Eaf Childcare Report Final

8/13/2019 Eaf Childcare Report Final

1/28

EUROPEAN COMMISSIONEmployment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities DG

Social Protection and IntegrationSocial and Demographic Analysis

European Alliance for Families Best practice Workshop 30thJune 2011

CHILD WELL BEING AND

QUALITY OF CHILDCARESynthesis Report

Sandy Ruxton

Independent expert and Honorary Research Fellow, Centre for the Study of the Child,the Family and the Law, University of Liverpool, UK


2/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 2

TABLE OF CONTENT

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3EU Context ........................................................................................................................................... 4

Child well-being............................................................................................................................ 4Quality in childcare...................................................................................................................... 5

Concepts and Themes ...................................................................................................................... 7Working on Well-Being: Josette Hoex, Department Education & Care NetherlandsYouth Institute Utrecht (The Netherlands) ................................................................................... 7The Childcare Transition: Leonardo Menchini Child Poverty and Social and EconomicResponses Unit, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre................................................................. 9Staff Competence Requirements in Early Childhood Education and Care: Jan Peeters,Research and Resource Centre for ECEC, Department of Social Welfare Studies, GhentUniversity (Belgium)....................................................................................................................... 12

Country Experiences........................................................................................................................ 15VIDA Programme: Bente Jensen, University of Aarhus (Denmark) ....................................... 15Quality of Childcare : the French Experience: Hlne Escande - Direction gnrale de lacohsion sociale (DGCS), Ministre des Solidarits et de la Cohsion sociale (France).. 17Formal childcare in the Slovak Republic: Daniel Gerbery, Institute for Labour and FamilyResearch (Slovakia)...................................................................................................................... 19

Discussion of country experiences................................................................................................. 21Conclusions........................................................................................................................................ 23Approach and Follow-up at EU level ............................................................................................ 26References......................................................................................................................................... 27


3/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 3

Introduction

The aims of this Best Practice workshop on child well-being and the qualityof childcare, organised by the European Commission on 30 June 2011within the framework of the European Alliance for Families, were to:

i) present evidence for an informed policy design/discussion;ii) discuss best practices; andiii) exchange experiences and knowledge among Member States.

The workshop was divided into two sessions. In the morning a tooldeveloped by the Netherlands Youth Institute, to measure the degree ofwell-being of children in childcare was presented; UNICEFs InnocentiResearch Centre then presented its benchmarking approach to childcare;finally, the results of a new study on Competence Requirements in EarlyChildhood Education and Care (ECEC) were presented.

In the afternoon, three national experiences were illustrated. The first was aDanish intervention programme to promote childrens well-being through

special education and training of preschool teachers; this was followed bypresentations on the French experience, and on features and outcomes ofpublic childcare in Slovakia.

This report summarises the main points from the presentations, highlightssome key points about different country experiences from the discussionthat took place, and sets out the main conclusions from the workshop. Itends with some brief indications of how this work will be taken forward at EUlevel.


4/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 4

EU Context

Child well-being

Well-being has been defined as realising one's unique potential throughphysical, emotional, mental and spiritual development ... in relation to self,others and the environment.1 It is based on a view of society in which allpeople have the ability to realize their potential and all parts of societycontribute towards child well-being. Focusing on child well-being requires anew mindset, whereby children are seen as active agents who can and

should play an important part in shaping their own lives. Children should berecognised both as a specific social group with their own rights, and asunique individuals. This vision lies at the heart of the 1989 UN Convention onthe Rights of the Child.

The Convention provides the underpinning to a range of EU initiatives inrelation to childrens rights and child well-being in recent years. Followingthe insertion of childrens rights into the EU Charter of Fundamental Rightsand the development in 2006 of the first-ever European CommissionCommunication on Children, from 2007 child poverty and well-being

emerged as a thematic priority of the Open Method of Co-ordination onsocial protection and social inclusion. Following the inclusion of referencesto children in the Treaty of Lisbon2, the Commission (DG Home Affairs) hasalso developed an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child.

Particularly relevant to the debates at this seminar is the work of the EUTask-Force on Child Poverty and Child Well-Being; a report from this bodyhelped to stimulate a 2010 call by the Belgian EU Presidency for an EURecommendation on Child Poverty and Child Well-being3. A CommissionRecommendation is now expected in 2012, to be developed by DG EMPL.The European Council has also developed Conclusions4 on this subject inJune 2011, stressing that child poverty and well-being is a multidimensionalphenomenon and that a comprehensive approach is therefore needed totackle it combining employment for parents, income support and access

1Kickbusch I. (2011)

2Article 3(3) enshrines the promotion and protection of the rights of the child as one of the objectives of

the EU3Call for an EU Recommendation on Child Poverty and Well-Being: Background paper to the EU Presidency

Conference, Belgian Presidency of the European Union/UNICEF/Euronet, 2-3 September 20104Council conclusions, Tackling child poverty and promoting child well-being, 3099th EMPLOYMENT, SOCIAL

POLICY, HEALTH and CONSUMER AFFAIRS Council meeting, Luxembourg, 17 June 2011


5/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 5

to social services, including childcare, as well as health care services andeducation.

