DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 361 064 PS 021 548

AUTHOR Gifford, JeanTITLE The Road to Accreditation.,Readings on Early

Education and Care.INSTITUTION Australian Early Childhood Association, Inc.,

Watson.REPORT NO ISBN-1-86323-036-XPUB DATE 92NOTE 111p.; Some pages contain toner streaks.AVAILABLE FROM Australian Early Childhood Association, Inc., P.O.

Box 105, Watson, Australian Capital Territory 2602,Australia ($17.50, Australian).

PUB TYPE Collected Works General (020) Viewpoints(Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.) (120)Reports Descriptive (141)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC05 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Accreditation (Institutions); Accrediting Agencies;

*Day Care; *Day Care Centers; Early ChildhoodEducation; Family Day Care; Foreign Countries;Preschool Education; *Program Evaluation

IDENTIFIERS *Accreditation Standards; *Australia; VoluntaryParticipation

ABSTRACT

This document rrovides a collection of articles,speeches, and newsletter excerpts covering the accreditation of childcare programs in Australia and the United States. The collectioncontains the following speeches and articles: (1) "The Road toAccreditation," on the history of accreditation in the two countries;(2) "The Case for Child Care Accreditation"; (3) "Standards forAustralian Program Accreditation System: A Review of ProgramEvaluation Models"; (4) "Australian Early Childhood AssociationPosition Paper: An Accreditation System for Early Childhood ProgramsStarting with Centre-Based Long Day Care"; (5) "NAEYC's CenterAccreditation Project: Goals and Philosophy"; (6) "Three Componentsof High Quality Early Childhood Programs: Physical Environment,Health and Safety, and Nutrition"; (7) "Progress Report on the CenterAccreditation Project"; (8) "Promote Your National CenterAccreditation"; (9) "Sue Bredekamp's Address to the Council ofAustralian Early Childhood Association, December 1989", concerningthe development of the U.S. accreditation system and how it works;(10) "Voluntary Accreditation: The New South Wales Experience"; and(11) "Accreditation--Go for Itl" on caregivers' positive response tochanges brought about by accreditation. Newsletter excerpts onaccreditation from the Australian Early Childhood Association'sNewsletter from April 1990 to October 1992 are also included. (MM)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

CD

LL1

U.I. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIOSSOf Ice of Educational Research and Improyenwont

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

)(hos document has been reproduced aseceived Nom th person Of orgenitatIon

onginating 1.0 Minor chinges have boon made to moray*

reproduction quality

Points ol vow or opinions ststed in Madam,-mem do not neCosianly reprIsen1 official

OE RI position or policy

Readings on Early Educationand Care

THE ROAD TOACCREDITATION

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Poom CoAwr

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)...

PublushvdTHE AUSTRALIAN CHILDHOOD ASSOCIATIONP.O. Box 105, WATSON, A.C.T. 2602

MST COPY MAILABLE

We are grateful to

Legend

Acknowledgments

The National Association for the Education ofYoung Children (NAEYC), Washington D.C.for permission to reprint material from theirpublication Young Children.

The Directors of Child Care InformationExchange, Washington D.C. for permission toreprint material from their publication.

Community Child Care Co-operative Ltd(NSW) for permission to reprint material fromtheir publication Rattler

AJEC: Australian Journal of Early Childhood

ISBN 1 86323 036 X

Copyright 1992. All rights reserved by the Australian Early ChildhoodAssociation Inc. Material herein must not be reproduced in any formwithout the written permission of the Association.

Contents

What is it?

The Road to AccreditationJean Gifford ... ... 1

Talk Given to the Lady Gowrie Child CentreChildren's Services Indusity Training Seminar, May 1992

Why?

The Case for Child Care AccreditationJean Gifford ... ... 6

Article published in The Canberra Times,30 November,1992

How do we do it?

Standards for Australian Program Accreditation System:A Review of Program Evaluation ModelsJune Wangmann

AJEC Vol.17(1) March 1992

Australian Early Childhood Association Position Paper:An Accreditation System for Early Childhood Programsstarting with centre-based Long Day Care ...

The American Experience

1 1

17

CAP 1 NAEYC's Center Accreditation Project:Goals and Philosophy 31

Young Children, March 1983

4

CAP 2 Three Components of High Quality Early Childhood Programs:

Physical Environment, Health and Safetyand Nutrition ...

Young Children, May 1983

34

CAP 5 Progress Report on the Center Accreditation Project 40

Young Children, November 1983

Promote your National Center AccreditationKaren Stephens 52

Child Care Information Exchange

The New South Wales Experience

Sue Bredekamp's Address to the Council of theAustralian Early Childhood Association, December 1989Sue Bredekamp 56

Voluntary Accreditation: The New South Wales ExperienceJan Kelly 66

AJEC Vol.17(1) March 1992

Accreditation - go for it! 73

Rattler 18, Winter 1991

Tracking the History throughthe Australian Early Childhood Newsletter

Extracts from the Australian Early Childhood Association'sNewsletter from April 1990 to October 1992 77

5

^

THE ROAD TO ACCREDITATION

Talk given to the Lady Gowrie Child CentreChildren's Services Industry Training Seminar

Gold Coast, Queensland12 May 1992

by

Jean GiffordDeputy National Director

Australian Early Childhcod Association

Accreditation is a form of industry self-regulation. It is rot unique to child care.There are many models of accreditation in other industries, for example, hospitalsand other health sector areas. Interest in accreditation developed in Australiafollowing the introduction of a system designed to improve the quality of care in

early childhood programs developed by the National Association for the Education

of Young Children (NAEYC) in the USA.

NAEYC started to work on a national system of accreditation in 1981. They wereconcerned that State licensing standards varied enormously between their 50 States.They also believed that licensing standards, by definition, had to be minimumstandards and they wanted a means of encouraging programs to achieve more than

a minimum. They also wanted to be able to identify characteristics wiihin

programs whi-..h they believed reiated to quality, but which were not amenable toobjective measurement. Their system relies on an element of professionjudgement, pennitting the inclusion of 'subjective' features of programs, such asthe nature of staff/child interactions. They wanted long lasting improvements toresult from a service undergoing accreditation, so they opted for fairly complexsystem which involves a lengthy period of self-evaluation, followed by an expert

visit. NAEYC contends that the self-study process, which is what they call thisinternal evaluation, results in significant professional growth. They were notinterested in simply identifying the best programs as a kind of consumer guide to

high quality care. Th..v were hopeful of increasing awareness within the field ofwhat constituted good practice, and in encouraging all programs to strive to

improve the quality of their programs (Bredekamp, 1989).

In 1987, the Australian Early Childhood Association endorsed a principle ofNational Accreditation which consists of:

National endorsement of trainingRegistration of personnelVoluntary centre accreditation

A working liarty was established to undertake initial investigation and action. The

first two elements of the principle may seem surprising, as they have dropped outof the proposal for accreditation we are now being consulted on. Accreditation oftraining courses and accreditation of personnel working in child care is anotherlong standing issue for the field. These days it is being addressed through theconcept of competencies and competency based training, nationally consistent

curricula, mutual recognition of training mechanisms arid procedures for the

recognition of skills acquired outside of formal training courses. These are allimportant issues for us, but are not on today's program.

In 1987, however, these different kinds of accreditation were being consideredtogether, and consituted a mammoth project for the working party, to be based in

2

7

South Australia. During 1987 AECA lobbied the State Welfare Ministers to

implement the whole national accreditation system. Some Minister's responseswere sympathetic, but they asked, 'who pays?' Others wrote back saying thesewere State issues.

In 1988, along with specific recommendations dealing with accreditation issuesrelating to courses and staff qualifications, the working party recommended thatwork commence within the Victorian Branch to develop an Australianaccreditation tool continue. Council gave in-principle agreement to conducting anational trial of the Victorian tool once this had been developed. The VictorianBranch had obtained a small grant to begin work on putting together a possibleaccreditation tool which would be suitable for Australia and had made significantprogress in developing sample criteria by the 1988 Council meeting. They agreedto keep going.

By this time, several State governments had begun to take an active interest incentre accredition as a means of quality assurance in the programs they werelicensing. The Queensland government engaged a consultancy team to consider theissues relating to the introduction of a voluntary system of accreditation in

Queensland, including examining the relationship between accreditation and Statelicensing standards. Poor licensing standards needing review, widely held concernsfor existing quality in services, and a push within government for deregulationwere all factors leading to the consultancy. A report, Voluntary Accreditation ofEarly Childhood Programs in Queensland: A Report to the Minister for FamilyServices was issued in May 1989. Following this report, the consultants BarbaraPiscitelli and Nadine McCrea were engag:-..4 to adapt the NAEYC system forAustralian use, with generous permission from NAEYC. This work was done onthe basis of 'informed guesses' by the consultancy team. It needed trialling to testthe validity of their changes, and failures to change to American documents. In theend, the Queensland government decided not to support such a trialling, but agreedto cover the costs of a large print run of the documents, permitting other groups totrial the tool. This opportunity was subsequently taken up in a serious way by theACT Branch of AECA, and, I believe, by the SA State government.

At the same time, the New South Wales government was also exploringaccreditation. It paid for Sue Bredekamp to come to New South Wales and run aseries c4 validators training courses so that a trialling of the full NAEYCaccreditation system could be undertaken in NSW. The project was initiated by theNSW Branch of AECA and is still being conducted tiy the Branch, with significantco-operation of State advisory personnel. A number of services have undertakenthe self-study process, and a few have achieved full 'accreditation'. Because thesystem is only being trialled, these centres receive an unofficial certificate ofachievement, but they certainly value this achievement.

Faced with these diverse developments, the 1989 AECA Council decided to set up

3

8

a special task force made up of AECA members who were directly involved ineach of the accreditation projects in Victoria, Queensland and NSW. The TaskForce met throughout 1989, and considered the three different tools in detail. This

work led to AECA's starting position in the consultations which the Federalgovernment held in 1990 on a national accreditation system.

THE GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT

During the 1990 election campaign the Prime Minister made the followingannouncement:

The Government will bring together the key interests in the child careindustry to develop a system of accreditation for child care services, toensure children and their parents have access to quality care.

A representative committee was set up in June 1990 under the chair of MaryCrawford. Their Terms of Reference were to assess a range of possible child care

accreditation options and make recommendations to the Minister on an

accreditation system which would:

over time, encourage consistent standards and improve quality across thechild care industry in Australia;

facilitate invovement of all interested parties (including providers in allsectors, staff and parents, State and Local government, and all the child careunions) in the setting and maintenance of standards;

achieve a standard of care which provides quality outcomes for children andparents at an affordable cost to users and government; and

be a complementary system to Stateaerritory licensing regulations.

The Crawford Committee presented its report to Government in September. Their

report stressed that these goals were crucial. In addition, they considered that theseobjectives needed to:

ensure a satisfactory and consistent level of quality across all sectors of theindustry and across all States;

establish a process which over time would build on this satisfactory level;

this quality improvement process needed to be acceptable to all sectors of'industry, and be realistic in its balancing of quality and cost concerns; and

the emphasis of the process of accreditation should be on encouraging theparticipation of parents, staff and service providers in self-assessment andcontinuing improvement of their services rather than being based onassessment by Government.

Links with fee relief

Behind these words lies a significant compromise reached within the CrawfordCommittee between two very different views of what accreditation was meant toachieve. On the one hand were those who believed that accreditation needed toapply in full to every centre receiving some form of government funding, includingfee relief, in order to assure a high level of quality in all centres. This group heldthat State licensing had proved an insufficient means of quality assurance--eitherbecause the kinds of things included in regulations often only indirectly related to'quality on the ground' for children, or they were not consistently enforced. In

addition, licensing standards vary considerably from State to State.

On the other side were groups such as AECA, who believed strongly that this kindof heavy-handed approach to accreditation simply would not work. AECA waspushing for accreditation to be entirely voluntary because we were looking for real,long lasting changes in thinking and professional growth to come out of a systemof self evaluation within a centre, which was our idea of what accreditation shouldinvolve. Our thinking was strongly influenced by our knowledge of and supportfor the thinking behind the NAEYC system.

In the end, however, it was clear that a compromise would be necessary, and in theprocess of thinking through what that might be, we gradually shifted in ourthinking about what was desirable. By the September Council meeting 1990,AECA was comfortable with the concept of an introductory module within avoluntary Accreditation system which would prescribe a standard of qualitynecessary for fee relief. This was the position reached by the Crawford Committeein its advice to the Minister.

References:

Bredekamp, S (1989) Address to 1989 Australian Early Childhood AssociationAnnual Council Meeting.

5

10

This article was written in response to an earlier articleby the economist Geoff Hogbin, putting the case against accreditation...

THE CASE FOR CHILD CARE ACCREDITATION

On December 15 Cabinet is due to consider a report calling for a child careaccreditation system. First promised by the Hawke Government in the lead upto the 1990 election, the proposal has been developed by a national industry-wide committee with strong support from all sectors of the child care industry.

The Australian Early Childhood Association has been pushing hard for childcare accreditation for many years, ever since our American counterpartdeveloped a quality assurance program for US early childhood programs.Accreditation offers potential benefits to employers, workers, parents andgovernment. Most importantly from our perspective, we believe it will providelasting benefits for children.

Not everyone agrees that a new form of quality assurance for child care isnecessary or desirable. Centres are already subject to licensing controls byeach State and Territory Government. Some believe that these are sufficient, orare already overly restrictive. Some groups are questioning whether thequalitative assessments involved are feasible aid enforceable. Fears ofincreased costs are also raised as objections. Mr Hobgin presented the concernsof a commercial child care lobby group that is especially strongly opposed toaccreditation. This article will examine the case for accreditation, and considereach of these objections in turn.

Accreditation as it is being proposed by the child care industry would involvethe child care industry as a whole agreeing on a set of standards for goodpractice. Centres wanting accredited status would evaluate their programagainst the agreed criteria. An agent of the Council would verify the centre'sself-evaluation and an accreditation decision would follow. Accreditation is tobe voluntary, but compliance with some of the criteria developed by theCouncil will be pre-requisites to receiving Commonwealth subsidies includingmonies to be used for fee relief purposes.

The main spin-off from accreditation is the focus it gives to good practice.Before the accreditatio:. project started, there were no explicit standards forhigh quality care, and certainly no concensus about them. Already the debateabout what the criteria should look like has stirred the entire industry to thinkhard about the impact their program is having on children. Especiallychallenging is deciding how make our child care genuinely appropriate for anethnically mixed population.

The Government's goal for accreditation is to improve the quality of careprovided generally in Australian child care programs. This is why a portion ofthe criteria are to be linked to fee relief. A related goal is provide parents with

a direct assurance of quality in the programs they use. Vie believe there willbe other benefits as well. A better public understanding of the links betweenthe nature of early experiences in child care and their impact on childdevelopment should improve the level of sophistication in child care debates.At the moment considerations of important child care questions too often takeplace in a knowledge vaccuum. Worker morale will be improved, too, it' theprocess of undergoing accreditation creates a shared understanding of mutualgoals within the centre and a sense of working in an environment whichsupports the achievement of explicit and agreed goals. Participants in twodifferent pilot projects have confirmed that these additional benefits areprobable.

Mr Hogbin argues that becar accreditation standards laGk objectivity and arenot easily enforced, parents may be given a false sense of assurance of qualitywhen their children attend accredited centres. The probl:In is, objective andeasily enforceable standards cannot assure quality. We already have licensingregulations but as Mr Hogbin notes, good child care cannot be made byregulation alone. Complex industries require more sophisticated means ofshedding light on good practice than is offered by easily administered,'objective' regulations.

