). US: Kaplan Early Learning Company. 172

173 Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. and Pence, A. (1999). Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Postmodern Perspectives. London: Falmer Press. De Kruif, R.E.L., McWilliam, R.A., Ridley, S.M. and Wakely, M.B. (2000). Classification of Teachers Interaction Behaviours in Early Childhood Classrooms. In Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Vol. 15 No. 2. Pp Department of An Taoiseach (1996). Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness. Dublin: Government Publications Office. Department of Education and Science (1998). The Education Act, Dublin: Government Stationary Office. Department of Education and Science (1999a). Ready to Learn: White Paper on Early Childhood Education. Dublin: Government Publications Office. Department of Education and Science (1999b). The Education (Welfare) Bill, Dublin: Government Publications Office. Department of Education and Science (2004). OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Care and Education in Ireland. Dublin: The Stationary Office. Department of Health (1991). The Child Care Act, Dublin: Government Stationary Office. Department of Health and Children (1990). Report of the Primary Education Review Body. Dublin: Government Publications Office. Department of Health and Children (1991). Child Care Act, Dublin: Government Stationary Office. Department of Health and Children (1996). Child Care (Pre-School Services) Regulations, Dublin: Government Publications Office. Department of Health and Children (1999). Children First: National Guidelines for the Protection and Welfare of Children. Dublin: Government Publications Office. Department of Health and Children (2000). National Children s Strategy: Our Children, Their Lives. Dublin: Government Stationary Office. Department of Health and Children (2004). Ready Steady, Play: A National Policy. Dublin: National Children's Office. Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (1999). National Childcare Strategy: Report of the Partnership 2000 Expert Working Group on Childcare. Dublin: Government Publications Office. Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform (2002). Quality Childcare and Lifelong Learning: Model Framework for Education, Training and Professional 173

174 Development for the Early Childhood Care and Education Sector. Dublin: Stationary Office. Douglas, F. (2004). A Critique of ECERS as a Measure of Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care. Paper presented at Questions of Quality, CECDE International Conference, Dublin Castle, September Dunn, J. (2005). Naturalistic Observations of Children and their Families. In Greene, S. and Hogan, D. (Eds.) Researching Children s Experience: Approaches and Methods. Dublin: Sage Publishers. Dunphy, L. (2004). Ethical and Effective Interviewing of Young Children in th Pedagogical Contexts. Paper presented at 14 Annual Conference of European Early Childhood Education. Malta: Research Association. Epstein, A.S. (1999). Pathways to Quality in Head Start, Public School, and Private Nonprofit Early Childhood Programs. In Journal of Research in Childhood Education. Vol. 13. No.2. Pp European Commission Childcare Network (1996). Quality Targets in Services for Young Children. Brussels: European Commission Childcare Network. Evans, J.L. (1996). Quality in Early Childhood Care and Development: Everyone s Concern Coordinator s Notebook. In An International Resource for Early Childhood Development. Vol. 18, Pp Evans, J.L. (1997). Programming in Early Childhood Care and Development. In Young, M.E. (Ed.) Early Child Development: Investing in our Children s Future. Netherlands: Elsevier. Farqhuar, S.E. (1990). Quality in Early Education and Care: What Do We Mean? In Early Child Development and Care. Vol. 64. Pp Field, T. (1991). Quality Infant Day-Care and Grade School Behaviour and Performance. In Child Development. Vol. 62. Pp French, G. (2003). Supporting Quality: Guidelines for Best practice in Early Childhood Services. (Second Edition). Dublin: Barnardos. Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S. and Shinn, M.B. (1994). The Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care: Key Findings and Policy Recommendations. In Young Children. Vol. 50, No. 1. Pp Gillespie Edwards, A. (2002). Relationships and learning: Caring for children from birth to three. London: National Children's Bureau. Greene, S. and Hogan, D. (Eds.) (2005). Researching Children's Experience: Approaches and Methods. London: Sage Publications. Harker, R. (2002). Including Children in Social Research. Highlight No London: National Children sbureau. 174

175 Harms, T. & Clifford, R.M. (1989). Family Day Care Environment Rating Scale New York: Teachers College Press. Harms, T. & Clifford, R. M. (1990). Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College Press. Harms, T., Clifford, R. and Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Revised. New York: Teachers College Press. Hart, R. (1992). Children s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. In Innocenti Essays No. 4. Florence: UNICEF. Harte, M. (2004). Listening and Learning: Empowering Children in Early Childhood Services. Paper Presented at Questions of Quality, CECDE International Conference, Dublin Castle, September Hayes, N., O'Flaherty, J. and Kernan, M. (1997). A Window on Early Education in Ireland, First Report of the IEA Preprimary Project. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology. Hayes, N (2002). Children's Right - Whose right? The Development of Child Policy in Ireland. Dublin: Policy Institute, Trinity College Dublin. Hayes, N., Montie, J. and Claxton, J. (2002). New Process Quality Indicators from the IEA Preprimary Project Observation Systems. In Weikart, D., Olmsted, P. and Montie, J. (Eds.) The IEA Preprimary Project, Phase 2: A World of Preschool Experience, Observations in 15 Countries. US: Highscope Press. Hayes, N. (2004). What are Four Year Olds Doing at School: Reconciling Current Knowledge about Learning in Young Children with Early Educational Pedagogy. Unpublished Thesis: Trinity College Dublin. Hayes, N. (2005). Including Young Children in Early Childhood Education. Paper presented at EECERA Conference, St. Patrick s College, Drumcondra, Dublin, August Heckmann, J.J. (2000). The Real Question is How to Use the Available Funds Wisely. The Best Evidence Supports the Policy Prescription: Invest in the Very Young. US: Ounce of Prevention Fund and the University of Chicago. Helburn, S. (1995). Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centres: Technical Report. Denver: Centre for Research in Economic and Social Policy, University of Colorado. Helburn, S.W. and Howes, C. (1996). Child Care Cost and Quality. In Future of Children. Vol. 6. No. 2. Pp

176 Hennessy, E. and Delaney, P. (1999). Using the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale in Ireland: Do Parents and Service Providers Share its Values? In Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development. Vol. 19. No. 2. Pp Hennessy, E. (2001). Children's Experiences in After-school Care. In A. Cleary, Nic Ghiolla Phádraig, M. and Quin, S. (Eds.) Understanding Children Vol. 2: Changing Experiences and Family Forms. Dublin: Oak Tree Press. Hill, M. (2005). Ethical and Methodological Considerations in Researching Children s Experiences. Glasgow: Centre for the Child and Society, University of Glasgow. Hill, M. (2005). Ethical Considerations in Researching Children s Experiences. In Greene, S. and Hogan, D. (Eds.) Researching Children s Experience: Approaches and Methods. Dublin: Sage Publications. Horgan, M. and Douglas, F. (2001). Some Aspects of Quality in Early Childhood Education. In Cleary, A., Nic Ghiolla Phádraig, M. and Quinn, S. (Eds.) Understanding Children: Volume One. Cork: Oak Tree Press. Howes, C., Phillips, D. and Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds of Quality: Implications for the Social Development of Children in Centre-based Care. In Child Development Vol. 63. Pp Howes, C., and Smith, E.W. (1995). Relations among child care quality, teacher behaviour, children s play activities, emotional security, and cognitive activity in child care. In Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Vol. 10. No. 4. Pp Jary, D., and Jary, J. (1999). Unwin Hyman Dictionary of Sociology (Second Edition). UK: Harper Collins Publishers. Katz, L. (1992). Five Perspectives on Quality in Early Childhood Programs. Perspectives from ERIC/EECE ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED Katz, L. (1992). Multiple Perspectives on the Quality of Early Childhood Programs: Five Perspectives on the Quality of Early Childhood Programs for a Positive Future. U.S: University of Illinois. Katz, L.G. (1993). Multiple Perspectives on the Quality of Early Childhood Programs: Five Perspectives on the Quality of Early Childhood Programs for a Positive Future. In ERIC Digest. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. Kelleghan, T. (1977). The Evaluation of an Intervention Programme for Disadvantaged Children. Windsor, NFER Publishing Co. Kelleghan, T. and Greaney, B. (1993). The Educational Development of Students Following Participation in a Preschool Programme in a Disadvantaged Area. Dublin: Educational Research Centre. 176

