SOUTHEAST ASIAN MINISTERS OF EDUCATION ORGANIZATION

45th SEAMEO Council Conference

POLICY FORUM

FINAL REPORT

Convened by Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization

at the Shangri-La’s Mactan Resort and Spa, Cebu, the Philippines 28 January 2010

Prepared and Published by the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Secretariat

(SEAMEO Secretariat) 4th Floor, Mom Luang Pin Malakul Centenary Building

920 Sukhumbit Road, Bangkok 10100, Thaland

MC-45-PolicyForum/2010/60

CONTENTS

PagePROCEEDINGS

I. INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………….. 1

II. KEY PRESENTATIONS…………………………………………... ............. 2

III. OPEN FORUM………………………………………………………………... 3

IV. CONCLUSION…………………………………………………..................... 9

V. AGREEMENT/CONSENSUS……………………………………………….. 10

APPENDICES

Appendix 1 List of Participants ………………………………………………… 11

Appendix 2 Policy Forum Discussion Note…………...……...………………. 26

Appendix 3 Making Early Childhood Care & Education a National Priority in the Philippines by Secretary Teresa Aquino-Oreta, Chairman, Early Childhood Care and Development Council……………………………………………………………… 28

Appendix 4 Understanding the Vital Pathways for Future Learning: an analysis of New Zealand’s approach to early childhood education by Claire McLachlan, PhD, Associate Professor, Massey University College of Education………………………... 34

PRESENTATIONS

(1)

45th SEAMEO Council Conference and 5th ASEAN Education Ministers Meeting

26 - 29 January 2010

Plenary Session 3: POLICY FORUM 28 January 2010, 0800-0945 hrs

Mactan Ballroom, Shangri-La’s Mactan Resort and Spa Cebu, the Philippines

PROCEEDINGS I. INTRODUCTION 1 The Policy Forum was organized by the Department of Education, the Philippines as one of the sessions of the 45th Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) Council Conference from 0800 to 0945 hours on 28 January 2010 at the Shangri-la Hotel, Cebu, the Philippines. 2 The Policy Forum was attended by 156 participants representing the 11 SEAMEO Member Countries, three Associate Member Countries, one Affiliate Member; observers including the ASEAN Secretariat, UNESCO Regional Bureau of Education Bangkok, UNICEF East Asia Pacific Regional Office, UN Habitat, the British Council; the SEAMEO Regional Centres and Network, and the SEAMEO Secretariat. The List of Participants is attached as Appendix 1. 3 The Policy Forum was themed “Understanding the Vital Years for Future Learning” and aimed at engaging the SEAMEO education ministers in sharing experiences on Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE). Moreover, the forum was directed at increasing appreciation of the reality that all future learning interventions will grow from the core of early childhood development. 4 HE Datu Dr Jesli A Lapus, President of the SEAMEO Council and Secretary of Education, the Philippines welcomed the participants to the forum. He reiterated the theme of the forum and requested Dr Clifford Meyers, Regional Advisor on Education for the East Asia and Pacific Region, UNICEF, to facilitate the discussion. 5 Dr Clifford Meyers expressed appreciation to the Philippines for hosting the policy forum and to SEAMEO INNOTECH for assisting in the organization of the discussion. 6 He explained that the goal of the forum was not only to generate interesting discussion, but also to obtain action points and commitments from the SEAMEO Council Members. The Discussion Note of the Policy Forum is attached as Appendix 2.

(2)

II. KEY PRESENTATIONS 7 Dr Meyers explained the format of the forum and called on the speakers for their presentations. A. First Presentation

Making Early Childhood Care and Development a National Priority: The Philippine Experience by Hon Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta, Chairperson, Early Childhood Care and Development Council of the Philippines, the Philippines

8 The presentation covered the evolution of programmes for the welfare of children in the Philippines; as well as the legal, policy and governance frameworks that are in place which serve as bases for transition plans from early care to early learning. 9 Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta presented the experiences and the lessons that the Government of the Philippines had learned in order to bring together all key players at the national and local levels in ensuring that all Filipino kids from ages 0 to 6 will be given the opportunity to develop their fullest potentials. At present, ECCE has finally become a national priority in the country. 10 Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta explained the stages of brain development in the early years and highlighted the need to work together to unlock the powers of the vital years from 0 to 6. She also presented the relevant studies which guided the formulation of the legislation, policy and action programmes on ECCE in the Philippines. The full paper is attached as Appendix 3. B. Second Presentation

Understanding the Vital Pathways for Future Learning: An Analysis of New Zealand’s Approach to Early Childhood Education by Dr Claire McLachlan, Associate Professor, Early Years Education, Massey University College of Education New Zealand

11 The presentation examined the current model of early childhood education adopted in New Zealand, how it emerged, and the policy decisions that enabled the development of the current systems. 12 Dr Claire McLachlan gave emphasis on the importance of early childhood curriculum, and teacher education and professional development of teachers and facilitators of ECCE. 13 Dr Claire McLachlan raised the issues of quality and accountability in education and shared the strategic plan of the Ministry of Education in New Zealand that is aimed at increasing participation in quality early childhood services, improving

(3)

the quality of early childhood services, and promoting collaborative relationships. A number of strategic initiatives were put in place to help to achieve these goals. The full paper is attached as Appendix 4. III. OPEN FORUM

14 Dr Clifford Meyers invited the participants to give their comments and ask questions. He read the guide questions that were sent to the participants prior to the 45th SEAMEO Council Conference. The questions were the following:

1. What is the vision for early childhood care and education in your country? How is it linked or will be linked to the formal education system?

2. What are the key players or principal government bodies / agencies dealing

with pre-primary education and child care in your country? Are they the same government bodies that address (1) standards and regulation? (2) policy? (3) service delivery? and (4) provision of support services and funding?

3. If there are multiple government bodies/ agencies that deal with early

childhood care and education in your country, how would you describe the kind of relationship between and/or among the ministries?

4. Please share some of the more innovative practices you are now implementing

in your country, particularly for home-based programs for early childhood care and education?

5. What are the most urgent and pressing issues relating to provision of pre-primary education in your country? How are they being addressed? Is there scope for SEAMEO-wide cooperation to address these issues?

15 Tan Sri Dr Zulkurnain bin Haji Awang, Secretary General, Malaysia expressed support to the significance of ECCE and shared experiences and efforts of the Government of Malaysia and the Ministry of Education to support pre-school education. 16 In 2010, the Ministry of Education has started the initiative that is aimed at increasing pre-school enrolment for children aged 1-5 years old from 67% to 87% within three years. This is one of the national Key Result Areas that is set to be achieved by 2013. 17 Steps taken include the setting up of a special division called Early Childhood and Pre-School Education Division that initiated the provision of compulsory minimum curriculum for pre-school providers. The Ministry also ensures that the best teachers are allocated to pre-school education. 18 Beginning 2010, the Ministry of Education will take over the responsibility of ECCE in the country making it a component of the national education system.

(4)

19 Tan Sri Dr Zulkurnain bin Haji Awang also raised the issue of disparity between children in the urban areas and those who are in the rural areas who remain unreached; and highlighted the need for resources and the appropriate approach to reach them. 20 Tan Sri Dr Zulkurnain bin Haji Awang also shared concern on teacher training framework and the possibility of a joint review of the framework among SEAMEO Member Countries. 21 H E Prof Dr Fasli Jalal, Vice Minister, Ministry of National Education, Indonesia congratulated the Government of the Philippines for the innovation on ECCE and for having set up the Early Childhood Care and Development Council of the Philippines. 22 The Ministry of National Education of Indonesia is still in the campaign to fulfill the universal basic education of 9 years in the country. Indonesia has 28 million children aged 0-6, and 42 million children who need to be provided quality and relevant education. Considering this, a concern was raised on whether resources should be focused on the universalization of basic education of 9 years or ECCE. Both are mandated by the Millennium Development Goals and Education For All Goals. 23 Moreover, Indonesia requested clarification on the stand of UNESCO and UNICEF on ECCE and inquired how the two organizations and other United Nations agencies such as World Health Organization work together on the issue of ECCE at the national, regional and global levels. 24 H E Prof Dr Fasli Jalal also shared some initiatives of Indonesia that are aimed at expanding participation on ECCE including nursery, kindergarten and playgroup programmes as well as the integration of religious-based activities into these programmes. In relation to this, a concern was raised on the suitable minimum competencies for these informal modes of delivery. 25 On the presentation of Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta, H E Prof Dr Fasli Jalal clarified how the Early Childhood Care and Development Council of the Philippines manage prioritization of activities against funding. 26 On the presentation of Dr Claire McLachlan, H E Prof Dr Fasli Jalal sought some suggestions on how to empower the community to assist in the implementation of ECCE programmes; and what is the minimum competency for service providers of ECCE. 27 H E Prof Dr Nguyen Thien Nhan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister, Ministry of Education and Training, Vietnam thanked the two speakers for the useful information on ECCE. 28 H E Prof Dr Nguyen Thien Nhan informed that considering the socialistic orientation in Vietnam, the Government had started taking care of children at very early age. A division for ECCE was established in the country as early as 1975.

(5)

29 The Government of Vietnam spends 6% of its national education budget for early childhood education. In 2010, the universalization of 9 years basic education has been realized. After such an accomplishment, the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) decided to focus on ECCE. In 2009, MOET passed a law for the universalization of education for kids aged 5. The full implementation is expected to commence in 2015. 30 H E Prof Dr Nguyen Thien Nhan informed that after knowing from the Policy Forum the importance of starting education at the age of 4, it would be necessary to convince MOET to propose for the universalization of education at age 4 which could commence in 2020. 31 Finally, H E Prof Dr Nguyen Thien Nhan shared that MOET is increasing the budget for EECE from 6% to 9% in 2010. With the new learning during the Policy Forum, he mentioned that it might be necessary to increase the budget for ECCE to 15%. 32 H E Mr Im Sethy, Minister, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, Cambodia expressed appreciation to the two presentations on ECCE and reiterated the importance of making ECCE a national priority. 33 H E Mr Im Sethy informed that the education sector in Cambodia started from scratch in 1979 after it lost 80% of its teachers and only 10% of facilities had been preserved. With limited resources, the Ministry of Education collaborates with different stakeholders and pays more attention on the priorities. 34 The Ministry of Education developed the country’s policy on education, including Education For All, with 9 years of basic education starting from 6 year-old children. 35 The Government of Cambodia also developed pre-school programme for children aged 3, 4 and 5. The government encourages districts and schools to open pre-school and set school readiness programme for children before entering grade 1. 36 Policy on ECCE is still under second level of discussion with different sectors in Cambodia and would soon be made available. 37 H E Mr Im Sethy informed that policy on Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) should be formulated to pay more attention to mothers before and during pregnancy, as well as the health and development of children from birth. However, the mandate on ECCD in Cambodia is not under the Ministry of Education. It is a mandate of a different ministry and coordinated with various sectors. 38 Dr Clifford Meyers, Regional Advisor on Education, UNICEF East-Asia Pacific Regional Office added that Cambodia conducts longitudinal research in an attempt to show the importance of early year intervention on performance of children in school.