To provide direct quality assurance, parents need information about how theirchildren are being treated in centres, and how they are experiencing thattreatment. The nature of staff/child interactions, the appropriateness of thelearning experiences and the overall emotional climate of the centre arecomplex, qualitative features of programs that are nevertheless capable of beingdescribed and rated by people with the necessary expertise.

They aretheless deal with issues parents understand and have knowledge of andcare deeply about:

Do the staff in the centre respond to children's normal behaviour withimpatience, anger, insensitivity; or with pleasure, taking preventive stepsto avoid tantrums, displaying sensitivity to developing competence andlistening to what children want?

Do the staff talk mainly to the group as a whole, or do children getindividual attention?

State licencing authorities initially shared concerns that industry-basedac,,reditation would unnecessarily duplicate their work. Over time, theircommitment to accreditation has grown as they have come to see an industry-led movement to improve standards as reinforcement rather than competition.They have worked closely with the Interim Accreditation Council to enswe thataccreditation will complement, rather than duplicate licensing standards.

7

12

How long will the standards recognised by accreditation last?Licensing is an event. An official annually checks for compliance against a listof regulations during a visit to the centre. Accreditation is a process.Everyone in the centre participates, with parents and staff individuallycontributing to the centre's self evaluation. The self study phase involvesthinking about why one approach is recommended o.,er another, and rethinkingthe standard approach within the centre. Parents and staff grow in theirunderstanding of sound child care practice. The process is public, and takesplace over time. It results in shifts in thinking and understanding, as well asbehaviour. Ext.;erience shows that standards achieved during the accreditationprocess will gradually erode, particularly with major staff changes. Therefore,it is planned for accreditation to only be valid for three years before re-accreditation would need to occur.

Accreditation and competitionMr Hogbin worries that the centre's self-assessment needs to be verified bysomeone else within the industay. He compares this with asking AnsettAil-fines to decide whether safety standards would be jeopardised by allowingCompass to set up in competition. A better analogy would be asking a notedsurgeon to pass judgement on the standard achieved by an operating theatre ina hospital seeking accreditation. This is how hospital accreditation works, andhow child care accreditation works in the US. It is also how a pilot pioject hasbeen working successfully in NSW over the past two years.

Child care centres are not organised like national airlines and have littlecapacity to become cartels. By and large, they ale stand-alone operations andwork co-operatively with neighbouring services, rather than in competition withone another. In any case, it is envisaged that a reviewer would not be asked toconfirm ratings of any centres operating in direct competition with their own.

Restrictive licensingIt is argued that accreditation amounts to restrictive licensing and is againstconsumer interests. The only restriction to apply as a result of accreditation isis the potential for some services to lose the right to receive public monies inorder to reduce fees for low income users. This could be a final consequencefor centres found to be inadequate by the rest of the industry, who areunwilling or unable to lift their game. No one is suggesting that only fullyaccredited centres will be allowed to operate. Even centres failing to meet thesubset of standards selected for eligibility for fee relief will be permitted tocontinue to operate. It is likely that they will even be allowed to continue toreceive subsidies for existing clients, but be unable to offer reductions to newusers until improvements are made.

Hogbin suggests that accreditation could result in de-facto restrictive licensing,since parents will only want to send children to accredited centres. Elsewhere,he argues that parents will only see benefits from accreditation if the gains inquality achieved are greater than any additional costs to them flowing fromaccreditation. He also questions whether there will be any gains in quality as a

8

13

result of accreditation. The case against accreditation cannot have it both ways,claiming on the one hand that accreditation is a device being manipulated toprovide incumbent service suppliers with a mechanism for restricting entry ofnewcomers against the wishes and interests of users, and on the other thatconsumers will demand access to accredited services (even when they costmore) and so put all other less expensive centres out of business.

It seems probable that parents will exert pressure on centres to attain accreditedstatus if they can see differences in the quality offered by accredited and nonaccredited centres and believe the gains are worth paying for. This seemsconsonent with philosophies favouring market forces, and sits oddly with therest of Hogbin's free market-based position against accreditation.

Is higher child care quality desirable?Hogbin questions whether government has any clear goals for accreditation,given that Australia appears to have centres of reIrtively high quality already.The truth is that no one knows how good our services are, but anecdotalevidence, licensing standards and industry practice all suggest that Australia hasdeveloped a child care industry of relatively high quality in world terms. Theissue is whether formal quality assurance measures are necessary in order todocument the effectiveness of child care services, or whether anecdotes andimpressions are considered sufficient.

To say that Australia is ahead of other countries is another way of saying thatwe probably have fewer horror stories to recount than they do. Those of uswho have worked in the industry have a collection of anecdotes and personalexperiences that deny complacency: babies kept quiet with gumdrops, toddlersbanished to the 'naughty' chair for acting their age, preschoolers tied to chairsduring lunch, display toys nailed to shelves ih playrooms, over-enrolledchildren hidden during licensing inspections, and so on. These are extreme,isolated problems. More everyday concerns are momentary lapses ofsupervision, poorly structured programs that unravel into chaos, tired andirritable staff snapping at equally tired and irritable children, under-resourcedworkers struggling to deal with disturbed and disruptive children whilemanaging the rest of the group, and quiet, withdrawn children gettingoverlooked by staff too busy to notice them.

All centres have good days and bad days. Observation suggests that mostcentres also have particular strengths and weaknesses, and that these varyconsiderably from centre to centre. There is some evidence that patterns ofstrengths and weaknesses may also vary from State to State.

Government has been very clear that accreditation is intended to improvestandards of care across the whole industry. For this reason, there are to betwo levels of accreditation: a beginning level linked to fee relief, and a secondlevel for services interested in voluntarily pursuing further improvements (orwanting recognition of existing high standards).

9

4

Child care amounts to a revolution in the way Australiabrings up its children - how effectively -ye manage it mattersGiven the scale of the change from home care to child care as the way inwhich child rearing is now provided for many children, and the recency of thatchange, the. lack of national curiosity about the quality of child care services isastonishing. Mr Hogbin seems to be saying, let's not look since we might notlike what we see. Qtiality child care might cost too much. Others are arguingthat we will have to pay for child care one way or another, either up front or inthe form of remediation at some later date, or simply through lost potential.Disturbing research evidence indicates that while many group care programsenhance children's cognitive, language and social-emotional development, otherprograms are cause for concern. Under-resourced and unsupported centre-basedchild care programs can represent the worst aspects of institutionalisation:depersonalisation, the creation of apathy, the stunting of potential.

No comparable studies have been conducted in Australia. As already noted,there is reason to believe that the present quality of Australian child careprograms is high relative to the typical standard of programs in countrieslacking a strong Government policy for child care provision, such as the UnitedStates, Canada and Great Britain. However, pressures to expand provision andretain affordability are putting Australian standards of care into jeopardy.

Good child care is not made in heaven. It is made by hard work and intelligentunderstanding of children and of effective ways of working with groups ofchildren over a full day. Accreditation appears to be an effective way ofimproving the level of shared understanding within a centre of good practice,and hence of providing better care.

The proposal to develop a national quality assurance program for child carewill be put to Cabinet on 15 December.

Jean GiffordDeputy National Director

23 November 1992

1 5

10

Standards for anAustralian Program

AccreditationSystem:

A Review ofProgram Evaluation

Models

June Wangmann

Senior LecturerInstitute of Early ChildhoodMacquarie University, NSW

INTRODUCTIDN

In December 1991 the CommonwealthGovernment established an Interim Accredi-tation Council. This Council/ representativeof all sections within the children's servicesindustry in Australia, has as its central taskthe development of an accreditation systemfor early childhood programs. As variousgroups and individuals debate the complexissues associated with such a process, themajor concern emerging relates to the selec-tion of the standards or criteria to be address-ed by the system. These standards need to becomprehensive and encompass the key com-ponents of quality in early childhood pro-grams as have been identified by both researchand practice.

The Accreditation Council need not begin itswork 'from scratch' as a great deal of work inthe area of program evaluation has takenplace and many evaluation instruments areavailable. Like accreditation, program eval-uation monitors quality in the program,usually as a result of self evaluation, usingquantitative and objective indicators asmeasures of quality. The chief differencebetween program evaluation and programaccreditation is that in the latter, recognitionis given to those programs that substantiallycomply with the established criteria. Becauseof the public nature of the outcome, and theconsequences following from that, there needsto be acceptance by the children's industry asa whole of the particular set of criteriaselected for accreditation.

The development of a reliable programevaluation measure is a lengthy and complexprocess. Program evaluation instruments arenow available anti can be used as resources forthe development of an accreditation system.When selecting a program evaluation measurecareful consideration needs to be given tocertain factors. Abbott-Shim and Sibley(1990) suggest that these factors are:

I. Range of the program evaluationinstrument

2. Validity/credibility

3. Reliability

4. Specificity of criteria

5. Scoring

6. Sources of information

11

Austrahan Journai of Early Childhood, Vol 17 (1), March 1992

16

7. Training for data collection "All electrical outlets are covered witiiprotective caps".

8. Recording of information

I. Range of the Program EvaluationInstrument

A program evaluation instrument may bebroad or narrow in its focus. A broad rangingtool suitable for use in early childhood pro-grams would include components appropriateto evaluate settings for children aged 0-8years. The components would be designed toevaluate all aspects of the program includingadministration and would be developmentallyappropriate for the age groups concerned. Aninstrument having a narrow focus may, forexample, only consider infants and toddlers,

2. Validity/Credibility

Any program evaluation instrument must bevalid. This means that the instrument actuallymeasures what it says it measures. In develop-ing standards to be used in an accreditationsystem for Australia the criteria selected needto represent what are the professionally agreedcomponents of quality supported by researchevidence. These criteria would then havecredibility with the early childhood field inthis country.

A segment of the accreditation instrumentwill be mandatory for services if families areto be eligible for fee relief. This mandatorycomponent will also need to be credible to thegeneral community if acceptance of the systemis to be achieved.

3. Reliability

Program evaluation instruments need to beable to provide consistent and replicableinformation. Reliability is established invarious ways but generally includes a processof interrater reliability. In this process differ-ent individuals independently use the instru-ment in the same setting at the same time andthen ratings are compared for consistency.The internal consistency of the instrument isasa.ssed by statistical analysis. This analysislooks at the way individual items relate toeach other and to the total score.

4. Specificity of Criteria

Criteria in the program evaluation documentmay be expressed as clearly defined discreteunits, for example:

Criteria may also be expressed as complexunits, for example:

"Staff are responsive to children".

Most program evaluation measurcs usuallyinclude both complex and discrete units.Obvi usly the more clearly defined the criteriathe more objective the assessment procedures.

5. Scoring Procedures

Various methods exist for scoring informationcollected during an evaluation of a program.

Checklists and ratir scales are two of themore frequently used procedures.

6. Sources of Information Used to GatherData

Information about a program may be collect-ed from a variety of sources, for example:

Documentation

Report and/ or interviews with staff,parents, etc.

Direct observation

Most program evaluation tools use a com-bination of methods. As accreditation is aboutassessing what children are actually exper-iencing in the program direct observation isessential.

7. Training for Data Collection

Collection of data needs to be considered ontwo levels. Centre staff may require inservicetraining to assist them in undertaking a selfevaluation process. Training also needs to beconsidered for individuals outside the centrewho visit to assess the program. The form andcontent of training is dependent upon thenature of the criteria to be evaluated.

8. Recording of Information

Once data about a program has been collectedit may be recorded in a variety of ways. Someof the more widely used methods are graphs,charts and summary scores.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol 17(1), March 1492

17. 12

Table 1A Comparison of Program Evaluation Measures

PROFILE ECERS - NAEYC1 Range of program

evaluation instrumentinfants, toddlers,preschoolers and beforeand aftcr school settingsadministration

- children 21h to 6 years infants, toddlers,preschoolers and beforeand after school settingsadministration

2 Valid ity / Cred ibility well established by expertreview

- well established by expertreview

- well established by cxpertreview

3 Reliability established by interraterand internal consistcncy

- established by interraterand internal consistency

- established by interraterand internal consistency

4. Specificity of critcria - discrete units organisedinto four sectionsaccording to age plus ageneral administrativesection

- complex units organisedinto seven areas

I. personal care routines2. furnishings and display

for children3. language and reasoning4. fine and gross motor

activities5. creative activities6. social development7. adult needs

- discrete and complexunits organised into tenareas

I. intcraction among staffand children

2. curriculum3. staff-parent interaction4. staff qualification and

development5. administration6. staffing7. physical environment8. health and safety9. nutrition and food

service10. evaluation

5. Scoring checklist with forcedchoice

- rating scale I - 7I = inadequate7 = excellent

- rating scale I - 31 = not met3 = fully met

6. Sources of information - direct observation- documentation- report

- direct observation- report

- dircct observation- documentation- report

7. Training for datacollectors

suggested for centre staffand for outside assessors

- suggested for staff andoutside assessors

- not suggested for staffbut required for outsidevalidation

8. Recording of information - chart of scores- profile

- scoresheet- profile

- summary chart of itemSCOres

PROGRAM EVALUATIONMODELS

Some program evaluation measures are moreuseful to consider than others as resourcematerial for the development of an accredi-tation instrument for services in Australia.

Three of the more comprehensive and widelyused are:

The Assessment Profile for Early Child-hood Programs (PROFILE)

The Early Childhood EnvironmentRating Scale (ECERS)

The Accreditation Criteria and Proce-dures of the National Academy of EarlyChildhood Programs developed by theNational Association for the Educationof Young Children (NAEYC)

These three approaches all establish standardsfor the process of evaluation. NAEYC estab-lishes standards but also outlines proceduresfor accrediting those programs that substan-tially comply with those standards.

The measures address the key components ofquality in early childhood programs but differin the degree to which they address the needsof the various age groups, the emphasis theyplace on specific components, and the waydata is collected and recorded. The differentprogram evaluation models were initially de-veloped for different reasons. NAEYC criteriawere developed to establish a procedure forcentre based services to engage in a voluntaryprocess of self evaluation leading to an accredi-tation decision following external validation.

The ECERS was developed for research pur-poses and to help programs engage in a pro-

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol 17 (I), March 1492

13

cess of self evaluation, while the PROFILEwas developed solely as a self evaluationinstrument. A brief description of these threeprogram evaluation measures follow andTable I provides a comparison of the instru-ments in relation to the eight factors discussedabove.

The Assessment Profile for Early ChildhoodPrograms

The Assessment Profile for Early ChildhoodPrograms (1987) was designed by MarthaAbbott-Shim and Annette Sibley from At-lanta, Georgia. It was developed as a tool forself evaluation and arose out of the need fortraining to assist centre staff in improving thequality of their programs. While the Profilemay be used by any centre as a programevaluation instrument, its main goal to datehas been to help centres prepare for NAEYCAccreditation. The majority (87%) ofaccredited centres in Georgia have used theProfile.

The Assessment Profile is remised on twobasic assumptions. The first assumption isthat teachers and directors have a significantinfluence on the environment and experiencesto which children are exposed in an earlychildhood setting. Secondly, the standards setin the instrument and the self study processmust reflect the perspective and experiencesof the child.