177 Kernan, M. (2005). Using Digital Photography to Listen to Young Children s Perspective of the Outdoor Play Experiences in Early Childhood Education Settings. Paper Presented at the Childhoods 2005 International Conference, University of Oslo, June 29 July 3, Kontos, S. and Keyes, L. (1999). An Ecobehavioral Analysis of Early Childhood Classrooms. In Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Vol. 14. No. 1. Pp Laevers, F. (Ed.) (1994). The Innovative Project in Experiential Education. Leuven: Research Centre for Early Childhood and Primary Education. Laevers, F. (Ed.) (1994). Defining and Assessing Quality in Early Childhood Education. Studia Paedagogica. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Laevers, F. (1998). The Leuven Involvement Scale for Young Children. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Laevers, F. (Ed.) (2002). Research on Experiential Education: A Selection of Articles by Ferre Laevers. Leuven: Centre for Experiential Education. Laevers, F and Heylen, L. (Eds.) (2003). Involvement of Children and Teacher Style: Insights from an International Study on Experiential Education. Studia Paedagogica 35. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Langsted, O. (1994). Looking at Quality from the Child s Perspective. In Moss, P. and Pence, A. (Eds.) Valuing Quality in Early Childhood Services: New Approaches to Defining Quality. UK: Paul Chapman Publishing. Lansdown, G. (1994). Children s Rights. In Mayall, Berry (Ed.) Children s Childhoods Observed and Experienced. London: The Falmer Press. Love, J., Schochet, P. and Meckstroth, A. (1996). Are They in Any Real Danger? What research does and doesn t tell us about child care quality and children s well-being. Child Care and Policy Papers. Marcon, R.A. (1999). Differential Impact of Preschool Models on Development and Early Learning of Inner-City Children: A Three Cohort Study. In Developmental Psychology. Vol. 35. No.2. Pp Marcon, R. (2002). Moving up the Grades: Relationship between Preschool Model and Later School Success. In Early Childhood Research and Practice. Vol. 4, No

178 Measelle, J.R., Ablow, J.C., Cowan, P.A. and Cowan, C.P. (1998). Assessing Young Children s Views of the Academic, Social and Emotional Lives: An Evaluation of the Self-Perception Scales of the Berkeley Puppet Interview. In Child Development. Vol. 69. Pp Mooney A. and Blackburn, T. (2003). Children s Views on Childcare Quality. Nottingham: Dept. of Education and Skills. Mooney, A., Cameron, C., Candappa, M., McQuail, S., Moss, P. and Petrie, P. (2003). Early Years and Childcare International Evidence project. UK: Surestart. Morgan, D.L. (1997). The Focus Group Guidebook. London: Sage Publishers. Morrow, V. and Richards M. (1990). The Ethics of Social Research with Children. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Moss, P. and Pence, A. (1994). Defining Quality: Values, Stakeholders and Processes. In Moss, P. and Pence, A. (Eds.) Valuing Quality in Early Childhood Services: New Approaches to Defining Quality. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Moss, P. and Penn, H. (1996). Transforming Nursery Education. London: Paul Chapman. Munton, A. G., Mooney, A. and Rowland, L. (1995). Deconstructing Quality: A conceptual Framework for the New Paradigm in Daycare Provision for the Under Eights. In Early Child Development and Care. Vol Pp National Association for the Education of Young Children (Ehrlich, E.). (2002). Child Care: Quality is the Issue. US. Child Care Aware. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2004). Towards a Framework for Early Learning: A Consultative Document. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (2005). Towards a Framework for Early Learning: Final Consultation Report. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. National Economic and Social Forum (2005). Early Childhood Care and Education: NESF Report No. 31. Dublin: National Economic and Social Forum. Neaum, S. and Tallack, J. (2002). Good Practice in Implementing the Pre-school Curriculum. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd. Nic Gabhainn, S. and Sixsmith, J. (2005). Children s Understanding of Wellbeing. Dublin: National Children s Office. Oakley, A. (1994). Women and Children First and Last: Parallels and Differences between Children s and Women s Studies. In Mayall, Berry (Ed.) Children s Childhoods Observed and Experienced. London: The Falmer Press. 178

179 OECD (2000) Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD (2002) Education Policy Analysis 2002 Strengthening Early Childhood Programmes: A Policy Framework. In Education and Skills. Vol. 9. Pp Olmstead, P.P. and Montie, J. (2001). Early Childhood Settings in 15 Countries: What are their Structural Characteristics? Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. Osborne, A.F. and Milbank, J.E. (1987). The Effects of Early Education. London: Clarendon Press. O Flaherty, J. (1995). Intervention in the Early Years: An Evaluation of the High/Scope Curriculum. London: National Children s Bureau. O Kane, M. (2004). A Study of the Impact of the Child Care (Pre-School Services) Regulations on the Quality of Early Childhood Services in Ireland. Proceedings of st the OMEP Conference Lessons for the 21 Century, Research, Reflection, Renewal held in Dublin Institute of Technology, Aungier Street, Dublin 2. OMEP. O Kane, M. (2005). The Effect of Regulation on the Quality of Early Childhood Services in Ireland. In Child Care in Practice. Vol. 11, No. 2. Pp Paquette, D. and Ryan, J. (2001). Bronfenbrenner s Ecological Systems Theory. Viewed on site: Pfeffer, N. and Coote, A. (1991). Is Quality Good For You? UK: Institute for Public Policy Research. Pugh, G. (1992). (Ed.). Contemporary Issues in the Early Years: Working Collaboratively for Children. London: Paul Chapman. Rabushka, A. (2000) A Tale of Two Economies. US: Division for Economic Policy Research. (Viewed on site: ) Ramey, C.T. and Campbell, F.A. (1991). Poverty, Early Childhood Education, and Academic Competence: The Abecedarian Experiment. In Huston, A.C. (Ed.) Children in Poverty: Child Development and Public Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Rich, D. (2004) Listening to babies [Leaflet]. London: National Children's Bureau. Rossbach, H.G., Clifford, R.M., and Harms, T. (1990). Dimensions of Learning Environments: Cross National Validation of the ECERS. Paper presented at the AERA. Chicago. Sakai, L.M., Whitebook, M., Wishard, A. and Howes, C. (2003). Evaluating the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS): Assessing the differences between 179

180 the first and revised editions. In Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Vol. 8. No. 4. Pp Scarr, S., Eisenberg, M. and Deater-Deckard, K. (1994). Measurement of Quality in Child Care Centres. In Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Vol. 9. Pp Schweinhart, L., Barnes, H. and Weikart, D. (1993). Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 27. Ypsilanti, Michigan: HighScope Press. Schweinhart, L.J. and Weikart, D.P. (1997). The High/scope Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study Through Age 23. In Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Vol. 12. No. 2. Pp Schweinhart, L.J. (2004). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40: Summary, Conclusions, and Frequently Asked Questions. Michigan: High/Scope. Sheridan, S. and Pramling-Samuelsson, I. (2001). Children s Conceptions of Participation and Influence in Pre-school: A Perspective on Pedagogical Quality. In Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. Vol. 2. No. 2. Shonkoff, J. and Phillips, E. (2002). From Neurons to Neighbourhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development (Fourth Edition). Washington D.C.: National Academy Press. Shore, R. (1977). Rethinking the Brain: New Insights in to Early Development. US: Families and Work Institute. Sims, M., Guilfoyle, A. and Parry, T. (2005). Children s Well-being in Child Care. th Paper presented at Family Matters, 9 Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, February Smith, A. and Taylor, N. (2000). The sociocultural context of childhood: balancing dependency and agency. In Smith, A., Taylor, N. and Gollop, M. (Eds.) Children s Voices: Research, Policy and Practice. NZ: Pearson Education New Zealand Limited. South Eastern Health Board (1993). Kilkenny Incest Investigation. Dublin: Government Publications Office. Statham, J. and Brophy, J. (1992). Using the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale in Playgroups. In Educational Research. Vol. 34. No. 2. Pp Stephen, C. (2003). What Makes All-Day Provision Satisfactory for Three and Four Year Olds? In Early Child Development and Care Vol No. 6. Pp Stipek, D., Feiler, R. Daniels, D. and Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of Differential Instruction on Young Children s Achievement and Motivation. In Child Development. Vol. 66. Pp

181 Sylva, K. (1994a). The Impact of Early Learning on Children s Later Development. In Ball, C. (Ed.) Start Right: The Importance of Early learning. London: RSA. Sylva, K. (1994b). School Influences on Children s Development. In Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. Vol. 34. No.1. Pp Sylva, K. and Wilshire, J. (1993). The Impact of Early Learning on Children s later Development: A Review Prepared for the RSA Inquiry. In Start Right European Early Childhood Education Research Journal. Vol. 1. No. 1. Pp Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B. (2004). The Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report. London. Tapp, P.F. (1998). Use of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in the Family Court. Proceedings of the Family Law Conference. Family Law Section of the New Zealand Law Society, Christchurch, NZ. The Irish Government (1937). Bunreacht na héireann. Dublin: Government Stationary. The Ombudsman for Children and Shannon, G. (2005). Submission to the All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. Dublin: Office of the Ombudsman for Children. Tietze, W., Cryer, D., Bairrao, J., Palacious, J. and Wetzel, G. (1996). Comparisons of Observed Process Quality in Early Child Care and Education Programs in Five Countries. In Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Vol. 11. Pp United Nations (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, th Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, 20 November (Ratified by Ireland, September 1992). Geneva: United Nations. Urban, M. (2004). Quality, Autonomy and the Profession. Paper presented at Questions of Quality, CECDE International Conference, Dublin Castle, September Vandell, D., and Wolfe, B. (2000). Child Care Quality. The Known and the Unknown. Washington DC. Department of Human Services. Veale, A. (2005). Creative Methodologies in Participatory Research with Children. In Greene, S. and Hogan, D. (Eds.) Researching Children s Experience: Approaches and Methods. Dublin: Sage Publishers. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge MA: Cambridge University Press. Walsh, T. (2003). An Audit of Research on Early Childhood Care and Education in Ireland Dublin: Centre for Early Childhood Development & Education. 181