Quality in childcare

In order that children benefit from experiences in non-parental childcare,such care needs to be of good quality. Ahnert and Lamb5 suggest, forexample, that quality childcare settings should provide access to a varietyof positive social relationships. To ensure that care environments aredevelopmentally appropriate, however, adultchild ratios in child caremust be kept low...It is also important that regulations and informed parents

ensure and demand the highest possible quality of care. Because caringfor others children (in groups) requires different care strategies than caringfor ones own children, care providers need to be valued by society, wellcompensated, and enriched by serious and careful education and/ortraining.

However it is important to note that the definition of quality in this contextis not unproblematic. Moss and Dahlberg6, for instance, have argued thatthe concept of quality in childcare as some universal and knowable thingwaiting out there to be discovered and measured by experts ismisguided and that quality is laden with a particular set of managerialvalues. They focus instead on the importance of nurturing democraticvalues and practices in Early Childhood Education and Care. In line withthis approach, Bennett7suggests that within childcare settings there shouldbe involvement of parents and respect for the natural learning strategiesand agency of young children. Bennett goes on to draw attention to theimportance in developing high quality services of effective governancestructures, adequate and stable public funding, a well qualified workforce,appropriate pedagogical practice, and ongoing professionaldevelopment.

In the past the EU institutions have generally promoted a narrow childcarediscourse focussed mainly on policies on employment and gender equality;arguing that they had no legal competence in relation to children, theytended to treat them as dependents and obstacles to the labour marketintegration of parents, and until recently paid less attention to their rights.The development of the 2002 Barcelona Targets8 reflects this approach,

5Ahnert L., Lamb M. (2011)

6

Moss P., Dahlberg G. (2008)7Bennett J.(2011)

8http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/71025.pdf


6/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 6

setting targets for the number of childcare places that should beestablished for children under and over age 3, but without reference toissues of quality.

Having said this, solid groundwork on childcare quality was undertaken inthe early and mid 1990s by the EC Childcare Network, funded by the (then)DGV in the European Commission. Through a process of discussion anddebate, the Network developed detailed proposals for Quality Targets inServices for Young Children, outlining 40 interdependent targets in nineblocks (policy; finance; level and types of services; education; ratios; staffemployment and education; environment and health; parents andcommunity; performance). It also helped to inform the establishment of aCouncil of Ministers 1992 Recommendation on Childcare. Both theseinitiatives deserve revisiting in the current context.

In recent years, a more nuanced approach has been developed by theEuropean Commission, culminating in the publication in February 2011 byDG Education and Culture of a Communication on Early ChildhoodEducation and Care. This acknowledges the crucial importance of goingbeyond the earlier conceptualization of childrens services purely aschildcare for working parents and embraces the importance of Integratingcare and education (independent of system type), and addressingchildrens needs in a holistic way (cognitive, social, emotional, physical)through the development of age-appropriate curricula. It focuses on effortsto achieve universal and inclusive access and to improve the quality ofECEC. It highlights in particular the need in relation to staffing to move fromthe current situation (heterogeneous staff; lower prestige; less qualified forcare, but more qualified for teaching) to, in future, the right mix ofcompetences and qualifications, increased professionalisation of staff,more emphasis on initial education, induction and continuous professionaldevelopment, and greater gender balance in the staff. It also addresses

governance issues, stressing the importance of a coherent approachacross early years, efficient funding mechanisms, the involvement of keystakeholders such as parents, and the development of appropriatepedagogical frameworks, and quality assurance systems. To take theseideas forward DG EAC has now launched a process of collaboration underthe Open Method of Co-ordination on education & training on early years.


7/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 7

Concepts and Themes

Working on Well-Being: Josette Hoex, Department Education & Care Netherlands Youth Institute Utrecht (The Netherlands)

Since 2005 Dutch legislation on childcare has enshrined the principle thatchildcare centres and childminders must create a healthy and stimulatingenvironment for children. The law also sets out that the most importantgoals for childcare workers and childminders in developing quality provisionare the promotion of childrens emotional well being, personal and social

competence, and learning about shared values, rules, and standards.

In 1996 The Netherlands Youth Institute initiated a project on well-being,and has since then developed a well known and widely used tool to assessand evaluate the degree of well-being of children in childcare, bothindividually and in groups. This provides an instrument for workers to reflectupon their work; creating space for such reflection is critical, but is not verycommon.

Drawing upon the Leuven Involvement Scale arising from the Experiential

Education approach developed in Flanders since the 1970s/80s, the projectsees wellbeing as an essential condition for a childs development. Itdefines well being as feeling at one with yourself, comfortable withyourself, at ease, and content.A focus on wellbeing and in particular onthe positive and negative feelings of a child provides important feedbackfor a child care worker, helping them to identifying what is going welland/or what needs to change.

Based on 60-70 interviews with childcare workers, the project has identifiedseven qualities that a child may display that that are indicative of their

positive well-being:

1. Open - they enjoy and assimilate the world around them2. Curious they are actively focussed on the world around, on new

experiences, knowledge, skills3. Lively they enjoy doing things, and are not listless4. Satisfied they are accepting, and show few signs of dissatisfaction5. Relaxed they respond without being frightened, or tense6. Confident they are secure and believe things will work out7. Balanced they react with emotions (joy, sadness, affection, anger)

that are understandable and appropriate for the situation, notexcessive or extreme withheld


8/28


9/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 9

The Childcare Transition: Leonardo Menchini Child Poverty and Social andEconomic Responses Unit, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

Report Card 8 discusses the opportunities and risks involved in thechildcare transition, whereby a large number of children in OECDcountries are spending a significant part of early childhood in some form ofout-of-home childcare. Whereas UNICEFs original intention was to preparea report on early childhood as a whole, lack of data and evidence resultedin a more limited focus on early childhood services only.