The set of standards represented by the Profileare comprehensive and address all dimensionsof early childhood programs normally con-sidered. They are general enough to apply to awide range of centre based settings yet specificenough to provide concrete and observablecriteria. The document is organised into fourgeneral areas: Preschool, Infant, School-age,and Administration. Each of these areas isthen evaluated using various dimensions, forexample, Curriculum, Health and Safety,Interacting and Individualising.

The validity and reliability of the AssessmentProfile has been well established (Abbott-Shim and Sibley, 1990). Data is collected byreport, documentation and direct observa-tion. The instrument is formatted as a check-list with forced choice: Yes, the item wasobserved; No, the item was not observed. Thisdata is then summarised on a scoresheet and agraph, giving a centre profile.

Since the use of the profile as a self evaluation

measure by early childhood centres certaintrends have been noted in relation to finalscores. If the graph shows individualising inthe program is low then the curriculum areawill also invariably be-low. These depressedscores have tended to correlate with staffslack of underste-Iding of child development.Further, within any one centre, there havebeen marked similarities between each class-room observed, suggesting that directors havea fairly significant influence on the overallquality of the program (A. Sibley, personalcommunication).

The Early Childhood Environment RatingScale

The ECERS was developed both as a researchtool and as a program evaluation measure. Itprovides a global measure of the quality ofearly childhood environments. Since 1980 theECERS has become the most widely usedinstrument in child care research in the UnitedStates. The scale has also been shown to besuitable for assessing quality dimensions inearly childhood settings outside the UnitedStates (Doherty, 1991: Rossbach, et al, 1991).

The instrument covers the basic quality dim-ensions and may be used in preschools, longday care centres, playgroups, occasional careand the early years of school environments. Itis most appropriate for evaluating settings forchildren from DA to 6 years of age. Theinstrument covers seven program areas: per-sonal care routines; furnishings and display;language/ reasoning experiences; fine andgross motor activities; creative activities;social development; and adult needs. Thevalidity and the reliability of the ECERS hasbeen well documented (Fiene, 1990).

A seven point rating scale, ranging from"inadequate" to "excellent" is used to assessthe degree of quality of the environment.Data is collected by direct observation andreport and is summarised on a scoresheet andgraphed on a profile. This final profile high-lights the relative weaknesses and strengths ofthe program.

Recently another environment rating scalefocusing specifically on infants and toddlershas been developed (Harm, Cryer andClifford, 1990). The scale, the Infant/ToddlerEnvironment Rating Scale (ITERS) is anadaptation of the ECERS. The ITERS pro-vides a more comprehensive assessment ofinfant and toddler programs than the Profile

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol 17 (I), March 1992

or NAEYC Criteria.

The NAEYC Accreditation Criteria

The NAEYC criteria which form the programevaluation tool for the self study part of theaccreditation process were developedfollowing a review of fifty program evaluationdocuments and relevant child care research.Feedback on the draft document was providedby 186 early childhood specialists throughoutthe United States and from the NAEYCmembership, then numbering approximately43,000 (Bredekamp, 1986). The final draftdocument was field tested in 32 programsrepresenting four diverse areas of the country.

The criteria are comprehensive in scope andare designed for use by centre based earlychildhood services for children aged 0-5 and:or before and after school programs.

Since its publication in 1983, the criteria haveattracted enormous interest in the early child-hood field throughout many parts of theworld. In some circles it is considered the bestinstrument that "the early childhood field hasfor measuring program quality" in centrebased services (Fiene, 1990: 51).

The NAEYC system is based on the premisethat although there are individual differencesamong children including cultural and lang-uage differences, there are certain needs andinterests that are shared by children at certaindevelopmental ages and stages (Bredekamp,1989).

There has been consistency in findings fromvarious sources regarding the validity andreliability of the criteria. These findings arenow also supported by considerable researchdata which provides evidence of the relationof these same aspects of program quality topositive outcomes for children (Bredekamp,1989).

A structured three point rating scale is usedfor reporting and validating results. A ratingof three means that the criterion is fully met,or there is a great deal of evidence for thiscriterion. A rating of two indicates the cri-terion is only partially met and one meansthere is little or no evidence of this criterion.

The NA EYC criteria have been adapted foruse in Australia (McCrea and Piscitelli, 1989).South Carolina has also modified the systemand uses it as a quality assurance instrument(QAS). The QAS is linked to funding with a

70% compliance being required for centres tobe eligible to purchase child developmentservices under the Social Service Block GrantContracts (SS BGC).

EVALUATION AND FAMILY DAYCARE

The program evaluation measures discussedabove relate specifically to c.;ntre based earlychildhood services. What measures exist forthe assessment of Family Day Care envi-ronments?

Three measures developed in the United Statesare being used for Family Day Care Accredi-tation purposes. They look at the quality ofthe environment in the Family Day Carehome but do not address Family Day Careschemes and the coordination role whichoperates in Australia. The three measures are:

The Assessment Profile for Family DayCare(Abbott-Shim and Sibley, 1987)

The Family Day Care Rating Scale(FDCRS)(Harms and Clifford, 1989)

The Family Day Care AccreditationSystem operated by the Child Care Part-nership of Dallas

The Assessment Profile for Family Day Care

This profile has been adopted by the NationalAssociation for Family Day Care in theUnited States as its Accreditation instrument.The profile assesses the characteristics of theFamily Day Care home in relation to:

physical characteristics

child care procedure and policies

adult/child interactions

These three characteristics are assessed acrossseven dimensions.

1. Indoor Safety

2. Health

3. Nutrition

4. Indoor Play Environment

5. Interacting

6. Outdoor Play Environment

15

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol 17 (I), March 1992

20

7. Professional Responsibility

Data is collected by direct observation, docu-mentation and by report.

The Family Day Care Rating Scale

The FDCRS is an adaptation of the ECERSand has been designed to provide an overallpicture of the quality of the Family Day Carehome environment. The -ale can be used bycarers, coordinators and researchers.

The criteria addressed in the scale are groupedinto six main categories.

I. Space and furnishings for careand learning

2. Basic care

3. Language and reasoning

4. Learning activities

5. Social development

6. Adult needs

Like the ECERS each item is rated on a sevenpoint scale.

Child Care Partnership of Dallas

The Child Care Partnership of Dallas, a non-profit advocacy organisation, developed avoluntary accreditation system for FamilyDay Care homes. The observation instrumentis organised into five main areas.

I. Family Day Care as a Business

2. Working With Parents and Families

3. Learning Environment

4. Health, Safety and Nutrition

5. Activities to Enhance Development

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Program evaluation or standard setting is acontinuous dynamic process. However, it isrelevant to note that across the early childhoodfield, a marked degree of consensus hasemerged concerning what are the key com-ponents of quality in child care programs. Theprogram evaluation measures described inthis article provide evidence of this general

agreement. This work, reflecting the currentfindings of research and practice, providesinvaluable resource material for the devel-opment of an accreditation system forchildren's services in Australia.

REFERENCES

Abbott-Shim, M. and Sibley, A. (1987) The AssessmentProfile for Early Childhood Programs. Atlanta,GA: Quality Assist.

Abbott-Shim, M. and Sibley, A. (1987) The AssessmentProfile for Family Day Care. Atlanta, GA: QualityAssist.

Abbott-Shim, M. and Sibley, A. (1990) Program Eval-uation: Observing Ourselves, Questioning OurActions, Making Changes. Occasional Paper.

Bredekamp, S. (1986) The Reliability and Validity of t hcEarly Childhood Observation Scale for AccreditingEarly Childhood Programs. Early Childhood Re-search Quarterly, 1, 103-118.

Bredekamp, S. (1989) Regulating Child Care Quality:Evidence from NAEYC's Accreditation System.Washington, DC: NAEYC

State Health and Human Services Finance Commission(1990) Child Development Quality AppearanceStandards. State of South Carolina.

Child Care Partnership of Dallas. Family Day CareVoluntary Accreditation.

Doherty, G. (1991) Factors Related w Quality in ChildCare: A Review of the Literature. Rcport to Ministryof Community and Social Services, Ontario,Canada.

Fienc, R. (1990) Early Childhood Research and ProgramEvaluation for State Licensing Administration.Unpublished manuscript.

Harms, T. and Clifford, R.M. (1980) Early ChildhoodEnvironment Rating Scale. New York: TeachersCollege Press, Columbia University.

Harms, T. and Clifford, R.M. (1984) The Family DayCare Rating Scale. New York: Teachers CollegePress, Columbia University.

Harms, Cryer and Clifford (1990) The Infant! 719ddlerEnvironment Rating Scale: New York: TeachersCollege Press, Columbia University.

National Association for the Education of YoungChildren (1984) Accreditation Criteria and Pro-cedures of the National Academy of Early Child-hood Programs. Washington DC: NA EYC.

McCrea, N. and Piseitelli, B. (1989) Voluntary Ac-creditation of Early Childhood Programs inQueensland. A Report to the Minister for FamilyServices, Brisbane.

Rossbach, H.G., Clifford, R. and Harms, T. (1991)Dimensions of Lcarning Environments: Cross-national Validation of the Early Childhood Environ-ment Rating Scale. Paper presented at the ERAAnnual Conference, Chicago, April 1991.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol 17 (1), March 1492

16

21

AN ACCREDITATION SYSTEM FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMSSTARTING WITH CENTRE-BASED LONG DAY CARE

Government plans to establish an industry-based accreditation system for children'sservices beginning with centre-based long day care have the full support of the AustralianEarly Childhood Association. It is AECA's strong view that an accreditation systemeventually needs to encompass the full range of early childhood programs. In the firstinstance it is sensible to focus on centre-based long day care, but moves need to be madequickly to extend acdreditation to Family Day Care. As soon as possible after that, thesystem needs to be expanded to apply to the full range of early childhood programs.Because the focus now is on centre-based long day care, this paper talks of child care. Inall instances, unless otherwise made clear, child care should be read, 'centre-based longday care'.

AIMS OF ACCREDITATION

The industry-based accreditation system to be established by Government should beexpected to:

improve the quality of care in all centresimprove awareness and understanding of the need for good practice in child carecreate explicit industry standards for good practiceimprove job satisfaction of child care workersprovide parents rtrith assurance of quality in the programs they useprovide Government with a lever to encourage improvements in centres providinginadequate carecomplement, rather than duplicate, other regulatory mechanisms such as Statelicensing conditions and industrial awards

Accreditation should have a general impact on quality

Australia's system will not be completely voluntary, as it will have a component related tofee relief. Realistically, to result in an improvement in quality in all centres, anAustralian system needs to be simpler than some fully voluntary models used overseas; itneeds to set standards which a majority of centres willing to make the necessary effort canachieve; and the standards need to be equally relevant to centres in all parts of Australia,regardless of clientele.

17

22

Accreditation should improve awareness and understanding of good practice in childcare

There is still widespread failure to understand the significance of children's early

experience. The quality of child care affects children's likelihood of achieving their fullpotential. The foundations for the development of the key competencies now beingidentified by the Mayer Committee as essential in a modem workforce are laid in

childhood. From this national perspective, it is crucial that what amounts to a revolutionin child rearing dwing the last decade, that is, the group care of young children, supportsthe national interest.

At a minimum, child care needs to ensure that children arc given individualised attentionif the well-doeui.iented disadvantages of instititutionalisation are to be avoided. Morepositively, good child care provides an opportunity to raise the general level (ifcompetency in the next generation by giving children in group care a better start than theywould otherwise receive. Longitudinal research makes it clear that effective earlychildhood programs have lasting impacts on children, making an investment in programquality defensible in economic as well as human terms (Sy Iva, 1988).

Arguments that concerns for outcomes for children can be dismissed because they aremotivated to protect early childhood careers reveal a serious lack of understanding of theimportance to children, their families and, ultimately, the nation, of the quality of theirexperience in child care. Many children will spend 12,000 hours in child care over thecourse of their childhood (Greenman, 1991). This is more time than they will spend inprimary and secondary schooling.

Industry-based accreditation which focuses on observable, child outcome measures willhelp to improve understanding cf the nexus between experience and child development inthe industry and in the wider community. At present, pressure to improve standards iscoming largely from organisations and individuals with expertise in child psychology,pediatrics, care and education. With impioved understanding of the issues, support forgood quality early childhood programs can be expected to have a substantially expandedbase.

Accreditation will create explicit standards of good practice for the child careindustry

At present, there are no agreed industry standards against which a child care worker, aservice, or a parent selecting a service, can judge performance. Agreed industry standardsare also necessary if governments and other policy makers are to judge wisely among thecompeting claims for policy changes to the child care program.

State licensing regulations set lower limits, below which a centre cannot legally operate.These minimum standards by definition are minimums only and will not necessarily reflect

18

23

0.,

agreed best practice, even when national consistency has been achieved. At present thereis little national agreement about even minimally adequate standards.

Accreditation will improve job satisfaction for child care workers

The high turnover among child care staff reflects in part a lack of job satisfaction (Baker& Robertson, 1992; Ryan, 1989; Northern Tenitory Children's Services Program PlanningCommittee, 1988, Laing, 1990). With an acute shortage of qualified child care staff insome States (eg SA Children's Services Office, 1991) and intense pressure on availableresources in the TAFE and Higher Education sectors, unnecessary wastav in the trainedchild care workforce cannot be sustained. The stress of working intensively with youngchildren will be reduced when workers are clear about and united in their goals, and workin an environment which supports the achievement of explicit and agreed goals.

Accreditation will provide quality assurance for parents

Accreditation acknowledges quality where it exists. By focusing on child outcomes,accreditation goes beyond setting the boundary conditions for care. It provides a directmeasure of the adequacy of children's experiences in the centre. In this way, accreditationprovides a level of quality assurance for parents that is not available through otherregulatory mechanisms. For example, rather than stating that staff must possess child carequalifications (a licensing condition), accredi,....'!.on would monitor the quality of theinteraction between staff members and children. In any particular instance, a staff memberwith the necessary qualifications to meet licensing standards may lack the necessary skillto comply with an accreditation standard.

Government will have a mechanism to encourage centres to improve quality

Families using centres eligible for any form of Government subsidy are entitled to assumethat the quality of service being provided meets Government standards. It is legitimate forGovernment to be concerned about standards of care in subsidised services, and to havethe power to remove subsidy privileges from centres unwilling to improve standardsshould this prove necessary.

While it seems unlikely that a centre's failure to comply with fee relief related criteriawould result in those families already receiving fee relief being denied further help,Government could refuse to allow the centre to continue offering fee relief to new parentsuntil the areas of concern were rectified.

19

24

Accreditation should build on rather than duplicate existing regulations

It is unnecessary and undesirable that accreditation duplicate the functior. of otherregulatory bodies in child care. Accreditation should complement rather than substantiallyoverlap with or replace existing regulations. Especially as individual centres may not electto apply for or retain fee relief privileges, State licensing is necessary as a base-lineprotection for children in all programs. It is crucial for an agency to retain the legislativecapacity to close centres when necessary. Similarly, it is necessary for employers andstaff to retain legal recourse through the Industrial Relations Commission.

THE ACCREDITATION SYSTEM

To achieve the above goals, AECA considers that the accreditation system needs tobalance simplicity, fairness, protection (of the service and the reviewer) and openness tovariety in the interpretation of good practice.