182 Weikart D., Olmsted, P. & Montie, J., Hayes, N. and Ojala, M. (Eds.) (2003). A World of Preschool Experience: Observations in 15 Countries. Ypsilanti: HighScope Press. Weikart, D. (2003). Development and Overview of the IEA Preprimary Project. In Weikart, D., Olmsted, P. and Montie, J. A World of Preschool Experience: Observations in 15 Countries. US: Highscope Press. Western Health Board (2000). A Guide to Quality Practice in Preschool Services. Ireland: Western Health Board. Whitebrook, M., Howes, C. and Phillips, D. (1989). Who Cares? Child Care Teaches and the Quality of Care in America. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project, National Child Care Staffing Study. Williams, P. (1994). Making Sense of Quality: A review of Approaches to Quality in Early Childhood Services. London: National children s Bureau. Wiltz, N. and Klein, E. (2001). What do you do in Child Care? Children s Perceptions of High and Low Quality Classrooms. In Early Childhood Research Quarterly. Vol. 16. No. 2. Pp Woodhead, M. (1996). In Search of the Rainbow: Pathways to Quality in Large Scale Programmes for Young Disadvantaged Children. Final Report to the Bernard Van Leer Foundation, The Hague, Netherlands. Woodhead, M. (1998). Quality in Early Childhood Programmes: A contextually appropriate approach. In International Journal of Early Years Education. Vol. 6. No. 1. Pp

183 APPENDIX 1 NVCO QUALITY INITIATIVES 183

184 Quality initiative Irish Preschool Playgroup Association - Quality Improvement Programme Date Funded by Defining Quality Supporting Quality Assessing Quality Aims Outputs Progress todate Quality initiative The QIP was piloted with eight services in Established in 2002, initially implemented in North Tipperary and Co Kerry. The EOCP, DJELR and the CCCs Complex, multi-faceted and dynamic. Defines quality in relation to both static and dynamic aspects of quality Professional development Quality Assurance training, Information booklets and leaflets, training and quality specialists located regionally to support local services. Focuses on the self reflective internal evaluation of services To support early childhood services in their pursuit of quality provision also aims to promote ongoing reflective practices within the service. Publication: The Power of Play, articles for Children at Play magazine, booklets on Open-ended Materials, Workshops, parent meetings, network meetings. Implemented and developing in Co Kerry, Co. Cork, Co. Tipperary, Co. Laois, Co. Offaly, Dublin South, Dublin North, East Limerick, Co. Kilkenny. Border Counties Childcare Network - Quality Assurance Programme Date Piloting phase 2003 Funded by EOCP, NEHSE, NWHSE Defining Quality Supporting Quality Assessing Quality Aims Outputs Progress todate Holistic: Six key determinants, focusing on environment, structure, management, health, collaboration and curriculum. Support and development workers provided to facilitate services aiming to meet criteria for participation Focuses on the self-reflective internal evaluation of services, Certification. To promote good practices in sessional pre-school services which will lead to accreditation under the BCCN Quality Assurance Programme Revising BCCN Information Pack. Leaflets and Poster Launched the Service Evaluation System and are developing a programme for services for school aged children. 184

185 Quality initiative Date Commenced Funded by, Defining Quality Supporting Assessing Aims Outputs Progress to- Date National Children s Nursery Association - Centre of Excellence Award 2002 DJELR Holistic multifaceted and dynamic. Emphasis placed on interaction; Good Quality Care means meeting each child s needs and above all fulfilling their need for love and attention. Supporting quality through the acknowledgement of services which promote standards of excellence in ECCE. Focuses on the self-reflective, internal evaluation of services through SEP and promotes quality practices through national accreditation To improve quality childcare through the self evaluation of services and providing accreditation for centers of excellence Thirty services have been given accreditation and publication of self-evaluation profile manual. Raising awareness of quality support for the of excellence award including validation visits, the publication of a self-evaluation profile manual. Quality Initiative s Date Commenced Funded by, Defining Quality Supporting Assessing Aims Outputs Progress to- Date St. Nicholas Montessori Society of Ireland - Certification Process for Montessori Schools, 2003 Guideline booklet on quality in the Montessori Environment 2003 Focuses on static elements of childcare, staff/child ratio s and Montessori curriculum Provides certification Self-evaluation of the environment. To improve the quality of Montessori schools in Ireland and to promote Montessori Education Guideline s booklet 185

186 Quality initiative Date Commenced Funded by Defining Quality Supporting Priority areas Aims Outputs Progress to- Date Barnardos - Childcare Development and Support Initiative Strategic Plan EOCP Defines quality in terms of practitioners, parents, providers and policy makers need for collaboration and quality research and information. Through information, professional development and training, development of national policy Support for the CCC s, networking and information, professional development and training. Targets meeting the priority actions as outlined by ADM Development of the NCRC, publications, information and library services, regional childcare development work, Early years support work Publishing department: supporting quality, training service courses. Early years support work Highscope implementation-1 pre school service in Barnardos in Dublin Costal, Intensive support to providers to improve quality 1 June 2005 new premises in Cork. Five premises throughout Ireland Quality initiative Date Commenced Funded by Defining Quality Supporting Assessing Aims Outputs Progress to- Date The Effective Early Learning Programme (Mayo CCC) DJELR, EOCP, Mayo CCC Identifies 10 dimensions of Quality, Defines quality in terms of; environment, interaction, collaboration, partnership, teaching methodologies, staffing and in-house policy. Training, evaluation, nested support framework including: documentation, network meetings, External adviser, local support and publications Self Evaluation Framework, Process factors, Collaboration and team based action research To develop a cost effective way to evaluate and improve the quality and effectiveness of EL. Report detailing progress and effects of training in Mayo CCC Training of support workers and service providers, Meetings with support workers, In first stages of implementation 186

187 Quality initiative Date Commenced Funded by Defining Quality Supporting Assessing Aims Outputs Progress to- Date High/Scope Ireland - Accreditation Pack 2003 Holistic and Multi-faceted and focused on the dynamic aspects of quality; Indicators include; environment, interaction and collaboration between parents and providers also focuses on curriculum de elopement and implementation Provides accreditation PQA (Program Quality Assessment tools) To provide childcare environments that are conducive to the growth and strengthening of open democratic societies High scope accreditation pack has not been implemented in Ireland to-date however, Implementation of High/Scope is part of Mayo CCC development for 2006, Barnardos High/Scope implementation- Quality Initiative Date Commenced Funded by Defining Quality Supporting Assessing Aims Outputs Progress to- Date Irish Steiner Waldorf Early Childhood Association - Quality Assurance Programme Oct EOCP Self assessment profile and external review To support Irish ISWECE No publication: draft assessment worksheet and indicators/evaluation template In the initial stages of Development, pilot phase 187

188 APPENDIX 2 CITY AND COUNTY CHILDCARE COMMITTEE INITIATIVES 188

189 Boarder, Midlands and Western Region: CCC Quality Initiatives 2004/2005 Quality Actions Progress to Date Output/Publications Time Frame Funding Research and Development Information Develop quality targets for childcare services at local level (Galway) Report of research 2003, Dissemination /2005 Up-dating data on childcare provision (Roscommon CCC) Roscommon Childcare census IPPA QAP Research school age childcare (Laois CCC) Outline quality targets (Roscommon) 2004 Develop posters on consultation with children 3-14yrs (Lei trim CCC) Consultation Poster 2004 Rural provision through forum for dissemination of information and development of Rural Networks (Louth CCC) EOCP EOCP NVCO S Quality Assurance Programmes BCCN Pilot Programme (Sligo CCC) Increase participation in BCCN (Cavan CCC) Develop proposal to introduce FAS scheme to services in Offal NCNA CEA Dissemination of Information (Monaghan) Barnardos Regional Childcare Development Programme. (Longford CCC) Training in EEL, (Mayo) Information booklets BCCN Information Pack Report detailing progress In EEL Mayo) March-Nov 2005 EEL Over 18 months 2004/2005 BCCN, DJELR, EOCP EOCP EOCP Training Workshops promoting quality (Silo) Report from tutor delivering training, EOCP Seminars Conferences Resource Development Training and information in cluster groups Joint conference on school age childcare (Cavan CCC & Monaghan CCC) Quality in Childcare conference 2003 (Louth CCC) Handouts on training and information in cluster groups Leaflet April/May 2005 May 2005 Conference Report 2003 Published 2005 Development of 2 resource/ toy library (Leitrim CCC) 2004/2005 EOCP EOCP 189

