Presentation of Starting Strong IV, the new report by the OECD on monitoring quality in early childhood education and care, launched on 28 October 2015 at the International Early Childhood Education and Care Event on Monitoring Quality in Dublin

1. STARTING STRONG IV
Monitoring quality in Early Childhood Education
and Care (ECEC)
Montserrat Gomendio
Deputy Director
Directorate for Education and Skills
OECD

2. • Why do countries monitor quality in
ECEC?
• How do countries monitor and what are
the consequences?
• What are the challenges faced and
lessons learnt?
Today’s focus

3. • Why do countries monitor quality in
ECEC?
• How do countries monitor and what are
the consequences?
• What are the challenges faced and
lessons learnt?
Today’s focus

4. Early years are pivotal for child
development
Source: Council for Early Childhood Development, 2010

5. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Belgium
France
Norway
UnitedKingdom
Sweden
Italy
Germany*
NewZealand
Korea
Slovenia
Netherlands
Portugal
Japan
Luxembourg
OECDaverage*
SlovakRepublic
CzechRepublic
Finland
Chile
Ireland
Mexico
Australia
2012 2005%
Enrolment rates in early childhood education at age 3 (2005 and 2012)
Note: For Germany, the year of reference is 2006, rather than 2005. The graph only shows countries covered by the OECD Network on ECEC’s “Online Survey on
Monitoring Quality in Early Learning and Development”. The OECD average refers to all OECD member countries.
Enrolment from age 3 is on the rise in
OECD countries (2012)

6. Jurisdiction Starting
age of
compulsory
school
Age of
children
Entitlement to
a place in ECEC
Entitlement to
free access
Legal access
entitlement
Hours/week Free access
entitlement
Hours/week
Belgium-Flemish
Community
6 2.5-5 universal 23.33 unconditional 23.33
Belgium-French
Community
6 0-2.5 none m conditional m
2.5-5 universal 28 unconditional 28
Czech Republic 6 5 universal 50 unconditional ≥40
France 6 0-2 none a conditional 40
3-5 universal 24 unconditional 24
Italy 6 3-5 universal 40 unconditional 40
Luxembourg 4 0-3 none a conditional 3
3-5 universal 26 unconditional ≤26
Netherlands 5 0-4 none a targeted 10
Norway 6 1-5 universal 41 none a
Slovenia 6 11 months-5
years
universal 45 conditional 45
Sweden 7 1-2 universal 15-50 none a
3-6 universal 15-50 unconditional 15
UK-England 5 2 none a conditional 15
3-4 none a unconditional 15
UK-Scotland 5 3-4 universal 16 unconditional 12.5
Increasingly extensive legal entitlements to ECEC

7. 0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Denmark1
Iceland
Spain
Latvia
RussianFederation
Slovenia1
Luxembourg
Chile
Sweden
Poland
France
Israel1
Argentina
Belgium
Mexico
NewZealand
Austria1
Germany
OECDaverage
Norway
CzechRepublic
Colombia
Italy
SlovakRepublic
UnitedStates1
Finland
Netherlands
Estonia
UnitedKingdom
Korea
Japan
Australia
Hungary1
Brazil1
Portugal
Switzerland
Private expenditure on educational institutions in percentage of GDP Public expenditure on educational institutions in percentage of GDP
Total
% of GDP
Elevated expenditure on early childhood
educational institutions (2011)

8. 0 20 40 60 80 100
Belgium-Flemish Community -Pre-primary education
Belgium-Flemish Community -Day-care centres
Belgium-Flemish Community -Family day-care providers
France -Pre-primary school
France -Community crèches
France -Discovery garden
Germany -Child day-care centres
Italy -Pre-primary school
Japan -Nursery centres
Japan -Kindergarten
Kazakhstan -All public ECEC settings
Korea -Childcare centre
Korea -Kindergarten
Luxembourg -Early childhood education programme
Luxembourg -Compulsory preschool education
Luxembourg -Day-care families
Luxembourg -Day-care centres
Mexico -Federal home-based early education for 0-3 year-olds (CONAFE)
Mexico -Federal centre-based ECEC for 0-6 year-olds of state workers (ISSSTE)
Mexico -Public child development centres for 0-5 year-olds (CENDI)
Mexico -Mandatory preschool
Netherlands -Childminding
Netherlands -Childcare
Netherlands -Childcare for children of disadvantaged backgrounds
New Zealand -Māori language nest
New Zealand -Kindergarten
New Zealand -Playcentre
New Zealand -Education and care
New Zealand -Home-based
Norway -Kindergarten, family kindergarten
Slovak Republic -Kindergarten
Slovenia -Kindergarten (integrated ECEC setting for 1-5 year-olds)
Slovenia -Childminding of preschool children
Sweden -Preschool class
Sweden -Preschool
State (central, regional, local levels) Parents Other
Share of cost to parents and state of ECEC
BE
FR
DE
IT
JP
SI
SE
KZ
KR
LU
MX
NL
NZ
NO
SK