(6)

39 Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta, Early Childhood Care and Development Council of the Philippines, Philippines responded to Malaysia’s query on how to reach children in rural and difficult-to-reach areas. Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta explained that the Philippines is currently developing a programme called Home-based Learning whereby personnel of the villages in rural areas called Barangay Nutrition Scholars or Barangay Health Workers are tapped to train parents on proper parenting. 40 The approach requires clustering of 20 mothers where 3 to 5 of the mothers serve as facilitators of learning. The second step requires the mothers to teach their own children themselves. 41 At present, some non-governmental organizations are already implementing the home-based learning approach. The proposal for the strategy to become a national system is currently under review and awaiting legislation in the Philippines. 42 In response to Indonesia’s query on programme prioritization, Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta informed that the Early Childhood Care and Development Council of the Philippines is composed of different social departments of the government such as health, education, and social welfare. Each has its own programmes concerning 0-6 years old. The Board of the Council decides on one rational programme by integrating the best programmes of each department as well as funds. Finally, the implementation is taken care of by respective departments with the support of the local government executives. 43 Dr Claire McLachlan, Massey University College of Education, New Zealand responded to the query of Indonesia on minimum competency for service providers of ECCE and explained that in New Zealand, the minimum qualification is a pathway within the teacher education programme where a student could do a six-month short course which is a preparatory for university study. Then, a student could pursue a year-long programme called Certificate on ECCE which is often equivalent to a first year of a degree programme. Oftentimes, students who finished the one-year programme choose to work in ECCE centres first before going back to university for two more years required for a bachelor degree in education or a diploma in teaching. 44 Dr Claire McLachlan also mentioned that similar to the approach shared earlier by the Philippines, New Zealand also implements a programme where parents are taught strategies on how to interact with their children such as reading stories to their children, playing games, and others. In addition to this, home-based care providers to children are also common in New Zealand. 45 H E Datu Dr Jesli A Lapus, Secretary of Education of the Philippines and President of the SEAMEO Council said that the major constraints in the implementation of education programmes are lack of resources and the sheer magnitude of constituency such as in the case of Indonesia and the Philippines. 46 He mentioned the need to reflect on what is rationally and theoretically good and how prioritization should be done using management by exception while

(7)

recognizing constraints in capabilities and resources. As an example of this approach, he shared a recent experience of the Philippines. 47 In the country, measurement in academic performance reflects health and nutrition intervention on ECCE. The Department of Education took the lowest quartile schools which represent the low performing elementary schools. The value is equivalent to 2,000 schools out of 37,000 elementary schools in the country. For one year, the Department of Education focused the intervention on those schools particularly on health and nutrition aspect by ensuring that there were kindergarten schools in all the 2,000 schools, increasing the number of teachers and textbooks, reducing class size, and building more schools. 48 After a year, the Department of Education reviewed the measurements again and found out that the number has gone down from 2,000 to only 300 schools which proved the effectiveness of a focused intervention. 49 The Philippines also uses day-care centres where social workers serve as pre-school teachers. This minimizes capital outlay in construction of classrooms because existing day-care centers are being used to cater 5-year old children. 50 Mrs Tan Ching Yee, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education, Singapore concurred with the Philippines’ comment on prioritization and resource allocation which was referred to as “management by exception”. 51 Mrs Tan Ching Yee mentioned that ECCE has three inter-connected issues, namely: access, quality, and affordability. The issues are at two levels: 1) within the sector where the three factors interact with each other and none of the three should be sacrificed; and 2) across the sector where basic education and ECCE tend to compete in terms of resource allocation. 52 Mrs Tan Ching Yee informed that Singapore has a relatively small problem in terms of access with 2-3% children that remain unreached despite efforts to reach them. Singapore exerts effort to reach this percentage in order to truly universalize education in the country. 53 Since there is nearly universal access to ECCE in Singapore, the Ministry of Education is tackling the equally important problems of quality and affordability. 54 The Ministry of Education works on further improving the quality of primary education by investing in new school infrastructures, and more teachers. The Ministry also invests in intervention programmes in literacy and in mathematics for the pupils entering grade 1. 55 Most of the government education funds are focused on efforts to address the most pressing problems and where outcomes will be the greatest. 56 Dr Clifford Meyers, Regional Advisor on Education, UNICEF East-Asia Pacific Regional Office said that one of the most cost effective ways to improve and ensure quality basic education is to invest in early years.

(8)

57 He said that UNICEF observes great progress made in access and in increasing the number of children in primary schools. However, he said that large percentage of those children drop out from school and do not complete their basic education. 58 This problem of children leaving school early could be reduced and improved through better investment in early years. It may seem a tough decision but there is a need to invest in both basic education and ECCE. The return on investment is greater when the investment is made earlier. 59 Dr Gwang-Jo Kim, Director, UNESCO Regional Bureau of Education Bangkok informed that ECCE is a global mandate under the Education For All and the Millennium Development Goals. 60 In terms of agenda on ECCE, Dr Gwang-Jo Kim said that UNESCO and UNICEF are working very closely together to promote ECCE as much as possible. Within the United Nations system, ECCE is considered as one initiative. UN agencies work together at the global, regional and country levels to harmonize the core messages on ECCE to the member states. 61 Dr Gwang-Jo Kim announced that UNESCO would be hosting for the first time the World Conference on ECCE on 22 to 24 September 2010 in Moscow, Russian Federation. He invited the Ministers to the conference. 62 H E Prof Dr Fasli Jalal, Vice Minister, Ministry of National Education, Indonesia proposed that SEAMEO, UNESCO and the World Health Organization collaborate in strategizing ways to facilitate, nurture and empower ECCE in SEAMEO Countries. 63 Dr Vilma L Labrador, Undersecretary for Programs and Projects, Department of Education, Philippines emphasized the importance of quality component of education in critical years of the developmental stage of the child. 64 She said that there is a need to monitor the standard and procedure of teacher training to ensure able and better qualified teachers. 65 Ms Sivika Mektavatchaikul, Deputy Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education, Thailand informed that under the second round of education reform in Thailand, the Government provided stimulus package to fund ECCE staring from 3 years old. Ministries of social welfare and health implement projects on ECCE. 66 Ms Sivika Mektavatchaikul commended the Philippines’ experience on how the departments of education, health and social welfare could work together in training teachers, using day-care centres, and involving the parents in the initiatives. 67 H E Pehin Dato Haji Abdul Rahman bin Taib, Minister, Ministry of Education, Brunei Darussalam said that taking into consideration the lessons and experiences shared in the discussion, the SEAMEO countries have the necessary experience on ECCE. He said that it is every country’s desire to put priority on ECCE.

(9)

68 H E Pehin Dato Haji Abdul Rahman bin Taib suggested putting together the best practices shared so that SEAMEO could come up with a collaborative project. 69 Dr Clifford Meyers, Regional Advisor on Education, UNICEF East-Asia Pacific Regional Office referred to the recent hosting of Singapore of the Asia Pacific Regional Network on Early Childhood that was launched in December 2009 and informed that a number of countries had discussion on ECCE policy review, and ECCE governance and financing. He suggested the possibility of expanding the initiative further through SEAMEO, UNESCO and UNICEF so that good practices could be shared and documented. IV. CONCLUSION 70 Mr Ramon C Bacani, Undersecretary for Regional Operations, Department of Education, Philippines said that the discussion indicated that there is recognition of the importance of ECCE and that some SEAMEO countries have set ECCE as a national priority. 71 Mr Ramon C Bacani said that the concerns that surfaced in the discussion are significant. He cited the following common threads in the discussion:

a) General recognition of the importance of ECCE b) Governance issues relating to multiplicity of players c) Issues on delivery of ECCE d) Curriculum e) Access f) Teacher qualifications including that of the facilitators of learning g) Financing/resource issues in the light of competing demands h) Roles of private providers and local governments i) Government regulations and the policy/regulatory frameworks, and others.

72 In view of the issues raised, Mr Ramon C Bacani proposed a SEAMEO regional cooperation on policy research in ECCE. He said that the Philippines would lead the initiative and would allocate an initial funding amounting to US$ 50,000. 73 Dato’ Dr Ahamad bin Sipon, Director, SEAMEO Secretariat suggested that partners in the initiative could include SEAMEO, UNESCO, UNICEF and others. 73 H E Dr Jesli A Lapus, Secretary of Education, Department of Education, Philippines, and President of SEAMEO Council brought the session to a close by thanking all the speakers and the Council Members who shared their thoughts and experiences on a very relevant subject. He noted that the policy forum had been a lively and engaging session highlighting the knowledge and insights of the participants on ECCE.

(10)

V. AGREEMENT/CONSENSUS 74 Indonesia proposed that SEAMEO Regional Centres, the World Health Organization, and UNESCO work together in strategizing ways to facilitate, nurture and empower ECCE programmes in SEAMEO Member Countries. 75 Brunei Darussalam suggested compiling and documenting the experiences and good practices of SEAMEO Member Countries in ECCE. 76 The Philippines volunteered to lead a regional cooperation on Policy Research Project on ECCE. The Philippines will allocate an initial funding amounting to US$ 50,000.

(11)

Appendix 1

List of Participants SEAMEO MEMBER COUNTRIES:

Brunei Darussalam 1. H E Pehin Dato Haji Abdul Rahman bin Taib Minister Ministry of Education Old Airport Road, Berakas Bandar Seri Begawan BB3510 Brunei Darussalam Tel: (673) 238 4111 Fax: (673) 238 0050 E-mail: minister@moe.edu.bn

2. Datin Paduka Dayang Apsah binti Hj Abdul Majid Permanent Secretary Tel: (673) 238 1133 Fax: (673) 238 4019 E-mail: apsah.majid@moe.edu.bn

3. Mr Haji Suhaila bin Hj Abdul Karim Deputy Permanent Secretary (Core Education) E-mail: suhaila.karim@moe.edu.bn

4. Dr Haji Junaidi bin Hj Abdul Rahman Deputy Permanent Secretary (Higher Education) E-mail: junaidi.rahman@moe.edu.bn

5. Ms Kamaliah Abdul Rahman Secretary to the National Education Council E-mail: kamaliah.rahman@moe.edu.bn

6. Mr Haji Abdul Aziz bin Hj Mohd Hassan Deputy Director/Head of Strategic Management Unit E-mail: aziz.hassan@moe.edu.bn

7. Mr Abdul Khalid bin Hj Mahmood Head, International Affairs and Public Relations Unit E-mail: khalid.mahmood@moe.edu.bn

8. Mr Ibrahim bin Hj Abul Rahman Senior Special Duties Officer (Secondary) E-mail: ibrahim.rahman@moe.edu.bn

9. Mr Adi Mulyamin bin Haji Muhammad Education Officer International Affairs and Public Relations Unit E-mail: adimulyamin.muhammad@moe.edu.bn

(12)

Cambodia

10. H E Dr Im Sethy Minister Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport 80 Blvd Preah Norodom Phnom Penh, Cambodia Tel: (855-23) 217 253 Fax: (855-23) 217 250 E-mail: crsmeys@camnet.com.kh

11. H E Mr Koeu Nay Leang Under Secretary of State

12. Ms Hang Pheary Official of Pedagogical Research Department

13. Mr Om Sethy Director of Information and ASEAN Affairs Department E-mail: crsmeys@camnet.com.kh

14. Mr Sim Bora Deputy Chief of Minister Cabinet

Indonesia 15. H E Prof Dr Fasli Jalal Vice Minister Ministry of National Education A Building, 2nd Floor Jalan Jenderal Sudirman Senayan, Jakarta 10270, Indonesia Tel: (62-21) 573 3352 Fax: (62-21) 574 6395