190 South and Eastern Region: CCC Quality Initiatives 2004/2005 Quality Actions Progress to-date Output/publications Timeframe Funding Research and Development Information NVCO S Quality Assurance Programmes Identify training needs of providers (Wexford CCC) Flyer on training 2004 Research on existing play facilities (Dublin City CCC) Report to be published Developing a code of practice for school age childcare sector (Limerick City CCC) Set up work group to draft policy document on quality childcare provision (Carlow CCC) Research, collate & publish discussion papers on pay and work conditions in the childcare sector, (Clare CCC, Waterford City CCC Discussion paper and Tipperary South CCC) Advice on quality of management in childcare business (Clare CCC) Raise awareness of options and funding for out-of -school services Information produced for (Cork County CCC) dissemination Support and inform providers on quality improvement (Kerry CCC) Support for parents through information and informal network Information pack (South Dublin CCC) Promotional video on out of school childcare, Information morning for parents to research needs (Limerick City CCC) Increase the number of participants on BCCN & NCNA (Meath CCC) Listening to Children-in collaboration with ISPCC & CDB Video and Info pack 2004 EOCP EOCP Training Support and training for school age children s services (Limerick County CCC) Programme of mentoring to providers to encourage improvement and expansion (Tipperary North CCC) Introductory and advanced programme in management and supervision for providers (Tipperary North CCC) On-Going, Evaluation Dec /2005 EOCP Six quality workshops delivered by NVCO S (Dun Laoghaire CCC) 2004/2005 Seminars Conferences Resource Development Campaigns Training childcare providers to use Trócaire s teaching pack on cultural awareness (Kerry CCC) Supporting parents conference (County Limerick CCC) Child health, nutrition and exercise information talks (Waterford City CCC) Seminar on social and emotional development of the child (Tipperary South CCC & Waterford City CCC) Conference on quality care for the under 3 s (Cork City CCC) Toy library development (Kilkenny CCC) Campaign to increase childcare supported by employers and encourage provision of school age childcare services (Tipperary North CCC) Conference papers Flyer for public meeting Advertising brochure 2004 Poster Advert Inventory of equipment in Toy Library EOCP 2004/2005 EOCP Leaflets and booklets 2004-ongoing EOCP 190

191 APPENDIX 3 IEA MANAGEMENT OF TIME CATEGORIES 191

192 Table A.1: IEA Management of Time Category Examples IEA Management of Time Category Description Action/Movement This includes the participation of children in active movements or activities which involve coordination. Such may include the participation in sporting activities e.g. cycling, jumping, running and building with big blocks etc. (gross motor neuron), as well as playing with elemental props e.g. sand, water, clay, stringing beads and building with Lego blocks (fine motor neuron). Expressive Activities The participation or watching of activities encouraging self-expression and invention. For example, pretend-play (mimicking a member of society e.g. a builder), playing with puppets and roleplaying (dramatic/imaginative play), painting, colouring and collage (arts and crafts), and singing, dancing and playing instruments (music). Storytelling/Language This includes the listening to, telling of and non-musical rhyming of nursery rhymes. Pre-academic Activities This category involved the listening to, learning of and participation in learning and pre-academic activities. Examples include (a) reading books, listening to a story whilst following the words in a book and forming letters with mala/playdough (reading), (b) writing one s own name, learning to write with pencils and crayons and writing letters and numbers (writing), (c) learning, repeating and recognising numbers and geometric shapes (numbers and mathematical concepts), (d) exploration of objects and materials of the physical environment, including planting flowers, learning about the weather, animals and carrying out simple elemental science experiments (social and environmental science), and finally (e) memory games and colours. Religion/Ethics The participation in, listening to or learning of religious, traditional, ethical and moral values and beliefs. 192

193 Media-related Activities Personal and Social Skills Domestic/Economic Activities Transitional Activities Waiting Free Activities The participation in, listening to or watching of media related concepts e.g. television, radio, videos, slides and computer games. Includes the participation in, listening to or watching of activities relating to the children s physical and emotional health and well-being. This involved paying attention to bodily and physical needs e.g. toileting, washing, eating and sleeping (personal care), conflict resolution, sharing and borrowing of resources, learning about manners and feelings (social skills), and participating in disciplinary activities e.g. time out, sitting quietly to reflect on behaviour and discussing behaviour with an adult. This category includes preparation for activities, cleaning/tidying up and preparing for meals (domestic) and participating in any activities which contribute to the income of the setting e.g. gardening and tending to animals (economic). Includes the movement towards a new activity or place e.g. queuing. The waiting category is different from the above activity in that it involves the child sitting/standing and waiting for something to happen e.g. role-call. This category involves the children s participation in undesignated, unorganised activities. The child chooses his/her own activity e.g. indoor free activities or outdoor free activities. Mixed Activities The participation in a number of simultaneous activities. This may include the adult proposing a number of organised activities from which the child can choose to participate in and the organisation of a number of activities which the children must rotate amongst themselves. This category differs from the free activities category above in that the adult decides on the activities within which the child must participate. 193

194 APPENDIX 4 IEA CHILD ACTIVITY CATEGORIES 194

195 Table A.2: IEA Child Activity Category Examples IEA Child Activity Category Description Categories 1 to 5 As per MOT codes outlined in previous appendix. Expressions of Emotion The participation of the child in, or the listening or watching of the child of physical and/or verbal communication of attitudes and/or feelings. Such includes hugging, cuddling, kissing, being kind, laughing and sympathizing (positive), as well as screaming, crying, slapping, being angry and hurting others intentionally (negative). Child Helper Activities The child participates in, watches or listens to instructions for carrying out tasks related to the maintenance of the setting, routine of the centre, as well as the performance of domestic and economic related activities. Examples include cleaning/tidying up and preparing for meals (domestic) and participating in any activities which contribute to the income of the setting e.g. gardening and tending to animals (economic). Transitional Activities The child is actively involved in purposeful movement towards an activity or place, purposefully searching for an activity or person, looking for a toy or lining up to go somewhere. Accidents An unintentional activity e.g. falling, spilling something, dropping something or knocking something over. Waiting/No Active Engagement The child is not participating in a specific activity, and is uninvolved in an activity. Such includes inactively waiting for someone or something e.g. sitting at a table waiting for the next activity, waiting for his/her name to be called during role call (waiting), as well as wandering aimlessly about with no goal or aim, staring in to space and picking at nails/fingers. 195

196 APPENDIX 5 IEA ADULT BEHAVIOUR CATEGORIES 196

197 Table A.3: Adult Behaviour Categories and Examples Information/Facilitative Teaching Strategies Giving Knowledge/Information Teaching Facts, Explanations Listening to Questions Related to Teaching Listening to factual questions Giving Knowledge/Information Giving Practical Information Listening to Questions Unrelated to Teaching Listening to Practical Questions Giving Demonstrations Demonstration of Task or Skill Listening to Child s Request for a Demonstration Listening to Request for a Demonstration or a Skill Eliciting Information/Knowledge Asking Questions, Knowledge Related Listening to the Child s Responses about Listening to Responses on learned concepts Learned Concepts Eliciting Information/Knowledge on ideas Encouraging Questions on thoughts/ideas Listening to the Child s Responses on ideas Listening to Responses on thoughts/ideas Eliciting an Action or Behaviour Requests the Demonstration of an Improved Skill Offering Choices Offering Alternative Activities Listening to the Child s Questions re Activities Listening to Questions re Choice Encouraging Activity To Persist and Complete the Task Listening to the Child s Comments Listening to Problems on Completing Activities Providing Assistance/Clarification/Solutions Offering Solutions to Problems Listening to Child s Request for Assistance Listening to Request for Help Giving Positive Feedback Giving Praise or Approval Giving Negative Feedback Indicates Disapproval of Task Performance Listening to the Child s Comments Listening to Responses on Feedback Participation/Shared Activities Participation/Shared Activities Joining in as an Equal Partner in an Activity Listening During Shared Activities Listening to Explanations or Statements Nurturance/Expressions of Affect Engaging in Affectionate/Friendly Behaviour Warm-hearted Interactions, Cuddling/Hugging Listening to Child s Remarks Listening to Requests re Affectionate Behaviour Giving Reassurance and Support Comforts and Reassures Listening to the Child s Remarks Listening to Requests for Reassurance Engaging in Neutral Behaviour Adult Presence without Interaction Engaging in Negative Affective Demeaning Expressions or Behaviour Child Management Establishing/Reminding Child of Rules Setting Standards, Rules Listening to the Child s Comments re Rules Listening to Questions in Relation to standards Verbal/Physical Intervention Stops Undesirable Behaviour Giving an Order Instructions to Carry out a Task Listening to the Child s Response to an Order Listening to Answer Giving Permission Allowing Choice Refusing Permission Not Allowing Choice and Giving Explanation Listening to Requests for Permission Listening to Request for Permission Problem-solving/Conflict Resolution Assisting with solutions Listening to the Child s Problem/Solution Listening to explanation/solution Giving Positive Feedback Indicating Approval of Behaviour Giving Negative Feedback Indicating Disapproval of Behaviour Listening to the Child s Comments Listening to Comments on Feedback Calling For Attention Giving Direction for Attention Supervision Observing/Checking Behaviour and Areas Transitional Activities Purposeful Movement Activity Related Routine Activities Planning and Managerial Activities Personal Activities Non Child related activities 197