Accreditation structure and process

The accreditation system needs to be developed according to the following principles: Itneeds to:

Adequately represent through its structures the interests of the child care industryas a whole; in the first instance the centre-based long day care sector, but as soonas possible there-after the Family Day Care sector and, in the longer term, thebroad range of children's services

Ensure that functions are carried out by persons possessing the necessary skills

Provide protection to the integrity of the system through its structures andprocesses

The accreditation process needs to embody the following principles:

Accreditation assessments must be conducted by those with demonstrated expertisein the knowledge-base from which accreditation measures are derived;

Accreditation decisions should be 'blind'. Neither the decision-makers, nor theservices, should know the identity of the other;

Accreditation status should be determined by more than one person.

20

25

We suggest a structure which consists of a Council, expert accreditation panels, andtrained reviewers. The accreditation process would be as follows. A service wantingeither mandated or full accreditation would apply to the Council to enter the accreditationprocess. The Council would send the service the necessary materials, and self study bythe, service would commence.

When ready, the service would complete their own assessment forms and notify theCouncil that they were ready for a reviewer to visit the service to confirm the selfassessment. Following the visit, the reviewer would forward the anonymous service's selfassessment and their own assessment to a ^small panel of experts for a decision. Panelswould notify the Council of their decision, and, if the application has been unsuccessful,provide feedback and advice to the service about the action needed to achieve accreditedstatus. Council would notify the service of the accreditation decision and would notifyGovernment of mandated accreditation decisions. Government would make determinationsregarding fee relief status, and any remedial action needed by centres to retain fee rc.iief.Centres could lodge an appeal with the Council. Council would normally seek the adviceof a second panel. If necessary, a second reviewer could be appointed.

The hnportance of self-study

AECA believes that an accreditation system needs to be premised on the prime importanceof the self-study component as a mechanism to bring about meaningful and lastingimprovements in quality. Experience with accreditation in other disciplines has found thatself study is potentially the single most important element of accreditation, 'frequentlyyielding far more important discoveries and benefit an does the later accreditation sitevisit (Worthen & Sanders (1984). This is the strong view of NAEYC regarding theirsystem of accreditation for early childhood programs (Bredekamp, 1989) and is one that isendorsed by AECA. If improvements in quality are to be long-lasting, a growth inunderstanding of why the centre operates as it does, or shy it needs to change in line withaccreditation standards needs to occur among staff and parents.

However, self-study cannot become the only goal of accreditation. The self-study mustrefer to industry-standards. Self-evaluaton within the centre needs to be subject toexternal review against the same industry standards in order to achieve accredited status.

Accreditation Council

The accreditation system should be governed by an independent Accred4tation Councilmade up of representatives of the child care industry. Its membership should include peakindustry bodies, representatives of the community-based sector, the commercial sector,consumers, the Commonwealth, State and Local Government, the ACTU, employer bodiesand training institutions.

216

The Council would have the following functions:

Policy making, management and evaluation of the systemSelection of the expert panelsNotification to services of the accreditation decision and provision of feedback andadvice to unsuccessful servicesNotification to Government of mandated accreditation decisionsDeveloping and operating a training system for reviewersOngoing development of the system, including expansion of the system into otherchildren's servicesConsumer awareness/eduionFinancial management/acc:ountabilityPublic reporting to ,Jovemment (depending on how established)

Panels

Council would appoint a number of panels each consisting of perhaps three persons withrecognisrd competence to assess the reports of centre self-assessments and reviewer visits,and judge accreditation status.

The panels would have the following functions:

Assess documentation provided by services and reviewers and decide accreditationstatus of the centreNotify Council of decisionServe as a quality control mechanismProvide advice to applying services on any areas for improvement

Reviewers

The reviewers would have the following functions:

Verify accuracy of data collected by the service during a visit to the serviceComplete a program profile based on direct observation and discussion withdirector and Management Committee chair and/or proprietorForward documentation to panel for decision

2 7 22

Figure 1. Structure of the Accreditation System

Expert panels

The importance of the expert panels

Panels would be appointed by the Council, but would make the accreditation decision, notthe Council. We believe this is important for two reasons:

the need for specific expertisethe need to preserve anonymity

AECA believes that specific expertise will be required to assess the documentationprepared by the applying centre and the reviewer, particularly when there are areas ofdisagreement. Expert panels could be constituted so that there would have to be at leastone person with specific expertise in the type of centre being reviewed (eg a remote areaor Aboriginal centre, a centre serving a particular ethic community, etc.).

Panel members should have knowledge and experience in child development anddevelopmentally appropriate practice in relation to young children, experience working inchild care services and knowledge of the child care industry generally, as well asknowledge of the Australian accreditation system.

Experience with accreditation in other professions/industries underscores the need to buildin mechanisms to ensure that the assessment outcomes are not vulnerable to corruption,mutual 'back scratching' or an assessor's self interest (eg, hurting the competition).The brst way to protect the system is to make the final decision on accreditation statusanonymous.

The importance of expert reviewers

AECA believes that the reviewers are the key to quality control in the accreditationsystem. Accreditation rests on a body of expert knowledge about child development and

23

28

good practice that leads to positive outcomes for children. The integrity of the systemwill depend on assessments being made by people with the necessary expertise tounderstand what to look for and how to interpret what they are seeing. Reviewers musthave demonstrated these skills to have credibility in the centres they are reviewing.

It is essential that reviewers have at least a two year qualification in a formally recognised

course in early childhood, child care, or a related field, substantial experience in andknowledge of child care, and sensitivity to the particular circumstances of the services

they review.

The most appropriate qualifications could vary from one part of the country to another,

reflecting differences in staffing practices and concommitant variation in the

appropriateness of local preservice courses. For example, in New South Wales, and nowQueensland, it would be difficult for a reviewer lacking a three yerr early childhoodteaching qualification to gain credibility in centres where this qualification is a licensing

requirement. In other States, a two year child care qualification could be more appropriatethan a three or four year preschool qualification.

Resistance to the notion of 'expertise'

Child care is a relatively new industry and does not yet have universally acknowledgedexpert leaders. For this reason calling for recognised expertise on panels and amongreviewers poses problems and concerns that need to be recognised and addressed. Thereis legitimate concern that narrow interests not be able to'hijack' the industry and hold it toransom. There is also concern that some academics with theoretical but little pracficalknowledge may lay claim to be the experts. Finally, there is a suspicion that universitytrained early childhood teachers may try to squeeze out other categories of child careworkers from reviewing and/or deciding on accreditation status, and vice-versa.

All of these concerns should be addressed through the make-up and policies of theCouncil. The Council, as the policy body, needs to be in a position to appoint, train andmonitor the performance of the reviewers, the expert panels and the system as a whole,including the tool. Provided the Council is properly representative, the interests of theindustry as a whole should be served.

The need ['or critical scrutiny and the capacity to adapt over time

Experience with accreditation models in educational evaluation points to the need toensure that the industry-based nature of accreditation does not lead to an uncriticalacceptance of outdated but familiar practice which a naive outsider might rightly question(Worthen & Sanders, 1984). The whole accreditation system, including the tool, needs tobe open to scrutiny and critical evaluation with particular allowance for 'outsider' reaction

24

in order to create a dynamic system which will be responsive to the emergence of newconditions.

The role of consumers

The Council needs to ensure that consumer interests are strongly represented. Parent inputinto the development of accreditation criteria is crucial, as is their input into a centre'sself-evaluation.

THE ACCREDITATION TOOL

The accreditation tool needs to comprise the range of criteria which most directly relate tochildren's experience of care and which are considered by the industry to reflect bestpractice. A subset of the full set of criteria for accreditation are the criteria which must bemet by centres receiving Commonwealth fee relief. These criteria will be referred to asthe 'Fee Relief Criteria', and will be described in detail in the next section of thissubmission. This section presents AECA's position on features of the Accreditation toolas a whole.

Accredation criteria should:

reflect good sensebe based on knowledge of child development and Australian family needsbe based on features of programs that can be changedbe confined to key quality factors; or contributing factors that are not covered byother regulationsallow for diversity by being expressed in the form of general principlesbe amenable to application to the full range of children's services with minimalmodification

Accreditation criteria should reflect 'good sense'

All accreditation criteria must have 'face validity'. That is, they must appear sensible, andto relate in an understandable way to the industry's understanding of program quality. Inconsidering the need for 'face validity', a distinction should be made betweenaccreditation criteria as a whole and the subset of criteria making up the component ofaccreditation which is to be linked with the right to obtain fee relief. While all criterianeed to be understandably linked to child outcomes, some of these links need not beobvious at first reading, though all need to be able to be understood through an educativeand reflective process. Criteria of this kind should not be part of the 'mandated'

25

component of accreditation, however. The criteria to be linked with fee relief should beas obvious and important to the 'person on the street' as to child care experts withoutassistance (see below).

Child outcomes should be judged on the basis of what is known about the nature ofchild development, contemporary Australian family functioning and developmentallyappropriate practice in child care

Although accreditation criteria should have understandable links with quality, that is, theyshould reflect 'good sense', they need to derive from more than simple 'common sense.'

It is important that accreditation measures be solidly based on the body of expertknowledge of child development and child care if they are to genuinely assure quality for

children. The tool needs to include measures of the degree to which centre practice

supports and strengthens the role of Australian parents in raising their child.

Accreditation criteria should relate to standards that are amenable to change and canbe reasonably expected of services across Australia

There may be little a service operating in non-purpose built centres can do about thephysical structure of their building, such as the location and layout of the kitchen. Therewill be much they can do with the way they use their space and organise their program.Accreditation should focus on the latter. It is appropriate that standards for buildingdesign are developed, but they do not belong in an accreditation tool. If poor facilities

result in inadequate programs, this should emerge in measures of interactions and

curriculum.

Unless standards are realistic and achievable by average centres, providing staff have thenecessary understanding of how to work effectively with children, accreditation risks

becoming an elitist system which is unlikely to have much to offer average families.

Accreditation criteria should be confmed to 'key quality factors' or importantcontributing factors that are not already addressed through other regulatorymechanisms

An accreditation system should not duplicate the baseline minimum standards contained in

licensing regulations as this would represent duplication of effort and could lead toconflict. Where licensing regulations cover key quality factors such as interactionsbetween staff and children, appropriate health and safety practices, the implementation of adevelopmentally appropriate, family-sensitive curriculum based on individual and groupneeds, and parent/staff collaboration, there will be some overlap with accreditation.Typically, the standard required for accreditation will be above that required for licensing.A good accreditation system builds on licensing.

26

Accreditation criteria should not be overly prescriptive

The accreditation process needs to encourage growth in staff understanding of the natureof their work. For this reason, accreditation standards should reflect underlying principlesrather than easily copied, discrete behaviours. Although prescribed behaviours are moreeasily understood, identified and verified than are the general principles of good practice,very rarely in child care will any particular behaviour invariably be appropriate. If theaccreditation tool is so explicit about how staff are to manage their program that thecriteria can simply be learned and 'performed' parrot fashion to get through theaccreditation procedure, it is unlikely that anything meaningful for children will have beenachieved and, without an underlying understanding, it is unlikely that any improvements instandards will be sustained. The tool needs to contain explicit 'exemplars' as a guide, butthese need to relate clearly to criteria which reflect more general principles and not standalone, check list fashion, as in the draft Criterion booklet.

Perhaps more importantly, accreditation must not limit quality by overly defining 'oneright way'. There will never be only one way. This is particularly so for children fromdiverse backgrounds and cultures.

MANDATED COMPONENT OF ACCREDITATION: FEE RELIEF CRITERIA

The mandated component must promote the integrity of the full voluntary system.Its criteria must be presented as part of the total system but be separately identified.

The purpose of the mandated component and its relation to accreditation should be clear;criteria linked to fee relief should be presented as a integral part of the accreditation tool;compliance with criteria linked to fee relief should not be called 'accreditation'.

It is important that the mandated quality criteria be an integral part of the fullaccreditation system for child care centres. They should appear as marked criteria needingto be met first for eligibility for fee relief within the full accreditation document. Indescribing compliance with the mandated criteria, it is vital that no confusion is generatedbetween this level of compliance and accredited status. Neither the mandated criteria ontheir own, or compliance with them, should be referred to as 'accreditation'.

In addition to the characteristics listed for accreditation criteria, fee relief-linked criterianeed to meet these additional tests:

Obvious links to quality, those features of care (focused on outcomes) which allcan agree no child should do without.

It must be achievable with minimum inservice/resourcing support.

27

32

In their totality, the criteria should ensure that:

The program is balancedThe program provides for a balance of active and quiet activities, structured andunstructured experiences, relaxed and stimulating times, group and individual activities,predictability and spontaneity and for a variety of indoor and outdoor play as well as forvariety within and between spaces.

The program is developmentally basedThe program provides experiences needed by children to develop in all areas irrespectiveof class, culture, gender or disability.

The program is predictableThe program has sufficient regularity of routines, procedures and timetables and continuity

of staff to enable children to develop a sense of security.

The program is responsive and flexibleThe Program is based on the needs of the individual children in it, and is implemented insuch a way as to involve a minimum of regimentation.

The program provides for the needs of all childrenThe Program is planned and implemented in a way which takes account of children with

special needs.

The program is respectful and positiveThe Program is based on treating children with respect and in ways which promote apositive self concept.

The Program promotes and protects the health and safety of children

There is a partnershipParents are treated with respect and as full partners in the care of their child, and areencouraged to participate in the program in a meaningful way.

There is access to information and staffParents and staff exchange sufficient information and have sufficient opportunities tointeract with each other to develop a working partnership.

Parents can exercise their rights as consumersParents have sufficient access to the centre to enable them form their own judgements ofconditions and the nature of the program.

Staff developmentStaff are encouraged to have short and long-term goals and are provided resources neededto work towards them.

28

33

Written policiesServices have written policies re staffing and centre operating procedures.

Proportion of accreditation that should be mandated

Criteria to be met for fee relief purposes should represent essential quality. Optimalstandards represented by substantial compliance with the full accreditation criteria shouldremain centrally related to quality, but could be seen to be highly desirable, rather thanessential.

References

Baker, M & Robertson, F (1992) Staff Turnover in Child Care Centres: Report to theWomen's Bureau, Department of Employment, Education and Training. NationalInstitute of Labour Studies, Flinders University of South Australia.

Bredekamp, S (1989) Address to the National Council Meeting of the Australian EarlyChildhood Association, Canberra, September.

Children's Services Office, South Australia (1991) Child Care Industry in South Australia.Background paper distributed at the Seminar on Child Care Training, Children'sServices Consultative Committee, Adelaide, 23 March.

Greenman, J (1991) Places for childhoods in the 1990s, Proceedings of the 19th NationalConference of the Australian Early Childhood Association, Adelaide 28 September- 2nd October, pp 1-28.

Laing, R (1990) Matter A 349 - Anomalies and Inequities Claims - Child Care Industry(Australian Capital Territory Award 1985 and Child Care ThIdustry (NorthernTerritory) Award 1986: Enquiry and Report. (The Laing Report of the Child CareTest Case Inquiry.)

Northern Territory Children's Services Program Planning Committee (1988) BackgroundPaper: Recruiting and Retaining Qualified Child Care and Chidlren's ServicesStaff.

Ryan, P (1989) Staff Turnover in Long Day Care: A Survey of New South Wales LongDay Care Centres, Community Child Care Co-operative Ltd: Suny Hills.

Sy lva, K (1988) Competence and coping in children, Proceedings of the 18th NationalConference of the Australian Early Childhood Association, Canberra, September 4-8.