The report identifies some of the main drivers of the transition. It argues theneuroscience revolution has increased understanding of cognitivedevelopment in early childhood, and confirmed that loving, stable,secure, stimulating and rewarding relationships with family and caregiversin the earliest months and years of life are critical for almost all aspects of achilds development. It also highlights the importance of social changes,and in particular the fact that more than two thirds of all women of workingage in the OECD countries are today employed outside the home, withmany postponing childbearing by a decade or more compared withprevious generations. Economic pressures on governments have beenhighly influential too. More women in the workforce has boosted GDP,increased income from taxes, and reduced welfare costs, whilst theemergence of an increasingly competitive knowledge-based economyhas helped to convince governments and parents that pre-schooleducation is an investment in future academic success and employmentprospects.Finally, some OECD countries have come to see childcare services as aprop to falling birth rates. All these interrelated factors have prompted anincreasing policy focus on facilitating the childcare transition. The reportgoes on to highlight that the childcare transition has enormous potential forgood. Children can benefit from interaction with other children and withchildcare professionals; their cognitive, linguistic, emotional and socialdevelopment can be enhanced. Good quality childcare can helpimmigrant and second language children with integration and languageskills, and can erode a significant obstacle to equality of opportunity forwomen. Most importantly, early childhood education and care offers arare opportunity to mitigate the effects of poverty and disadvantage onthe futures of many millions of childrenby extending the benefits of goodquality early education and care to all children. Cost-benefit analyses ofchildhood interventions (eg. the Heckman curve, see below) have shown


10/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 10

that the most effective investment is on early childhood education andcare, and that this can be as high as $8 for every $1 invested 9.

Source: Heckman (2008)

But there is also potential for harm in the childcare transition. For babiesand infants, a lack of stable and quality interaction and care with parentsand care-givers can negatively affect mechanisms for managing stress; forsome children, this may result in sub-optimal cognitive and linguisticdevelopment, and possible long-term effects which may includedepression, withdrawal, inability to concentrate and other forms of mentalill-health. The most important generalisation to be made is that the

younger the child and the longer the hours-per-week spent in childcare thegreater the risk. In particular, long hours of child care for those under theage of one year is widely regarded as inappropriate.

An important factor affecting outcomes for children is the quality of earlychildhood education and care services. In most realities positive outcomesare more likely to be experienced by those in higher income families (whocan afford better quality provision), and negative outcomes are more likely

9Heckman J. J. (2006)


11/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 11

for children from poorer families. This reinforces the importance of ensuringhigh quality provision for all children.The report proposes a set of ten internationally applicable benchmarks forearly childhood education and care, to be tested on OECD countries (iewith quite similar levels of economic development; however data wereonly available for 25/30 OECD countries, and several EU countries were notcovered). There are continuing weaknesses in the availability ofcomparable data (eg. in relation to national policy frameworks,quantitative and qualitative indicators) and the selection of benchmarks islimited by this. The benchmarks cover the following issues:

1.

Effective parental leave ((including a period of parental leavespecifically reserved for fathers)2. A National Plan, with priority for children with disadvantaged socio-

economic conditions3. Subsidized and regulated child care services for at least 25 per cent

of children under the age of 3 (ie. less than the EU Barcelona targetof 33%)

4. Publicly subsidized and accredited early education services for atleast 80% of 4-year-old children (minimum of 15 hours per week)

5. A minimum level of relevant training for staff working in services forchildren 0-3

6. Higher level education and training for staff working in services forchildren 3-6

7. Ratio of pre-school children (4 to 5 year olds) to trained staff(educators and assistants) should not be greater than 15 to 1, andgroup size should not exceed 24

8. Public expenditure on early childhood education and care (forchildren aged 0-6)

9. Child poverty under 10 per cent10.Outreach of essential services

The thresholds for the benchmarks have been defined on the basis of whatis already achieved in most of the OECD countries, i.e they represent arealistic reference for an economically advanced country.

Overall, only one country (Sweden) matched all the benchmarks. Iceland,Denmark, Finland, Norway, and France met 8/9 benchmarks; Belgium,Hungary, New Zealand, Slovenia, UK, Austria, Japan, and Portugal met 4;and a few countries met less than 4 (e.g. Spain, US and others). (Moredetailed analysis of the extent to which individual benchmarks were metcan be found in the main report).

A number of critical issues remain to be resolved:


12/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 12

At what age can out-of-home education and care begin to benefitthe child?

If todays knowledge suggests that children under 1 are best card forby parents, what policies can best support todays parents in thistask?

What should be the underlying aims and priorities of early childhoodservices?

How is quality in ECEC to be defined and monitored? What systems can make available high quality services to all and

ensure that disadvantaged and at-risk children are included?

Is the wider social and economic context supportive? Or are earlychildhood services being asked to row upstream against powerfulcurrents of child poverty, and family-unfriendly policies in theeconomy and the workplace?