16. Prof Dr Dodi Nandika Secretary General E-mail: d_nandika@depdiknas.go.id

17. Prof Dr Baedhowi Janwosumamo Director General for Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel

18. Dr Bambang Indriyanto Secretary of Directorate General of Basic and Secondary Education Management E-mail : indri.diknas@yahoo.com

19. Dr Sumarna Surapranata Director for Training and Development E-mail : pranata@indosat.blackberry.com

20. Ms Ira Hapsari Education Attache Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia in Manila

21. Dra Veronica Enda Wulandari, MSc Head of Multilateral and Regional Sub-Division E-mail: e.wulandari@yahoo.co.id

(13)

Lao PDR 22. H E Prof Dr Somkot Mangnomek Minister Ministry of Education Vientiane, Lao PDR

23. Mr Sengsomphone Viravouth Director General Department of Planning and Cooperation E-mail : sengsomphonep@yahoo.com

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Lao PDR:

24. Mr Kham-Inh Khitchadeth Deputy Director-General ASEAN Department E-mail : khaminh58@yahoo.com

Malaysia

25. Tan Sri Dr Zulkurnain bin Haji Awang Secretary General E-mail: zulkurnain@moe.gov.my

26. Mr Mohd Zulkifli Mohammed Under Secretary E-mail: zulkifli.mohammed@moe.gov.my

27. Dr Ng Soo Boon (Ms) Assistant Director Curriculum Development Division E-mail: sooboonng@yahoo.com

28. Ms Adibah Hanum Hussein Assistant Secretary (SEAMEO and ASEAN Desk) Policy and International Relations Division E-mail: adibah.hussien@moe.gov.my

Myanmar

29. H.E. Brig Gen Aung Myo Min Deputy Minister for Education Ministry of Education Bldg No.13, Nay Pyi Taw Union of Myanmar Tel: (95-67) 407 404, 405 Fax: (95-67) 407 403 E-mail: dcn@myanmar.com.mm; homoe@mptmail.net.mm

30. Dr Myo Myint Rector Yangon University of Foreign Languages 119-131 University Avenue Road Kamayut Township Yangon, Myanmar Tel: (95-1) 513 193, 202 Fax: (95-1) 513 194 E-mail: rectorufly@mptmail.net.mm

(14)

Philippines

31. H E Dr Datu Jesli A Lapus Secretary of Education Department of Education 2/F Rizal Building 1 DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue Pasig city, Metro Manila 1600 Philippines Tel: (63-2) 687 2922 Fax: (63-2) 636 4876 E-mail: jalapus@deped.go.ph

32. H E Mr Ramon C Bacani Undersecretary for Regional Operation

33. H E Vilma L Labrador Undersecretary for Programs and Projects

34. Mr Jesus Lorenzo R Mateo Assistant Secretary for Planning and Development

35. Mr Jonathan E Malaya Assistant Secretary and Legislative Liaison Officer

36. Dr Teresita G Inciong Assistant Secretary for Programs and Projects E-mail: tginciong@deped.go.ph

37. Mr Leticia B Pichay Assistant Secretary/Chief of Staff

38. Mr Geronimo L Sy Assistant Secretary/Senior Policy Adviser

39. Mr Mari Paul C Soriano Director III, Technical Service

40. Mr Emilio Abelita III Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs

41. Dr Yolanda S Quijano Director IV, Bureau of Elementary Education

42. Dr Lolita M Andrada Director IV, Bureau of Secondary Education

43. Rev Bienvenido Nebres, SJ President, Ateneo De Manila University

44. Mr Roger B Masapol OIC Division Chief, Planning and Programming Division E-mail: rbmssapol@gmail.com

Singapore 45. Mrs Tan Ching Yee Permanent Secretary (Education) E-mail: tan_ching_yee@moe.gov.sg

46. Ms Evelyn Khoo Director, Planning Division E-mail: evelyn_khoo@moe.gov.sg

(15)

47. Ms Leong May Fong Assistant Director, International Relations E-mail: leong_may_fong@moe.gov.sg

48. Ms Loh Jia-Yi Senior Officer, International Relations E-mail: loh_jia-yi@moe.gov.sg

49. Ms Karen Lim Senior Officer, International Relations E-mail: karen_lim@moe.gov.sg

Embassy of the Republic of Singapore

in the Philippines

50. H E Mr A Selverajah Ambassador

51. Mr Alexander Lim First Secretary to Philippines

Thailand

52. Ms Sivika Mektavatchaikul Deputy Permanent Secretary

53. Mr Wimon Homying Secretary to the Minister

54. Ms Duriya Amatavivat Expert, Bureau of International Cooperation

55. Ms Kanittha Hanirattisai Chief, Regional Cooperation Unit Bureau of International Cooperation

56. Ms Phimwarat Muangnil Foreign Relations Official Bureau of International Cooperation

57. Ms Komutee Yamolanan Foreign Relations Official Bureau of International Cooperation

58. Ms Woramon Navaroj Foreign Relations Official Bureau of International Cooperation

59. Ms Nongsilinee Mosika Chief, Unit of Public Relations Office of the Minister of Education

60. Ms Boosara Kanchanalai Director, ASEAN Division 4

Timor Leste 61. H E Dr Paulo Assis Belo Vice Minister of Education Ministry of Education Rua Vila-Verde Dili, Timor Leste

62. Ms Celia Gusmao Chief of Staff of Vice Minister Office

(16)

63. Dr Apolinario Magno MBA General Director Tel: (670) 730 4150 Fax: (670) 332 2033 E-Mail: apolimagno@gmail.com; polimagno@hotmail.com

Vietnam 64. H E Prof Dr Nguyen Thien Nhan Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Ministry of Education and Training 49 Dai Co Viet St Hanoi, Vietnam Tel: (84-4) 3869 2250 Fax: (84-4) 3869 3243 E-mail: ntnhan@moet.edu.vn

65. Mr Tran Ba Viet Dzung Director General International Cooperation Department Ministry of Education and Training Tel: (84-4) 3869 4883 Fax: (84-4) 3869 3243 E-mail: tbvdung@moet.edu.vn

66. Mr Phan Quang Dzung Secretary to Minister Deputy Chief of Office Ministry of Education and Training E-mail: pqdung@moet.edu.vn

67. Mr Nguyen Hong Son Deputy Director General Professional Education Department Ministry of Education and Training E-mail: nhson@moet.edu.vn

68. Mr Nguyen Xuan Hai Senior Officer International Cooperation Department Ministry of Education and Training E-mail: nxhai@moet.edu.vn

69. Ms Phung Thi Hong Van Officer International Cooperation Department Ministry of Education and Training E-mail: pthvan@moet.gov.vn; missvetcon@yahoo.com

70. Ms Tran Thi Kim Thuan Vietnam Institute for Educational Sciences Ministry of Education and Training

Office of Government Vietnam:

71. Mr Tran Nguyen Toan Director General International Relations Department E-mail: toan77tn@yahoo.com

(17)

72. Mr Hoang Dai Nghia Bodyguard to Deputy Prime Minister

73. Mr Tu Luong Correspondent Electronic Media of Government E-mail: tuluong@chinhphu.vn

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Vietnam:

74. Ms Ha Thi Ngoc Ha Deputy Director General ASEAN Department E-mail: asean.ngocha@mofe.gov.vn

SEAMEO ASSOCIATE MEMBERS :

Australia 75. Mr Scott J Evans Assistant Secretary Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relation DEEWR International Group Loc 72 NB5 GPO Box 9880 Canberra ACT 2601, Australia Tel: (61-2) 6121 6640 E-mail : scott.evans@deewr.gov.au

New Zealand

76. Mr Mike Connolly Counsellor (Education) for South East Asia Ministry of Education New Zealand High Commission Level 21, Menara IMC 8 Jalan Sultan Ismail 50250 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: (60-3) 2072 5248 Fax: (60-3) 2078-0387 E-mail: mike.connolly@minedu.govt.nz

Spain

77. Mr Vicente Francisco Valverde Counsellor of Education Ministry of Education of Spain Embassy of Spain in China Sky Plaza Building, Rm 07B, 20th Floor 46 Dong Zhi Men Wai Da Jie, Dong Cheng District 100027 Beijing, People’s Republic of China Tel: (86-10) 8460 8286 Fax: (86-10) 8460 8518 E-mail: vicente.valverde@educacion.es

(18)

SEAMEO AFFILIATE MEMBERS :

University of Tsukuba, Japan

78. Prof Dr Sato Mariko University of Tsukuba 1-1-1 Tennou-dai, Tsukuba Ibaraki, 305-8572 Japan Tel: (81-298) 53 7285 Fax: (81-298) 53 7288 E-mail: marikosa@sakura.cc.tsukuba.ac.jp

OBSERVERS:

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan

79. Ms Kuranishi Miyuki Deputy Director, International Affairs Division Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology 3-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo, Japan 100-8959 Tel : (81-3) 6734 3404 Fax : (81-3) 6734 3669 E-mail : coo@mext.go.jp

80. Ms Sendai Fumiko Office of the Director General for International Affairs E-mail : fsendai@mext.go.jp

ASEAN Secretariat 81. H E Dato’ Misran Karmain Deputy Secretary-General ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Department 70A, Jalan Sisingamangaraja Jakarta 12110, Indonesia Tel: (62-21) 726 2991 Fax: (62-21) 739 8234 E-mail: misran.karmain@asean.org

82. Ms Linda Lee Assistant Director ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Department E-mail : linda@asean.org

83. Mr Budidarmo P Kuntjoro-Jakti Technical Officer – Education, Youth and Training Division ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Department E-mail : budidarmo@asean.org

ASEAN University Network (AUN) / Thailand

84. Assoc Prof Dr Nantana Gajaseni Executive Director ASEAN University Network/Thailand 210, Jamjuree 1 Building Chulalongkorn University, Phyathai Bangkok 10330, Thailand Tel: (66-2) 215 3642 Fax: (66-2) 216 8808 E-mail: nantana@aun-sec.org

85. Ms Naparat Phirawattanakul Senior Programme Officer E-mail: naparat@aun-sec.org

(19)

British Council Philippines

86. Ms Amanda Burrell Director British Council/Philippines 10th Floor, Taipan Place F Ortigas Jr Road Ortigas Centre Pasig City 1605, Philippines Tel: (63-2) 914 1012 E-mail: amanda.burrell@britishcouncil.org.ph

UN HABITAT

87. Mr Kalyan Ray UN HABITAT Water Sanitation and Infrastructure Branch and Senior Advisor to the Executive Director BG 163, Sector II Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700091, India

UNESCO Bangkok/

Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education

88. Dr Gwang-Jo Kim Director UNESCO Bangkok 920 Sukhumvit Road Bangkok 10110 Tel: (66-2) 391 0977 #315 Fax: (66-2) 391 0866 E-mail: gj.kim@unescobkk.org

UNICEF EAPRO 89. Dr Clifford Meyers Regional Advisor Education UNICEF EAPRO 19 Phra Athit Rd Bangkok 10200, Thailand E-mail: cmeyers@unicef.org

SEAMEO Centres:

SEAMEO BIOTROP (SEAMEO Regional Centre for Tropical Biology)

