EFA Goal 1: Early childhood care and education; Asia ... - Unicef

The latter dimension, which involves children’s direct experience, is perceived as ‘process quality’.
Process quality covers two subdimensions involving interactions between individuals (child-child
and child-teacher) as well as interactions among individuals as a whole (Howes, 2010; Howes and
Ritchie, 2002). The regulation of the structural ECCE environment matters because teachers in ECCE
classrooms with a low adult-child ratio were found to be more supportive of children’s needs, had
greater respect for a child’s autonomy and expressed fewer negative instructions, especially for
younger children (De Schipper, Riksen-Walraven and Geurts, 2006). In one study, when all teachers’
qualifications met state pre-Kindergarten standards (having a bachelor’s degree and teaching
certificate), teachers’ years of teaching experiences were related to greater exposure to literacy
activities for children in a classroom (Phillips, Gormley and Lowenstein, 2009). The pathways from
structural ECCE environments to process quality to child outcomes are not well studied in the Asia-
Pacific region. These have traditionally been observed through the direct use of benchmarks based
on Western contexts and belief systems (such as the child-to-teacher ratio and group size) and
frameworks in defining quality without considering local culture and practices.
Traditionally and until very recently, quality was defined primarily for structured, centre-based preschool
programmes by Western benchmarks, including the National Association for the Education
of Young Children’s notion of developmentally appropriate practice. In this framework, a young child
is seen as an individual agent in her/his own development. This idea of individual development of
a child, socialized for independence and individualism, guided the understanding of quality in early
childhood, particularly in programming (UNESCO and UNICEF, 2011).
More recently, however, experts (Woodhead, 2006) are arguing that in reality, traditional Western
standards and definitions of quality do not represent the optimal solution: one size does not fit
all – there are several issues to keep in mind when addressing quality in ECCE.
Western and internationally developed frameworks are not implicitly transportable to regions in the
developing world. For example, the use of traditional practices, listening and interpreting the world
through shared familial and communal experiences with village elders, learning through play, music
and cultural activities that are intrinsically relational, group-based and developed from natural and
indigenous contexts are hallmarks of some cultures in the Asia-Pacific region (Burford, Ngila and
Rafiki, 2003; Odora Hoppers, 2002; Pence and Schafer, 2006). Early childhood education in these
contexts, although deemed to be authoritarian and didactic, may derive from alternate modes of
constructing knowledge (Sarangapani, 2003; ARNEC, 2009).
Asia-Pacific End of Decade Notes on Education for All
28
Education in these contexts is not necessarily focused on the burgeoning individualism of a child
but on the child’s relationship with aspects of her/his context. In this scenario, it is more important
to focus on the interaction of (and sometimes clash between) local cultural beliefs about failures,
successes and education itself with the broader beliefs of a community and what they perceive as
successful education and the process of formal care settings. Thus, notions of discipline and authority
that guide ECCE programmes and curricula in the Asia-Pacific region may not necessarily derive from
dictatorial or autocratic motives but more likely may be based on how the developing child can
function within the larger culture: moderating individualism in the service of a larger community.
This is not to say that education based on such traditional practices is always necessarily rightsbased;
rather, the emphasis is on examining and building on existing understandings and practices
that are contextually relevant and culturally meaningful within a community. Such culturally rooted
and contextually relevant processes for ensuring quality in ECCE can resonate with broader goals for
education for sustainable development and education for peace building and tolerance.
There are attempts to provide more global direction and focus on this issue of quality. A recent report
(Britto et al., 2011), points to the need to go beyond the programme to larger systemic indicators in
the study of quality. In other words, quality must be addressed at all levels of an ecological system.
Indicators should include not only those commonly used, such as class size and teacher training,
but others such as support channels for the supply of material resources, levels of training for service
providers, reduction of accidents and injuries, environmental sustainability, disaster preparedness