Comparative review of professional development approaches studies based on country-reports

1
Berlin, Germany November 29 December 1, 2014
WP3
Comparative review of professional development
approaches studies based on country-reports
Curriculum Quality Analysis and Impact Review of
European ECEC CARE
2
WP3 OBJECTIVES

• This WP3 examines systems of Professional
  Development (PD) within ECEC in terms of their
  potentials to increase child-wellbeing and
  learning, particular among disadvantaged
  children.

3
WP3 OBJECTIVES

• This will be achieved by
• 1) Drawing on data from existing studies and
  collecting general information on PD regarding
  specific initiatives in the participation
  countries
• 2) Analyzing and comparing PD systems
  (country-reports) and identifying innovative
  examples of best practice (casestudies)

4
WP3 D3.1

• First deliverable D 3.1 A report and
  web-publication titled
• Comparative review of professional development
  approaches studies based on country-reports
• Preliminary results, 1. december 2015
• Deadline ultimo march 2015

5
WP3 Analysis design

• This report is based on answers to 13 questions
  provided by 10 European participant countries.
• The 13 questions centred on pre-service and
  in-service professional development of ECEC
  workers, as well as ECEC standards, discourses
  and innovations.
• Preliminary results of the analysis brief of
  selected themes

6
Theme overview

• Qualification requirements, standards and
  resources
• Characteristics of professional development
• Teachers role and reponsibility (by law)
• Policy developments and reforms
• Quality assurance regulation, monitoring and
  evaluation
• Impressions of innovative approaches
• Trends, strengths and weaknesses
• Towards a framework of innovative approaches
• EXAMPLE POLAND
• EXAMPLE ITALY

7
Qualification REQUIREMENTS (Pre-)
ECEC ARE Specialists Final Qualification
Denmark X BA degree
England X BA Initial Teacher Training
Finland X BA in Education
Germany X Vocational (3 years)
Greece X Vocational degree 3.5 in lectures, 0.5 practical training dissertation.
Italy X BA, including 250 hours of practical work (0-3) 5 years BA (since 2010), including 400 hours of practical work (3-6)
Netherlands X Vocational education (0-4) teacher education (BA level).
Norway X BA degree with 100 days (min.) of practical training, plus a thesis.
Poland X Mid-school education diploma plus 280 hours of training (0-3) BA in education (3-5) primary school starts at age 6 since 2014.
Portugal X At least one trained teacher with an MA (0-2, 1-3 3-5) no need for an MA if lt1.
8
Qualification REQUIREMENTS (Pre-)

• There is a trend towards the requirement of a
  bachelor for ECEC worker.
• Not all countries report practical experience as
• a mandatory requirement for qualification
• But is this in fact, the case?

9
Qualification requirements, standards resources

• Broadly,

• Despite no formal frameworks (e.g. Denmark), in
  practice, there are standards
• Finland is a country that have national quotas
  for training that are free to participants
• Italy provides what seems to be the most generous
  training resources (in time)
• Standards differ between pre-service and
  in-service and differ between roles of ECEC
  workers (0-2 yrs, 3-6 yrs ) and site of ECEC
  (i.e. pedagogues vs. assistants home-based
  providers vs. schools)
• Power over standards is generally guided by a
  national childcare act, and then diffused to
  local/regional governments for governance.
• Training is also broadly self-organised, with
  access to some form of subsidy (non-guaranteed).

10
Characteristics of professional development

• Broadly,

• Despite studies that show a positive impact of
  in-service training (e.g. Danish report)
• The economic crisis has largely impacted
  (negatively) provisions for in-service training
• And there is an increasing demand for academic
  and specialised qualification
• There are increasing numbers of children in the
  system and ECEC centres are also becoming more
  multicultural (both in terms of children and ECEC
  workers)
• There is a lack of researched-based policy to
  help plan for and strengthen a systematised,
  long-term professional development plan.

11
Teachers ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY

• To implement national curriculum / meet quality
  standards

England Teachers have to ensure the 7 areas of
learning and development of the child shape
educational programmes in early years. OFSTED
inspects the quality of the delivery of early
years foundation stage framework, how well
providers meet the welfare, learning and
development requirements.
Norway The Framework Plan for the Content and
Tasks of Kindergartens (MoE 2006) emphasised that
the educational work is based on a tradition of
dialogue, curiosity and exploration. Kindergarten
teachers are trained to see children in a
holistic way, in 7 learning areas.
Portugal National curriculum guidelines are a set
of principles that are very broadly defined and
teachers are expected to develop their own
curriculum autonomously and with intentionality.
12
Policy developments reforms

• Broadly,

• There is an increase in demands for pre-service
  academic qualification
• There is mention of higher childworker ratios
  and generally low financing for ongoing
  in-service training
• ECEC training is still largely self-regulated and
  there is unequal distribution
• There is still a lack in evidence-based policies
  on ECEC education and training.

13
Quality assurance regulation

• Broadly,

• Pre-service education (formal, vocational and/or
  university) is regulated by central governments
  through accreditation and quality evaluation and
  monitoring
• Some mention that in-service training will make
  greater use of the formal system, which means PD
  will be regulated
• Some non-formal providers can obtain
  accreditation, but few have it
• Generally, quality and monitoring is
  self-organised, decentralised, and
  un-systematised.

14
PROMISING Innovative approaches

• Broadly,

• Social innovation in Danish daycare adressing
  issues of social inequalities, gaps between
  disadvantaged and more priviliged peers in terms
  of outcomes of ECEC (e.g. VIDA initiative in
  Denmark)
• A Education uses environment rating scales
  (England)
• Use of mentoring systems fostering student
  engagement (e.g. ongoing intervention study
  Finland)
• Language education initiatives (Germany)
• No current innovative initiatives, despite past
  successes (e.g. Synergy project in Greece)
• Increased resources in order to improve ECEC
  evidence-based practices (tripled since 2006 in
  Norway)
• Collaborative work between teachers in
  associations, etc. (e.g. Modern School
  Movement, Portugal).
• Emphasis on critical reflection and interplay
  between research and practice (Italy)
• Innovative teaching methods focusing on language,
  early reading and writing (e.g Poland)

15
Meta-reflections on trends, strengths weaknesses

• A trend towards academisation and specialisation
  (pre-service requirement in-service
  professional development) on the one hand and
  lack of resources on the other!
• We are still dealing with the dilemma of higher
  childstaff ratios and low in-service training.
• There is not one model for regulation of PD in
  Europe, differences in standards little
  facilitation of in-service (continuous PD) in
  most countries.
• Differences between municipality and few
  centralised standards what does this mean in
  terms of quality?
• Policy mobility (Bologna), cultural mobility and
  social mobility are impacting ECEC.
• Innovative approaches, what is not being
  addressed is the organisational level and
  community of practice for ECEC.
• Next step To identify innovative approaches in
  research, policy and practices

16
Innovative approaches preliminary

• By innovative approaches to in-service PD, we
  mean inter alia professional development
  programmes that go beyond short-term, specialised
  on-the-job training courses, but instead have a
  long-term/lifelong learning perspective.

17
TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR INNOVATION

• We differentiate innovation in ECEC on two levels
  
• 1) The actual approach (content, delivery, modes
  to PD) is innovative (system level)
• 2) PD focused on developing innovative
  competences among ECEC professionals (e.g. by
  teaching teachers to innovate) (organisation
  level Knowledge, ideas, reflection)

18
example Poland
19
example ITALY
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)