198 APPENDIX 6 ECERS(R) CODE ALLOCATION 198

199 Allocation of the Specific ECERS(R) Codes 1. Space and Furnishing - A minimal score (3-3.99) on the space and furnishing item indicates that the setting provides sufficient indoor space for its service users, sufficient furniture for routine care, play and learning, the availability of some soft furnishing and soft toys, most spaces accessible to children with disabilities, space for privacy can be easily supervised by adults, developmentally appropriate materials available for the predominant age group of children, the provision of some outdoor or indoor space for gross motor play and that some gross motor equipment is accessible to all children for at least one hour per day. A score of excellent (7) indicates that the setting has more than ample indoor space, that ventilation and natural light can be controlled, routine care furniture is convenient to use, soft furnishings, soft toys and cosy areas accessible to children at all times, interest centres are organised for independent use by children, more than one space is available for children s privacy, individualised children s work predominates, outdoor gross motor space has a variety of surfaces permitting different types of play and that both stationary and portable gross motor equipment are used by the children. 2. Personal Care Routines - In relation to item two (personal care routines) a score of inadequate (1 1.99) suggests that the greeting and departure of children is often neglected and not well organised, the food served (if applicable) is of unacceptable nutritional value, sanitary conditions are not maintained, nap/rest provisions are unsanitary and supervision is limited, the sanitary conditions of areas are not maintained e.g. dirty toilets, changing table not sanitised after use), staff do not act to limit the spread of germs, inadequate supervision to protect children s safety both in- and outdoors, as well as the presence of hazards either in/outdoors which could result in children injuring themselves. A score of five ( good : ) specifies that each child is greeted individually and departure is pleasant, children are encouraged to eat independently with staff present, the space is conducive to resting, sanitary conditions are easy to maintain, children are dressed appropriately (indoors and out) and staff explain reasons for safety rules to children. 199

200 3. Language-Reasoning - A score of minimal (3 3.99) for languagereasoning suggests that some books are accessible for children, children have some access to materials which encourage communication, staff sometimes explain about logical concepts (e.g. point out differences in block sizes) and children allowed to talk for most of the day. A ( excellent ) score indicates that the setting rotates books and language materials to maintain children s interest, staff link children s spoken communication with written language, staff encourage children to solve problems themselves by supporting or talking them through the activity, also children are asked answers and encouraged to give longer, more complex answers as well as having individual conversations with the children. 4. Activities - In relation to subscale number five, activities, an inadequate rating signifies that very few developmentally appropriate fine motor materials are available on a daily basis for children, art activities are rarely available to children, no music/movement experiences for the children are evident, few building blocks are available for children s play, no provisions for sand or water play (outdoors or indoors), no materials available for dress up or dramatic play and materials used are not developmentally appropriate. A rating of between indicates that many developmentally appropriate fine motor materials are available and accessible for a large proportion of the day, varied art materials available for a large proportion of the day, various types of music are accessible and used with and by the children, special block area is set aside with storage and a suitable building surface, provisions for sand and water play available, many dramatic play materials accessible, including dress up and many books, pictures and materials are accessible showing people of different races, cultures, ages, genders and abilities. 5. Interaction - A minimal score (3 3.99) for interaction signifies that some positive staff-child interaction occurs, that supervision is not disciplinary and is exercised in a reasonable way, staff do not use severe methods of punishment, staff usually respond to children in a warm, 200

201 supportive manner, also peer interaction is encouraged. A score of 7 indicates that staff help children develop positive social interactions, a balance is maintained between the child s need to explore independently and staff input into the child s learning, staff actively involve children in solving their own conflicts and problems, staff seem to enjoy being with the children and peer interactions are usually positive. 6. Programme Structure - The subscale examining the programme structure contained four items (schedule, free play, group time and provisions for children with disabilities), a score of suggested that the settings programme schedule is one of two extremes i.e. either too rigid / too flexible, inadequate toys, games and equipment provided for children to use in free play, very few opportunities for staff to interact with individual children and in relation to provisions for children with disabilities a score of indicates that no attempt is made by staff to access children s needs or find out about available assessments. A rating of indicates that the programme structure provides a balance of structure and flexibility, staff supervision provided to facilitate children s play, many play activities done in small groups or individually, and regarding provisions for children with disabilities; staff follow through with activities and interactions recommended by other professionals. 7. Parents and Staff - The final subscale, parents and staff, assesses the provisions available for (a) parents, (b) staff personal needs, (c) staff professional needs, staff interaction and cooperation, supervision and evaluation of staff and provisions for professional growth of staff members. A score of minimal indicates that there are some possibilities for parents and family members to be involved in the children s programme, there are some provisions for staff e.g. adult furniture, bathrooms and storage for personal belongings, staff have some access to individual conferencing space whilst the centre is in session, interpersonal interaction between staff members does not interfere with care giving responsibilities, some supervision and feedback about performance provided to staff and some in-service training provided for staff members. 201

202 Finally a score of excellent in relation to this subscale suggests that parents are involved in the decision making programme of the setting in conjunction with staff, staff are provided with a separate adult lounge area to take breaks, the setting contains a well-equipped office space for programme administration, staff working together have planning time together regularly, staff participate in self-evaluation and support is available for staff to attend courses and conferences (Harms, Clifford and Cryer, 1998). 202

203 APPENDIX 7 SETTINGS: INITIAL LETTER OF CONTACT AND ACCEPTANCE FORM 203

204 Centre for Social and Educational Research Dublin Institute of Technology 23 Mountjoy Square Dublin 1 Dear Practitioner/Manager, I am contacting you in relation to a research project which is currently running in the Centre for Social and Educational Research (Dublin Institute of Technology) in relation to early childhood care and education. The project is commissioned by the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education, and funded by the Department of Education. The research is titled In Search of Quality: Multiple Perspectives and seeks to gather data from a variety of early childhood development and education settings across the 0-6 age range; to gain insight into the multiple perspectives on the meaning of quality including the views of early childhood care and education practitioners, parents and children. The project will also assess the perspectives of policy makers and key personnel driving quality initiatives at local and national levels. The data collected through this research will feed in to the National Quality Framework for early childhood development and education settings by helping to define what constitutes quality in the Irish Republic. We are hoping your setting would be interested in participating in this project. The research team have randomly selected a variety of early childhood development and education settings within the Border Midland & Western Region and the Southern & Eastern Region. Your particular setting is one which has been selected. In order to become involved in the research we would require that your setting provide us with an opportunity to work with one of your practitioners and two families presently utilising your services, whose children are aged between 0-6 years. The involvement of your practitioner will be two fold: 1. Participating in one face-to-face interview, which will take a maximum of 1 hour. 2. The option to participate in one focus group meeting (maximum of 2 hours). 204

205 The involvement of the two families will include: 1. Ideally both parents/carers (or one parent in single-parent families) participating in a face-to-face interview, which will last a maximum of 1 hour. 2. An interview with the child, conducted by highly trained interview staff in appropriate methods of researching children. 3. Allowing their child to be observed in the early childhood development and education setting, whilst participating in the activities of the setting. If your setting would like to become involved in this highly significant and momentous research project, please complete the attached application form and return it to us in the enclosed stamped addressed envelope by Thursday 24 th March. Please do not hesitate to call me on (01) if you require further information. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Kind Regards, Karen Mahony Lead Researcher, CSER (01) [email protected] 205

206 Centre for Social and Educational Research Dublin Institute of Technology 23 Mountjoy Square Dublin 1 ECCE Settings Participation Form Due: Thursday 24 th March Name of Setting: Contact Person: Address: Telephone No.: Would you like to get involved in the In Search of Quality: Multiple Perspectives research project? (Please tick the appropriate box) Yes No I would be grateful if the chosen staff member could speak to parents of children (aged 0-6 years) attending your setting, prior to returning this form, to ensure that there will be two families (from diverse backgrounds) within your setting who would be interested in participating in this research. Additional contact will be made with the interested families at a later date. 206

207 APPENDIX 8 PARENTS/CARERS: INITIAL LETTER OF CONTACT AND CONSENT FORM 207

208 Centre for Social and Educational Research Dublin Institute of Technology 23 Mountjoy Square Dublin 1 Dear Parent, The Centre for Social and Educational Research (Dublin Institute of Technology) is running a research project relating to early childhood care and education. The project is commissioned by the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education, and funded by the Department of Education and Science. The title of the project is In Search of Quality: Multiple Perspectives and hopes to collect information from all those people involved in early childhood care and education (including the parents and children). To date all discussion relating to quality has been aimed at those thought to hold the expertise, but we as a centre for research believe that the opinions of those experiencing the settings on a day-to-day basis i.e. the children, parents and practitioners, are just as valuable. Therefore your opinion is greatly needed and will be very well respected. The information collected through this research will feed in to the National Quality Framework for early childhood development and education settings, which is currently being developed by the Department of Education and Science to improve the quality of all settings in Ireland. The research team have selected a few early childhood care and education settings. The setting which your child attends is one which has been selected and has chosen to participate. Unfortunately there are only two places available, per setting, to families. But we would like to offer you (and your partner, if such is the case) and your child (aged between 0-6 years) the chance to get involved. 208

