The HSE undertakes the inspection of pre-schools, play groups and crèches, for children aged 0-6 years. In practice, HSE inspectors prepare standardised inspection reports, indicating whether particular services are compliant or not with a range of regulations, in areas such as the health, welfare and the development of children.

Completed reports are given to service providers, but the HSE has been criticised in the past for not making these reports more accessible to the general public. In fact, some people resorted to contacting the Office of the Information Commissioner, lodging Freedom of Information Appeals to obtain particular reports.

The HSE timeline for putting pre-school inspection reports on-line has drifted horribly. In October 2009, the HSE web page for pre-school inspection services stated that “during the coming months reports on inspections of pre-schools will be placed on this website”. This web page was updated in March 2011 to read, “In the future, the HSE intends to place reports on inspections of pre-schools on this website”. In October 2012, the web page still reads the same message. When exactly are reports going to be placed by the HSE on to the web?

Parents, of course, need to visit nurseries and crèches and talk with the staff and other parents to form a picture of an agency. But parents should also be able to get direct, on-line access to the reports of experienced inspectors whose day-to-day work involves assessing the standard of pre-school services.

Contrast the Irish situation to that of Scotland where inspection reports for nurseries, childminders, and pre-school services are freely available to read on the website of the Care Inspectorate. Surely we can create a similar reporting system in Ireland? Surely parents in Ireland should have a similar right of access to on-line inspection reports?

More than ever, it is important that parents have ready access to information to make informed decisions about the type and quality of pre-school care and education they want for their children.

And if the HSE continues to delay in delivering on its commitment to place pre-school inspection reports on its website, perhaps an argument can be made for the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) to take on this reporting function?

Dr Mark Taylor

I am a graduate student in the International Masters in Early Childhood Education programme (IMEC) offered in cooperation between Oslo University College (Norway), Dublin Institute of Technology (Ireland) and the University of Malta (Malta). This programme gives me an opportunity to live in the three countries, to get familiar with their ECEC systems, and to share experiences in a group of 17 international students. I have already spent one semester in Oslo, and I have just finished the second semester in Dublin. After almost a year of studying abroad, I have started to raise questions about ECEC systems in these countries as well as Serbia (my home country) based on my personal observations and understandings.

I have found it really interesting that ECEC curricula of many European countries, including Norway, Ireland, and Serbia, are similar in many ways. In all three countries, curricula see children of all ages as active citizens of society with their own needs, interests, and rights. For this reason, kindergartens should be characterized by experiences that foster children’s self-esteem, a sense of achievement, play and learning, and a sense of belonging to the community.

Having the same basis as the Aistear curriculum framework in Ireland, Norwegian and Serbian curricula identify the four main themes in children’s learning and development as well-being; identity and belonging; communicating; exploring and thinking. This gives us the image of children as confident; competent to share their thoughts, opinions and feelings; and curious to explore their surroundings. The countries present promising ideas to provide better lives for all children.

Though similar in their goals for children, I am amazed how the ECEC systems are organized so differently among the countries. For instance, state-maintained ECEC settings in Serbia have a precise structure that divides children into nursery classes (6 months to 3 years), middle preschool groups (3 to 5 years), and preschool groups (from 5 to 6 years). In Ireland, I have also seen settings with groups based on children’s age. Additionally, it was unique for me that 4 and 5 year olds in Ireland are enrolled in infant classes in primary schools.

In Norwegian kindergartens (barnehage), by contrast, all children from 0 to 6 years old are in mixed age groups in ECEC settings. I visited several kindergartens in Oslo. It was such a nice experience to observe children of all ages playing together, including babies who were sleeping outside (even though it was the beginning of December). The amount of play, interaction and spontaneous learning from diverse situations within the mixed peer groups was tremendous. Likewise, the team work, the level of cooperation, and the sharing of knowledge and experience among teachers were amazing.

Diverse in their structures and organizations, ECEC systems in the countries have different expectations of the teachers working with children. In Ireland and Serbia, countries with a so-called split system, the qualifications required to work with very young children (up to 3 or 4 years of age) and the qualifications needed to be a teacher for children aged four to primary school age differ. For instance, in Ireland a Bachelor-level qualification is standard only for teachers in the infant classes in primary schools and in the Early Start programme. As the CoRe Report shows, qualification levels in the various forms of private provision are at a much lower formal level. In Serbia, the core professionals working with children under the age of two are usually paediatric nurses/children’s nurses who have a health/care qualification. Conversely, the core of professionals working with children aged two to six are pre-primary teachers with a compulsory graduate degree.

By contrast, in countries with an integrated system, for instance Norway, all young children attend the same centres before entering primary school. Therefore, practitioners working with children from zero to six generally have to meet the same requirements in terms of their education. This causes me to think that the latter ensures greater professionalism of staff working with both younger and older children. Additionally, it does not make such a strict difference between care and education within ECEC settings, making them equally important for children of all ages.

Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies converge to say that qualifications matter. Higher levels of preparation correlate positively with better childcare quality as well as better developmental outcomes for children. The 2006 Starting Strong Report II from the OECD showed that in Ireland, the percentage of qualified staff working in the sector is currently not known, but estimates place the number of staff without any qualifications at about 30%. Interestingly, the same report stated that 35% of the staff in Norwegian barnehage are qualified ECEC pedagogues. From personal experience, I can say that in Serbian kindergartens nurses in ECEC settings have at least health/care qualifications and teachers have two or three years of compulsory schooling in the ECEC field. Taking all the facts into consideration, it is hard not to question if qualified teachers are the only factor responsible for the quality issue.

It is not disputable that quality and its definition vary among the countries. While it has a smaller proportion of trained staff than Ireland and Serbia (though the trained staff are all graduates), Norway still has the highest quality of ECEC. This tell us that we have to be careful not to perceive teachers and their education as the only factors that influence the quality of ECEC. The team work among teachers in Norway and the integrated system of care and education for all young children of all ages there should be considered, as well, as crucial factors that raise the standard of ECEC.

Olivera Kamenarac

I stared for ages at a white box on the computer screen beneath which were the words “Buffering 14% complete”. Unsure what “buffering” really means, but knowing it meant that something was wrong, I found myself wondering if this was some sort of metaphor…

Was my inability to find out what was happening in Norway a metaphor for Ireland’s reluctance to learn lessons from other countries’ policies?  Or did it mean that we’ve only completed 14% of the “policy levers” proposed in the OECD report?

Fortunately I knew from reading the agenda that Frances Fitzgerald was there at the conference, along with Government Ministers from other OECD countries, so at least I knew that the our own Minister was engaged in discussion with her counterparts. And fortunately – at least for me – an hour or so later the “buffering” stopped and I could see and hear what was happening in Oslo.

I missed some of the keynote speeches but I caught enough to see confirmation that a big shift has taken place in what policy makers across the world are saying about early care and education – a shift from a primary concern with the quantity of childcare places to recognition of the central importance of the quality of care and education provided. Quality was the theme of the European Commission’s Communication on ECEC, published this time last year. And quality is the theme of this new OECD publication, which was written by and aimed at policy-makers.

Professor Steve Barnett, one of the keynote speakers, gave a clear and compelling presentation on the large economic benefits of universal early care and education, and he argued forcefully that we will only achieve this economic return if the quality is high.

Pointing to the amazing evidence from cost-benefit analysis of studies such as the Perry Pre-School study, Professor Barnett asked why the same results are sometimes not found when early care and education is provided on a national scale. The answer, he said, is simple – we have failed to deliver services of the quality required, and we have failed in this because we have lacked the political will to put sufficient resources in.

Of course high quality costs more. But, as the evidence he presented so clearly shows, it’s well worth the cost, as it’s only high quality provision that ensures you get the benefits.

In the discussion that followed, the chair asked the panellists how we can convince people of the need for Government investment in quality early care and education. I was struck by two of their answers in particular. Firstly, we need to hear parents’ voices on why quality early care and education is so important and why it makes such a difference to their children and their families. Secondly, we need hard data. We need hard data on the economic benefits. And we need hard data and transparency on the level of quality we actually have.

It’s likely that Ireland’s record on the policy messages in the new OECD report is better than “14% complete”. I don’t know what the percentage really is (though, having just read the report, I know we’re a long way short of 100%). Part of the problem here is that we simply don’t have hard data – or transparency – on the quality of services. It’s great that Minister Frances Fitzgerald was there, listening to the same speakers. I hope she acts on what she heard.

One of the challenges the new National Strategy needs to address is how to create and maintain quality services for children.  We are in danger of assuming quality is synonymous with monetary investment which we know through evidenced based research is not the case. Let’s look at how colleges of further education who offer FETAC qualifications in Childhood & Early Years approach the FETAC requirement to place students in Early Years settings as part of their course work without it costing the institution a cent. How do they achieve this?  Teachers in the settings will tell you that although they are delighted with the extra pair of hands they aren’t enamoured with the extra work supporting these students entails but yet they are willing to do it and receive no monetary reward so why do they do it?

• One of the reasons is Prestige – the feeling that they have been ‘chosen’ to mentor students, it gives the teacher a sense of validation and professional recognition from their peers.
• Self Regulation within the Profession – it can be a way to ‘weed out’ those students who haven’t got what Early Years Professionals call a ‘vocation’ in other words a love of children.  Central to achieving this is the two way communication between mentor and institution.
• Connection – Working in Early Years can be very isolating.  Connecting with 3^rd level institutions widens the Early Years Professional’s network; students bring with them ‘new’ knowledge, new ways of doing things that can enrich established practice.

