improving access, quality and equity in ecec: an oecd ... · • poor quality ecec can lead to both...

IMPROVING ACCESS, QUALITY

AND EQUITY IN ECEC:

AN OECD PERSPECTIVE

20 May 2016Marco KoolsDirectorate for Education and Skills, OCDE

Early childhood education and care

Primary and lower secondary education

Upper secondary general and vocational education

Tertiary education

2

Reviews of National Policies for

Education: Education in Latvia

3

Strengths, challenges and recommendations




Tertiary education

4

Why invest in high-quality early childhood

education and care (ECEC)?




Tertiary education

• Can enhance children’s cognitive, linguistic, emotional

and social development

5

ECEC – “the potential for good”

0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bra

in s

en

sit

ivit

y

Age in years

Language numbers peer social skills emotional control

Low

High

• Can help boost educational achievement

• Can be an investment in good citizenship

• Can limit the early establishment of disadvantage,

narrow economic and social gaps and promote social

inclusion

6


• Investing in ECEC is a cost-effective strategy for

promoting economic growth

7


• Poor quality ECEC can lead to both immediate and long-

term harm, including when care outside the home is ‘too

early and for too long’

8

Poor quality ECEC – “the potential for harm”

• Poor quality ECEC can lead to both immediate and long-

term harm, including when care outside the home is ‘too

early and for too long’

Increased focuses on monitoring the quality of ECEC

among OECD countries

9

Poor quality ECEC – “the potential for harm”

10

Strengths




Tertiary education

11

Participation in ECEC is high and starts early

in Latvia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

under age of 3 aged 3 aged 4 aged 5 aged 6 aged 7

% 2002 2003 2006 2009 2012

Net enrolment rate of children up to age 7, 2002-2012

Enrolment rate at age 3 in ECEC, 2013

12

Participation rates for 3- and 4-year-olds

above the OECD average

0102030405060708090

100

Isra

el

Fra

nce

Belg

ium

United K

ingd

om

Den

mark

New

Zea

lan

dIc

ela

nd

Sp

ain

Norw

ay

Italy

Sw

ed

en

Germ

any

Esto

nia

Slo

ve

nia

Neth

erland

sLatv

iaJapan

Port

ugal

OE

CD

avera

ge

Austr

iaLuxem

bo

urg

Fin

land

Slo

va

k R

epublic

Austr

alia

Czech R

ep

ublic

Pola

nd

Chile

Ire

lan

dM

exic

oU

nited S

tate

sT

urk

ey

Sw

itzerland

Early childhood educational programmes (ISCED 01)

Pre-primary education (ISCED 02)

Pre-primary education (ISCED 02) (2005)

13

Entitlement to an ECEC place from 1.5 years old

Jurisdiction Starting

age of

compulsory

school

Age of

children

Entitlement to

a place in ECEC

Entitlement to

free access

Legal

entitlement

Hours/week Free access

entitlement

Hours/week

Latvia 5 0-1.5 none a

1.5-6 universal No central

regulation

unconditional

Belgium-Flemish

Community

6 2.5-5 universal 23.33 unconditional 23.33

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

Mexico 3 0-2 none a targeted m

3-5 universal 15-20 unconditional 15-20

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

Expenditure on ECEC (age 3 and older) as a percentage of GDP (2011)

14

High expenditure level on ECEC and large

share of public spending

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Den

mar

k

Icel

and

Spa

in

Latv

ia

Slo

veni

a

Luxe

mbo

urg

Chi

le

Sw

eden

Pol

and

Fra

nce

Isra

el

Bel

gium

Mex

ico

New

Zea

land

OE

CD

ave

rage

Aus

tria

Ger

man

y

Nor

way

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Italy

Slo

vak

Rep

ublic

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Fin

land

Net

herla

nds

Est

onia

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

Por

tuga

l

Kor

ea

Japa

n

Aus

tral

ia

% Public Private

At-risk-of-poverty rate for children under age 6

15

Poverty among young children has been

decreasing

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fin

land

Neth

erland

s

Ire

lan

d

Czech…

Den

mark

Norw

ay

Sw

itzerland

Germ

any

United…

Icela

nd

Slo

ve

nia

Fra

nce

Sw

ed

en

Belg

ium

Esto

nia

EU

27

Latv

ia

Slo

va

kia

Austr

ia

Pola

nd

Lithuan

ia

Luxem

bo

urg

Hun

gary

Po

rtu

ga

l

Spain

Italy

Gre

ece

% 2013 2010

16

Challenges and areas for further improvement




Tertiary education

Formal childcare by duration - % over the population of 0-2 year-olds (2014)