90. Dr Bambang Purwantara Centre Director SEAMEO BIOTROP Jl Raya Tajur Km 6 P O Box 116 Bogor, Indonesia Tel: (62-251) 832 3848 Fax: (62-251) 332 6851 E-mail: b.purwantara@biotrop.org

91. Dr Irdika Mansur Deputy Director (Resource Management & Communication) E-mail: irdikam@biotrop.org

(20)

SEAMEO INNOTECH (SEAMEO Regional Centre for Educational Innovation and Technology)

92. Dr Erlinda C Pefianco Centre Director SEAMEO INNOTECH Commonwealth Avenue Diliman, Quezon City 1101 Philippines Tel: (63-2) 924 7681 Fax: (63-2) 928 7650 E-mail: iryn@seameo-innotech.org

93. Mr Philip Purnell Deputy Director for Programme E-mail : philip@seameo-innotech.org

94. Mr Benito E Benoza Head, Business, Planning and Partenerships Office E-mail : bennet@seameo-innotech.org

95. Mr Carolyn s Rodriguez Head, Knowledge Management Office E-mail : carol@seameo-innotech.org

96. Dr Sharon B Chao Head, Personnel Development and Management Office E-mail : sharon@seameo-innotech.org

97. Ms Elizabeth T Tiongson Finance Manager E-mail : beth@seameo-innotech.org

98. Ms Grace M Cuadro Administrative Office E-mail : grace@seameo-innotech.org

99. Mr Jesse M Tuason Information Officer E-mail: jesse@seameo-innotech.org

100. Ms Aury Anne Atienza-Santos Information and Documentation Assistant E-mail : aury@seameo-innotech.org

101. Ms Ma Victoria S Laguda Executive Secretary E-mail : vicky@seameo-innotech.org

SEAMEO QITEP in Language (SEAMEO Regional Centre for Quality Improvement of Teacher and Education Personnel in Language)

102. Dr Muhammad Hatta Acting Director SEAMEO QITEP in Language Jln Gardu, Srengseng Sawah Jagakarsa, Jakarta 12640, Indonesia Tel: (62-21) 727 1034 Fax: (62-21) 727 1032 E-mail: hatta55plp@yahoo.com

103. Ms Evarinayanti E-mail: evap4tk@yahoo.co.id

(21)

104. Ms Anna Dwi Kurniati E-mail: annadwee@yahoo.com

SEAMEO QITEP in Mathematics (SEAMEO Regional Centre for Quality Improvement of Teacher and Education Personnel in Mathematics)

105. Mr Herry Sukarman Director, CDMTEP Centre for Development & Empowerment of Mathematics Teacher & Educational Personnel (CDMTEP) SEAMEO QITEP in Mathematics Jalan Kaliurang Km 6 Sambisari, Condongcatur, Depok, Sleman, Yogyakarta 55281 Tel: (62-274) 881 717 Fax: (62-274) 885 752 E-mail: hs_p4tkipa@yahoo.com; p4tkmaternatika@yahoo.com

106. Mr Winarno Head, Programme and Information Department of

CDMTEP E-mail: winarnomsc@yahoo.co.id

SEAMEO QITEP in Science (SEAMEO Regional Centre for Quality Improvement of Teacher and Education Personnel in Science)

107. Dr Sediono Abdullah Acting Director SEAMEO QITEP in Science Jl Diponegoro 12 Bandung 40115 West Java, Indonesia Tel: (62-22) 423 1191 Fax: (62-22) 420 7922 E-mail: sediono_abdullah@yahoo.com;

krisnawati_umar@yahoo.com

108. Dr I Made Alit Mariana Head, Division of Programme and Information E-mail: mdalitm@yahoo.com

SEAMEO RECSAM (SEAMEO Regional Centre for Education in Science and Mathematics)

109. Dr Azian T S Abdullah Centre Director SEAMEO RECSAM Jalan Sultan Azlan Shah 11700 Gelugor Penang, Malaysia Tel: (60-4) 658 3266 (DL), 658 2284 Fax: (60-4) 657 2541 E-mail: director@recsam.edu.my; azian@recsam.edu.my

110. Mr Hj Ahmad bin Ramli Head of Division (Administration) E-mail: ahmad@recsam.edu.my

SEAMEO RELC (SEAMEO Regional Language Centre)

111. Mrs Tay Sor Har Centre Director SEAMEO RELC 30 Orange Grove Road Singapore 258352 Tel: (65) 6885 7810 Fax: (65) 6734 2753 E-mail: taysh@relc.org.sg; admin@relc.org.sg

(22)

SEAMEO RETRAC (SEAMEO Regional Training Centre)

112. Dr Do Huy Thinh Centre Director SEAMEO RETRAC 35 Le Thanh Ton Street Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Tel: (84-8) 824 5618 ext 110 Fax: (84-8) 823 2175 E-mail: dhthinh@vnseameo.org

113. Ms Nguyen Duc Bao Quynh Manager, International Development Department E-mail : ndbquynh@vnseameo.org

114. Mr Nguyen Tan Hung Head of Accounting and Finance Department E-mail: nthung@vnseameo.org

115. Mr Nguyen Xuan Hai

SEAMEO RIHED (SEAMEO Regional Centre for Higher Education and Development)

116. Prof Dr Supachai Yavaprabhas Centre Director SEAMEO RIHED 5th fl, Commission on Higher Education Bldg 328 Sri Ayutthaya Road, Rajathevee Bangkok 10400, Thailand Tel: (66-0) 2644 9856-63 Fax: (66-0) 2644 5421 E-mail: supachai.yava@gmail.com; rihed@rihed.seameo.org

117. Dr Chantavit Sujatanond Special Advisor E-mail: chantavit@uni.net.th

118. Ms Thanthakorn Phuangsawat Programme Officer E-mail: thanthakorn_p@yahoo.com

119. Ms Phunyanuch Pattanotai Programme Officer E-mail: aomminy_gal@hotmail.com

SEAMEO SEAMOLEC (SEAMEO Regional Open Learning Centre)

120. Dr Gatot Hari Priowirjanto Centre Director SEAMEO SEAMOLEC Kompleks Universitas Terbuka Jalan Cabe Raya, Pondok Cabe Pamulang 15418 Tangerang, Indonesia Tel: (62-21) 742 2184 Fax: (62-21) 742 2276 E-mail: gatot@seamolec.org; secretariat@seamolec.org gatotpriowirjanto@gmail.com

121. Mr Renaldo Rhesky PR/M Staff E-mail: edo@seamolec.org

(23)

SEAMEO SEARCA (SEAMEO Regional Centre for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture)

122. Dr Gil C Saguiguit, Jr Centre Director SEAMEO SEARCA College Los Baños Laguna 4031, Philippines Tel: (63-49) 536 2365 - 67 Fax: (63-49) 536 7097 E-mail: gcs@agri.searca.org

123. Dr Francisco F Peñalba Deputy Director – Administration E-mail : ffp@agri.searca.org

SEARCA GB Member : 124. Dr Luis Rey I Velasco Chancellor, University of the Philippines, Los Banos (UPLB) and Member of SEARCA Governing Board E-mail : office_administration@uplb.edu.ph

SEAMEO SPAFA (SEAMEO Regional Centre for Archaeology and Fine Arts)

125. Dr Pisit Charoenwongsa Centre Director SEAMEO SPAFA 81/1 Sri Ayutthaya Road Samsen, Dusit Bangkok 10300, Thailand Tel: (66-0) 2280 4022-9 Fax: (66-0) 2208 4030 E-mail: pisit@seameo-spafa.org; spafa@seameo-spafa.org

126. Mr Kevin Charles Kettle Project Development Officer E-mail: Kevin@seameo-spafa.org

127. Mr Girard Philip E Bonotan Documentation Officer E-mail: girard@seameo-spafa.org

SEAMEO TROPMED

Central Office

(SEAMEO Regional Tropical Medicine and Public Health Network)

128. Prof Dr Pratap Singhasivanon Secretary General/Coordinator SEAMEO TROPMED Network 420/6 Rajvithi Road, Bangkok 10400, Thailand Tel: (66-2) 354 9145 - 6 Fax: (66-2) 354 9144 E-mail: tmpsh@mahidol.ac.th; deantm@mahidol.ac.th

129. Prof Dr Ma Sandra B Tempongko Deputy Coordinator E-mail: jolinatwoph@yahoo.com; tmseanet@diamond.mahidol.ac.th

(24)

- TROPMED/Indonesia (SEAMEO TROPMED

Regional Centre for Community Nutrition)

130. Dr Ir Siti Muslimatun Deputy Director for Resources Management and Marketing SEAMEO TROPMED/Indonesia Jl Salemba Raya No. 6 Jakarta 10430, Indonesia Tel: (62-21) 3193 0205 Fax: (62-21) 391 3933 E-mail: rccn@seameo-rccn.org; smuslimatun@seameo-rccn.org

131. Dr Bachtiar Alam Director of Directorate of Research and Community Service University of Indonesia DRPM Building 2nd Floor Kampus UI Depok 16424, Indonesia Tel: (62-21) 727 0152 Fax: (62-21) 788 49119 E-mail: bachtiar.alam@ui.edu; bachtiar@centrin.net.id

- TROPMED/Malaysia (SEAMEO TROPMED Regional Centre for Microbiology, Parasitology and Entomology)

132. Dr Shahnaz Murad Director SEAMEO TROPMED/Malaysia Institute for Medical Research Jalan Pahang 50588 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: (60-3) 2616 2602 Fax: (60-3) 2693 9335 E-mail: shahnaz@imr.gov.my

- TROPMED/Philippines (SEAMEO TROPMED Regional Centre for Public Health, Hospital Administration, Environmental and Occupational Health)

133. Dr Nina Gloriani Director SEAMEO TROPMED/Philippines College of Public Health University of the Philippines Manila 625 Pedro Gil Street, Ermita Manila, Philippines 1000 Tel: (63-2) 524 2703 Fax: (63-2) 521 1394 E-mail: ninagloriani@yahoo.com

- TROPMED/Thailand (SEAMEO TROPMED Regional Centre for Tropical Medicine, Tropical Paediatrics)

134. Prof Sasithon Pukrittayakamee Deputy Director SEAMEO TROPMED/Thailand Deputy Dean, International Relations and Networking E-mail: tmspt@mahidol.ac.th; sasithon@tropmedres.ac

SEAMEO VOCTECH (SEAMEO Regional Centre for Vocational and Technical Education)

135. Mr Alias Haji Abu Bakar Centre Director SEAMEO VOCTECH Jalan Pasar Baharu Gadong Gadong BE 1318, Brunei Darussalam Tel: (673) 244 7992, 244 7980 Fax: (673) 244 7955 E-mail: alias@voctech.org.bn

(25)

136. Dr Paryono Deputy Director E-mail: paryono@voctech.org.bn

SEAMEO Secretariat 137. Dato’ Dr Ahamad bin Sipon Director E-mail : secretariat@seameo.org

138. Mr Noorhaizamdin Abdullah Deputy Director (Programme and Development)

139. Dr Tinsiri Siribodhi Deputy Director (Administration & Communication)

140. Mr Duc Dac Nguyen Programme Officer I (Development)

141. Dr Bunyamin Maftuh Programme Officer II (Evaluation)

142. Ms Abigail Cuales Lanceta Programme Officer III (Information)

143. Mr Shazril Helmi bin Samsudin Programme Support Officer

144. Ms Natcha Kampiranond Administration Manager

145. Mr Rawude Sukmongkol Finance Manager

146. Ms Tiraporn Tangkoskul Documentation and Resources Officer

147. Mr Thanit Promsalee Information Technology Officer

148. Ms Piyapa Su-angavatin External Relations Officer

149. Dr Razianna Abdul Rahman Special Assistant Officer to SEAMEO Secretariat Director

(26)

Appendix 2

45th SEAMEO Council Conference Cebu City, The Philippines

POLICY FORUM DISCUSSION NOTE Among the SEAMEO Member States, there is a variety of policy and practices adapted to make the most of the vital years from Age 0 to 6 years. Moreover, there are different forms of governance over early childhood care and education. The policy forum has the purpose of engaging the education ministers into sharing experiences with each other and hopefully come to an appreciation that all future learning interventions will grow from the core of early childhood development. Two principal presentations are expected to lead off and focus reflection on early childhood education:

Hon. Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta, Chairperson of the Early Childhood Care and Development Council of the Philippines

“Making Early Childhood Care and Development A National Priority: The Philippine Experience” will cover the evolution of programmes for the welfare of children enacted in the Philippines, and the legal, policy and governance frameworks that are in place which serve as bases for transition plans from early care to early learning.