Early Years Professionals are very generous with their expertise, we see that everyday though their willingness to share their knowledge with others. Quality practice evolves through quality experiences.  Money makes things easier but doesn’t necessarily created quality; it’s the people who work as Early Years Professionals that create quality.  Providing mentors who have a working knowledge of the sector, who support rather than criticise, who don’t work off a check list, who treat each setting as unique, who applaud what’s working and identify any areas within the setting which may need extra support would go a long way to creating quality services for all children.  How can the National Strategy tap into this valuable resource of goodwill without obliterating it?

Lynn Bowers, Montessori Alliance.

The keynote speeches and workshop presentations at yesterday’s conference were all excellent (and we’ll be putting presentations up on our conference web-page in the next day or two). But, for me,  some of the most interesting and important parts of the conference were the debates in the workshops and the comments made from the floor in the plenary sessions, as we will only achieve our goals if we can share ideas and work together.

The aim of this 0-6.ie blog is to keep all those debates going. We want this to be a forum for discussion on policies for children’s early years in Ireland. And we very much want this to be a place where you can say what YOU think.

At our conference yesterday, we were particularly encouraged to hear Mary Doyle, Director General of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, saying that that there will be a strategy specifically on children’s early years, within the framework of the new National Children’s Strategy. She also said that the Department’s work on drafting the new Strategy will begin in the new year, and will build on the Department’s own Statement of Strategy, which it’s currently finalising. (You can see the submission that Start Strong made to the Department on that here.)

We hope the National Children’s Strategy will draw together many policy areas. Whether your concern is the  quality of services, the inclusion of children with disabilities, supports for families, community services, childminding,  professionalisation of the early years workforce, the joining up of services, or other policies on children’s early care and education, we want to hear your thoughts.

What do you think the next National Children’s Strategy should say about children’s early years? What policies should be prioritised? How can the strategy be ambitious, while at the same time working within current financial resources? Join the debate on this blog. Email us a guest post, add comments to posts that others will be writing over the coming weeks, and subscribe to get regular updates from the blog.

There are also what appear to be small cutbacks (amounting to a saving on €1.6 million in a full year) being made to the Community Childcare Subvention (CCS) and the Childcare Employment & Training Support (CETS) schemes. However, while the savings to be made are small, the impact they will have on young children are significant. Subsidies are less, weekly top-ups of as much as €25 for the CETS scheme are being introduced and eligibility criteria for the CCS are being tightened. For children, this could mean that early care and education services that were available are no longer an option.

Some days after the budget, it is still not absolutely clear what the budget means for children. For example, one of the Departmental savings listed is the conclusion of the ‘pilot’ phase of the early intervention and prevention projects. Does this mean an end to all State funding for these projects after 2012/2013? What will this mean for young children in those areas? And what will happen the learning from those projects?

Combine all of this with 5% cuts in funding to the Family Resource Centres and the Children’s Service Committees and all the other budget cutbacks the impact on some young children will be substantial. This budget will push some children deeper into poverty.

This blog is about the National Children’s Strategy, and the impact it could have on children’s early years. However, as an earlier post highlighted – young children’s lives are intertwined with political decisions. Cutbacks in budget 2012 can’t help but impact on a future National Children’s Strategy.

Ireland, like Europe, faces a moment of transformation. Yesterday’s solutions are not going to resolve this crisis – more of the same will get us more of the same. We need to begin to recognise how mutually dependent and intertwined our lives and aspirations are. What happens in Brussels impacts on what happens in Ballymun, what is agreed in Kildare Street affects all of us from Kilgarvan to Killybegs.

In the same way, our social policies are mutually dependent and intertwined: stimulating economic growth, ensuring a skilled and adaptable workforce, growing our knowledge base and nurturing innovation, ensuring social cohesion; none of these can be done in isolation. If, as a society, we don’t begin to recognise people’s lives in the round, we will continue to repeat the mistakes of the past.

In the same vein, the alarm there was last year at Ireland’s PISA results cannot be read in isolation of supports for children’s early years. No more than the provision of early care and education can be looked at in isolation of achieving quality within that early care and education.

The forthcoming National Children’s Strategy provides us with the opportunity to begin to look at children’s lives differently – children’s early years will have particular emphasis within the strategy. Not in isolation of the rest of children’s lives, but in the context of the potential impact of early years care and education on later achievement and children’s life chances.

Our conference next week will provide the opportunity for many of us to gather and debate the complexities and enormous opportunities of children’s early years.

This blog is an avenue for on-going discussion – we invite people to email us with blog posts and ideas. We would like to see this develop into a forum for people to debate and discuss the issues. We will moderate the site; not to censor people’s contributions but to ensure that the debate is constructive and respectful as well as challenging and provocative.

After the conference, we anticipate that many of the debates will generate themselves; in the meantime if you have a burning issue you would like to see debated, please e-mail us a ‘guest post’.