Search

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.

Observational studies comparing child outcomes in early care and education classrooms of differing quality are often confounded by between-child differences. A within-child design, tracking children across contexts, can identify the effects of quality with less confounding. An analysis of Australian children (N = 1128, mean age 5 years, 48% female, 2.9% Indigenous, ethnicity data unavailable) tracked across pre-K, K, and year 1 (2010-2012) was conducted to assess how changes in observed quality (Classroom Assessment Scoring System) were associated with changes in cognitive development (Woodcock-Johnson III). Thresholds of quality were also investigated. Increases in Emotional Support were associated with improved language development ([beta] = 0.54, 95% CI [0.1-0.99], approximating 2.6 weeks development). Results highlight that emotional quality is an integral and potent component of early learning.

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.

The international quality-improvement agenda for Early Childhood Education (ECE) directs attention to maximising children's learning experiences. Yet routines, and particularly those relating to sleep-rest provision, are not well conceptualised as learning opportunities. Often children who no longer sleep in the daytime are required to lie down without alternative activity. Educator discourse frames these practices as 'teaching self-regulation', yet these experiences afford little opportunity for child-directed learning, and both observational and cortisol studies suggest the potential for negative learning experiences. Prior studies have examined children's emotional response and identified sleep-rest time as disliked, but have not examined children's accounts of learning. In this study, we analyse accounts of learning from 54 children (mean age = 56 months). Collectively, the children identified three learnings. Most children learned that adults regulate sleep-rest opportunities through instruction, reward, punishment and priveledge. Some children reported learning coping strategies including imagination and subversion. A rare few identitfied learning to self-regulate. The findings identify a discrepancy between policy aspiration and educator intent, that foreground self-regulation and the de facto lessons children draw from their sleep-rest experiences. Our findings identify standard sleep-rest provision as sub-optimal and the imperative to view care routines, such as sleep-rest, as opportunities for learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]