29

34

Worthen, B 8z. Sanders, J (1984) Educational Evaluation: Alternative Approaches andPractical Guidelines. Longman: London.

3530

CALI) 1NAEYC's Center AccreditationProject: Goals and Philosophy

A major goal of the National Asso-ciation for the Education of YoungChildren is to stimulate concern andsupport of all citizens for achievingquality environments for young chil-dren. To help achieve that goal, the As-sociation has initiated developmentalwork on the 'Center AccreditationProject (CAP). The goal of NAEYC'sCenter Accreditation Project is tostimulate improvement of and giverecognition to good quality programsfor young children in the UnitedStates. The scope of the Project isbroad; it will be designed for use infull- and part-day group programs inschools and centers serving childrenbirth through age five.

The goal of the Center AccreditationProject is not just to recognize highquality programs, but to improve thequality of care and education providedfor all young children. Such a broadgoal cannot be met by simply in-specting centers, approving some andfailing others, as is done in many ac-creditation procedures. Instead, pro-grams which voluntarily express inter-est will enter into a form of partner-ship with NAEYC in which both partieswill work together to achieve the high-

M ARCH 1983

est quality care and education forchildren.

The CAP will not replace statelicensing of early childhood centers.NAEYC supports the concept of li-censing as a means to ensure the main-tenance of minimum standards of qual-ity in an programs (see p. 66).

Because the goals of the CAP arebroad, no existing accreditation modelcan be easily adopted for its use. Newmethods of evaluating programs orinnovative combinations of existingevaluation techniques must be gener-ated. NAEYC is depending on its vastmembership to 'assist in the develop-ment of this new concept. Exploringnew options is always a challenge. Butwith the cooperation and input of itsmembers, NAEYC can meet the chal-

lenge.During 1983, NAEYC invites its

members to examine the two majoraspects of the Center AccreditationProject: the criteria to be used inmaking judgments about programquality and the process of applying thecriteria in evaluating programs. Each,

issue of Young Children will addressdifferent components of an earlychildhood program. Affiliates, indi-

31

vidual members, the staff of earlychildhood .programs, and parents areencouraged to discuss the criteria ofexcellence related to each componentand communicate their ideas toNAEYC. This discussion will continueat the 1983 Annual Conference, thetheme of which is "What is qualitychild care?"

During the next few months,NAEYC challenges its members tothink about and discuss processes thatthe CAP could use to work with pro-grams to improve quality. The fol-lowing philosophical concepts under-lie the CAP. They are offered herewith specific questions to help guideand direct the discussion.

The personnel in early childhoodcenters should have an internal com-mitment to improve program quality.What can be done to challenge programpersonnel to objectively examine theirprograms and work toward improvementrather than to defend the status quo?

32

A partnership based on mutualtrust and respect between NAEYC andprogram personnel will facilitate andstimulate program improvement.How can the CAP be designed to fostercollaborative rather than adversarial re-lationships between NAEYC and pro-gram personnel?

I Active involvement in the evalua-tion process by all individuals con-cernedparents, staff, administratorsis essential for optimal program de-velopment.How can all the constituents of a pro-gram meaningfully participate in pro-gram evaluation and improvement?

III Recognition of and respect for in-dividuality and diversity are essentialto optimal program development:How can the CAP establish criteria of ex-cellence while reflecting the diversity ofthe field of early childhood education?

3 7 BEST COPY With rz

YOUNG CHILDREN

The program must be considered asan integrated whole in order to assessand improve program quality.What methods of assessment can be usedthat guarantee an integrated approach toevaluation?

Viewing an early childhood pro-gram as a unified whole is essential.Programs exist which meet or even ex-ceed minimum required standards,but which are not desirable environ-ments for children. Likewise, someprograms which may not appear to

MARCH 1983

meet all criteria provide excellent careand education for children. What isthe difference? We have all heardpeople say, "It looks like a good pro-gram but I wouldn't put my childthere." Our challenge is to design anaccreditation procedure which helpsprograms become the kind of envi-ronments in which all parents wouldgladly place their children.

Send written comments and sug-gestions to NAEYCCAP, 1834 Con-necticut Ave., N.W., Washington, DC20009.

33

cAThree Components of High-Quality

Early Childhood Programs:Physical Environment, Health and

Safety, and NutritionNAEYC is in the process of devel-

oping a nationwide voluntary ac-creditation system for early childhoodcenters and schools serving groups ofchildren from birth to age five. TheCenter Accreditation Project (CAP)will include three elements: an ac-creditation system, an informationand referral service, and a public in-formation campaign.

Current work on the accreditationsystem involves identifying the cri-teria to be used in evaluating the vari-ous aspects of an early childhood pro-gram and developing a procedure tobe used in making judgments aboutschools and centers. Developmentalwork over the last few months hasconcentrated on identifying the es-sential criteria of a good quality envi-ronment for young children. This pro-cess has involved several stepsreviewing the research literature todetermine the effects of various as-pects of the environment on children,reviewing existing standards for earlychildhood programs, and surveyingexperts in the field for their ideas

The development of criteria whichdescribe an excellent program is only

MAY 198334

part of the accreditation system.Methods for applying the criteria toevaluate programs have yet to be de-termined. The goal of the accreditationsystem will be to develop collaborativerelationships with center personnelduring the evaluation process. NAEYCmembers are encouraged to think aboutand discuss ways of implemeT,ting sucha collaborative system.

Those of us who have worked inearly childhood programs realize thatin order to determine program quality,we must examine the program as awhole. To facilitate communication,however, the criteria will address in-dividual components of an earlychildhood programthe physical en-vironrnent, health and safety, nutri-tion and food service, administration,staff qualifications and development,staff-parent interaction, staff-childinteraction, curriculum, and evalua-tion.

Short commentaries in this issue ofYoung Children and in the next two issueswill address each of these componentsThe purpose of these commentaries isnot to provide a list of criteria which pro-

grams will be requued to meet, but to

specify the goals that the CAP is tryingto achieve lw includino, each of thesecomponents in the project's criteria ofe \dellence and to identity some 1' themore controversial issues involved ingroup care of children which themembership may wish to discuss. Com-ments in this issue address the physicalenvironment, health and safety, andnutrition and food service.

Physical environmentCarol Seaver stood outside the

building which appeared to be anaging motel and shook her head."Maybe I have the wrong address,"she thought. "Surely this isn't thechild development center that was sohighly recommended." Venturing in-side, she discovered creatively ar-ranged classrooms and groups ofyoung children busily involved inpainting, building, reading books,listening to. records, and numerousother activities. After observing forseveral hours and talking with the di-rector, she decided that this "motel"was just the place for her daughter,Angela.

Carol discovered what many earlychildhood professionals have knownfor a long tirneexcellent early child-hood programs can and do exist inphysical environments that are lessthan ideal. A few fortunate programshave been able to design the environ-ment to their specifications, but moreoften, an existing building is adaptedfor use by children's programs, whichmakes the task of providing a highquality physical environment moredifficult but not impossible. Whethera space is designed or adapted, it mustprovide a comfortable living and

Its

":-!"

learning environment for both chil-dren and adults.

Much is known about the influenceof the physical environment on thepeople who live and work in it. Longempty hallways and large open spacesseem to compel children to run andshout. Crowded, confining quarterswith few materials cause children tobehave aggressively. Constant, exces-sive noise in the environment can leadto short tempers and physical exhaus-tion.

The physical environment of anearly childhood center or school mustbe designed to reflect the knowledgewe have about how environments alfect people. But it must also be de-signed to meet the unique needs ofyoung children who will spend longperiods of time there interacting aspart of a group. As early childhoodteachers know, teaching groups ofchildren is much different from par-

YOUNG CHILDREN

4 0 risi cr35

enting a single child or even siblingsin a home environment

In order to evaluate the physical en-vironment of a program for youngchildren, it is important to addressseveral key questions. How muchspace is necessary for children andadults to live and work together com-fortably? How can the space be ar-ranged to contribute io the program?What type of room arrangementfacilitates learning as well as providesfor personal needs of children andadults? How can the physical envi-ronment permit children moments ofsolitude away from the group? Some ofthe.issues concerning the physical en-vironment which must be addressedby program planners and evaluatorsare discussed here.

The amount of space provided bothindoors ,and outdoors is important.Too little space can lead to obviousproblems; likewise, too much .space,although a less frequent occtireifc.e,can be cotinterproductive. Marari-dards require 35 square feet of:Spaceper child indoors and 75 squaie feetoutdoors. Typically such figures rep-resent minimum acceptable amounts.Unfortunately, in practice such stan-dards often become absolutes. Thistype of standard is written in terms ofmeeting children's needs, yet adultsand equipment take up space, too.More space than the minimum is gen-erally desirable for good program-ming, and yet some excellent programsare implemented within minimumamounts of space.

The use of space is as important asthe amount of space. Many programscompensate for less than ideal spaceby using lofts or moveable furnish-ings; in some climates, limited in-door space can be offset by greater

MAY 1983

41

36

outdoor space which permits the sameactivitiec to be conducted outdoor,-Arrangement is important, too. Forexample, if children must pass throughthe block building area to get to theircubbies, conflicts inevitably arise.Or, if art activities are located too farfrom a source of water, creative butmessy projects will be inhibited.

Good quality environments providea variety of materials and activities sothat children can develop indepen-dence and the ability to make choices.Materials are available on low, openorganized shelves. The options inmaterials are periodically changed toprovide variety.

The physical environmer.t mustprovide for the personal needs of thepeople whJ live in it. Children needspace that they can identify as theirown to keep a change of clothes orother personal items, particularly ifthey spend the whole day in the cen-ter. Even in a one-half day program,children' need their own hook to hangtheir'coat on and to help them feel thatthey are a part of the place.

Early childhood centers are some-times modeled on elementary schoolsand therefore can become like institu-tions. Elements of a home environ-rnent should be evident as much aspossible. Both children and adultsneed privacy at times and provisionshould be made for people to enjoysolitude. Children need elements ofsoftness in the environment, such ascarpets, cushions, mats, and soft lapsupon which to snuggle.

The physical environments of earlychildhood centers and schools differgreatly. Many excellent early child-hood programs are located in publicschool buildings or in churches whichare not always optimal arrangements,

yet good quality programs can occur insuch spaces. On the other hand, somecenters arc beautiful physically, butcloser inspection may reveal that chil-dren are not interacting with materialsor adults. Excellent physical facilitiesdo not ensure that good quality careand education occur in the setting, butattention to the various aspects of thephysical environment and creative useof available space can and does in-crease the likelihood that a good qual-ity program will occur.

Health and safety"You'll never believe what Brian

said, to me today," Diane said to hermother in their weekly phone conver-sation about the grandchildren's latestantics. "He said that Joe and I shouldpraCtice fire drills. I gUess he picked itUp.'it school. Can Yon irnagine a four-yeaztold talking;spoAfiKe drills?"Batfamother and -:gx,46atlier:latigliedabtiiit Brian's precocibusness: .13ut I

f'!:??-q V-4Y. . :.' .think I will tallc?th'ideboA ;t:;;If.gt. .glad.Bnan learriinKallout .safcty atschool. I guess weawt,SPend enotightime on that at honie,

Brian is not only precocious; he islucky. He is lucky that he is enrolled inan early childhood program which notonly provides a safe and healthy envi-ronment for the 'children but whichalso teaches the children the daily im-portance of safe and healthy practices.

One of the most critical issues sur-rounding care and cducation of youngchildren in group situations concernsproviding a safe and healthy envi-ronment for them. New parents gothrough the process of child-proofingtheir homes, but group programs re-quire more car6ul planning and prep-

37

aration. Maintaining a safe and healthyenvironment in an early childhoodprogram requires that adults not onlytake precautions but also educate chil-dren.

Most health and safety requirementsare not controversial. There is univer-sal agreement that emergency proce-dures must be understood and placticed by all involved. A center mustprotect young children from danger-ous situations such as fire and busystreets. Medicines and other harmfulchemicals must be kept in lockedcabinets, inaccessible to children. Incertain situations, the danger is toogreat to permit taking risks.

Preventing accidents is an impor-tant function of staff in early child-hood programs. Equipment that isavailable in centers and schools, suchas climbing apparatus, is important forhealthy development of children butmust be used with adequate supervi-sion and appropriate caution.

Preventing the spread of disease ingroup care situations is particularlyimportant. Child care centers have re-cently come under attack as disease-spreading institutions. Such reportsserve to increase attention and focusefforts on ensuring that health andsafety standards are maintained. Aconcerted effort is needed to obtainmore information and to develop pro-cedures to prevent the spread of ill-ness among children and adults. Im-munization of both children andadults remains the most importantfactor in controlling major infectiousdiseases. Staff need training in how todeal with sanitation properly and withpersonal health habits such as hand-washing, particularly in group care ofinfants and toddlers

Parents and early childhood prcifes-

4 2

YOUNG CHILDREN

sionals will agree that a safe andhealthy environment is a prerequisitefor every group program. No amountof good curriculum planning or posi-tive adult-child interaction will com-pensate for an environment that isdangerous for children.

Nutrition"Why don't we ever have carrot

kugel for supper?" asked Madeleine asher parents were fixing supper. "Wehad it at school today and it's reallygood. We even helped make it." I-lerparents looked startled hut tried not to

MAY 1983

show their surprise. "Maybe you cantell us how to fix it," they replied.

Madeleine is a five-year-old whoattends an all-day kindergarten pro-gram while her parents work. Thecenter stresses the importance of pro-viding children with nutritious mealsand snacks and also educates childrenand parents about sound nutrition.

The provision of a good quality foodservice in an early childhood programis related to maintaining a healthy en-vironment. Of course, programs whichprepare food on the premises or servefood prepared elsewhere must main-tain sanitary conditions.

38

BEST COPY MILE

Propel nutrition k. an integral com-ponent of fostering child development.If children are to develop optimallyand learn to their fullest potential, theymust eat properly. Good quality pro-grams guarantee that children's nutri-tional needs are met during the timethey spend at the centerwhetherthrough providing healthy snacks ina half-day program; supplying break-fast, lunch, and snacks in a full-daycenter; or educating parents and chil-dren about what foods may be broughtfrom home.

Staff and parents need to communi-cate_ regularly about the eating habl.tsof Children and nutritional practieb ofthe. center. Parents need to knOpe-cifiCally about infants'food intake.

..,*altimes and snacktirtiTeg...portant social .occasions fo.f7.c

. ,

shoa e`e ldduringfl_fants is poteAdally..ntp mp th6ii-AdatiCiv

ydungpleasant mealtirit'e conVei:sAtionaziin-

.

portant.An excellent early childhood pro-

39

grain, regardle,,s of the length (If claor the number of children served,meets the nutritional needs of childrenand familie. through safe and healthyfood service and nutrition education.

ConclusionThe preceding statements present

the goals that NAEYC's Center Ac-creditation Project will attempt toachieve for early childhood schoolsand centers in the areas of physicalenvironment, health and safety, andnutrition and food service. These briefstatements are not intended as compre-hensive lists of criteria to be met butas principles and rationale underlyingthe accreditation system. The member-shiia of NAEYC Affiliate Groups, staffof early childhood programs, and par-ents are encouraged to discuss theseissues and share their reactions andresponse with NAEYC staff and CAPsteering committee members.

44BEST iV

APProgress Report on the

Center Accreditation Project

During the past year NAEYC has been de-veloping a nationwide voluntary accreditationsystem for early childhood centers and schools.This progress repOrt reviews the develop-mental work on the Center AccreditationProject (CAP) and the proposals whichNAEYC's Governing Board is considering.