Staff Competence Requirements in Early Childhood Education and Care: JanPeeters, Research and Resource Centre for ECEC, Department of Social WelfareStudies, Ghent University (Belgium)

This study of ECEC competence requirements (0-6 years), carried out for

the European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture,involved a literature review, a survey of 14 countries10, and 9 specific casestudies11. The findings were due to be published in July 2011.12

The literature review (not just anglo-saxon studies, but also Italian, Slovenianetc.) found broad consensus among researchers, and internationalorganisations (OECD, UNICEF, EU), that the quality of ECEC - and ultimatelythe outcomes for children and families and more specifically for thedisadvantaged - depends on well-educated, experienced and competentstaff. In terms of competences, 60% of staff need to be trained at bachelor

level; initial training is important, but this should be complemented bypedagogical advice over a long period of time. Good results also dependon collaboration with parents, and on engaging with the wider community.

10Belgium (Fr/Fl), Croatia, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Romania,

Slovenia, Spain, UK11

Initial training centre Lyon, France; City of Pistoia, Italy; City of Ghent, Belgium; Initial training centre,

Denmark; EYPs-NQF England; DRCEI, Slovenia; Training, Poland12

The study was co-ordinated by: Dr. Mathias Urban, Cass school of Education (lead institution); Dr.

Arianna Lazzari University of Bologna; and Professor Michel Vandenbroeck, Dr. Jan Peeters and Katrien VanLaere Ghent University, Department of Social Welfare Studies. It was also assisted by an advisory team of

trainers, reseachers, and members from ECEC networks (ISSA, Children in Europe, DECET).


13/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 13

Formal competence requirements differ significantly across EU countries.The survey found, for example, that some countries have professionalprofiles, some have training profiles, and some dont have either. Profilesalso vary considerably; most experts suggest that they should be framed inquite general terms, and that if they are very detailed, local innovation canbe stifled. It is also important to find the right balance between the needsof the labour market and knowledge development. Finally, the work isusually too orientated towards individuals and work with parents isunderdeveloped.

The study also found that in most EU countries competence requirementsfor invisible assistants, who provide up to 40-50 % of the workforce, arefrequently neglected. Assistants are likely to have little or no formal trainingand limited access to in-service training, whereas core professionals (whoare already highly trained in many cases) do benefit from suchopportunities. In practice, assistants often focus on contact with theparents and core professionals on work with children, and reflect a splittingof the functions of care (assistants) and education (professionals). Toaddress these issues, it is important to develop practical tools and concretevalues for training assistants, and to develop more democratic structures forsharing practice between professionals and assistants.

The case studies provided examples of systemic approaches toprofessionalism, and highlighted the importance of focussing not only onthe competent practitioner but on the competent system. A number ofkey features of high level systems can be identified. Continuouspedagogical support has a very positive effect. Dialogue with a diverserange of parents and children increases the competence of practitioners.Practitioners should also engage in continuing reflection on their practice(eg. analyse de pratique in France), and different groups of professionals

need to work together more effectively. In-service training should be re-invented so that it focuses on transformative practice, and is conducted onan institutional level to meet the needs of groups of centres rather than justindividuals.

The study has generated a wide range of recommendations. To sustaincompetence at individual level, the accessibility of training at tertiary levelfor non qualified workers should be increased. In-service training should berethought, with more focus on: dialogue with parents; the needs of non/lowqualified staff; ongoing pedagogical guidance on the job; and continuous

interaction between theory and practices that enhance reflection. Withininstitutions, there should be: systematic opportunities for reflection at team


14/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 14

level (paid hours without children); systematic procedures fordocumenting, analysing and evaluating practices with children andparents; pedagogical support; opportunities to take part in practice-basedresearch; and learning communities (eg. Groups/committees involvingparents and practitioners). Efforts to attract more male workers should alsobe strengthened (the workforce is 97-98% female in most countries,although Denmark [8% male] and Norway [10%] are exceptions). Closeinter-agency collaboration should also be established between trainingcentres, early childhood education institutions, primary schools, parentsorganisations and local authorities responsible for policy-making (eg.

through practice and research exchange, community engagement inconsultation).At governmental level, it is important to develop coherentECCE public policies. These should: emphasize ECEC as public good;develop the pedagogical framework/curricula/monitoring; set standardsfor qualifications, status and pay; integrate services under one governmentdepartment; and build a coherent long term policy towards professionaldevelopment.The study concludes with proposed frameworks for the content ofindividual and institutional competences, the body of knowledge thatworkers and institutions should be familiar with, key aspects of practice,and the underpinning values required to undertake the work effectively.


15/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 15

Country Experiences

Various patterns of ECEC provision can be identified between countriesinternationally. Within Europe these include, for example: the laissez faireapproach where different systems co-exist, often provided on a voluntaryor private basis (eg. as in the UK); dual systems, based on agedifferentiation (crches for infants and toddlers, preschools for those three-years-old to school-age) (eg. France, Italy); and integrated systems, mostcommonly found in the Nordic countries13. Nevertheless, whatever systemsare in place, European states face many common obstacles in developing

effective approaches to providing quality ECEC. There is thereforeconsiderable scope for exchanging good practices and policy learning.