209 Involvement in the research will include: 1. One/both parents/carers participating in a face-to-face discussion with the researcher, which will last for approximately 1 hour. 2. A child interview/observation (depending on your child s age and level of maturity) with your son/daughter, conducted by highly trained interview staff in appropriate methods of researching children. For accuracy, an audio tape recording will be made of the discussion. 3. Allowing your child to be observed in the early childhood development and education setting, whilst participating in the activities of the setting. If you would like to become involved in this research project, please complete the attached consent form and return it to the person who gave it to you. Do not hesitate to call me on (01) if you require any further information. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Kind Regards, Karen Mahony Lead Researcher, CSER (01) [email protected] 209

210 Centre for Social and Educational Research Dublin Institute of Technology Parental Consent Form I (parent s name) would like to participate in the research project In Search of Quality: Multiple Perspectives. I also give my permission for (child s name) to take part in a discussion about their favourite part and time of the setting which they attend, as well as giving permission for my child (named above) to be observed in the setting whilst participating in their daily routines. I understand that ID codes will be used so that no child can be identified by anybody other than Karen Mahony or a member of the research team. All information will be confidential and will only be used for the purpose of the research. If the information is to be used for presentations or reports, all identifying information will be changed to maintain privacy. (child s name) will be free to withdraw at any time and does not have to answer any questions s/he does not wish to answer. The final report will be available through the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Care. I can request a copy of the report through the research team. Contact Phone Number: Signed: Date: 210

211 APPENDIX 9 CHILD DATA GATHERED 211

212 Table A.4: Child Data Gathered Child ID Age Region Setting Type Interview Camera 1 CLC11 4 Clare Full Day Care Y N 2 CLC12 5 Clare Full Day Care Y N 3 DC31 4 Dublin Full Day Care Y N 4 RN11 6 Roscommon Naíonra Y Y 5 RN12 5 Roscommon Naíonra Y Y 6 DC21 4 Dublin Montessori Y Y 7 GI12 5 Galway Infant Class Y Y 8 GI11 6 Galway Infant Class Y Y 9 CI21 6 Carlow Infant Class Y Y 10 CI22 6 Carlow Infant Class Y Y 11 CC22 4 Carlow Full Day Care Y Y 12 CC21 3 Carlow Full Day Care Y Y 13 DGC11 3 Donegal Full Day Care Y Y 14 LEA11 6 Leitrim Afterschool Y Y 15 LP12 4 Limerick Sessional/Preschool Y Y 16 CLI12 4 Clare Infant Class Y Y 17 CLI11 4 Clare Infant Class Y Y 18 DP1 3 Dublin Full Day Care Y Y 19 DC1 3 Dublin Full Day Care Y Y 20 LI11 6 Limerick Infant Class Partial Y 21 LE11 4 Limerick Early Start Class Y Y 22 LE12 4 Limerick Early Start Class Y Y 23 LC11 3 Limerick Full Day Care Y Y 24 LC12 3 Limerick Full Day Care Y Y 25 DGNU11 3 Donegal Full Day Care Y Y 26 DGNU12 3 Donegal Full Day Care Y Y 27 LC22 4 Limerick Full Day Care Y Y 28 LC21 4 Limerick Full Day Care Y Y 29 CC11 3 Carlow Sessional/Preschool Y Y 30 LP11 4 Limerick Sessional/Preschool Y Y 31 CP11 4 Carlow Sessional/Preschool Y Y 32 CLC21 5 Clare Playschool/Playgroup Y Y 33 CLC22 4 Clare Playschool/Playgroup Y Y 34 RP12 4 Roscommon Full Day Care Y Y 35 RP11 5 Roscommon Full Day Care Y Y 36 GE12 4 Galway Early Start Class Y Y 37 GE11 5 Galway Early Start Class Y Y 38 CI12 5 Carlow Infant Class Y Y 39 CI11 5 Carlow Infant Class Y Y 40 CC12 3 Carlow Sessional/Preschool Y Y 41 LECM11 1 Leitrim Childminder Y Y 42 LECM12 1 Leitrim Childminder Y Y 43 LEA12 6 Leitrim Afterschool Y Y 44 LH11 8 Mths Limerick Hospital Playgroup Y N 45 DGCM12 14 Mths Donegal Childminder Y N 46 DGCM11 2 Yrs. 10 Mths. Donegal Childminder Y N 212

213 APPENDIX 10 IEA MANAGEMENT OF TIME OBSERVATION SCHEDULE 213

214 214

215 APPENDIX 11 IEA CHILD ACTIVITY SCHEDULE 215

216 216

217 APPENDIX 12 IEA ADULT BEHAVIOUR SCHEDULE 217

218 218

219 APPENDIX 13 CHILD INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 219

220 Interview Guide Children Topics to be examined: 1. Children s day-to-day experiences - Run through the daily routine with the child (this should be based on your observations over the previous two days) and will include things like: a. Drop-off in the morning, b. What happens when they enter the crèche / classroom / Montessori etc. c. Meal / snack times d. Being picked up in the evening This question should cover all daily activities and whether or not they like/dislike such activities. How they feel when they occur (the happy and sad faces might be useful here). 2. Sense of welcoming to the service Go through in more detail how he/she feels when Mammy & Daddy (or guardian) drops them off. What happens when you enter the crèche / classroom / Montessori etc. when you enter the room i.e. do the staff say hello / give hugs etc. How do you feel when you enter the crèche / classroom (perhaps happy & sad faces) 3. Favourite part of the setting If you could spend time in any part of the crèche / school / Montessori etc. where would that be? Which places do you like the best in the crèche? Camera work could be used here. 4. Favourite time of day What was the most important thing that happened to you today/yesterday? Perhaps they might use the camera to take photos of where their favourite activity takes place. 5. Sense of belonging Who are your favourite people in the crèche / school / Montessori etc. Who are your friends? Who do you like to talk to / spend time with? Are they nice? Why do you think they are nice / not nice? Do they make you feel at home / comfortable? 6. Sense of acceptance by staff and peers Why are the other children in crèche / class / Montessori good? Why are they bad? Why is your teacher good? Why is your teacher bad? Puppets may be useful here. 7. Sense of feeling understood If you re not able to do something, are you able to go to your friends / teacher for help? Are they always able to help you? If you re feeling sad do you talk to your friends / teachers? If you re 220

221 feeling happy do you let people know? If you need help do you ask for it? Who do you ask for help? Who is the most helpful? Puppets may be helpful here to role-play. 8. Sense of protection Do you feel safe in the crèche / classroom / Montessori? What happens if you hurt yourself / fall down? Does someone help you up? Does someone put a plaster on you? What happens if you have a fight with one of your friends? Do you go to tell your teacher? What does your teacher do if you are having a fight with your friends? Puppets may be useful here 9. Sense of respect Has anyone ever scribbled on your picture that you are drawing in crèche / school / Montessori? How did that make you feel? Has anyone ever taken your food in the crèche / class / Montessori? How did that make you feel? The puppets might be good to use here. 10. Experience of activities (engaging, challenging and intellectually engaging vs. amusing and fun) What is your favourite game / lesson in school / crèche / Montessori / naíonra / playgroup? Who plays it with you? Is it a hard game / lesson? If it were too easy would your teacher give you a harder one to try? Do you have fun playing that game / doing that lesson? 11. Overall satisfaction of the experience Do you like going to your crèche / school / minder / Montessori / naíonra every day? Do you like the people there (your friends & teachers)? Do you like the games there? Do you like the food you eat there? Do you like when Mammy and Daddy drop you off there? Are you sad / happy when Mammy/Daddy collect you? Happy / Sad faces may be useful here 12. Overall contentment of being present Are you happy when you are in your crèche / school / Montessori / minders / naíonra / playgroup? (Happy & Sad faces). 221

222 APPENDIX 14 PARENTAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 222

223 Parental Interviews Questions 1. What do you understand by the term Early Childhood Care and Education? 2. What contribution do early childhood care and education settings make to 0-6 year olds? 3. In selecting an early childhood care and education setting, what criteria would be most important to you personally? 4. Do you feel those criteria contribute to the quality of a setting? 5. Why do you think they contribute to the quality of a setting? 6. Could you list some aspects of a good quality early childhood care and education setting? 7. Could you list some aspects of a poor quality early childhood care and education setting? 8. What do you consider are the short-term benefits to children attending early childhood care and education settings? 9. What do you consider are the long-term benefits to children attending early childhood education settings? 10. How might the government help to ensure that all early childhood care and education settings are of high quality? 11. The Department of Education and Science are in the process of developing a framework for evaluating the quality of all the early childhood care and education settings. What do you think about that? 12. What do you think that framework should include? 13. In relation to the setting which your child presently attends, how important is safety? 14. Why is safety so important? 15. In relation to the setting which your child presently attends, how important are adult/child ratios? 16. Why are ratios so important? 17. In relation to the setting which your child presently attends, how important are learning and play resources? 18. Why are learning and play resources so important? 223