Dr. Claire McLachlan, Associate Professor, Early Years Education, Massey University College of Education, New Zealand “Understanding the Vital pathways for Future Learning: An Analysis of New Zealand’s Approach to Early Childhood Education” examines the current model of early childhood education adopted in New Zealand and how it emerged and the policy decisions that enabled the development of the current systems.

As a mechanism to focus reflection and sharing of ideas in a very important aspect of education, the discussions leading off from the presentations are expected to surface the current and future practices, approaches and strategies adopted and the development of early learning services in the region. Some of the points of discussion may cover the following:

• Approaches and strategies of governance • Role of public-private partnerships in early learning provision • Mechanisms for quality assurance (regulation, accreditation of service providers,

competency standards of practitioners) and standard-setting frameworks • Integration and interfaces of early learning with the formal basic education cycle • Best practices in early learning provision • Future trends in early learning • Non-traditional and innovative delivery modalities

(27)

• Financing models and resource provision by state/national bodies, local governments, and communities

Individual country sharing may be guided by the following questions:

1. What is the vision for early childhood care and education in your country? How is (or how will it be) it linked to the formal education system?

2. What are the key players or principal government bodies / agencies dealing with pre-primary education and child care in your country? Are they the same government bodies that address (1) standards and regulation? (2) policy? (3) service delivery? (4) provision of support services and funding?

3. If there are multiple government bodies/agencies dealing with early childhood care and education in your country how would you describe the kind of relationship between and/or among the ministries?

4. Please share some of the more innovative practices you are now implementing in your country particularly for home-based programs for early childhood care and education?

5. What are the most urgent and pressing issues relating to provision of pre-primary education in your country? How are they being addressed? Is there scope for SEAMEO-wide cooperation to address these issues?

(28)

Appendix 3

“MAKING EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE & EDUCATION A NATIONAL PRIORITY IN THE PHILIPPINES”

Presented at the Policy Forum Session of the 45th SEAMEO Council Conference

and 5th ASED Meeting On 28 January 2010 in Mactan, Cebu

By Secretary Teresa Aquino-Oreta Chairman, Early Childhood Care and Development Council

Secretary Jesli A. Lapus, SEAMEO Council President and Secretary of the Philippine Department of Education, The Ministers of Education of all member states of SEAMEO, Heads and members of delegations of associate and affiliate members, Other Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen, INTRODUCTION Let me add my own words of congratulations to Sec. Jesli A. Lapus on his election as president of the SEAMEO Council and present my greetings of the highest esteem to all SEAMEO Council members. I thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation at the policy forum session of the conference on the theme “Understanding the Vital Years for Future Learning.”

In my paper entitled “Making Early Childhood Care and Education A National Priority in the Philippines” I shall talk about our experiences and the lessons we had learned in order to bring together all key players at the national and local levels thus ensuring that all Filipino kids from ages 0 to 6 will have every chance to develop their fullest potentials, no matter where they are and what their circumstances in life may be.

Today early childhood care and development has finally become a national priority. Still there are a thousand and more steps to take in what has been for us a long, long journey. BRAIN DEVELOPMENT IN THE EARLY YEARS Let me begin with references1 to some major research studies by eminent educators, psychologists, scientists and medical doctors on brain development in the early years. Many of these studies – both local and international -- have informed significant legislative and executive actions that now assure a full range of health, nutrition, early education and social services programs to promote the optimum growth and development of young children aged 0 to 6. We find guidance from researchers who have proved beyond doubt that fifty percent (50%) of a person’s ability to learn is developed in the first four years of life and another thirty percent (30%) is developed by the 8th birthday. We realize that the vital years lay down the 1 The Learning Revolution by Gorden Dryden and Dr. Jeannette Vos

(29)

pathways on which all future learning is based and that everything else we learn in life will be built on that base. We are concerned with reports that nearly every country spends well under ten percent (10%) of its educational budget on the years where fifty percent (50%) of development takes place.

The way the brain develops in the early years of a person is described as follows2: By birth, most children have 100 million active brain cells, and these have made 50 trillion connections with other brain cells and other parts of the body. In the first month of life as a baby’s senses reacts to his/her environment he/she develops new “synaptic” connections at the phenomenal rate of up to 3 billion a second. In the first six months a baby will babble using all the sounds in all the languages in the world, but will then learn to talk only the sounds and words picked up from the environment, particularly from parents. The brain will discard the ability to speak in languages not heard. By eight months a baby’s brain has about 1,000 trillion connections! After that the number of connections begin to decline unless the child is exposed to stimulation through all senses. By age 10 years or so about half the connections have died off in the average child, but that leaves him about 500 trillion that last through a lifetime.

All the studies underscore the importance of the first few years of life. We are told

“that doesn’t mean that the other years are unimportant, but … research shows that children who have a slow start … are likely to experience problems right through childhood and into adolescent.” If we are to believe the experts and accept as true and correct the results of several major research studies conducted over many years, we can only derive one logical conclusion. Which is that we all need to work together to unlock the powers of the vital years from 0 to 6. Waiting for our young children to come to school for grade one at the age of 6 may be too late! In the Philippines and possibly also in some other developing countries in Southeast Asia one of every three pupils enrolled in grade 1 have had no previous experiences in early childhood care and learning. This is why the Philippine Department of Education has been reaching out to offer kindergarten classes to the 5 year-olds and supervising classes offered by publicly-organized day care learning centers as well as fee-paying private schools including madrasah pre-schools. Studies also reveal that the unstimulated brain is a model with very few interacting connections. On the other hand the stimulated brain will show a young brain rich in connections from stimulating experiences. These statements may pertain only to some developing countries in the region. But we know that among many poor and disadvantaged

2 Inside the Brain by Ronald Kotulak

(30)

families it is not uncommon for young children to have little or no opportunities for any form of emotional, social or intellectual interaction and stimulation. UNLOCKING THE VITAL YEARS A giant first step we have taken in the Philippines is to recognize the various stages of educational development that are put forward as taking place sequentially or in cycles. The five (5) cycles of educational development being the following:

No. 1 - The cycle for ages 0 to 6 is the foundation cycle. No. 2 - The cycle for ages 6 to 12 is the elementary education cycle. No. 3 - The cycle for ages 12 to 18 is the secondary education cycle. No. 4 - The cycle for ages 18 to 24 is the higher education cycle. No. 5 - The cycle for ages 24 and above is the continuing education cycle.

Many among us may note a resemblance to the sequence of educational development often regarded as lifelong and lifewide learning.

It may be that in some of our countries the responsibility for the foundation cycle of young children ages 0 to 6 is a sole responsibility of the ministry of education or shared with other agencies or institutions. Realizing that children ages 6 to 12 who enter the 2nd cycle of elementary education perform better because they had good experiences in the foundation cycle it is imperative to examine varying roles and relationships.

In order to look into roles and relationships of various national and local government agencies responsible for early childhood care and development the Philippines enacted in Year 2000 Republic Act No. 8980 which is “An Act Promulgating A Comprehensive Policy and National System for Early Childhood Care and Development.”3 As then a Senator of the Republic, I was the principal author. Republic Act 8980 unlocked for us the powers of the vital years from ages 0 to 6

More recently the President of the Philippines issued Executive Order No. 778

“Transforming the Council for the Welfare of Children into the Early Childhood Care and Development Council”4 where I now serve as Chairperson of the Governing Board. The board members are department secretaries of the Philippine Departments (Ministries) of Social Welfare and Development, Education, Health, the National Nutrition Council and the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines.

Through Republic Act 8980 and Executive Order 778 early childhood care and

development has finally become a national priority. An alliance was established that made possible multi-sectoral and inter-agency collaboration at the national and local levels among government agencies, service providers, families and communities, public and private sectors, nongovernment organizations, professional associations and academic institutions.

A national strategy was adopted to raise awareness about the importance of early

childhood care and development, promote community development efforts to improve the

3 R.A. 8980 was enacted by into law by President Joseph Estrada in October 2000. 4 E.O. 778 was issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in January 2009.

(31)

quality of life for young children and families and educate parents and caregivers to deliver services to children ages 0 to 6.

THE LONG JOURNEY But our journey has been long. The Council for the Welfare of Children or CWC was created in 1974 under the Office of the President by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 6035 known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code. It was declared a policy of the State that “the Child is one of the most important assets of the nation. Every effort should be exerted to promote his welfare and enhance his opportunities for a useful and happy life.” A “Child” as used in the Code referred to persons below twenty-one (21) years of age except those emancipated in accordance with law.

In 1981 through Executive Order No. 7086 the Office of the President was reorganized and the Council for the Welfare of Children was transferred to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

In 1987 through Executive Order No. 2337 the role and organizational structure of the

Council for the Welfare of Children were redefined and membership was expanded to enable the Council to more effectively carry out its responsibilities under the law and to ensure the assistance and cooperation of government agencies concerned with child and youth welfare and development. In 1990 Republic Act No. 69728 was enacted which is “An Act Establishing A Day Care Center In Every Barangay, Instituting Therein A Total Development and Protection of Children Program.” Filipino children up to six (6) years of age were assured total development and protection through day care centers. In 1995 Executive Order No. 2759 was issued “Creating a Committee for the Special Protection of Children From All Forms of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty, Exploitation, Discrimination and Other Conditions Prejudicial To Their Development.” The Council for the Welfare of Children was mandated to act as Committee Secretariat. In 2000 Republic Act No. 898010 was enacted which is “An Act Promulgating A Comprehensive Policy and a National System for Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD).” The Council for the Welfare of Children was transferred back to the Office of the President and was mandated to also function as the National ECCD Coordinating Council. In 2007 Executive Order No. 63011 was issued “Transferring the Council for the Welfare of Children from the Office of the President to the Department of Social Welfare and Development.” The Department of Social Welfare and Development was designated the focal agency to oversee the operations of the CWC Secretariat and harmonize the effective and

5 Signed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos in December 1974 6 Signed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1981 7 Signed by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 22, 1987. 8 Signed by President Corazon C. Aquino on November 23, 1990. 9 Signed by President Fidel V. Ramos on September 14, 1995. 10 Signed by President Joseph E. Estrada in October 2000. 11Signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on June 28, 2008.