9. Mainly monitored to i) enhance the level of quality in settings; ii)
inform policy makers and the general public about the state of
ECEC in their country
Purposes of monitoring service quality
0 10 20 30
Accountability purposes without explicit sanction or reward
Identifying learning needs for children
Identifying learning needs for staff
Improving staff performance
Enhancing child development
Accountability purposes with explicit sanction or reward
Informing general public
Informing policy making
Improving level of service quality
Number of times cited by jurisdictions

10. Child development is less frequently monitored to inform policy
making, the public, and for accountability purposes, but rather to
enhance child development (16/21), identify learning needs of
children (16/21), and improving the level of service quality (15/21)
Purposes of monitoring child
development
0 5 10 15 20
Accountability purpose, with sanctions/ rewards
Accountability purpose, without sanctions/ rewards
Informing general public
Identifying learning needs for staff
Informing policy making
Improving staff performance
Improving level of service quality
Enhancing child development
Identifying learning needs for children
Number of jurisdictions

11. • Why do countries monitor quality in
ECEC?
• How do countries monitor and what are
the consequences?
• What are the challenges faced and
lessons learnt?
Today’s focus

12. • Funding of monitoring systems mostly public,
sourced from different levels of government
• Monitoring quality is mostly done by public
institutions or agencies such as ministries of
education or inspectorates
• In decentralised systems, local authorities play a
key role in monitoring
• Most commonly monitored are service quality
and staff quality – child outcomes less frequently
• Areas of monitoring are often integrated:
Monitoring service quality, staff quality and child
outcomes are usually not monitored independently
Governance and funding

13. • Wide differences in approaches to monitoring and which
tools are used
• Structural aspects/ regulation compliance: most
frequently monitored…but increasing attention to
monitoring process quality
• External assessors usually receive comprehensive
training, while internal assessors not always in all aspects
of their monitoring tasks
• Countries are increasingly applying a common approach
to monitoring across different types of ECEC provision
(e.g. via a framework)
• The results of monitoring quality, especially service quality,
increasingly available to the public
Evaluators and approaches

14. • Inspections (24/24) and self-evaluations (19/24)
are most common, parental surveys less popular
(15/24)
• Frequency of monitoring service quality internally
or externally is not regulated in most countries
– usually depends on last monitoring result
• Service quality results have to be made public
in most countries (16), although in some
countries only general or aggregated results are
shared rather than the results of individual settings
Implementation of monitoring service
quality

15. Inspections focus largely on regulatory aspects, such as staff-
child ratios, safety regulations, minimum staff qualifications,
health and hygiene regulations, and minimum standards for space
Aspects of service quality monitored
through inspections
0 5 10 15 20 25
Working conditions
Human resource management
Financial resource management
Implementation of a curriculum
Planning of work/ staff
Learning and play material in use
Indoor/ outdoor space
Staff-child ratios
Health and/or hygiene regulations
Minimum staff qualifications
Safety regulations
Number of jurisdictions that monitor the aspects
Service quality aspects inspected in child care and nursery settings (or integrated settings
for countries with an integrated system)
Frequency
usually depends
on last
monitoring
result

16. Inspections use various tools:
• Observations, interviews and analysis of
internal documentation are used in inspections
by 87,5% of jurisdictions
• Checklists and results of self-evaluations are
fairly often used (by two-thirds)
• Rating scales and survey results, conducted
by evaluators, staff/management or parents, are
less popular
Tools for monitoring service quality
through inspections

17. Self-evaluations feed into inspections, but
especially seek to foster quality :
• Self-reported surveys, self-reflection reports
or journals, and checklists are often used (by
12/19)
• A little less than half use portfolios (8/19)
• Video feedback not often used (3/19)
Monitoring service quality through self-
evaluations

