A Strategic Assessment of the Children's Services Industry

STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OF THE CHILDREN’S SERVICES INDUSTRYportfolios as well as jurisdictions, has meant that in a number of countries, there are seriousgaps and problems in much of the data that has been collected concerning early childhoodprogrammes. Frequently, data are not compatible and thus not comparable, at bothjurisdictional and national levels. Data on children under age three in early childhoodprogrammes is particularly difficult to access (OECD 2006, p.176). This has been a particularproblem for Australia. In December 2007, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) releaseda discussion paper entitled: Measuring Learning in Australia: Concepts and directions inEarly Childhood Learning (Pink, 2007). While the paper proposes to gather information onall education and care programmes for children from birth to eight years, it defines formallearning programmes as only applying to children over 3 thus potentially exacerbating theproblem identified by the OECD.Trends, debates and tensions in early childhood policy‘The institutions we provide for children both ‘shape’ children and shape our understandingsof them’ (Petrie 2005, p.175). In turn, the nature of the institutions we provide for children isinfluenced by a range of social and economic considerations and related policies, not all ofwhich are driven by a primary focus upon the interests and needs of the children themselves.It is clear that early childhood provision is in flux in many countries. This section provides abrief overview of some of the myriad influences competing, or coalescing, to shape the earlychildhood landscape.In the countries reviewed, the two most common institutions for the care and education ofyoung children outside the home, preschool and child care, have grown from differinghistorical roots. Preschool, with its foundations in the European kindergarten movement of thenineteenth century; and child care, strongly related to both nineteenth century philanthropyand the women’s movement of the second half of the twentieth century, may still reflectdistinct forms and purposes. It is only in relatively recent years that a number of countrieshave made progress toward breaking down dichotomies between children’s education(preschool) and care (child care). Nevertheless, the nexus between the provision of ECEC andthe capacity of mothers to enter the workforce remains an important policy consideration.At the same time, the emergence of a significant research base examining the impact of ECECupon children themselves has become an important contributor to early childhood policydebates. As more is understood about the impact of children’s time in ECEC on theirdevelopment and wellbeing, more attention is being paid to the question of the quality of allearly childhood care and learning environments, and the nature of children’s experienceswithin them. The accumulation of longitudinal studies on children's outcomes across anumber of developmental domains, coupled with cost-benefit analyses that quantify the 'payoff'for money spent on high quality child care, has renewed policy interest in ECEC. Theframing of ECEC expenditure as an investment is now common in the policy discourse.3.3 ConclusionA number of common trends and debates have emerged in early childhood policy at theconceptual and programme level although resultant developments have not been uniform. Inpart, variations in approach to improving early childhood systems can be explained by eachcountry’s differing foundation, particularly with regard to availability and access to earlychildhood services. More fundamentally, differences also arise from each country’s image ofthe child, and its understanding of the role and purpose of education, and in particular, thecare and education of young children. As Moss (2007 p.7) points out, inherent in ECECpolicy debates and directions is the question of ‘what we think early childhood services arefor?’30