(32)

efficient operationalization of its mandates specifically in monitoring the implementation and enforcement of all laws for children. Through the years since 1974 the functions of the Council for the Welfare of Children have been expanded to include not only its original functions under Presidential Decree No. 603 and Executive Order No. 233 series of 1988 but also as the National ECCD Coordinating Council Secretariat. In some ways focus on the welfare and benefits of young children ages 0 to 6 diminished. In 2009 Executive Order No. 77812 was issued “Transforming the Council for the Welfare of Children Into the Early Childhood Care and Development Council.” The ECCD Council is now attached to the Office of the President and mandated “to support the implementation of the full range of health, nutrition, early education and social services programs that provide for the basic holistic needs of young children from birth to age six (6) and to promote their optimum growth and development.” There are key messages to learn from the Philippine experience. One is the importance of keeping a sharp focus on the early years of a child’s development from ages 0 to 6. Another is that alliances and networking must be encouraged among various stakeholders and then ensuring that the involvement of key players remains a healthy and sustainable undertaking. Finally there must be found a champion if possible from within the highest level of government who will endorse and push forward an agenda for the 0 to 6 children. THE NEXT STEPS The many laws and executive orders promulgated through almost four decades since the initial affirmative action for Filipino children began in 1974 are even now appropriate and provide a solid ground for national policies and practices on early childhood care and development. But many are challenges we face in implementing such laws and executive orders. One such challenge is the lack of available information to inform decisions. Very often available data are inaccurate, outdated, limited and too general to be of value. Hence, one of the first programs approved by the Early Childhood Care and Development Council as part of the agency’s work plan is a research program to establish a database that will guide a more efficient and effective implementation of the national ECCD policies. Some of the researches that are now being undertaken include national surveys on: (1) the school readiness of 6 year-olds in grade one who have had no previous experiences in early education (2) the current practices of early childhood care and education in the country (3) a profile of day care workers in the country and (4) a profile of the country’s day care centers. DACUM or “Developing a Curriculum” workshops are being conducted among ECCD professionals and experts for the purpose of: (1) designing a learning framework for early education programs and (2) defining the competencies required of a day care worker and/or an ECCD teacher. Focused group discussions help validate emerging issues and resolve valid concerns. One of SEAMEO’s regional centers – SEAMEO INNOTECH – has been providing the Council technical assistance in the research work.

12 Signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on January 13, 2009.

(33)

CLOSING REMARKS As I stated in my opening remarks we have just taken the first steps in a journey of a thousand miles. We are glad to participate at this policy forum in the hope that we may learn and be enriched by the conversation and discussions that will follow. Thank you.

# # # #

(34)

Appendix 4

Understanding the vital pathways for future learning: an analysis of New Zealand’s approach to early childhood education

Claire McLachlan, Ph.D

Associate Professor, Early Years Education Massey University College of Education

Private Bag 11 222 Palmerston North NEW ZEALAND

Phone (64 6) 356 9099, Ext 8957 Email: c.j.mclachlan@massey.ac.nz

Paper presented to the SEAMEO 2010 policy forum, Shangri-La Hotel, Cebu City,

Phillipines, 28 January 2010. Abstract New Zealand has an internationally unique approach to early childhood education, which includes a bicultural early childhood curriculum, a robust infrastructure of organisation and management overseen by the New Zealand Ministry of Education and a growing reputation for innovation in early childhood teaching and learning. This paper examines how the current model of early childhood education emerged, the policy decisions that enabled current systems to be developed, the importance of the early childhood curriculum, teacher education and professional development and recent developments during time of recession in New Zealand. Some recommendations, based on the New Zealand experience are proposed. Introduction Like many countries, early childhood education as a formal construct is in New Zealand is relatively recent, although there has been formal and informal provision for children younger than school age for around 120 years. This paper will briefly explain how the New Zealand conception of “early childhood education” developed and how it has been adopted by government and formalised via regulatory and financial systems. The paper will conclude with some speculation on the directions of the new National government, which came to power in 2008, are taking, along with recommendations based on the lessons learned in New Zealand. A brief history of early childhood education in New Zealand Early childhood education had its birth in New Zealand in 1889 in Dunedin, when the first kindergarten was established to cater for the children of the poor who were left to play on the street while their parents worked (Hughes, 1989). The initiative was based on Christian and philanthropic motivations by middle class members of the Dunedin community. The first child care centre was established by the Catholic Church in Wellington in 1908, again based on Christian motivations of caring for children of the poor whose mothers were working (Cook, 1985). For the first part of the 20th century, kindergartens developed across the country, like they did in many Western nations, based on the philosophies of German philosopher Friedrich Froebel and the notion of children learning through play in a natural

(35)

environment and involvement with educational materials, that he called “gifts” that encouraged learning. Child care developed in a more ad hoc way with some established centres and a great deal of “back yard” care or “baby farming”, where mothers took in other people’s children during the day (Cook, 1985; May, 1997). The first labour government in New Zealand in 1935 brought about sweeping changes in education in all sectors; making secondary school compulsory for all children and also promoting progressive notions of education, based on John Dewey’s theories, of young children learning through active participation with real experiences such as blocks, carpentry, dolls and water play. With the support of the Minister of Education, Peter Fraser and the visionary Director General of Education, Clarence Beeby, Susan Isaacs was invited to New Zealand in 1937 to talk about the psychoanalytic notions of child development trialled in British nursery schools, such as the Malting House nursery, which were based on Freudian theories of the “natural child” and the importance of children’s “free play” in building healthy psychological development. With encouragement from government, the first nursery playcentres (or playcentres, as they have come to be known) were established in New Zealand, run by middle class parent cooperatives in various parts of the country (Stover, 2010). Under the leadership of the Clarence Beeby, ideas for post-war education were circulated in a publication in 1944 entitled Education for today and tomorrow (Mason, 1944, in Stover, 2010). This document posed challenging questions about ‘preschool education’, including the need for all day nursery schools, collaboration between services and the need for teacher education. The appointment of a first ever Supervisor of Pre-school services in 1946 signalled a change in kindergarten practices, whereby teachers were encouraged to let children “be free” by giving them choices, to minimise routines and to encourage “free play” (May, 1997). Understandings of free play were published in a number of influential playcentre publications, which were used by the kindergarten training colleges for helping student teachers to understand how to promote “free play” (Stover, 2010). In her analysis of the history of the role of play in early childhood in New Zealand, Stover (2010) argues that “free play” was in its heyday across the diverse services for young children from the 1950s to 1980s, although not always well understood or accepted by families or the wider education community, and there were also other services with distinctly different philosophies emerging during this time. In addition to the already established kindergartens, childcare centres and playcentres, playgroups, Montessori preschools, Steiner kindergartens, Māori language total immersion centres (Kohanga Reo), and more recently Pacific Island language nests emerged, creating a diverse and complex early childhood sector. As Judith Loveridge and I have argued elsewhere:

Early childhood education in New Zealand is the result of historical, cultural and political factors, as well response to dominant and emerging theories of how children learn. It has variously promoted social regulation, philanthropic concern for children, support for mothers, equality for women, cultural assimilation and survival, and economic outcomes. Services have emerged in response to these discourses and the sector has become diverse and complex (Loveridge & McLachlan, 2009, p. 22).

Policy reform in the 1980’s New Zealand faced its next major overhaul of education in the mid eighties, following the election of the fourth Labour government, under the leadership of Prime Minister David Lange. Labour took power in the face of a fiscal and financial crisis, which precipitated a number of major reforms, including many to education. One of these was the decision to

(36)

move the governance of child care centres to the Department of Education (now called Ministry of Education) from the Department of Social Welfare, where it had previously resided, to join the kindergarten associations, which had traditionally resided in the Department of Education, under the governance of the State Sector Act and with full funding of kindergartens by the state. This decision was prompted by a number of serious complaints about quality of childcare and prompted a reconceptualisation of how all early childhood services should be funded and regulated (May, 1997). This reorganisation meant that both child care and education were funded from Vote Education funds, and all issues to do with children from birth became the responsibility of the newly formed Ministry of Education, while the funding of family financial support and social welfare became the responsibility of the Ministry of Social Development. This was a significant and important development, providing the financial and regulatory framework that enabled establishment of an early childhood sector in New Zealand. Te One (2003) argued that the education system had been seriously challenged in the years leading up to fourth Labour government: “The education system was considered over centralised and unresponsive to community needs, and to have failed to deliver social and educational equity; indeed the educational failure of Māori had become a “statistical artefact” (Benton, 1990)” (p. 19). Te One further argues that the government undertook a bold social experiment, based on a philosophy of individualism and the supremacy of the market, which involved market driven provision of services, including education. The rationale was that having children was a personal choice and educating them was a private responsibility and hence education belonged in the private domain. Te One challenged the assumptions that families were ready, willing and able to exercise choice and secondly that communities were in a position to provide them with choice. As part of this rationale, however, in 1988 the Government established a working group to “provide a short restatement of the purpose, place, form and function of early childhood education” (Department of Education, 1988, p. iv). The resulting Education to be more and Before five: Early childhood care and education in New Zealand documents (Department of Education, 1988 a & b) were the early childhood equivalent of the compulsory sectors’ Tomorrow’s schools document (Department of Education, 1988c) released at the same time. One of the key elements of Before Five was that introduction of a contract with the government called a “charter”, which was designed as a statement of objectives and practices, drawn up in consultation with parents, in keeping with the national guidelines for early childhood. In return, chartered early childhood services would receive funding for the centre as a bulk grant. Before five also gave equivalent status to primary and secondary education, and although controversial, it was accepted by both community and privately owned early childhood services (Te One, 2003), enabling a legitimate teaching career pathway for teachers. Education to be more cites the outcomes of early childhood education as increased educational achievement and reduced need for special education, increased likelihood of employment, reduced delinquency and teenage pregnancy and an economic outcome of paying for itself by saving the taxpayer $400 – 700 for every $100 spent on early childhood. The rationale underpinning these documents was twofold: education was defined in economic terms as having long term benefits for children, families; and the state’s economy. Education was thus a “lever” for achieving state goals. The government had two goals: to equip New Zealanders with 21st century skills; and to reduce systematic underachievement in education; sometimes known by the catch phrase “raise achievement and reduce disparity” (Adams &

(37)

Bethell, 2005, p. 144). The second agenda, achieved through the introduction of a “charter” in each sector, concerned increasing accountability and government control. The end result of these reforms in the late eighties was the establishment of an identifiable sector, known as “early childhood education”, which was unified at a policy level, rather than in any commonality of philosophy or practice. That unification was to come about through the 1990’s and beyond through the development of an early childhood curriculum, which it has been argued came about as a result of a series of residential courses run at Lopdell House in Auckland on the implementation of policy initiatives in this new identified sector of early childhood education (Te One, 2003). Curriculum development in the 1990’s The intervention by the state into early childhood education in the late 1980’s led to a succession of new statutory requirements, and a plethora of policy and guiding documents, including the following:

• a national curriculum for early childhood education, Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education, 1996);

• Quality in Action (Ministry of Education, 1998); • the Education (Early Childhood Centre) Regulations (1998); • Quality Journey (Ministry of Education, 1999); • a Strategic Plan for early childhood, Pathways to the future (Ministry of Education,

2002); • Kei tua o te pae: Early childhood exemplars (2004); • Self review guidelines for early childhood education (Ministry of Education, 2007); • Foundations for discovery (Ministry of Education, 2007); • Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations (2008); and • Licensing Criteria for Early Childhood Education (2008).

