Search

In response to a workforce crisis, Australia's early childhood education and care workforce strategy for the next decade, Shaping our Future, was released in September 2021. This strategy was developed through a three-stage, 'top-down' process in which open consultation on pre-defined strategies was the final stage. Analysing data from the voices of those working at the frontline (N = 794), we take a complementary 'bottom-up' approach, mapping accounts of workforce challenges to Shaping our Future's six focus areas. We identify areas of salience and silence. Recognition, Leadership and Capability, and Wellbeing were salient focus areas while Attraction (and Retention), Qualifications and Career Pathways, and Data and Evidence were not. "Paperwork" and "challenging behaviours" were identified as major impediments to workplace wellbeing and educational effectiveness. Missing strategies identified were review of regulatory burden and redress of place-based inequities for those working with children and families who experience complex and challenging life circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Internationally, standard observational measures of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) are used to assess the quality of provision. They are applied as research tools but, significantly, also guide policy decisions, distribution of resources and public opinion. Considerable faith is placed in such measures, yet their validity, reliability and functioning within context should all be considered in interpreting the findings they generate. We examine the case of the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) in the Australian study, Effective Early Education for Children (E4Kids). Using this measure Australian educators were identified as "low quality" in provision of instruction (average 2.1 on a scale of 1–7). When these results became public, they attracted negative press coverage and the potential for harm. We interrogate these findings asking three questions relating to sampling, contextual and empirical evidence that define quality and measurement strategies. We conclude that measurement problems, most notably a floor effect, is the most likely explanation for uniformly low CLASS-Instructional scores among Australian ECEC educators, and indeed across international studies. Using a theoretically and empirically informed rescaling strategy we show that there is a diversity of instructional quality across Australian ECEC, and that rescaling might more effectively guide improvement strategies to target those of lowest quality. Beyond, our findings call for a more critical approach in interpretation of standard measures of ECEC quality and their applications in policy and practice, internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most recent data from the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) present good news; 79% of Australia's Early Childhood Education and Care services are now meeting the National Quality Standard (NQS). Yet one in five services remain below standard. Understanding the context and characteristics of these services, and those of their workforce, and identifying features that distinguish them from services meeting the NQS are the first step in directing quality improvement supports. We compared services rated Working Towards with those Meeting or Exceeding the standard, through analysis of two discrete datasets: (1) ACECQA snapshots providing service data and (2) The Early Years Workforce Study providing data on educators and educator experience. We identified distinguishing structural characteristics and relational factors within services rated Working Towards. Based on the findings, strategic directions for bringing the last 21% of services across the line to meet the National Quality Standard are detailed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]