224 19. In relation to the setting which your child presently attends, how important is it that the setting suits family commitments? 20. Why is it so important that the setting suits family commitments? 21. How important is cultural support to you? 22. Why is cultural support so important? 23. Why is cultural support not very important? 24. How important is it that your child s current setting prepares him/her for school? 25. How does it help to prepare children for school? 26. Do you think each of the issues raised above contribute to the quality of a setting? 27. What type of relationship do you have with the staff working in the setting which your child attends? 28. In what way is your relationship good? 29. Do you feel the staff treat you with respect? 30. In what way do they treat you with respect? 31. Elaboration 32. Do you ever feel like the staff patronise you? 33. Do you feel practitioners are accepting of all children/cultures/beliefs/races? 34. How are practitioners accepting of all children/cultures/beliefs/races? 35. Do you feel practitioners are inclusive of all children/cultures/beliefs/races? 36. How are practitioners inclusive of all children/cultures/beliefs/races? 37. Do you feel practitioners are tolerant of all children/cultures/beliefs/races 38. How are practitioners tolerant of all children/cultures/beliefs/races? 39. Do you think acceptance, inclusiveness and tolerance are important aspects of a high quality setting i.e.? 40. Why do you think acceptance, inclusiveness and tolerance are important aspects of a high quality setting? 41. In your experience, how open have the staff members at the setting been? 224

225 42. How have the practitioners been open? 43. How have practitioners not been open? 44. Do you think openness is an important aspect of a high quality setting? 45. Why do you think openness is an important aspect of a high quality setting? (Open-ended no codes) 46. Do you / have you at any time, had the opportunity to express your own goals and values for your child(ren) within the context of the setting? 47. When were you given such an opportunity? 48. Do you think this is an important aspect of a high quality setting? 49. Why do you think it s an important aspect? 50. Why do you think it s not an important aspect? 51. How frequently are you met and greeted when you drop-off / collect your children? 52. Do you think this is an important aspect of a high quality setting? 53. Why do you think it is an important aspect of a high quality setting? 54. Overall, what would you class as the most important things that contribute to the quality of an early childhood care and education setting? 55. Have you anything else you would like to add? (Open-ended not coded) 225

226 APPENDIX 15 PRACTITIONER INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 226

227 Practitioners 1. Could you briefly explain your role in relation to early childhood care and education? 2. What do you understand by the term Early Childhood Care and Education? 3. What contribution do early childhood care and education settings make to 0-6 year olds? 4. In selecting an early childhood care and education setting, what criteria would be most important to you personally? 5. Do you feel those criteria contribute to the quality of a setting? 6. Why do you think they contribute to the quality of a setting? 7. Could you list some aspects of a good quality early childhood care and education setting? 8. Could you list some aspects of a poor quality early childhood care and education setting? 9. What do you consider are the short-term benefits to children attending early childhood care and education settings? 10. What do you consider are the long-term benefits to children attending early childhood education settings? 11. How might the government help to ensure that all early childhood care and education settings are of high quality? 12. The Department of Education and Science are in the process of developing a framework for evaluating the quality of all the early childhood care and education settings. What do you think about that? 13. What do you think that framework should include? 14. How important is safety in the setting to you? 15. Why is safety so important? 16. How important are adult/child ratios to you? 17. Why are ratios so important? 18. How important are learning and play resources in a setting? 19. Why are learning and play resources so important? 227

228 20. How important is it that the setting in which you work suits family commitments? 21. Why is it so important that the setting suits family commitments so important? 22. How important is cultural support in a setting? 23. Why is cultural support so important? 24. Why isn t cultural support very important? 25. How important is preparing children for school in your setting? 26. How does it help to prepare children for school? 27. Do you think each of the issues raised above contribute to the quality of a setting? 28. How important do you consider Staff pre-service training? 29. Why do you think it is important? 30. How important do you consider Staff in-service training? 31. Why do you think it is important? 32. How important do you consider Staff supervision? 33. Why do you think it is important? 34. Why don t you think it is important? 35. How important do you consider Staff support? 36. Why do you think it is important? 37. Do you think each of those contribute to the quality of a setting? 38. What type of relationship do you have with the other staff working in your setting? 39. List of Positive Responses to the types of relationships: 40. List of Negative Responses to the types of relationships: 41. Do you have access to support from other staff members when you need it? 42. What kinds of support to you get from colleagues? 228

229 43. Is there ever any contentiousness between staff? 44. If Yes, What type of contentiousness have you experienced? 45. Do you feel there is a sense of co-operation between the staff at your setting? 46. If Yes, What type of co-operation exists? 47. If no, why does co-operation not exist? 48. Is there ever a sense of competition between staff? 49. If yes, what type of competition? 50. If No, why not? 51. Do you feel there is a sense of acceptance from your colleagues? 52. If Yes, in what way? 53. Are you ever faced with adversity amongst them? 54. If Yes, why? 55. Do you feel you can trust your colleagues? 56. Do you think trust amongst colleagues is an important aspect of high quality settings? 57. If Yes, Why? 58. Do you think the relationship between staff members at a setting contributes to the quality of a setting? 59. If Yes, Why? 60. Could you describe your overall relationship with the children in your setting? 61. In what way is the relationship good? 62. Are you satisfied with the relationship you have with the children attending your setting? 63. How could the relationship with the children be improved? 64. How important do you feel the relationship between teachers/staff members and children is in relation to determining the quality of a setting? 65. If important, why? 229

230 66. What type of relationship do you have with your clients parents? 67. If good, how? 68. If No, Why? 69. Do you feel you treat parents with respect? 70. If Yes, How? 71. Do you feel the parents treat you with respect? 72. Do you feel you are accepting, inclusive and tolerant of all children and families? E.g. cultures/beliefs/races 73. If Yes, How? 74. How open are you with the children s parents? 75. How are you open with parents? 76. How open are the parents with you? 77. Do you respect parental goals and values for their children? 78. Do you give them the opportunity to express such goals and values? 79. How do you give parents the opportunity to express their goals & values? 80. Do you feel the parents are respectful of the goals and values of the setting? 81. How are such goals and values shared with the parents? 82. How frequently do you meet with the parents when they are dropping-off and picking up their children? 83. Are you satisfied that the working conditions of your setting are sufficient? E.g. Salary, benefits etc. 84. If No, why not? 85. Are there any prospects for professional development within your setting? E.g. Enhancement of knowledge, skills and career commitment. 86. If No, what type of prospects would you like to see? 87. Did you receive a job description before you accepted employment in your present setting? 88. If so, how appropriate was it? 230

231 89. Is there a career advancement plan in place for you within your current setting? 90. How does your employer generally treat you? 91. Is there a level of respect and understanding? 92. Do you feel that the working conditions, prospects for professional development, appropriate job descriptions, appropriate career advancement plans and the general treatment by your employer contribute to the quality of a setting? 93. If Yes, How? 94. Overall, what would you class as the most important things that contribute to the quality of an early childhood care and education setting? 95. Have you anything else you would like to add? (Open-ended question) 231

232 APPENDIX 16 POLICY MAKER INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 232

233 Policy Makers 1. Could you briefly explain your role in relation to early childhood care and education? 2. What do you understand by the term Early Childhood Care and Education? 3. What contribution do you feel early childhood care and education settings make to 0-6 year olds? 4. What criteria do you think would be most important to parents selecting an early childhood care and education setting? 5. Do you feel the criteria you outlined above contribute to the quality of a setting? 6. Could you list some aspects of a good quality early childhood care and education setting? 7. Could you list some aspects of a poor quality setting? 8. What do you consider are the short-term benefits to children attending early childhood care and education settings? 9. What do you consider are the long-term benefits to children attending early childhood education settings? 10. How might the statutory authorities help to ensure that all early childhood care and education settings are of high quality? 11. What do you know about the National Quality Framework which is being developed by The Department of Education and Science? 12. What are your thoughts about that? 13. What do you think that framework should include? 14. How important do you feel EDUCATION is in relation to early childhood care and education settings? 15. How important do you feel CARE is in relation to early childhood care and education settings? 16. How important do you feel PROTECTION is in relation to early childhood care and education settings? 17. Do you feel adhering to the social norms, values, customs and beliefs of a community is an important aspect of an early childhood care and education setting? 233