The curriculum itself was developed by two academics, Helen May and Margaret Carr, now respectively professors of education at Otago and Waikato universities, in consultation with members of the Te Kohanga Reo Trust (representing indigenous people) and representatives of the various early childhood sector groups from around the country. It was distributed in draft form for trial in 1993 and significantly revised and distributed in its final version in 1996. It has been in use ever since, but has not been evaluated, unlike the National Curriculum which was distributed in 1993, evaluated twice by a representative of the Australian and British Councils for Educational Research and a significantly revised version was released in 2007. Of significance is that the new national curriculum document has been aligned to Te Whāriki to some extent. The curriculum includes the following aspirational statement:

This curriculum is founded on the following aspirations for children: to grow up as competent and confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body, and spirit, secure in their sense of belonging and in the knowledge that they make a valued contribution to society (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 9)

The curriculum is designed for children from birth to school entry, which typically is at the age of five (most children start school on their 5th birthday), but children do not legally have to attend school until they are six years of age. Early childhood education is not compulsory in New Zealand, but it is highly recommended and over 90% of four year olds have some form of early childhood education, as I will discuss further later.

(38)

The term curriculum is defined as the “sum total of the experiences, activities, and events, whether direct or indirect, which occur within an environment designed to foster children’s learning and development” (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 10). The curriculum is bicultural and includes a section written in Māori for the use of kohanga reo centres (Māori language immersion centres). The curriculum integrates care and education. The term “whāriki” means woven mat in Māori and implies that curriculum will be woven from the principles, strands and goals of the curriculum, along with the different structures and philosophies of the early childhood services. The curriculum has four broad principles:

1. Empowerment – the early childhood curriculum empowers the child to learn and grow. 2. Holistic development – the early childhood curriculum reflects the holistic way children learn

and grow. 3. Family and community – the wider world of family and community is an integral part of the

early childhood curriculum. 4. Relationships – children learn through responsive and reciprocal relationships with people,

places and things. In addition, it has four major strands, with an accompanying set of goals:

1. Well-being – the health and well being of the child are protected and nurtured. 2. Belonging – children and their families feel a sense of belonging. 3. Contribution – opportunities for learning are equitable, and each child’s contribution is

valued. 4. Communication – the languages and symbols of their own and other cultures are promoted

and protected.

Currently, all licensed early childhood centres (those that have met Ministry of Education licensing criteria) are required to demonstrate that they are enacting a curriculum within their service, although use of Te Whāriki is implicit within licensing requirements, rather than an explicit requirement. Each centre is reviewed on a three yearly cycle by the Education Review Office, the evaluation arm of the national education system, using a set of Evaluation Indicators designed for early childhood education (ERO, 2004). The resulting reviews are public documents, which parents can access as they making decisions about use of an early childhood service. The reviews provide an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of each centre, rather than an analysis of children or their achievement. The review cycle is shortened if there are any issues or concerns identified at the three year review. Ongoing and unresolved issues result in loss of license and closure of centres. In addition, the Ministry of Education can respond to complaints about services and can review whether services are meeting licensing requirements between ERO reviews. When you examine curricula from around the world, there is great diversity in what is presented – some are specific, some quite general. According to Scott (2008) a curriculum can be organised specifically to include four dimensions:

1. Aims, goals, objectives or outcome statements – what do we want this curriculum to achieve, what would we expect to be the outcomes as a result of participating in the implementation of that curriculum?

2. Content, domains, or subject matter – what will we include or exclude from our curriculum?

3. Methods or procedures – what teaching methods or approaches will we use to achieve our aims to achieve these goals or outcomes?

4. Evaluation and assessment – how will we know when we have achieved them? But what governments or society at large wants for its youngest citizens will vary depending upon the community. Bernstein (1996) argues that there are essentially two models of

(39)

curriculum: either performance or competence in orientation; and performance models of curriculum are the most dominant around the world. The performance model has it its origin in the behavioural objectives movement. “It is a model that clearly emphasises marked subject boundaries, traditional forms of knowledge, explicit realisation and recognition rules for pedagogic practice and the designation and establishment of strong boundaries between different types of students (Scott, 2008, p. 4). Implicit in this model is the sense that explicit criteria would save teachers and students from muddle and confusion. In contrast, the competence model suggests that learners have some control over the selection, pacing and sequencing of the curriculum. Competence models have been more common in early childhood education. New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum, Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education, 1996) is a good example of this sort of curriculum and it is essentially learner centred in orientation, rather than teacher directed and is based on sociocultural theories of teaching and learning, which are based on the child actively constructing knowledge through activity and through play and through interaction with sensitive teachers and other children (For a more detailed analysis of Te Whāriki, see McLachlan, Fleer and Edwards, 2010). However, the dominance of competence models of curriculum in early childhood education is changing with the advent of some countries’ curriculum policies, such as the Foundation Stage curriculum in the UK (Aubrey, 2004), which is more tightly aligned to the national school curriculum and are subject specific. There is evidence from international longitudinal studies that children who have early childhood experiences that are learner centred, based on a competence model have better long term outcomes for children in terms of school achievement, behaviour, social competence, employment, avoidance of teenage delinquency and pregnancy. Much of our current understandings of the outcomes of quality early childhood curriculum is based on the outcomes of longitudinal studies of children in early childhood settings. Most of these studies (e.g. Abecedarian Project, 1999; Osborne & Millbank, 1987; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1999; McCain & Mustard, 1999) demonstrate clear links between the quality of an early childhood programme and children’s later educational achievement. They also demonstrate long term social outcomes, as well as short term cognitive gains (Golbeck, 2001). Barnett, Jung, Jarosz, Thomas, Hornbeck, Stechuk and Burns (2008) argue that further research is needed on the effectiveness of one model of curriculum design over another because there have been few studies which used random assignment to groups, and non experimental studies have often confounded curriculum differences with other programme characteristics or the characteristics of the children attending the programme. However, they argue there are some studies which show that direct instruction models produce larger gains on achievement in subject content knowledge over the first couple of years, but these gains do not persist over time. There is also some evidence that curriculum effects differ according to child characteristics, specifically gender and ability at programme entry, but this is not found in all studies. Finally, curricula produce differences in social and emotional outcomes, which may be more persistent that the cognitive outcomes. In particular, direct instruction models have been found to produce worse social and emotional outcomes for children than learner centred models of curriculum, with implications for behavioural difficulties. Although there is little formal evaluation of the outcomes of New Zealand’s early childhood education, there is some evidence from New Zealand longitudinal studies that children who have attended early childhood centres are more likely to make successful transitions to school and to achieve academically at school, as well as developing social competence (Tagoilelagi-Leota, McNaughton, MacDonald & Ferry, 2005; Wylie, Hodgen, Hipkins, & Vaughan, 2009).

(40)

It has been argued that many educators initially lacked the professional and theoretical knowledge to effectively implement New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum (Cullen, 1996; Nuttall, 2003). To this end, the Ministry of Education funded extensive professional development for early childhood teachers on Te Whāriki and more recently Kei tua o te pae, the assessment exemplars designed to guide teachers on how to assess using Te Whāriki. Typically, this professional development was offered by a facilitator who worked with individual centres, rather than as workshops on specific topics, although these were offered by some professional development providers too. In addition, the Ministry assisted in the development of specific teacher education programmes to support Māori and Pasifika children and funded a large number of scholarships for students to study teacher education. In addition, the Ministry funded 16 Centre of Innovation projects, which examined aspects of implementing the curriculum, as well as the Foundations for Discovery project, which was aimed at investigating the use of ICT in early childhood centres. Some funding was also directed at evaluation of early childhood centres, using the Quality Journey document, which promoted the use of self review methods of evaluation. Difficulties in implementing self review in most centres led to a revisiting of the Quality Journey document, resulting in a revised set of guidelines for centres for using self review. Despite the inherent difficulties in implementing (McLachlan-Smith, 2001; Nuttall, 2003; McLachlan, Carvalho, Kumar & de Lautour, 2006) and evaluating (Cullen, 2003) Te Whāriki, the early childhood sector has currently managed to hold onto its right to have a different curriculum to the National Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1993), despite increasing pressure for a closer articulation (evidenced by the revised National curriculum, Ministry of Education, 2007). Issues of quality and accountability in the millennium In 2002, the Ministry of Education completed a consultation process with the sector, which led to the publication of a strategic plan for early childhood for the 2002 – 2012 period, entitled Pathways to the future. The Strategic Plan (Ministry of Education, 2002) included the following goals:

• Increase participation in quality early childhood services; • Improve quality of early childhood services; and • Promote collaborative relationships.

A number of strategic initiatives were put in place to help to achieve these goals, which included scholarships for early childhood staff to pursue an early childhood teaching qualification, Māori and Pasifika teacher education qualifications, increased funding to centres for higher numbers of qualified staff, funding to support teachers to gain teacher registration, and a plethora of documents and professional development, as discussed above. It should be noted that a primary teaching qualification is not a recognised qualification for early childhood teaching; so many primary trained staff had to retrain under this strategic plan. The strategic plan included a regulatory change so that by 2005 all “persons responsible” in a licensed early childhood centre needed to hold a benchmark three year teaching qualification (i.e. Diploma of Teaching (ECE), B.Ed (ECE) or equivalent) and by 2012 all staff in licensed early childhood centres needed a teaching qualification; the reason given that there is a strong correlation between quality and teacher qualifications. Many services were seriously affected by these changes. As at 1 July 2009, 64.0% (11,780) of teaching staff at teacher-led services were qualified. This was an increase of 14.3% (1,475) from July 2008; of the remainder of

(41)

staff, 53.2% (3,523) who were not qualified were in study for a qualification that leads to teacher registration with the New Zealand Teachers Council. Finding qualified staff has been a serious issue for many areas, leading the Ministry to offering financial incentives to teachers for transferring to hard to staff areas. According to recent Ministry of Education statistics, as at 1 July 2009:

• The number of early childhood education services has increased by 14.6% (454) since 2005, to 4,890 services. This includes 525 more licensed services and 71 less licence-exempt groups.