18. Curriculum implementation, staff-child interactions and the
quality of teaching are the key areas countries monitor with
regard to process quality across different types of settings.
Areas of process quality monitored
0 5 10 15 20
Sensitivity (warmth, attentiveness, etc.)
Age-appropriateness of practices
Collaboration between staff and parents
Responsiveness to children’s individual needs
Collaboration between colleagues (staff)
Pedagogy
Overall quality of teaching/ instruction/ caring
Relationships and interactions between staff and children
Implementation of curriculum
Number of jurisdictions (out of 23 jurisdictions)
Process quality aspects monitored in pre-primary education (or integrated settings)

19. • Direct assessments are done through testing
(in 9/21 jurisdictions) or screening (9/21)
• Narrative assessments consist of storytelling
practices (11/21) or portfolios (14/21)
• Observations make most commonly use of
checklists (17/21) and rating scales (12/21)
• Monitoring children’s views when assessing
child development has become a more
widespread practice (11/21)
Varied tools used for monitoring child
development

20. Direct assessments are mostly applied to testing language and
literacy, while observations and narrative assessments tend to
focus on a broader range of skills
Areas of child development monitored
0 5 10 15 20
ICT skills
Science
Practical skills
Health development, e.g., overweight
Well-being
Creative skills
Autonomy
Numeracy skills
Language and literacy skills
Socio-emotional skills
Motor skills
Observations and narrative assessments
Direct assessments
Number of jurisdictions

21. Most common consequence of monitoring results is: i) centre or
staff must take measures to address shortcomings; ii) follow-up
inspections or other monitoring practices, or in extreme cases;
iii) close-down or denied renewal of license to operate
Consequences of monitoring service
quality
0 5 10 15 20
Competitive advantages in comparison with other services
Aligning monitoring to increased remunerations or demotions
Funding consequences: additional funding
Funding consequences: cuts in funding
Obliging management/ staff to participate in/ receive training
Closure of services/ settings or non-renewal of license to operate
Follow-up inspection or other follow-up monitoring practices
Take measures to address shortcomings
Number of jurisdictions

22. It is common that settings/staff have to address their
shortcomings after a staff monitoring practice, comply with
follow-up monitoring exercises, and that staff/management should
take up on training
Monitoring staff quality - consequences
0 5 10 15 20 25
Additional funding
Competitive advantages in comparison with other services
Aligning monitoring to increased remunerations or demotions
Cuts in funding
Obliging management/ staff to participate in/ receive training
Closure of services/ settings or non-renewal of license to
operate
Follow-up inspection or other follow-up monitoring practices
Take measures to address shortcomings
Number of jurisdictions (out of 23 jurisdictions)
Consequences of monitoring early childhood education and care staff

23. • Why do countries monitor quality in
ECEC?
• How do countries monitor and what are
the consequences?
• What are the challenges faced and
lessons learnt?
Today’s focus

24. • Defining and establishing a complete picture of
quality:
- Setting out clear and comprehensive quality goals
- Gathering input from parents
- Monitoring children’s views
• Ensuring a coherent monitoring system:
- Developing national standards or regulations
- Developing a central monitoring framework
- Standardising monitoring tools
• Monitoring to inform policy reform:
- Collecting data that can inform policies and strategies
- Providing training to underperforming settings or staff
General challenges in monitoring
service quality

25. • Creating an accurate and complete picture of
child development:
- Using multiple instruments
- Continuous assessment of child development
• Recognising children’s individual development:
- Tailoring monitoring to the individual child
- Using developmentally appropriate tools
Challenges in monitoring child
development

26. 1. Balance the purposes for monitoring
2. Highlight good practice to promote understanding of what quality
entails
3. Develop a coherent monitoring framework for different settings
4. Consider the potential advantages and disadvantages of delegating
to local authorities the responsibility of monitoring quality
5. Design a monitoring system to inform policy and the general
public
6. Link monitoring of staff quality to professional development
7. Do not underestimate the demands that monitoring places on staff
8. Value the voices of staff, parents and children
9. Use continuous monitoring for teaching and learning strategies
that support child development.
Lessons learnt in monitoring quality in
ECEC

27. Contact:
OECD ECEC team
(ECEC@oecd.org)
www.oecd.org/edu/earlychildhood
Thank you for your attention