Throughout the developmental process,NAEYC members and Affiliate Groups haveshared helpful suggestions and resources.Once again, NAEYC members and AffiliateGroups are encouraged to study these pro-posals and send written comments and sug-gestions to NAEYC Headquarters by February1, 1984.

National Academy of EarlyChildhood Programs

The goal of the Center Accreditation Projectis to develop a system that will identifyand improve the quality of care and educationof young children in the United States. To ac-complish thi? goal, NAEYC will establish a neworganization, the National Academy of EarlyChildhood Programs (the Academy). Centersand schools working toward accreditation willjoin the Academy as candidate programs.Those who proceed successfully through theaccreditation process will be designated as ac-credited programs. The purpose of theAcademy is to improve the quality of care andeducation for young children through the pro-vision of educational resources, the accredita-tion of high quality programs, and dissemina-tion of information to the public.

The Academy will provide an opportunity forearly childhood centers to belong to an orga-nization specifically designed to meet their

YOUNG CHILDREN/NOVEMBER 1983

4 0

45

needs, and it will represent their interests inthe larger community. Just as individuals whojoin NAEYC and its Affiliates receive benefitswhich contribute to individual professional de-velopment, early childhood program.; that jointhe Academy will be entitled to specific ser-vices. Unlike NAEYC, however, Academymembers will not be individuals but early child-hood centers and schools serving groups of atleast ten children between the ages of birth andfive, or children from five to eight years oldbefore and after school. Each center which oc-cupies a different location must join separately.The Academy will initially serve only center-based programs, not home-based programssuch as family day care.

Some of the services of the Academy will bedirect. For instance, Academy members will re-ceive publications to help them provide bettercare and education for groups of young chil-dren. Member programs will receive materialsto conduct a self-study, which will involve anin-depth internal program evaluation. The re-sults of this self-study will be used in the ac-creditation process. Member programs will alsobe entitled to discounts on various publica-tions, specially designed training materials,and group rates for insurance.

Membership in the Academy will also pro-vide linkage with a national network of otherearly childhood programs committed to pro-viding good quality care and education foryoung children. To facilitate communicationand networking, the Academy will have an in-formation and referral service available tomembers through a toil-free telephone number.

The accreditation of programs that meetAcademy Criteria will serve to recognize excel-lent programs and be an incentive for those that

are striving to improve services The accreditation function of the Academy will also serveto upgrade the eark t hildhood protessioncause true professions monitor themselves

Most important. the Academy will representits memller organizations and their commit-ment to good quality early childhood educationto the public. Early childhood educators areconcerned about the low image and status thatthey are accorded by the general public. Amajor goal of the Academy will be to see thatEarly Childhood Education as a profession andthe needs of young children are adequately andaccurately publicized.

The Academy is a new concept. Like all newideas, it will take time to be accepted and un-derstood. Its goals are lofty and it will requirethe support and input of NAEYC's vast mem-bership if it is to be successfully implemented.NAEYC funds will be sufficient for only a por-tion of the project. Additional contributionsfrom other sources will be necessary if theAcademy is to be implemented as conceived.

What would membership in the Academymean to an early childhood program? What willthe accreditation system be like? What are thecriteria that programs will be asked to meet?The following scenario depicts the proposed ac-creditation system and may help to answerthese and other questions about the Academy.

The Accreditation System

"I called this special meeting today to get ev-eryone's ideas about an important newproject," said Ellen Lang, the director of a childdevelopment center serving 60 children in bothfull-day and half-day groups, to her staff ofteachers and assistants. "As you know,NAEYC is starting a new organization whichour center is planning to join. Our Board hasalready voted to join the National Academy ofEarly Childhood Programs. They felt that thepublications, information and referral service,and other benefits would be worth the annualmembership fee. They also 'felt strongly thatthey wanted our center to be represented bymembership in a prestigious national organi-zation.

"What we need to discuss today are the pro-cedures for becoming accredited. My feeling isthat we have an excellent program. We knowthat we provide good quality care for our chil-dren. I would like to see us work toward ac-

41

creditation because I would like all of you inreceive some of the recognition you deserve

'Welj . that sound, good. Ellen," said Consuela Martinez, a teacher of three-vear-old,who had worked in the .enter for five years"But what will we have to do and will it meal:more work for us?"

"I've studied the Criteria and it is true thatwe will have to make some improvements, butmostly we will have to examine as a staff whatwe are already doing and document the kindof program we offer. We will divide the tasksso no one is asked to do too much and we willget some of the parents to help. The most im-portant thing is that this is our chance to con-duct the kind of in-depth program evaluationthat we have wanted to do for a long time."

Ellen and her staff are discussing the mostimportant element in the accreditation process,the self-study. Its purpose is to provide anopportunity for the entire staff of an earlychildhood program to examine the program'soperations and to identify strengths and weak-nesses.

"Can you give us an idea of what will beinvolved in this accreditation?" another staffmember insisted.

'The first step is the self-study. When wejoin the Academy we receive the materials thatwe will need to conduct it. When we finish, wesend a report to Academy headquarters inWashington, D.C. The staff there will read thereport, and if they have any questions, they'llcall us for clarification. Once they feel that thereport is complete and we feel that we areready, they will assign two people to conductan on-site validation visit."

"Will those people decide if we get accred-ited?" asked John Watkins, the four-year-oldgroup teacher.

"No. Those people are called validators.What they do is verify that the information weput in the self-study report is an accurate re-flection of the day-to-day operations of our pro-gram."

'Then who decides if we get accredited?"'The validators will report their findings to

a group of three people who are called a Com-mission. The Commissions are made up of ex-perts in the field of Early Childhood Educationwho have lots of experience working in pro-grams. They will examine the total report, ourself-study, and the validators' reports, and

4 G

YOUNG CHILDREN/NOVEMBER 1983

make a decision protessional iudgmenias to Whether what we are doing is worthy 01accreditation

-flow '*an the% decide if they haven't visitedour center' Consuela asked

"Well, as i understand it, this process willenable them to be more oh)ective about ourprogram. They won't be influenced by person-alities. They will be able to take everything intoconsideration. For instance, our playgroundwouldn't win any architectural prizes. Weknow that it is hard to maintain a playgroundthat is also used by the neighborhood childrenon weekends. I think we do a great job of com-pensating by supplementing the outdoorequipment each day and taking the children tothe town park several times a week. We needto convey to the Commission that we meet theCriteria for providing a good outdoor experi-ence even though we may not do it in the tra-ditional way."

"Oh, I get it. Instead of just going through achecklist of dos and don'ts, the Commission willlook at the total program."

"That's right. The Accreditation Manual saysthat programs that meet all the criteria will berare and that total compliance is not necessaryfor accreditation. They will tell us what theythink we should work on. If too many aspectsof the program need work, they will defer ouraccreditation until improvements have beenmade."

The accreditation decision is another criticalelement in the process. The decision-making.process considers the diversity that exists in thefield of Early Childhood Education and recog-nizes that the quality of an early childhood pro-gram is best determined as the result of profes-sional judgment.

"OK, I think we get the picture now," Johnsaid. "But what I want to know is, what arethe criteria? On what basis will we be judged?"

"I have made copies of the Criteria for all ofus. Some of the Criteria, such as the require-ments for health, safety, and nutrition, arebasic. We can only answer yes or no. OtherCriteria allow for more diversity, partic-ularly in the area of curriculum. For instance,there are many ways to individualize an earlychildhood program, so there is more flexibilityin meeting the Curriculum Criteria.

"Let's begin by dividing tasks today and seta time for a meeting in two weeks to see how

YOUNG CHILDREN/NOVEMBER 1983

42

el 7

things are gmng hut beton. %,.e leave I want I,remind all of you that we know we have a goodprogram We also know it can be improvedYou all have ic! .as you have been wanting t.share This is an opportunity tor us to implement some of those ideas and be recognized byour peers for the good lob we are doing torchildren and parents."

Draft of Criteria for High QualityEarly Childhood Programs

A draft of the Criteria to be used to evaluatethe quality of programs is included here. Thefirst draft was developed by reviewing about 50other evaluation documents and the researchliterature on the effects on children of variouscomponents of an early childhood program.The validity of the Criteria as indicators of agood quality program was then tested by sub-mitting them to approximately 250 Early Child-hood Specialists throughout the country. TheCriteria were then revised based on the rec-omrnendations of the 175 specialists who re-sponded.

The draft which appears here will continueto be revised. NAEYC's Governing Board willappoint a review panel to conduct a fmal ex-amination of the Criteria taking into consider-ation any suggestions from NAEYC membersand Affiliate Groups. That panel will meet inthe spring of 1984. Final recommendations forthe Criteria will be made to the GoverningBoard in July 1984. NAEYC members and Af-filiate Groups are encouraged to submit theircomments and suggestions in writing toNAEYC by February 1, 1984.

The Criteria document is concise by design.The self-study materials which will accompanythe Criteria will provide needed clarificationand explanation in many instances. For ex-ample, the Criteria as written are stated verygenerally and cover a broad range of agegroupsbirth to age five and five- to eight-year-olds before and after school. Some Criteriawill apply to all age groups served. For ex-ample, all programs need a written philosophyavailable to parents and staff, but the curric-ulum will vary greatly depending on the agegroup served. In this case, the Criteria arestated generally with reference to develop-mental appropriateness. Such general guide-lines will be clarified in detail in the self-studymaterials.

NAEYC defines a high quality early child-hood program as one which meets the needsof and promotes the physical, social, emo-tional, and cognitive development of the chil-dren and adultsparents, staff, and adminis-tratorswho are involved in the program.Each day of a child's life is viewed as leadingtoward the growth and development of ahealthy, intelligent, and contributing memberof society.

The Criteria address ten components ofgroUp programs for young children. Each ofthese components is followed by a brief goalstatement. Following each goal statement arethe Criteria which indicate that the goal is beingachieved.

Definitions

Criteria:

Centers:

standards bv which the compo-nents of a good quality early child-hood environment will be judged.

part-day and full-day group pro-grams in schools and centersser-ving a minimum of ten childrenbirth through age five and/or five-to eight-year-olds before and/orafter school

Staff: paid people who have direct re-sponsibilities for the care and edu-cation of the children

DRAFT

Criteria for High QualityEarly Childhood Programs

I. Physical:Environment

The indoor and,outdoor physical environmentfosters optimal growth and developmentthroughloppiOtunities for exploration andlearning

A. The->iniiiior and Outdoor environmentsare.iWdean, attractive, and spacious.:Theieva. minimum of 35 square feetof ils:atirelilayrooni floor space indoorspei-rkia and a rriiniintim of 75 squarefeet:Of i3lay space outdoors par child.Linaited.:indoor space May be:offset bysheltered outdoor space where climate

.perMitsreliance on outdoor space foractiVities normally conducted indoors.Limited .outdoor space may be offset bya greater amount of indoor space, suchas a gym, permitting an equivalent ac-tivity program.

B. Activity areas are defined clearly byspatial arrangement. Space is arrangedso that children can work individually,together in small groups, or in a largegroup. Space is arranged to provideclear pathways for children to move

43

C.

D.

from one area to another and to mini-mize distractions.

The space for toddler and preschoolchildren is arranged to facilitate a va-riety of srnall group and/or individualactivities, including block building, so-ciodramatic play, art, music, science,math, manipulatives, and quiet bookreading. Other activities such as sand/water play 'and woodworking are alsoavailable on-occasion. Carpeted areasand ample crawling space are providedfor nonwalkers. Sturdy furniture is pro-vided so nonwalkers can pull them-selves up or balance themselves whilewalking. School-age children are pro-vided separate space arranged to facili-tate a variety of age-appropriate activi-ties.

Age-appropriate materials and equip-ment of sufficient quantity, variety, anddurability are readily accessible to chil-dren and arranged on low, open shelvesto promote independent use by chil-dren.

YOUNG CHILDREN/NOVEMBER 1983

4 3

DRAFT

Individual hanging space tor children'sclothing and space for each child tostore personal belongings is provided.

F. Private areas are available indoors andoutdoors for children to have solitude.The environment includes soft elementssuch as rugs, cushions, or rockingchairs.

G. Sound absorbing materials are used tocut down on excessive noise.

H. The outdoor area provides a variety ofsurfaces such as hard surface areas forwheel toys, soil, sand, gra s, hills, andflat areas. The outdoor area providesshade, .open space, digging space, anda variety of equipment for riding,climbing, balancing, and.individualplay. The outdoor area is protected fromaccess to streets or othei-dangerous:

.

areas.

IL HealtiOild Safety .

The healtiliindsafety of Citildreit 'and hdulisprotected iind;einhanced.

.. ,The?cente0S in Coiriphafice'.. th'ithe"legal requirements for priitectiiin :cif :the'health and:.Skfety.:.of childilri-::.grO:upsettings.' Th&center.isliCense4::Orcredited by the appropriatejol/stateagencies.- If exempt .frOm licensing; -thecenier demonstrates compliance with itsown state regulations.

B. Each aault is free of physical and psy-chological conditions that might ad-versely.:affect children's health. Staffreceive pre-employment physical ex-aminations, annual tuberculosis tests,and evaluation of any infection. Nomember of the staff is under investiga-tion for or has a previous record of childabuse or neglect.

C. A written record is maintained for eachchild, including the results of a com-plete health evaluation by an approvedhealth care resource Within six monthsprior to enrollment, record of irnmuni-

zations, emergency contact information, names of people authorized tocall for the child, and pertinent healthhistory (such as allergies or chronic con-ditions). Children have received thenecessary immunizations as recom-mended for their age group by theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics.

D. The center has a written policy sped-fying limitations on attendance of sickchildren. Provision is made for the no-tification of parents, the comfort of illchildren, and the protection of well chil-dren.

E. Provisions are made for safe arrival anddeparture of all children which alsoallow for parent-staff interaction. Iftiansportafion is provided by the center

...fOr children, vehicles are equipped with.4.,age-appropriate restraint devices.

iOr<Cliildren are under adult supervision atvtimeS:If children are not irf the direct

on.ofdults1 adults are.!aware ofhere they are and what they are()Mg.

YOUNG CHILDREN/NOVEMBER 1983

49

44

Staff is alert. to the healthofieach"Individual medical problems and acci-

5fi-ants,are recorded and reported to.Staff..11.1.447.0.iid parents. Suspected incidentS of

abuse and/or neglect by parents or'staff are reported to appropriate localagencies.

H. At least one staff member, who has cer-tification in emergency first aid treat-ment and cardiopulmonary resuscita-tion (CPR) from a licensed healthprofessional, is always in the center.Adequate first aid supplies axe readilyavailable. A plan exists for dealing withserious medical emergencies.

Children are dressed appropriately foroutdoor activities. Extra clothing is kepton hand for each child.

I.

1. The facility is cleaned daily to disinfectbathroom fixtures and remove trash. In-fants' equipment is washed and disin-

DRAFI

fected at least twice a week. Toys whichare mouthed are washed daily. Soileddiapers are disposed of or held forlaundry in closed containers inacces-sible to the children. The cover of thechanging table is either disinfected ordisposed of after each change of a soileddiaper.

K. Staff wash their hands with soap andwater before feeding and after diaperingor assisting children with toileting ornose wiping. A sink with running hotand cold water is adjacent to the dia-pering area.