• There were 4,123 licensed services. • There were 767 licence-exempt ECE groups, one less than at 1 July 2008. • There has been a steady decline in the number of kōhanga reo services since 1 July

2005. • There were 180,910 enrolments in licensed early childhood education services, an

increase of 10.0% (16,389) since 2005. In 2007, the previous Labour Government introduced 20 hours of “free ECE” for three and four year olds as part of delivering the first goal of participation. The Ministry’s argument about why this is necessary was as follows:

20 hours a week Free ECE has been made available to encourage intensive participation in quality ECE. Children don't benefit from quality ECE if their participation is not intensive enough to create positive education outcomes. New Zealand has high ECE participation rates but children attend for relatively few hours per week, at around 14-17 hours per week for 3 and 4 year olds. That means a lot of children are attending for 9 hours or fewer per week (Ministry of Education, 2007)

The offer therefore aimed to ensure that parents help the government to achieve its strategic and economic vision. What is implicit, however, is that parents and parent-led services are not seen as providing adequate experiences for young children. More recently, the newly elected National Government extended the provision of the 20 free hours to parent led and community led services such as playcentre and kohanga reo; a move applauded by parents struggling under recession, but further underlining the perceived importance of early childhood to the current government, who in the same week slashed funding for teachers’ professional development and cancelled Centre of Innovation and Foundations for Discovery research projects. As part of the plan to increase quality, a change to the licensing requirements (Ministry of Education, 2006) was introduced. This consultation document argued that early childhood has a “changing landscape” and the proposed regulations provided an “integrated regulatory framework” for all ECE services (Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 4). It had been proposed that the new licensing criteria include a gazetted curriculum, which at the time would have been Te Whāriki, but this was not undertaken in the final version of the licensing criteria released in 2008. In this document, the following statement about curriculum is made, in which it implies that Te Whāriki will be used, but falls short of demanding it. It can be speculated that the diversity of early childhood services made this lack of standardisation necessary, as many of the language immersion programmes, in particular, use a variety of other curriculum documents in addition to Te Whāriki. The curriculum statement from the new licensing criteria is as follows (Ministry of Education, 2008):

(1) The curriculum standard: general is the standard that requires every licensed service provider to whom this regulation applies to —(a) plan, implement, and evaluate a curriculum that is designed to

(42)

enhance children’s learning and development through the provision of learning experiences, and that is consistent with any curriculum framework prescribed by the Minister that applies to the service.

A change of government and a change of direction – 2009 and beyond The change of government in 2008 led to a changed set of government priorities and to a degree of fear and trepidation on the part of the sector as to what the future might hold. The new National government took power in the face of world wide economic recession and an unexpected enormous deficit left by the previous government. The Briefing to the incoming Minister of Education (2008) discusses the following policy choices and challenges for education:

• Improving access to early childhood education; • Enhancing the performance of the school system; • Delivering high-quality Māori language education; • Balancing quality and participation in tertiary education; • Improving engagement, participation and learning for children with special education

needs; and • Making better use of available resources.

Building on this, the government released the following priorities in its Vote Education budget for 2009:

• Extension of 20 free hours to playcentre and kohanga reo. • Reduce truancy. • Support for schools with disruptive children. • Funding for top performing teachers. • Professional development to raise Māori achievement. • Funding to increase literarcy and numeracy standards. • Voluntary bonding for low decile, hard to staff and isolated schools ($3500 per year).

In the budget the government also cancelled all funding to the early childhood Centres of Innovation research projects and Foundations for Discovery ICT projects, as well as signalling that professional development contracts for Te Whāriki and Kei tua o te pae: assessment exemplars would run out at the end of 2009 and would not be renewed. The government signalled that future professional development would be aligned with government priorities and would commence in July 2010. In addition, in the 2009 budget the need for all early childhood staff to be qualified by 2012 was rescinded, as was the requirement for 80% of staff to be qualified by 2010. 80% is the new target for 2012. A proposed change in adult: child ratios were also rescinded, leaving ratios at previously gazetted levels. No doubt there will be more cuts in the next budget. My speculation is that it will further rescind the promises of the 2002 strategic plan for early childhood. Having been recently involved with a Ministry of Education task force on the professional development to achieve government priorities in early childhood, I know that these are closely aligned to lifting literacy and numeracy achievement and to increasing participation, supporting language and culture, care of infants and toddlers, and achievement of children who are ‘at risk’. Clearly the days of professional development being available to the whole sector at no cost is at an end and in times of diminished resources the government is targeting resources at children and communities who are perceived will benefit the most. It is unlikely that the government’s moves will be welcomed by the sector, but they are consistent with the

(43)

practices of other governments internationally who target funding at children of the poor, on the basis of economic analysis. Conclusion This paper has attempted to pull together the predominant themes in the development of the early childhood sector in New Zealand over the last 120 years, with a stronger emphasis on the policy reforms from the mid 1980’s onwards. There is little doubt that early childhood education has become an accepted part of raising children in the same time period, in which there have been commensurate changes in family structures and employment patterns of women. Early childhood education has traditionally fared better in New Zealand under a more socially oriented Labour Government, as the brief history illustrates and most significant changes have occurred under governments who understand the benefits of supporting children and their families. However, although the current government is clearly reducing its financial support of early childhood, it is still operating within an economic analysis of the benefits of early childhood education to achieving outcomes for the state. Hopefully we can be assured that funding will not ever be completely removed, but is unlikely to be increased only on the basis of the evidence of science on the importance of early experiences in brain development, language and cognition, however compelling that evidence might be. Finally, what has been achieved through the major changes in the sector over the last 35 years is a sector that is inclusive in spite of its differences in structures and philosophies. The curriculum document and its assessment techniques, as well as the requirements for teacher training in the strategic plan have had a unifying effect and have helped to develop a strong, professional and cohesive early childhood network in New Zealand. There are some conclusions that can be drawn about why New Zealand early childhood education system has been so successful, which may provide insights for this meeting, and these are as follows:

• Coordination of all issues concerning care and education of children under the governance of the Ministry of Education;

• A robust regulatory and evaluation framework and substantial funding of fully licensed centres;

• A coherent policy framework for early childhood education and a strategic plan for a ten year period;

• A requirement for specific early childhood teacher education of three years duration; • A national early childhood curriculum, which was developed through intensive

consultation with members of different types of early childhood services; • A research programme, aimed at shedding light on implementation of the curriculum; • Evaluation of strategic plan achievements at regular intervals; • A set of resources developed to support teaching practice and assessment; and • Ongoing programmes of professional development.

Things which New Zealand could have improved that might also be included are a stronger relationship with the other ministries that support children and their families (Social Development and Health) and a commitment to longitudinal research on the outcomes and benefits of the curriculum. I wish you all well in your endeavours to support the young children of South East Asia.

(44)

References Abecedarian Project. (1999). (www.fpg.unc.edu). Adams, P. & Bethell, K. (2005). Shifting conceptions of education and educational

institutions. In P. Adams, K. Vossler & C. Scrivens (eds.), Teachers’ work in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 132-148). Southbank, Vic., Australia: Thomson Dunmore Press.

Aubrey, C. (2004). Implementing the foundation stage in reception classes. British Educational Research Journal, 30 (5), 633-656.

Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Yarosz, D.J., Thomas, J., Hornbeck, A., Stechuk, R. & Burns, S. (2008). Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: A randomized trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 299-313.

Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique. London: Taylor & Francis.

Cook, H.M. (1985). Mind that child: Childcare as a social and political issue in New Zealand. Wellington, NZ: Blackberry Press.

Cullen, J. (1996). The challenge of Te Whariki for future development in early childhood education. Delta, 48 (1), 113-25.

Cullen, J. (2003). The challenge of Te Whāriki: Catalyst for change? In J. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te Whāriki; Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in practice (pp. 269-296). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Department of Education. (1988a). Education to be more. Wellington: Government Print. Department of Education. (1988b). Before five: Early childhood care and education in New

Zealand. Wellington: Government. Department of Education. (1988c). Tomorrow’s schools: The reform of education

administration in New Zealand. Wellington: Government Printer. Education Review Office. (2004). Evaluation indicators for education reviews in early

childhood services. Wellington: ERO. Golbeck, S.L. (2001). Instructional models for early childhood: In search of a child-

regulated/teacher-guided pedagogy. In S.L. Golbeck (ed.), Psychological perspectives in early childhood education (pp. 3-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hughes, B. (1989). Flags and building blocks, formality and fun: One hundred years of free kindergarten in New Zealand. Wellington: New Zealand Free Kindergarten Union.

Loveridge, J. & McLachlan, C. (2009). Accountability and compliance versus diversity and democracy in early childhood education. In A. St. George, S. Brown and J. O’Neill (eds.), Facing the big questions in teaching: Purpose, power and learning (pp. 22-31). South Melbourne, Vic., Australia: Cengage Learning.

May, H. (1997). The discovery of early childhood. Wellington, NZ: NZCER & Bridget Williams Books.

McCain, M. & Mustard, J.F. (1999). Early years study: reversing the real brain drain. Final report to the Government of Ontario, Canada (www.childsec.gov.on.ca).

McLachlan, C.J., Carvalho, L., Kumar, K. & de Lautour, N. (2006). Emergent literacy in early childhood settings in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31 (2), 31-41.

McLachlan, C., Fleer, M. & Edwards, S. (2010, in press). Early childhood curriculum: Planning, assessment and implementation. Melbourne, Vic., Australia: Cambridge University Press.

McLachlan-Smith, C.J. (2001, December). The Quality Journey: preliminary analyses of implementation in 72 early childhood centres. Paper presented at the New Zealand Association for Research in Education Conference, Christchurch College of Education.

(45)

Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whaariki: Early Childhood Curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Ministry of Education. (1998). Quality in action. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (1999). The Quality Journey. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2002). Pathways to the future: Nga Huarahi Aratiki. A ten year

strategic plan for early childhood education. Wellington: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2004/2005). Kei tua o te pae. Assessment for learning: Early

childhood exemplars. Wellington: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2005). Foundations for Discovery. Can be retrieved from the

Ministry website: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=10417&indexid=10058&indexparentid=10945

Ministry of Education. (2006). Draft criteria for the licensing or certification of early childhood services. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education. (2007). Free early childhood education: Summary reports on uptake. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=11253&indexid=11139&indexparentid=10946 on 22 August 2007.

Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media. Ministry of Education. (2007). Self review guidelines for early childhood education.

Retrieved from http://www.lead.ece.govt.nz/LeadHome/ManagementInformation/GoverningAndManaging/SelfReviewGuidelinesForEarlyChildhoodEducation.aspx on 18 January 2010.

Ministry of Education. (2008). 2008 Licensing criteria for early childhood education and care centres. Retrieved from http://www.lead.ece.govt.nz/ServiceTypes/CentreBasedECEServices.aspx on 18 January 2010.

Ministry of Education. (2008). Briefing paper to the incoming Minister of Education. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/theMinistry/PolicyAndStrategy/BriefingToIncomingMinister.aspx on 18 January 2010.

New Zealand Government. (1998). Education (Early childhood centre) regulations. Wellington: Government Printer.

New Zealand Government. (2008). Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0204/latest/DLM1412501.html on 18 January 2010.

Nuttall, J. (2003). Exploring the role of the teacher within Te Whāriki: Some possibilities and contstraints. In J. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te Whāriki; Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in practice (pp. 161-186). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Osborne, A.F. & Millbank, J.E. (1987). The effects of early education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schweinhart, L.J. & Weikart, D.P. (1999). The advantages of High/Scope: helping children lead successful lives. Educational Leadership, 57 (1), 76-78.

Scott, D. (2008). Critical essays on major curriculum theorists. London: Routledge. Stover, S. (2010). Play’s progress? Locating play in the educationalisation of early childhood

in Aotearoa New Zealand. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, AUT University, Auckland.

(46)

Tagoilelagi-Leota, F., McNaughton, S., MacDonald, S. & Ferry, S. (2005). Bilingual and biliteracy development over the transition to school. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 8 (5), 455- 479.

Te One, S. (2003). The context for Te Whāriki: Contemporary issues of influence. In J. Nuttall (ed.), Weaving Te Whariki: Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice (pp. 17-50). Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Wylie, C., Hodgen, E., Hipkins, R. & Vaughn, K. (2009). Competent Learners on the Edge of Adulthood: A summary of key findings from the Competent Learners @ 16 project. Wellington: NZCER.