A Strategic Assessment of the Children's Services Industry

More documents

Recommendations

Info

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES INDUSTRYdescribes schoolification as a process of colonisation whereby the expectations and cultures ofthe school system take over ‘children’s lives, other children’s services, and their workforces’(2005, 179). To counter this, John Bennett who previously headed the OECD ThematicReviews, advocates for early childhood education to exert a positive influence on schools.Arguing that the current split results in an overemphasis on cognitive development to the'detriment of care and social attachment', he suggests that schools have much to learn from theapproaches and impact of early childhood education in relation to the importance of teacherchildrelationships and their caring function (Bennett, 2003; see also Korpi 2005).Sweden has made remarkable progress in this area, and its experience is frequently used toshowcase, not only how this partnership might be achieved in structural terms, but how earlychildhood approaches to children’s pedagogy might exercise an upward influence onschooling (UNESCO 2002). One such manifestation of this impact is that ‘Swedish schoolsare increasingly seen as places where school-age children are cared for in a holistic mannerwhile their parents are working. More and more, schools are becoming a substitute home forschool-age children, as preschools have been for younger children, where teachers and childcare workers collaborate to ensure students’ holistic development’ (UNESCO 2002, 8). Thesuccess of the Swedish model is, in large part, the result of deliberate government intention toassure the integrity of early childhood systems within an expanded education department.Substantial public investment in services and the infrastructurePublic investment is recognised as foundational to building an ECEC system that is capable ofproviding effective support to families and promoting children’s wellbeing and development.Inadequate investment results in tensions between quality, affordability and accessibility,which Wangmann (1995) refers to as the 'trilemma'. Reminiscent of this, Colley identifies thefollowing four interrelated issues emerging from a review of Canadian ECEC: financing;access; equity; and quality (2006, 69). Unfortunately, within this mix of policy pressures, thequality of children’s experiences in ECEC is often subsumed. In response, Starting Strong IIcalls for countries to base public funding estimates on achieving quality pedagogicalgoals.A minimum public investment in early childhood services of 1 per cent of GDP is thebenchmark established by the European Commission Network on Child care (EuropeanCommission Network on Child care, 1996). Sweden is the only country, of the groupreviewed, which reaches this level of investment. In recent years, the UK and New Zealandhave increased their expenditure significantly; expenditure in Canada and Australia is notablylower. The UK Treasury forecasts that expenditure on ECEC services will increase from thecurrent level of around 1% GDP (the European average) to 2.7% by 2015. This would put UKexpenditure on a par with the highest spending countries in Europe (Pascal 2008).However, the percentage target has been criticised from various quarters and Starting StrongII suggests an alternative approach is to consider the average investment per child needed tocreate a good quality programme. These estimates vary according to the age of the child andthe length of the programme (full-day or half day). But estimates generally range from$US8,000 - $US12,000 per child per year for a full-day programme with higher costsassociated with younger age groups (OECD, 2006).A universal approach to access, with particular attention to children in need of specialsupportTo date, much policy attention has been paid to increasing children's access to preschooleducation. Many governments are looking to establish universal access to preschool23
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES INDUSTRYeducation where this is not already available, or to increasing its availability in terms of thehours and length of time that children are entitled to attend. The UK’s Effective Provision ofPreschool Education (EPPE) study (Sylva et al., 2003) affirms the effectiveness of highquality preschool education in improving outcomes for children considered at risk of schoolfailure, but it makes the point that two years of access to preschool education is much moreeffective than a single year preceding school.In Sweden, preschool is available to all children between the ages of one and six (OECD2001) and 68 per cent of all children below the age of six are enrolled in preschool (Rauch,2007). New Zealand has recently introduced an entitlement to 20 hours per week of free earlychildhood education at teacher-led services for all three and four year olds (May, 2007). In theUK, three and four-year-olds are entitled to 12.5 hours a week for 33 weeks of the year andthis is being extended (DfES 2003). In Australia, a number of jurisdictions offer universalaccess to preschool education in the year before school, but there are serious gaps in provisionin a number of regions (Press 2006). The newly elected Australian government has promised15 hours a week of preschool education for all four year old children (Rudd et al., 2007). InCanada, fewer than 20 per cent of children find a place in a regulated service in the yearsbefore school (OECD 2003 p.10).However, attention to one or two years of preschool before the commencement of compulsoryschooling can divert attention from the needs of children below preschool age. For workingparents in particular, the use of unregulated, non-family care increases when the availabilityof formal care is limited (see for instance the experience of Canada, OECD 2003 p.66). Thusthe UN interprets ‘every child’s right to education as beginning at birth and closely tied to theright to development’. In this way ‘education’ is not conceived of as ‘schooling’, rather it isenvisaged as a community service for both children and parents (Woodhead and Moss, 2007).The goal of universal access is not just a question of availability. It also raises questions ofhow to develop a system that does not result in groups of children being excluded orsegregated. Hence, the first Starting Strong report stressed the need to give particular policyattention to children in need of special support, and the second reinforced this call with itsrecommendation to increase resources within universal programmes for children with diverselearning rights. This principle is upheld by the UN General Comment No. 7 which advocatesfor all children to be guaranteed access to services with particular attention paid to those mostvulnerable (2005). Disability, cultural and linguistic factors, poverty, and family dysfunctionare among the factors that might cause families to be marginalised within, or disenfranchisedfrom, ECEC. Yet appropriately resourced, high quality, responsive early childhood servicesare the very services that can directly provide, or be a platform for, the provision of theadditional supports and interventions that facilitate children’s successful social andeducational inclusion. In relation to immigrant children, Pascal and Betram regard ECECprogrammes as ‘key sites for enacting national goals for social inclusion and the creation ofnew citizens’ (2006, 1).Despite such well documented potential, Starting Strong I noted that in many countries thefunding provided to support families and children with additional needs was often insufficientand irregular (2001). The capacity of early childhood systems to inclusively and effectivelyrespond to families with additional needs is affected by the base from which they start.Sweden seeks to provide all children with access to mainstream services, with extra fundingallocated to enable the provision of extra individualised attention to children who requirespecialist support (OECD 2006). The Sure Start programme in the UK used the notion of‘progressive universalism’ to build up a system of supports to children and families that in thefirst instance target children in disadvantaged areas. Whilst Sure Start programmes were24
Page 1 and 2: A StrategicAssessment of theChildre
Page 3 and 4: AcknowledgementsThe paper was commi
Page 5 and 6: STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF THE CHILDRE
Page 33: STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF THE CHILDRE
Page 85 and 86:
STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF THE CHILDRE
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
show all

A Strategic Assessment of the Children's Services Industry

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?