VIDA Programme: Bente Jensen, University of Aarhus (Denmark)

International research shows that quality in ECEC has long-term effects andinvolves the interplay of: structural conditions and policy framework, andsocial relations between child and pre-school teacher, and betweenparent and pre-school teacher.It is hypothesised that enrichment of qualityin universal ECEC offers and improving pre-school teachers innovativecompetences might improve childrens life opportunities and decrease

social inequalities.In the Nordic context, ECEC programmes are implemented in general day-care because 95% of all children attend day-care. Particular challengesexist in relation to socially disadvantaged children who are at high risk ofbeing involved in child service systems related to poor socio-economicalconditions (e.g. poverty, unemployment among parents, short or noeducation, parents on welfare payment and/or difficult divorces), and whomay have less developed cognitive and social skills. One hypothesis basedon reviews of Scandinavian research (Nordenbo et al., 2010) is that these

children are at high risk of being excluded from their peers community, butbetter quality in ECEC may meet these challenges.

In Danish programmes, the learning and pedagogical environment mustpay attention to the implicit inclusion and exclusion mechanisms indaycare in order to take these into consideration when working withenrichment of ECEC. Legislation sets goals but not learning standards as afixed curriculum.

13Bennett J. (ibid.)


16/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 16

The VIDA programme, funded by the Danish Ministry of Social Affairs, aims:to improve child well-being and learning; and to develop education andtraining to enhance staffs systematic and determined work with ECEC.VIDA compares 1) a general programme (VIDA Basis) with the sameprogramme but 2) supplemented with a parental programme (VIDA Basis +Parental efforts). Staff are encouraged to develop a detailed localcurriculum based on the individual daycare setting. The programme givesthe staff the opportunity to: work with theories of child development in asocio-cultural perspective; study and interpret legislation and developprofessional skills to construct curricula relevant to target groups; study and

acquire learning theories (based on Dewey) in order to analyse critically allchildrens learning opportunities. To implement the programme, staff skillsmust be developed by following a three stage strategy of knowledge,reflection and critical analysis, and action. The programme involves threemain activities: education and workshops for manager and employer, byteachers from university colleges; reflection and knowledge-sharing in localnetworks; courses (by university teachers) for managers to facilitateorganizational learning processes in the entire centre. Eighty preschools areinvolved (each in a network of 10 preschools), supported by consultantsfrom the local authorities.

A study of the programme is being undertaken , involving 7,000 children ingeneral daycare, with randomized control at the institutional level in fourmunicipalities (2010 -2013). Effects are measured on SDQ (non-cognitiveskills) and scales of cognitive skills. The programme is being implementedsystematically in 80 daycare centres (+ 40 daycare centres in the controlgroups). VIDA differs from traditional intervention programmes in that ittakes a resource-oriented view of socially disadvantaged children vs. afailure approach. It also applies an understanding of interventions asmethods to invite preschool teachers to develop new practices throughlocal initiatives and curriculum, based on analyses and reflection on

everyday practice and the mix of children.

Jensen and Holm (2011) demonstrated a positive causal effect of theearlier ASP Programme on3,000 children in general daycare; this had anaverage effect. The VIDA intervention is expected to have a greater effecton children who are disadvantaged and excluded but will benefit allchildren. It is expected that the intervention is especially beneficial inkindergartens where there are relatively many disadvantaged children,and in kindergartens where staff education and training in practice leadsto implementation.


17/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 17

The researchers recommend that future ECEC programmes must beplaced in a wider concept of inclusive learning. They should also work to:achieve an appropriate balance in the curriculum (betweencognitive/non-cognitive learning and wellbeing goals); improve thewellbeing of the individual child as well as ensure equity among children;promote teachers professional competences, by sharing knowledge andreflection over practice; and develop innovative approaches to ECEC-intervention through transnational projects and networks.

Quality of Childcare : the French Experience: Hlne Escande - Direction gnrale

de la cohsion sociale (DGCS), Ministre des Solidarits et de la Cohsion sociale(France)

Traditional forms of childcare provision in France are: crches (max 60places per site); childminders (max 4 children per childminder, 6 for beforeor after-school care); pre-school for children aged between 2 and 3 (max24 places per site); and family daycare centre (crche familiale) (max100 places per site). A family daycare centre directly employs childminders;children are taken care of in the childminders home, but are taken tocollective activities once or twice a week at the centre.

Innovative solutions are micro-nurseries (max 10 places) and childminderhouses (up to 4 childminders taking care of a max of 4 children each).Micro-nurseries are smaller units than traditional creches, with speciallyrenovated buildings; they are well suited to rural areas in particular. Achildminder house (created in 2010) involves a group of childmindersworking together outside their homes, in premises generally placed at theirdisposal by the municipality. Each childminder is the employee of thefamily whose child they are taking care of. This solution can be welladapted to rural areas.

In the French system, municipalities are responsible for identifying needs.The family branch of social security finances most of the cost. The child andmaternal health service under the auspices of the Conseil Gnral (LocalAuthority) is responsible for licensing and monitoring. And the CentralGovernment is responsible for regulation. In terms of finance, the 9.3 billioncost of the care of children under 3 is publicly funded as follows: 61% by thefamily branch of social security, 24% by Local Authorities, 15% by theCentral Government.

The objective of the National Childcare Development Plan is to create

200,000 new childcare places by 2012. This involves 353 000 places incollective or family daycare centres for children under 6, and 420 000


18/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 18

accredited childminders (of these, 306 400 are actually in work, caring for584 400 children). 48% of children under 3 benefit from ECEC services.