234 18. Do you think such adherence contributes to the quality of a setting? 19. Do you feel the policies, regulations and laws which enhance early childhood care and education programmes are adequate? 20. Do the needs of disadvantaged children differ from those of non-disadvantaged children? (b) In what way? 21. Do you feel that a high quality setting should be able to provide for both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged children? 22. How can a high quality service ensure it provides for both disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged children? 23. How do the needs of children with special needs compare to those of children without special needs? 24. Does this impact on the quality of a setting? 25. Do you feel that early childhood care and education should be affordable to all children? 26. Do you think the quality of a setting should be determined by its affordability? 27. How important are staff working conditions (e.g. salary, benefits, professional development) to determining the quality of a setting? 28. Do you feel staff qualifications and training have a role in determining the quality of a setting? 29. Do you feel staff supervision and support are important aspects of high quality early childhood care and education settings? 30. Do you think the relationship between staff and parents play a role in the quality of a setting? 31. Do you think the relationship between staff and children play a role in the quality of a setting? 32. Overall, what would you class as the most important aspects which contribute to the quality of an early childhood care and education setting? 33. Have you anything else you would like to add? 234

235 APPENDIX 17 FOCUS GROUP SCHEDULE 235

236 In Search of Quality: Multiple Perspectives Focus Group Discussion 1. Please outline your role in relation to Early Childhood Care and Education. 2. Could you list the different types of early childhood care and education settings? If any of the following are not listed then prompt those that aren t: (i) Infant classes (ii) Early start classrooms (iii) Naíonraí (iv) Childminders (v) Nurseries (vi) Crèches (vii) Preschool/playgroups. 3. How would you compare one against the other in relation to importance? Note for field worker: Some of the childminders interviewed felt they were considered of less importance amongst their ECCE peers. You can share this with the fieldwork participants if you like. Prompt: - Crèche against Childminder - Crèche against Preschool - Preschool against Infant Classes etc. 4. What contribution do you feel early childhood care and education settings make to 0-6 year olds? Prompt: - Early intervention (regarding developmental delays etc.) - Education 236

237 5. What is your understanding of Quality Early Childhood Care and Education / Could you list some good aspects of a good quality setting? Prompt: - Safe building - Safe surroundings and garden - Equipment available for use to the staff and the children - Number of children enrolled in the setting - Child-staff ratios - Education and training of the staff members - Style of practice - Day-to-day experiences of the children - Pedagogical approach of the staff - Approach to management of the setting - Communication styles and relationships - Interaction between children / between children & adults /between adults - Teacher having an interest in children 6. Could you provide details of how a bad quality setting might compare to a good quality setting? 7. What criteria do you think would be most important to parents selecting an early childhood care and education setting? Prompts: - Opening Times - Cost - Accommodation of family language, culture, morals or religion - Accommodation of children s health needs - Child development/education curriculum - Staff training / qualifications - Safety of the setting and environment - Teaching style of the setting - Child/Staff ratios - Number of children enrolled - Geographical location of the setting - Pedagogical approach of the staff etc. - Resources and equipment available for use - Child s friends based there 8. How important do you feel a school curriculum would be to an Early Childhood Care and Education setting? 237

238 9. How important is care? 10. How important is an interactive environment within a setting? Note to researcher: Only ask this question if it didn t arise in response to a previous question. 11. How important are the structural aspects of a setting? Note to researcher: Only ask this question if it didn t arise in response to a previous question. Prompt: - Resources - Building - Staff Ratio - Teachers/carers Qualifications 12. What type of training/qualifications should ECCE practitioners ideally possess? 13. Do you think there is a need for continuous in-service training? If yes, what type of in-service training? 14. How would you compare the different types of ECCE settings responsibility in relation to multi-cultural awareness? Note for field researcher: The findings have outlined that infant class teachers do not feel this is within their remit, and should be assigned to preschools, crèches etc. as they have the time and resources to prepare children for it. 15. How important are interactions between practitioners within a setting? Note to researcher: Only ask this question if it didn t arise in response to a previous question. 16. How important are interactions between children within a setting? Note to researcher: Only ask this question if it didn t arise in response to a previous question. 238

239 17. How important are interactions between children and adults within a setting? Note to researcher: Only ask this question if it didn t arise in response to a previous question. 18. How important are interactions between practitioners and parents within a setting? Note to researcher: Only ask this question if it didn t arise in response to a previous question. 19. Do you feel that such things as working conditions, prospects for professional development and the provision of appropriate job descriptions contribute to the quality of a setting? 20. What do you consider are the short-term benefits to children attending early childhood care and education settings? Prompt: - High self-esteem - Emotional stability - Higher degrees of social development - Low rates of depression - Higher rates of participation in extra-curricular activities - Greater assertiveness - Greater leadership abilities - Higher grades in Primary school - Gains in IQ and academic attainment for children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with special needs. - Developed reasoning and problem-solving skills 21. What do you consider are the long-term benefits to children attending early childhood care and education settings? Prompt: - Positive social development - Positive emotional development - Increased academic abilities - Increased economic performance - Reduced perpetration of crime - Secondary level school completion - Reduced rates of drug use - Returns to the state 239

240 22. What activities would you class as the most important in an ECCE setting? Prompt: - Pre-academic (writing, reading, numbers, science, environment) - Fine-motor skills - Gross-motor skills - Personal Hygiene - Play & Recreation - Art, Creative, Music & Dramatic Play - Discipline - Emotional - Domestic etc. 23. Who/which organisation has responsibility for ensuring that ECCEs are high quality? 24. How might they ensure quality and maintenance of quality within such settings? Prompt: - Development of a national guiding framework - Integration of ECCE under one regulatory department - Child development curriculum - Child development assessment strategy - Compulsory adult/child ratios - Compulsory staff qualifications (Primary and In- Service) - Staff supervisory support - Provision of paid professional development - Relationship/Rapport building between Family/Parent and Staff - Accreditation Schemes - Ongoing Monitoring and Evaluation (internal and external) - Ongoing inspection - Provide a capitation fee linked to qualifying criteria 25. What do you know about the National Quality Framework? 26. What do you think the ideal framework should include? Prompts: - A set curriculum - Child/adult ratios - Minimum standard qualifications - Minimum standards regarding setting space 27. To summarise, what would you class as the most important things that contribute to the quality of an ECCE setting? 240

241 28. Is there anything else you would like to add? 241

242 APPENDIX 18 IEA MANAGEMENT OF TIME (WHOLE GROUP) CROSS-TABBED WITH PARENTS MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS CONTRIBUTING TO QUALITY 242

243 Table A.5: IEA MOT (Whole Group) Cross-tabbed with Parents Most Important Aspects Contributing to Quality Response Parent Response Unobserved Score Score Score Score Score Score Safe building, surroundings and garden Equipment available for use to staff and children Child-staff ratios Education and training of staff Style of practice/pedagogical Approach Approach to management of setting Communication styles and relationships Provision of nutritious food Positive staff personalities Variation of activities Openness surrounding policies and procedures Child development record keeping Hygiene Child outcomes Homely, caring and loving environment Programme inclusive of diversity Interaction between practitioners and parents Interaction between child and practitioner Interaction between children Convenience of location Flexible opening and closing hours Cost Sense of welcoming

244 APPENDIX 19 IEA MANAGEMENT OF TIME (PERSONAL AND SOCIAL) CROSS-TABBED WITH PRACTITIONERS MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS CONTRIBUTING TO QUALITY 244

245 Table A.6: IEA MOT (Personal and Social) Cross-tabbed with Practitioners Most Important Aspects Contributing to Quality Response Practitioner Responses Unobserved Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Safe Building, Surroundings and Garden Equipment available for use to staff and children Child-staff ratios Education and training of staff Style of practice/pedagogical Approach Approach to management of setting Communication styles and relationships Provision of nutritious food Positive staff personalities Variation of activities Openness surrounding policies and procedures Child development record keeping Hygiene Child outcomes Homely, caring and loving environment Programme inclusive of diversity Parental Involvement Interaction between child and adults Interaction between adults Convenience of location Regulated and monitored setting Low staff turn-over

246 APPENDIX 20 ECERS (INTERACTION) CROSS-TABBED WITH PRACTITIONERS MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS CONTRIBUTING TO QUALITY 246

247 Table A.7: ECERS (Interaction) Cross-tabbed with Practitioners Most Important Aspects Contributing to Quality Response ECERS Item Score 5 Score 6 Score 7 Safe Building, Surroundings and Garden Equipment Available to Staff & Children Child-staff Ratios Education and Training of Staff Style of Practice/Pedagogical Approach Approach to Management of Setting Communication Styles and Relationships Provision of Nutritious Food Positive Staff Personalities Variation of Activities Openness Surrounding Policies & Procedures Child Development Record Keeping Hygiene Child Outcomes Homely, Caring and Loving Environment Programme Inclusive of Diversity Parental Involvement Interaction Between Child and Adults Interaction Between Adults Convenience of Location Regulated and Monitored Setting Low Staff Turn-over Education, Learning, Development and Stim A Curriculum and Staff Support Financial Support for Proper Functioning Additional Assistants/Staff Support Other