Caring and Learning Together

Abstract

Early childhood care and education (ECCE) services embody two different traditions: care and education. The former was often developed as a welfare measure for working-class children who needed care while their parents were at work; the latter as kindergarten or pre-primary educational activities prior to formal schooling. Today, these traditions are expressed in most countries as ‘split systems’ of ECCE. Typically, the two sectors in these split systems are governed, in terms of policy making and administration, by social welfare and education ministries respectively, and are also structured in very different ways with respect to types of service, workforce, access criteria, funding and regulation (including curriculum). Given their distinct historical roots, ‘childcare’ and ‘early education’ services in these split systems embody different visions and understandings of children, programme goals, approaches and contents. Split systems have been the subject of critical discussion since the 1970s and analyses have identified several core problems. For example, education is considered to begin when children are aged 3 or 4, with younger children defined as needing only minding or care while their parents work. Governments assume greater responsibility for education for children over three years, thus investing more public funding in early education than in childcare services for younger children. Differences between services in welfare and education in key areas such as access, regulation, funding and workforce, lead to problems of inequality and lack of continuity for children, parents and workers. To reduce the adverse effects of split systems, two main strategies have been employed: greater coordination and integration. The former involves creating inter-ministerial mechanisms to promote coordinated approaches to ECCE provision. One such mechanism is a coordination body, within or outside line ministries, consisting of representatives from relevant sectors. Evidence shows that such intersectoral coordination has generated some positive results, such as improved public awareness of ECCE, and increased use of comprehensive services. Coordination mechanisms have been found to work well when they are established for a specific purpose or to focus on a target population; however, they have proved less successful in promoting a coherent overall policy and administrative framework across sectors. Other countries have adopted a more integrated response, by assigning national responsibility for all ECCE to a single ministry. Potential advantages of integration have been documented. For example, it may promote more coherent policy and greater quality and consistency across sectors in terms of social objectives, regulation, funding and staffing regimes, curriculum and assessment, costs to parents, and opening hours. It may also facilitate greater and more effective investment in the youngest children, enhanced continuity of children’s experiences, and improved public management of services. It can be argued that it matters less in which ministry ECCE is integrated than that the ministry in question has a strong focus on young children’s development and education. In practice, however, integration today occurs largely within education, a trend that started in the 1980s. Countries having opted for integration within-education include Botswana, Brazil, England, Iceland, Jamaica, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, the Russian Federation, Scotland, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Viet Nam and Zambia. Despite the importance of overcoming the split between care and education and the number of countries that have adopted integration within education, there is no up-to-date comparative research assessing this option. For this reason, the present study focuses on integrating ECCE services within education. The aim is to contribute to a better understanding of this policy option by looking at selected countries (Brazil, Jamaica, New Zealand, Slovenia and Sweden) with very different conditions that have made this move. The study also considers the experience of a municipality (Ghent, Belgium Flanders) that has integrated responsibility for its own ECCE services within education, to gauge the possibility for local initiative. As the study treats integration-within-education as one response to the need to create more coordinated ECCE systems, it therefore includes a country (Finland) that has integrated childcare and early education very successfully within social welfare. It also includes three countries or regions that have chosen to continue with split systems (Belgium Flanders, France, Hungary), in order to provide a better understanding of the case for not adopting integration-within-education. This opening chapter also outlines the study’s aims and objectives, methodology, and provides background to the cases studied.