Regulation of the sector is a key quality factor in collective centres. Itaddresses: ECEC standards (health, safety, well-being and development ofthe child; reconciliation of work and family life etc.); the capacity of eachunit (60 places max per unit); building requirements; and adult/child ratios(1 adult for 5 babies; 1 adult for 8 toddlers; 1 adult for 15 children between3 and 6 [kindergartens]); and qualifications of staff and managers. Alicensing regime by child and maternal health services allows quality to be

taken into account at an early stage. It is also mandatory to draw up, inevery setting, two important documents dealing with quality: thePerformance development project and Internal regulations.

An example of a specific tool developed by professionals is the Parentalcrche network quality charter.14 The Charter sets out that: care and earlylearning are the main objectives; parents are the principal educators fortheir child; professional carers are responsible for quality and organizing thelife of the community; and the crche must be governed by the principlesof active citizenship and a sense of solidarity.

In relation to quality of care by a childminder, the focus is on training inorder to improve quality. Sixty hours training (+ 10 hours of first-aid) ismandatory before receiving a child for the first time; a further 60 hours arealso mandatory within the next 2 years. There is additional mandatorytraining for childminders in family daycare centres, on the specifics ofcollective care. Like all employees, childminders have a right to vocationaltraining (20 hours per year). Childminders meeting points (RelaisdAssistants Maternels) also provide space for exchange on good practiceand career opportunities.

Plans for the future include: Work on the concept of child well-being, and a national event in

September 2011.

Fight against poverty: how to improve access to child care servicesfor people on minimum social benefits?

Evaluation of the new innovative solutions is planned in 2011 and2012.

14A parental crche is a collective organization run by a group of parents. They hire qualified professionals

but also participate in the care themselves.


19/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 19

The national plan for the early childhood sector: a lot has alreadybeen done on training but special attention will be paid toeducative skills.

Formal childcare in the Slovak Republic: Daniel Gerbery, Institute for Labour andFamily Research (Slovakia)

After 1989, the Slovak Republic experienced a decline in live-births and thetotal fertility rate. Since 2003, an upswing has occurred and by 2008 totalfertility rate increased to 1.32 per woman. These changes were caused by

a rapid postponement of childbearing; by 2008 the age of first birth wasmore than 26 years. The structure of households has also changed. Theproportion of children born out of wedlock has increased significantly,suggesting that the relationship between parenthood and marriage hasweakened. There has also been a gradual decrease in the share of twoparent families, and an increase in the share of one parent families.Between 1994 and 2008, the number of preschool age children fell in allcategories (c. 30%). As a result, pressure on childcare facilities hasweakened considerably. Formal childcare is mainly used by parents forolder children (e.g. for 81% of 5 year olds compared to 10% of 2 years olds).

In order to analyse the development of pre-school facilities in Slovakia wehave to distinguish between nurseries (or crches) for very young children(under 2 years old) and kindergartens for children aged from two years toobligatory school age and. The trajectories of these two forms of pre-schoolfacilities differ significantly after 1989.

Nurseries were removed from the list of health care facilities in 1991, andhave not been embedded in health or education systems; they have ineffect disappeared from public policy discourse since the early 90s. Thereis no central body responsible for their operation and there are no updated

standards and regulations relating to the content of care. The mainresponsibility is with municipalities; however private sector involvement hasgrown rapidly. Aggregated data at national level is also lacking, and thereis no systematic empirical evidence of their performance and quality.According to data from EU SILC, Slovakia has a low number of children informal childcare (3% of less than 2 year olds in 2009); this is also true of othercountries in Central Europe. In practice, grandparents, other householdmembers, and relatives play a more important role.Kindergartens, however, have been the object of systematic action at the

central level. From the mid-1990s there has been a pluralisation of actors(including state, churches, private sector), together with a lowering of the


20/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 20

age threshold (to include 2 year olds). The extension of the coverage ofkindergartens reflected both negative developments in relation to crchesand the increasing demands of parents of young children for formalchildcare services. Municipalities have become key actors as a result of thegrowth of decentralization of public administration. But overall supervisionremains with the Ministry of Education, which is responsible for the definitionof national standards, monitoring and control of the educational process.Since 2008 kindergartens belong to the category schools, providing pre-primary education. There are no fees for places for one year prior to schoolattendance. There has been some decline in the number of available

kindergartens since the early 1990s, reflecting the decreasing size of thegroup of preschool children, and the rise of parental unemployment.

In terms of the main features of childcare in kindergartens, the emphasis ison education, framed by School Educational Programme ISCED 0 Pre-Primary Education (general aims, principles, methods). The focus is on thedevelopment of perceptual, cognitive, social, communication andemotional skills, building on the principles of active learning, respect for thechild specific needs, and integration into the group. The stated aims ofkindergartens are: to satisfy the need for social contacts, support learningthrough play, develop child personality, apply and protect child rights incooperation with family and other institutions, provide educationalcounselling to parents. Educational standards are set out related tocontent and performance. Special attention is paid to children fromsocially disadvantaged backgrounds (e.g. from families on minimumincome benefits, with poorly educated parents without jobs, non-standardhousing and unhygienic conditions). Several measures are in place forchildren at risk: assistants of teachers, specific programmes of cooperationwith parents, free places.