17

Despite recent progress participation of

the youngest children is still relatively low

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Denm

ark

Sw

ede

n

No

rwa

y

Belg

ium

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Ne

the

rla

nds

Port

ug

al

Icela

nd

Fra

nce

Spa

in

Slo

ven

ia

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Fin

land

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Ire

land

EU

27

Germ

any

Italy

Lithu

ania

Latv

ia

Esto

nia

Austr

ia

Hung

ary

Gre

ece

Slo

vakia

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Pola

nd

% 30 hours or over From 1 to 29 hours

18

Participation in ECEC is unequal across

Latvia

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Institutions in urban areas (left axis) Institutions in rural areas (left axis)

Enrolment in urban areas, thsd (right axis) Enrolment in rural areas, thsd (right axis)

Age distribution of ECEC teachers

19

Barriers to developing a high-quality and

motivated ECEC profession

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Norw

ay

Belg

ium

Un

ited

Kin

gd

om

Austr

ia

Pola

nd

Slo

ven

ia

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Fra

nce

Germ

any

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Spa

in

Latv

ia

Neth

erla

nds

Czech R

ep

ub

lic

Esto

nia

Lithu

ania

50 years or over 40 to 49 30 to 39 less than 30

Differences in mathematics performance, by attendance at pre-primary school

20

Need for strengthening data collection,

monitoring and use of research

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Fra

nce

Slo

vak R

epu

blic

Belg

ium

Italy

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Cze

ch R

ep

ub

lic

Isra

el

Denm

ark

Germ

any

United

Kin

gd

om

Gre

ece

Spa

in

Ja

pa

n

Fin

land

Pola

nd

Sw

ede

n

Austr

alia

Ne

w Z

eala

nd

OE

CD

ave

rag

e

Neth

erla

nds

Austr

ia

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Me

xic

o

Icela

nd

Port

ug

al

Tu

rkey

Cana

da

Norw

ay

Lithu

ania

Ch

ile

Kore

a

United

Sta

tes

Slo

ven

ia

Ire

land

Latv

ia

Esto

nia

Sco

re-p

oin

t d

iffe

ren

ce

betw

een

stu

de

nts

wh

o

att

end

ed

pre

-prim

ary

sch

oo

l fo

r m

ore

th

an

one

ye

ar

and

th

ose

wh

o h

ad

not a

tte

nd

ed

Before accounting for socio-economic status

After accounting for socio-economic status

21

Governance and financing hamper equal

access to quality ECEC

• Latvia provides supplementary funding for children with

additional educational needs.

• The financial support is only provided for those children

in special ECEC institutions and not those who are

enrolled in regular ECEC institutions

22

Governance and financing hamper equal

access to quality ECEC

23

Recommendations




Tertiary education

• Continue expanding access to ECEC services for

children aged three and younger

• Shifting policy attention to children living in rural areas

where participation is low

• Option of lowering the age of compulsory ECEC to 4

years which is likely to benefit children in rural areas in

particular

24

Continue expanding ECEC, in particular in

rural areas and for the youngest children

• Well-designed career structure, includes reviewing

salaries of staff

• Build head teachers capacity to assess staff, including

for providing effective feedback and support for

professional development

• National standards for ECEC staff – outlining

professional expectations al all career stages

25

Take a strategic approach to improving the

quality and motivation of ECEC staff

26

Example of ECEC standards from New

Zealand

• Consider investigating the quality of initial education and

professional development programmes

– E.g. there is an apparent need for strengthening the

preparation for identifying and working with children

with special needs

• Strategic workforce planning should be based on

projections and regular discussions between MoES and

municipalities

27

Take a strategic approach to improving the

quality and motivation of ECEC staff

28

Strengthen data collection, monitoring

and use of research

Monitoring staff

quality

Monitoring service quality

Monitoring child development &

outcomes

• Systematic monitoring of developmental outcomes of

children & the quality of ECEC staff

• Promote and provide clear guidance to municipalities on

how to conduct school self-evaluations

• Consider expanding State Education Quality Service’s

mandate to evaluate ECEC programmes

• Increase efforts to collect and disseminate good practice

to enhance peer learning

29

Strengthen data collection, monitoring and

use of research

• In particular funds should promote integration of

children with special needs in regular ECEC

institutions

• Staff in poorer municipalities should have equal

access to professional development e.g. through

discretionary funding or targeted programmes

• Stronger public accountability to data collection,

monitoring and research

• Ensure well-functioning equalization fund

• More targeted approach to child and family benefits

30

Review the governance and financing

arrangements of ECEC

Thank you

WWW.OECD.ORG/[email protected]

improving access, quality and equity in ecec: an oecd ... · • poor quality ecec can lead to both...

Documents