L. All equipment and the:.building aremaintained in a safe, cle'Ai,conditionand in good repair (for:texanj,.. ple thereare no sharp edges,f",sptir4ers, pro-truding or rusty naili,.0?iiuAing parts).Infants' and toddlerSVibis ere largeenough to .preventt,"SVIlowing orchoking.. StaffsniainterMq..responsibil-.ides, except .einefgena4W4uire min-imal time when childreAre:present.

,..%Individual:1;iedding is.,4,§10 Cince.a:week . -and used :by." o nly.440 clhild.,e.r.tween washings Individiiäl &ibs cots;or mats are washed if 16ila Sides ofinfants' cribsl.are in..a:IdCked positionwhen occupied.

N. Toilets, drinking water, and hand-washing facilities are easily accessible tochildren. Soap and disposable towelsare provided. Children wash handsafter toileting and 1,, fore. meals. Hotwater temperature doe's, not exceed110°F (43° C) at outlets used by children.

0. All rooms are well lighted and venti-lated. Screens are placed on all win-dows which open. Electrical outlets arecovered with protective caps. Floor cov-erings are attached to the floor orbacked with non-slip materials. Non-toxic building materials are used.

Cushioning materials such as mats,wood chips, or sand are used under

P.

45

climbers, slides, or swings. Climbingequipment and swings are securely archored.

Q All chemicals and potentially dangerousproducts such as medicines or cleaningsupplies are stored in original, labeledcontainers in locked cabinets inacces-sible to children. Medication is admin-istered to children only when a writtenorder has been submitted by a parent,and the medication is administered bya consistent designated staff member.

R. All staff are familiar with primary andsecondary evacuation routes and prac-tice evacuation procedures monthlywith children. Written emergency pro-cedures are posted in conspicuousplaces.

S. All staff are familiar with emergencyprocedures such as operation of fire ex-tinguishers and procedures for severestorm warnings. Smoke detectors andfire extinguishers areprovided and pe-riodically checked..Emergency tele-phone numbers are posted by phones.

III. Nutrition and Food ServiceThe nutritional needs of children and adults arctnet in a manner that promotes physical, social,emotional, and cognitive development.

A. Meals and/or snacks are planned tomeet the child's nutritional require-ments as recommended by the ChildCare Food Program of the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture in proportion to theamount of time the child is in the pro-gram each day.

B. Menu information is provided to par-ents. Feeding times and food consump-tion information is provided to parentsof infants and toddlers at the end ofeach day.

C. Mealtimes promote good nutrition hab-its. Toddlers and preschoolers are en-couraged to serve and feed therns&lves.

50

YOUNG CHILDREN/NOVEMBER 1983

DRAFT

Chairs, tables, and eating utensils aresuitable for the size and developmentallevels of the children. Mealtime is apleasant sodal and learning experiencefor children. Infants are held in an in-clined position while bottle feeding.Foods indicative of children's variouscultural backgrounds are served peri-odically. At least one adult sits withchildren during meals.

D. Food brought from home is stored ap-propriately until consumed.

E. Where food is prepared on the prem-ises, the center is in compliance withlegal requirements for nutrition andfood service. Food may be prepared atan approved facility and transported tothe program in appropriate sanitarycontainers and at appropriate tempera-tures.

IV. AdministrationIhe program is efficiently and ettectwely ad-ministered with attention to the need, and de..res of children, parents, and staff.

A At least annually :he director and .;farfd u t .111 ,` t'st.

YOUNR, 0111.DREN/NOVIAIRFR l98";

cf)

co

ro

009

46

strengths and weaknesses of the pro-gram and to specify program goals forthe year.

B. The center has written policies and pro-cedures for operating, including hours,fees, illness, holidays, and refund in-formation.

C. The center has written personnel poli-cies including job descriptions, com-pensation, resignation and termination,benefits, and grievance procedures.Hiring practices are nondiscriminatory.

Minimum benefits for full-time staff in-clude health or hospital insurance cov-erage that is provided or arranged, sickleave, annual leave, and Social Securityor some other retirement plan.

E. Records are kept on the program andrelated operations such as attendance,health, confidential personnel files, andboard meetings.

F. In cases where the center is governedby a Board of Directors, the center haswritten policies defining roles and re-sponsibilities of Board members andstaff.

D.

Fiscal records are kept with evidence oflong range budgeting and sound finan-dal planning.

Accident protection and liability insur-ance coverage is maintained for childrenand adults.

The director is familiar with and makesappropriate use of community re-sources including social services,mental and physical health agencies,and educational programs such as mu-seums, libraries, and neighborhoodcenters

'-qatt and administratior .t,111111lInlkfrequently ['here is evidence ot 'mutolannuw. and consultation amone, ,tattRegular tatt meeting:- are held tor tanto ,:onsult or. program planning to plan

aid]. RI uai Ind ic

51 BEST OK a kb

DRAR

prograin ano working conditions Mailare provided paid planning time.

K. Staft members are provided space andtime away from children during theday. When staff work directly with chil-dren for more than four hours, they areprovided breaks of at least 15 minutesin each four-hour period.

L. The number of children in a group islimited to facilitate adult-child interac-tion and constructive activity amongchildren. Groups of children may beage-determined or multi-age, exceptthat children in diapers are groupedseparately. Maximum group size is de-termined by the distribution of ages ofchildren in the group. Optimal groupsize would be snialler than the max-imum. Group size limitations are ap-plied indoors tOthe group that childrenare involved in during most of the day.Group size liMitations will vary de-pending on the tyPe of activity, whetherit is indoors or Outdoors, the inclusionof children with:special needs, andother factors Agroup is the number of

cnikiren assigned to a stalf nit.mbciteam of staff members, occupying an individual classroom or well-define:-physical space within a larger room.

M. Sufficient staff with primary responsibilitv for children are available to prcvide frequent personal contact, meaningful learning activities, supervision,and to offer immediate care as neededThe ratio of staff to children will vandepending on the age of the children,the type of program activity, the inclu-sion of children with special needs, thetime of day, and other factors. Staffingpatterns should provide for adult su-pervision of children at all times and theavailability of an additional adult to as-sume responsibility if one adult takes abreak or must respond to an emer-gency. Staff/child ratios are maintainedin relation to size of group. Staff/childratios are maintained through provisionof substitutes wheri-regular staff mem-bers are abserte(Serable 1).

N. Each staff member-his primary respon-sibility for and.-develOps a deeper at-

Table 1. Acceptable range of staff/child ratios within

Size

group size.

Group

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Inf antS (0-18 mos.) 1:3 1:4

Toddlers (18-35 mos.) 1:3 1:4 1:5

Two- and three-year-olds

1:4 1:5 1:6

Three-year-olds 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:8

Three- and four-year-olds

1:7 1:8 1:9 1:10

Four-year-olds 1:8 1:9 1:10

Four- and five-year-olds

1:8 1:9 1:10 1:11 1:12

Five- to eight-year-olds(school-age care)

1:10 1:11 1-12

YOUNG CHILDREN/NOVEMBER 1983

47

DRAFT

tachment to an identified group ot children. Every attempt is made to havecontinuity of adults who work with children, particularly infants and toddlersInfants spend the majority of the timeinteracting with the same person eachday.

V. Staff Qualifications andDevelopment

The program is staffed by adults who under-stand child development and who recognize amlprovide for children's needs.

NOTE: NAEYC's Governing Board is con-sidering three options for dealing with staffqualifications. The membership is asked toconsider these options and send commentsto NAEYC Headquarters.

1. Specify degrees and/or credentials whichwould be required of all staff memberswith identified equivalencies.

2. Specify degrees and credentials whichwould be recommended for the presentand required after a grace period of per-haps five years.

3. Permit differential staffing in which onlythe program director and a portion of thestaff would have to meet specific qualifi-cations. For instance, perhaps 50 percentof the teachers would need to haveformal training while the others wouldnot.

A 1. he program 1, rtaffed by individualt-who are 18 years of age or older and

ho haN t. Oyer: !rained in child Lie \opment/early childhood education andwho demonstrate the appropriate per-sonal characteristics for working withchildren as exemplified in the Criteriafor staff-child interaction and curric-ulum Staff working with school-agechildren have been trained in child de-velopment, recreation, or a related field.The amount of training required willvary depending on the level of profes-sional responsibility required by the po-sition (See Table 2).

B. The chief administrative officer of thecenter has training and/or experience inbusiness administration. If the chief ad-ministrative officer is not an EarlyChildhood Specialist, an Early Child-hood Specialist is employed to direct theeducational program.

C. New staff are adequately oriented aboutgoals and philosophy of the center,emergency health and safety proce-dures, special needs of individual chil-dren assigned to the staff member'scare, guidance and classroom manage-rnent techniques, and planned daily ac-tivities of the center.

Table 2. Proposed titles, responsibilities, and training requirements.Level of professional responsibility

Level IEarly Childhood AssistantPreprofessional workers who carry out program ac-tivities under supervision of the professional staff

Training requirements

Participation in professional development pro-grams

Level 2Early Childhood TeacherProfessionals who are in charge of groups of chil-dren

At least a Child Development Associate credential(CDA) or an A.A. degree in Early Childhood Ed-ucation/Child Development and at least one fullyear of teaching experience

Level 3Early Childhood SpecialistProfessionals who direct educational programs inearly childhood centers, supervise and train staff,and design curriculum

At least a B.A. degree in Early Childhood Edu-cation/Child Development which includes or issupplemented by at least one year of full-time ex-perience working with young children and alsoincludes training and experience in supervision ofadults, curriculum design, and staff development

YOUNG CHILDREN/NOVEMBER 1983

48

pRAFT

l) The center provides regular training Opportunities for staff to improve skills inworking with children and families andexpects staff to participate in staff de-velopment. These may include atten-dance at workshops and seminars,visits to other children's programs, ac-cess to resource materials, in-servicesessions, or enrollment in college level/technical school courses. Training ad-dresses the following areas: health andsafety, child growth and development,planning learning activities, guidanceand discipline techniques, linkages withcommunity services, communicationand relation: with families, and detec-tion of child abuse.

E. Accurate and current records are keptof staff qualifications including tran-scripts, certificates, or other documen-tation of continuing in-service educa-tion.

VI. Staft-2arent InteractionParents are well informed about and welcomeas observers and contributors to the program.

A. Information about the program is givento new and prospective families, in-duding written descriptions of the pro-gram's philosophy and operating pro-cedures. Information is provided in theparents' native language or interpreted.

B. A process has been developed for ori-enting children and parents to thecenter which may include a pre-enrollment visit, parent orientationmeeting, or gradual introduction of chil-dren to the center.

C. Staff and parents communicate re-garding home and center childrearingpractices in order to minimize potentialconflicts and confusion for children.

D. Parents and other family members areencouraged to be involved in the pro-gram in various ways, taking into con-sideration working parents and those

4 9

54

with little spare time Parent,- are welcome visitors in the center at all ttnie((or example, to observe, eat lunch witha child, or volunteer to help in the classroom).

E. A verbal and/or written system is estab-lished for sharing day-to-dav happen-ings that may affect children Changesin a child's physical or emotional stateare regularly reported.

F. Conference times are held at least oncea year and at other times, as needed, todiscuss children's progress, accom-plishments, and difficulties at home andat the center.

G. Parents are informed about the center'sprogram through regular newsletters,bulletin boards, frequent notes, tele-phone calls, and other similar mea-sures.

VII. Staff-Child InteractionInteractions between children and staff provideopportunities for children to develop an under-standing of self and others and are characterizedby warmth, personal respect, individuality,positive support, and responsiveness.

A. Staff interact frequently with children.Staff express respect for and affectiontoward children by smiling, touching,holding, and speaking to children attheir eye level throughout the day, par-ticularly on arrival and departure, andwhen diapering or feeding very youngchildren.

B. Staff are available and responsive tochildren, encouraging them to share ex-periences, ideas, and feelings, and lis-tening to them with attention and re-spect.

C. Staff speak with children in a friendly,positive, courteous manner. Staff con-verse frequently with children, askingopen-ended questions and speaking in-dividually to children (as opposed to thewhole group) most of the time.

YOUNG CH1LDREN/NOVEMBER 198",)

D.

E.

F.

DRAFT

Staff are knowledgeable about and re-spect the cultural backgrounds of chil-dren and adapt the learning setting torecognize heritages and acquaint chil-dren with the cultural diversity of thegroup.

Staff encourage developmentally appro-priate independence in children. Stafffoster independence in routine activi-tiespicking up toys, wiping spills,personal grooming (toileting, washinghands), obtaining and caring for mate-rials, and other self-help skills.

Staff use positive techniques of guid-ance, including redirection, anticipationand elimination of potential problems,positive reinforcement, and encourage-ment rather than competition, compar-ison, Or criticism. Staff abstain from cor-poral punishment or other humiliatingor frightening discipline techniques.Consistent, dear rules are explained tochildren and-understood by adults.

G. Staff respect the child's right to choosenot to parti4pate

H. EnVirOnMental ;SOund. is primarily'-;marked15y.pleasant onversation, spon-' larteobsAaughterag;and-exdamations of

exdtemerWrither:=than harsh, stressful.-1,.noise-;rtirieftfOrced;;4uiet.

jraeractionStaff facilitate interacticirts among children toprovide opportiinitaS*deVelopment of socialskills and intellectuallisofoth.

A. Staff assist children to be comfortable,relaxed, happy,.and involved in playand other activities.

B. Staff foster cooperation and other pro-social behaviors among children.

C. Staff expectations of children's socialbehavior are developmentally appro-priate.

D. Children are encouraged to verbalizefeelings and ideas.

YOUNG CHILDREN/NOVEMBER 1983

55

IX. Curriculum

The curriculum encourages children to bc ac-tively involved in the learning process, to ex-perience a variety of developmentally appro-priate activities and materials, and to pursuclheii own interests in the context of life in thecommunity and world.

50

A. The curriculum is pianned to reflect theprogram's philosophy and goals forchildren.

B. Staff plan realistic curriculum goals forchildren based on assessment of indi-vidual needs and interests. Modifica-tions are made in the environmentwhen necessary for children with spe-cial needs. Staff make appropriateprofessional referrals where necessary.

C. The daily schedule is planned to pro-vide a balance of activities on the fol-lowing dimensions:1. indoor/outdoor2. quiet/active3. individual/small group/large group4. large muscle/small muscle5. child initiated/staff initiated

D. Staff members continually providelearning opportunities for infants andtoddlers, most often in response to cuesemanatdng from the child. Infants andtoddlers are permitted to move aboutfreely, exploring the environment andinitiating play activities:

E. Developmentally appropriate materialsand equipment which project hetero-geneous racial, sexual, and age attri-butes are selected and used.

F. Staff plan a variety of developmentallyappropriate activities and provide ma-terials that are selected to emphasizeconcrete experiential learning and toachieve the following goals:1. foster positive self-concept2. develop social skills3. encourage children to think, reason,

question, and experiment4. encourage language development

DRAFT

5. enhance physical development andskills

6. encourage and demonstrate soundhealth, safety, and nutritional prac-tices

7 encourage creative expression andappreciation for the arts

8. respect cultural diversity of staff andchildren, and

9. reflect aspects of life in a democratic

society.

G. Staff provide materials and time for chil-

dren to select their own activitiesthroughout the day. Children maychoose from among several activitieswhich the teacher has planned or the

children initiate.