Quality requirements are defined by legislation and curriculum document

School Educational Programme ISCED 0 Pre-Primary Education. Regularcontrol of quality in kindergartens is carried out by the State SchoolInspection, with inspections covering approximately 10% of allkindergartens each year. Monitoring addresses three main areas:management of kindergartens (quality of educational programme,pedagogical supervision, atmosphere and culture, services); conditionsfor upbringing and education (personal, material, spatial conditions,conditions for safety and health); and processes of upbringing andeducation and their outcomes (content of activities and results). In 2010,the results were as follows:

Management : positive assessment of culture and additionalservices, criticism of the preparation of curricula


21/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 21

Conditions: positive assessment of personal and material conditions,criticism of spatial conditions

Processes and outcomes: positive ranks prevailedDiscussion of country experiences

A range of views were expressed in relation to the different countryexperiences presented.

Although the focus of the Dutch system on well-being (as described by

Hoex) is very positive, parents have to pay for childcare services and theyare not subsidized (although parents on low incomes can get a taxrebate). Lack of adequate funding has some implications for quality; forexample, inspections are only currently carried out every year in settingswhere there appear to be problems, whereas in centres where everythingis going well, visits will only be carried every 2-3 years. This begs the questionof who assesses which settings should be visited, and on what basis.

Another issue in relation to quality in the Netherlands is continuity andstability in care arrangements. In this system (and also reflected in other

countries, to varying extents) it is very common for childcare workers towork part-time and there is therefore considerable coming and going inmost childcare centres. This can mean that a child does not necessarily seethe same children and the same childcare workers every day; this caninfluence quality.

In Sweden, by contrast, holistic services are provided on the basis ofuniversal entitlement, and are largely publicly funded. But UNICEFs positiveranking of Sweden in Report Card 8 was strongly criticized by a SwedishNGO that advocates for home-schooling. They argued that UNICEFsindicators did not capture adequately experience in Sweden. Although hesaid Swedish childcare used to be good quality in the 1980s, this fellsignificantly as a result of the financial crisis in the 90s, and was no longerat a high level up to age 3 or 4 (over this age, care was better). He statedthere was considerable frustration in Sweden about the lack of choice, andthat, in effect, parental decision making had been supplanted by politicaldecisions to favour out of home care. Yet despite high education levels,low poverty rates, good lifestyles, and good healthcare, outcomes werepoor. He suggested this was due to emotional poverty, with children beingseparated from parents for too long periods at too young an age; instead,parents should stay at home with children until age 4/5/6, and the

experience of his organisation of promoting this approach had shownencouraging results.


22/28


23/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 23

Conclusions

International research shows increasing consensus on the factors whichmake ECEC effective, so that it delivers positive outcomes for children andfamilies (including those who are disadvantaged). These include earlyefforts (children from age 3) targeting childrens learning and cognitivedevelopment in day-care15, and high-quality care both (i.e. well-educatedstaff, good staffing, systematic curriculum-based efforts with attention tosocio-emotional and intellectual development16). Nevertheless, some issuesremain unresolved (e.g. At what age can out-of-home education and care

begin to benefit the child? What policies can best support parents in caringfor children under age 1?).

A strong theme from the workshop concerned the link between parentsand ECEC services and the mutual benefits of greater engagement. Acombination of day-care programme and parental involvement appearsto generate the greatest positive effect17. Although there was considerablesupport for increased dialogue between workers and parents, it wasacknowledged that the importance of this was often underplayed. Inpractice, there is much scope to explore and develop innovative ways of

facilitating such contact and tools for supporting parents and this isparticularly crucial in contexts where parents are facing challengingcircumstances in their own lives.

The workshop highlighted a range of material on developing staffcompetencies, both for individual workers and within institutions. A widerange of recommendations were proposed (see, for example, thepresentation by Peters), including increased accessibility of training attertiary level for the high proportion of non qualified workers, andimprovements to in-service training. The importance of assisting workers

and teams to enhance reflection on their practice was widelyacknowledged. Support for the workforce in relation to recognition andcareer progression was endorsed. It was also suggested that efforts shouldbe strengthened to increase the numbers of childcare workers from ethnicminorities so that the composition of the workforce mirrored more closelythe communities they served.

15

e.g. Garber (1988)16Currie & Neidell (2007), Melhuish (2003)

17e.g. Kaminski (2007)


24/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 24

Accessibility of services was another important theme, which generatedconsiderable discussion at the workshop. Although there was some supportfor services to be universally available, it was highlighted that these werehard to maintain in a time of austerity and some Member States did notwant to be put under pressure to provide universal services (hence theemphasis on generalisedequitable access in the EU 2020 Strategy). Therewas also some support for targeting, on the basis that it was important topay specific attention to the problems of access and affordability forchildren and families facing disadvantage. The OECD Doing Better forFamilies report shows that childcare support available at a reasonable

cost can help to increase parental incomes and has considerableadvantages for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Research findings were inconclusive here, with ongoing debate amongresearchers as to the benefits of targeted versus universal provision. Overall,workshop participants tended towards the view that both universal andtargeted services had merits, and that these approaches were notmutually exclusive. If a mixed model was to be applied, it was howeverimportant to be alive to, and address, any risks arising from segregation(e.g. by ensuring good quality care and education in disadvantagedareas).

The centrality of gender issues was also discussed. In recent decadesfemale employment rates have grown across the EU; now it is increasinglycommon for both parents to work (although in many cases even twoincomes may not be enough to escape poverty and social exclusion).There are specific risks to womens livelihoods in the current climate, withthe impact of cuts in public expenditure falling disproportionately on them(as the major users of, and workers in, public services). Increasing incomepoverty, and in particular precarious and low paid parental employment,may also harm childrens development (however at the workshop there

was little attention paid to the specific issues facing boys and girls).

This raises important issues about mens roles in childcare too. According tothe OECD Doing Better for Families report: when mothers enteremployment, fathers could take on more of the cleaning and caringresponsibilities within families. In reality, shares of housework and caringremain far from even, with mothers doing more of both even when fathersare unemployed. Workshop participants highlighted the very small numberof men working in childcare settings and argued that this should beincreased, particularly by changing widespread perceptions of care aswomens work. Important though this is, it was also noted that fears of

allegations of abuse were an obstacle to some men entering theprofession.


25/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 25

Funding: Cost-benefit analysis shows that long-term benefits of investmentin early years outweigh the costs involved, especially for disadvantagedgroups18. However, the limited focus within the Barcelona targets on thenumbers of childcare places has attracted criticism (for neglecting qualityissues and underemphasizing childrens best interests). Moreover, althoughsome progress has been made, most Member States have failed to reachthe basic targets set out, and there are issues of lack of availability, highcosts, and inaccessibility of services. These issues are particularly salient at atime of economic and social stress, and cuts in public expenditure. In theUK, for example, the excellent network of Sure Start centres set up by the

previous government as part of a significant investment in early yearsprovision has barely had time to take root, and is now extremelyvulnerable.

To promote child well-being, it was widely acknowledged at the workshopthat supportive policy frameworks are needed to implement a range ofactions at various levels, including: developing multidimensional responses;tackling structural issues as well as individual circumstances; concentratingresources on the early years of life; and involving children in decision-making and listening to their voices. ECEC policy should also be linked toother policy areas (e.g. family support; environment; social welfare), as in

the Commissions 2011 Communication on ECEC, so that childcare servicesare not addressed in isolation. Linked to this, the recent debate atEuropean level over the optimal length of parental leave is critical, andthere is a clear need to ensure that policies in relation to leavearrangements and ECEC services are complementary and joined upeffectively.Efforts to strengthen monitoring and evaluation are also required, ashighlighted in several presentations. Gerbery, for example, stressed theneed for further research in Slovakia into the strengths and weakness of the

current system, and for regular surveys and research on the implications ofday care provision for wider family policy measures.

Another general challenge is how to define best or good practice.Attention was drawn to a study for the European Institute for GenderEquality which built assessment around a detailed three stage process:identifying criteria for evaluating design and impact; assessingtransferability; and highlighting learning.

18Heckman (2008)


26/28


27/28



Upadate 20/09/2011 27

References

Ahnert L. and Lamb M. (2011), Child Care and Its Impact on Young Children (2-5), Encyclopaedia on Early

Childhood Development, www.child-encyclopedia.com/Pages/PDF/Ahnert-LambANGxp2.pdf

Bennett J. (2011), Introduction: Early Childhood Education and Care, Encyclopaedia on Early Childhood

Development, www.child-encyclopedia.com/pages/PDF/BennettANGxp1-Intro.pdf

Currie J. and Neidell M. (2007), Getting inside the Black Box of Head Start quality: What matters and what

doesnt, Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 83-99, February

Garber, H.L. (1988), The Milwaukee Project preventing mental retardation in children at risk, AmericanAssociation on Mental Retardation, USA

Heckman J. J. (2006), Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children, Science,

vol. 312. no. 5782, 30 June

Heckman J. (2008), The case for investing in young children, in Big ideas for children: Investing in our

nation's future (pp. 49-58). Washington, DC: First Focus

Jensen B. and Holm A. (2011), The effect of a new innovative ECEC program on child Strengths and

Difficulties, Danmarks Pdagogiske Universitetsforlag

Kaminski J. W. and Valle L. A., Filene J. H., & Boyle C. L. (2007), A meta-analytic review of components

associated with parent training program effectiveness, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology

Kickbusch I. (2011), Learning for Well-being: a policy priority for children and youth in Europe: consultationdocument, Learning for Well-being Consortium of Foundations in Europe,

www.eiesp.org/site/pages/view/77-learning-for-well-being-a-policy-priority-for-children-and-

young-people-in-europe.html

Melhuish (2004), Child Benefits: The importance of investing in quality childcare, London: Daycare Trust

Moss P., Dahlberg G. (2008), Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care Languages of

Evaluation, New Zealand Journal of Teachers Work, Volume 5, Issue1

Nordenbo S.E. and Holm A., Elstad E., Scheerens J., Sogaard Larsen M., Uljens M., Fibak Laursen P., & Hauge

T.E. (2010), Input, Process, and Learning in primary and lower secondary schools: A systematic

review carried out for The Nordic Indicator Workgroup (DNI), In: The Evidence Base, Copenhagen:

Danish Clearinghouse for Educational Research, DPU, Aarhus University


28/28



This report was financed by and prepared for the use of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, SocialAffairs and Equal Opportunities. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of the European Commission, Directorate-

Documents

Eaf Childcare Report Final