H. Staff conduct smooth and unregi-mented transitions between activities.Children:are seldom required to movefrom one:activityto another as a group.Transitione:"are:P/anned as a vehicle for

I. :Staff .are,flexible enough to change.43laimed:rOeyontine:Activities accordingto the- ,spk,.interests of the children

I.:or. to cOlititli"...Clianges in weather or.:,Other;Sititah6riklikhich affect routines-i:vithouilarming children.

J. lloutineAaSkS,ate incorporated into the:program.a-s. a.means of furthering chil-

dren's learnin g;..self-help, and socialskills. Rdutines,such as diapering, toi-

leting, eating, 'dressing, and sleepingare handled in a relaxed, reassuring,and individualized manner based ondevelopniental needs. Staff plan withparents to make toilet training, feeding,and the development of other indepen-dent skills a positive experience for chil-

51

dren. Provision is made for childrenwho are early risers and for childrerwho do not sleep.

X. EvaluationSystematic assessment of the effectiveness

the program in meeting its goals for childrenparents, and staff is conducted to ensure tha.quality care and education are provided and

maintained.

A. The director evaluates all staff at leastannually and privately discusses theevaluation with each staff member. Theevaluation includes classroom observa-

tions. Staff are informed of evaluationcriteria in advance. Results of evalua-tions are written and confidential. Staff

have an opportunity to evaluate theirown performance. A plan for stafftraining is generated from the evalua-

tion process.

B. At least annually, staff, other profes-sionals, and parents are involved inevaluating the program's effectivenessin meeting the needs of children andparents.

C. Individual descriptions of children's de-

velopment are written and compiled as

a basis for planning appropriatelearning activities, as a means of facili-

tating optimal development of eachchild, and as records for use in com-munications with parents. These mayconsist of anecdotal records, classroom

and playground observations, individ-

ually administered tests, locally or na-tionally developed progress checklists,dated compilations of children's work,

or case studies.

YOUNG CHILDREN/NOVEMBER 1983

ExchangeNovember 1987

Promote Your NationalCenter Accreditation!

by Karen StephensIf you are reading this article, congratulations! Chances are youare currently accredited by NAEYC's National Academy of EarlyChildhood Programs, about to be accredited, or will soon bebeginning the effort.

Accreditation is a significant milestone in a program's develcn-ment. After completing the process, you are deservedly proud.. .and exhausted! And now, after putting in all that painstakingwork, you are about to read that there is more to be done. (No,I'm not kidding.) Namely, promoting your accreditation achieve-ment. Before you turn to another article, relax! With the properattitude and support from your staff, this can be one of the mostexciting aspects of accreditation! In promoting your accredita-tion, you will be letting the public know what it is and what itmeans for children and families. It's a great chance to get some-thing GOOD about early childhood in the public eye. (Need Isay more?)

As of October 1, 1987, 395 of our nation's approximately 61,000licensed programs were accredited. Once most areas of the UShave an adequate number of accredited programs accessible toparents, the National Academy will begin a national campaignto educate the public on its significance and purpose. Until thattime comes, it is up to individual accredited centers to begin thefirst thrust of promoting accreditation. By starting with ourown communities, we are in a pivotal position to give impetus toa groundswell of interest, support, and wide acceptance for theproject. This is your chance to take a leadership role!

52

57

ExchangeNovember 1987

Why Promote Yourself?

Some of the currently accreditedprograms have shied away fromassertive promotion of theiraccreditation. Reasons arevaried. They already have awaiting list and don't want orneed the extra publicity. Othersserve a limited population anddon't want calls from the generalpublic. Some believe it is embar-rassing and in bad taste to "brag"about themselves. I want tochallenge those attitudes andconvince you that we all need topromote the project in some way,be it large or small.

Number one, teachers andsupport staff who made youraccreditation possible deservepublic recognition and apprecia-tion for their dedication andprofessional expertise. Numbertwo, when you promote accredita-tion, you are advocating for allchildren and families who aredesperately in need of moreavailable, quality (and, yesaffordable) early childhoodprograms. When publicizing yourachievement, it is a perfectplatform for communicating theneed for well-funded comprehen-sive services which adequatelyreimburse trained staff for theirefforts.

If you) keep this motive of advo-cating for all children in mind,your fear of public attention andthe extra work that it involveswill fade in comparison to thegood that can be achieved onbehalf of millions of children. Inthe words ofJoyce Anderson,western area director of trainingfor Daybridge Learning Cen-ters and also director of theArlington, Texas, DaybridgeCenter when it became accred-ited, "I think it's as important tomarket this as it is to go throughthe self-study process of accredi-tation. Otherwise the public

won't know of its importance.You're doing an injustice tochildren by not allowing parents toknow about the choices availableto them."

Now you might be thinking thatmost parents in fact don't have thechoice of an accredited programsince there are still relatively fewat this time. That fact alonejustifies promotion. By letting thepublic know that you haveachieved the distinction, otherprograms will be motivated towork toward the same level ofquality, thereby providingparents with a wider breadth ofchoice.

There are other benefits to bereaped from promoting yourprogram. Acknowledgment andrespect from the community andmedia uplifts staff morale andbuilds a sense of unity. Keeping apositive high profile insuresthat your funding sources willcontinue to believe that yourprogram is a good investment.Many centers have recruited newenrollments and more importantlyhave attracted and retained awell-qualified, experiencedstaff.

All right, now I've convinced youthat promotion is in the bestinterest of everyone. (And if Ihaven't, please re-read all of theabove . . . slowly.) The remainderof this article consists of promotionideas collec.,,ed from around thecountry. You don't have to try allof them, but do try several! Usethese ideas as a springboard whenbrainstorming with your staff forother possible promotion activities.These ideas will serve to stir yourimagination and energize yourcommitment to children intoaction! The enthusiasm that yougenerate will be contagious! Inadvance, thanks for promoting onbehalf of all of us!

Promoting Within YourProgram

Kay Koulouras of Perry-KayNursery School and Kinder-garten emphasizes that promotion begins when you sell the ideato staff and come to a teamdecision to attempt accredita-tion rather than a directorpassing the edict down tosubordinates. Judy Morris ofFirst Presbyterian Children'sCenter stresses educating boardmembers and program parents inlayman's terms as soon as theprocess begins.

Post your accreditation posterand certificate conspicuously, i.e.entrance hallway. LakeshoreTeaching and Learning Cen-ter posted their framed certifi-cate across from the chair offeredto prospective parents.

Hold a celebration bash forstaff, children, and parents.First Presbyterian Children'sCenter held a children's concert.Illinois State University ChildCare Center had a pizza party.The University of TennesseeChildren's Center held a formalstaff recognition dinner where thedean of the School of Educationpresented the staff with a com-memorative plaque. The Perry-Kay Nursery School and Kin-dergarten treated their staff to aposh nightclub and arranged forthe musicians to play a medley ofwinner tunes, i.e. "You're theTops" and "Hail to the Victor"!

Hang a large computer bannersaying, "We're accredited!" Postconspicuously.

Post cards and letters of con-gratulations on the parentbulletin board.

If no one sends your staffcongratulatory flowers, do it

yourself. They really get peopleasking about the occasion. KayKoulouras presented everyenrolled family with a carnationupon accreditation.

Rent a VCR and play back TVcoverage near the parent bul-letin board so children andparents can see their program inaction.

The Learning Tree Center inMoline, Illinois, let off hundredsof helium balloons from their playyard when they announcedaccreditation. Their staff re-ceived school t-shirts.

Give the staff a bonus! Onecenter provided every staffmember with $250! Now that'smotivating!

Jean Stewart of Little BearChild Development Centercompiled the results of parentevaluations (both the negativeand the positive comments) anddistributed them to parents.Since they were overwhelminglygood, they were very moti-vating.

Union Bay Children's Cen-ter presented a certificate ofcongratulations to each of its staffmembers at a staff meeting.Lakeshore Teaching andLearning Center mailed con-gratulatory letters.

Illinois State UniversityChild Care Center had acommemorative plaque engravedwith a thank you to its funders,a quote regarding leadershipthat was meaningful to thewhole staff, and a 5" x 7" staffphoto.

Chula Vista PresbyterianPreschool's staff was recognizedat the sponsoring church's Sun-day services.

59

Promoting to theCommunity

Tell everyone about your ac-creditation through posters, flyers.shopper guides, etc. LakeshoreTeaching and Learning Centermade their achievement headlinenews in their center's newsletterthat has a circulation of 3,000.

Send out press releases to allarea news outlets: print, radio,and TV. Send them to your staffshometown papers or alumninewsletters. Personally invite themedia to interview you, your staff,parents using the progTam, andmaybe even some children. Askthem to film part of your program.(For help in managing the mediacoverage, read "Courting theMedia with Special Events,"Exchange, January 1985.)

Invite your legislators, localcommunity governance, andbusiness leaders to have lunch atyour program and see firsthandwhat accreditation means.

Ask prominent communitysupporters and alumni parents towrite brief letters of congratula-tions via the "Letter to the Editor"column of your local papers. Thiswould be their chance to take apublic stance in support of avail-able, quality child care. Ask forcopies to be sent to you so you candetermine the number of lettersactually printed. They are alsogreat for posting and later puttingin a scrapbook. Illinois StateUniversity Child Care Centerreceived editorial backing after somany letters were received by thepaper.

List your program as accreditedwith your local resource andreferral agency.

Contact public affairs talk showproducers and suggest accredita-

54

ExchangeNovember 1987

tion as a topic. (You might haveto tie it into something morenewsy such as how accreditationhelps to reduce the chance ofchild abuse.) Joyce Andersongave a talk show interview andthe station replayed it six times!

If you live in a larger city,schedule a press conference.Announce your accreditationduring a national week such asWeek of the Young Child,Children's Health Week, etc.Hang an accredited banner(nylon) on the outside of yourbuilding.

Set up accreditation booths atmalls, libraries, doctors' offices,etc. They are especially receptiveduring significant weeks such asPrevention of Child Abuse Week.

Hold an open house orreception. Ann Gamble of theUniversity of TennesseeChildren's Center held areception in the campus' studentunion. A video of the childrenand staff was shown and staffwere available for introductions.Alexandria Day Care Centerheld an open house which wasvisited by prominent city officials.

Contact corporations who holdinformation fairs for their em-ployees and offer to set up abooth. Send accreditation infor-mation to corporate employeenewsletters and offer to write ashort column on choosing qualitychild care. Offer to speak atcorporate brown-bag seminarsabout accreditation.

Use the accreditation seal on allof your printed material that goesto the community or prospectiveparents, i.e. brochure, enrollmentforms, orientation packets.Daybridge attaches a colorful"accredited" sticker. Somecenters put in a small blurbexplaining accreditation.

ExchangeNovember 1987

Answer your phone, "Accreditedchild care, may I help you?"(They ask what it means!)

Distribute a brochure onaccreditation to anyone whocomes to your center, not simplyto those who enroll. Daybridgein Arlington, Texas, had theirparent advisory board membersdistribute information on accredi-tation at their workplace. Youcan prepare a one page flyer tospark interest.

When going on field trips, haveyour program's children weart-shirts saying, "I go to an

accredited child care center."

Offer to speak to other helpingprofessions regarding accredita-tion, i.e. health department,mental health association.

Contact papers who have "backto school" supplements and sug-gest they list accredited centersand include a story on the project.

Child Care Partnership ofDallas, a non profit advocacyorganization for quality childcare, has arranged for the mayorto present newly accreditedprograms with the Child CarePartnership's Seal of Quality.Great way to pull in press and tolearn about possible city fundingprojects.

Illinois State UniversityChild Care Center was asked toconduct a year long parentingseries for a local hospital (as aresult of accreditation, I mightadd). Accreditation is covered inthat series, which is open to thegeneral public.

Ask fellow helping organiza-tions to endorse accreditation.Judy Morris of First Presbyte-rian Children's Centerreports that her city's childabuse prevention p-Jgram

endorses and advocates for ac-creditation.

Use the accreditation emblem inany of your advertising, such as inthe yellow pages of the telephonedirectory.

Encourage the "Bill Cosby Show"producers and writers to enrollRudy into an accredited after-school child care program!"Family Ties" might also beinterested. (NBC is considering asit-corn set in a day care center.Write and suggest that the centerbecome accredited!)

Offer to write a monthlychildren and family column inyour local paper, especially if theyhave a family section.

Promoting to theProfession

Set up accreditation booths atconferences and workshops.

Personally send a letter ofcongratulations to newlyaccredited centers and staff.

Highlight and recognize areaaccredited programs in yourprofessional newsletters.

Have your staff wear"accredited" ribbons on their lapelswhen attending conferences.

Offer workshops on accreditationat area professional meetings.

Michigan Association for theEducation of Young Childrenhas designated liaisons from theiraffiliates who are available toanswer questions from directorswho are considering accreditation.

Kay Koulouras met with herstate licensing agent and the headof the Department of SocialServices to share accreditationinformation.

Some NAEYC affiliates havefunded scholarships to accreditation hopefuls in order to offsetaccreditation applicationexpenses. Others have ob-tained funding from localUnited Ways or businesses socenters can purchase equip-ment that may be needed tomeet accreditation.

Loan your copy of the "greenbook" of AccreditationCriteria and Procedures to adirector who is contemplatingembarking on the project. Meetfor lunch!

Encourage someone fromyour staff to become a validator.

Charlotte Scott of ParadiseValley Methodist Preschoolsuggests starting an academynetwork for the purpose ofsharing information and devel-oping strategies for encourag-ing others to become accredited.

Hold a local directors' meet-ing at your accredited center.

If you are a college instructoror CDA trainer, cover accredita-tion criteria as classroommaterial.

Special thanks to DeborahJordan and Patty Briggs,NAEYC accreditation staff, whohelped immensely in identifyingaccredited programs who havepromoted their achievement.

Karen Stephen.:isdirector of:1.1446k

4ii*itruc;sorütIS[TadPczrklwid COM:mwuty College, Illinois '

AEYC's to the

SUE BREDEKAMP'S ADDRESS TO COUNCIL

I'm really delighted to have an opportunity to meet all of you.I'd hoped to have more time in your country to visit all partsof it. It is always very frustrating when you go to some place,you either do one or two places well or you do many places notwell at all and because of my limited time here I have spent mostof my time in Sydney. A number of people have said to me, "Isthis your first trip to Australia? and I like that questionbecause it implies something. It implies that there will be othertrips to Australia and so hopefully on my subsequent visits I

will get to the other areas of the country. I would very muchlike to do that. I was very intrigued by some of the openingremarks, I think it was gratutious that I came a little bit earlybecause I enjoyed hearing both your President and your ExecutiveOfficer's reports. .I%think it just confirms again that there areno new problems in the world very-much. The agenda that you'refacing is not dissimilar to the agenda we're facing but quiteidentical in many ways on the issues of testing, some of theissues of working conditions, the issues of standard setting andemphasis from a Government standpoint on de-regulating orminimising standards, are all the same kinds of things that weface in the States and so I think certainly there is somepessimism in that all of these problems persist with us but thereis some optimism in that maybe together we can come up with somebetter solutions for the future.

What I thought I would do in the time that I have with you is tosort of try to address basically three questions that have to dowith our experience with accreditation. First, why we did it,a ittle bit of the history of why we came to institute anational accreditation system in the United States. Secondly,how it works, I know some of you are more familiar with it thanothdrs and it will be a little bit redundant for some of you butI think it is good for us to sort of share an understanding ofwhat our concept is and how it works and thirdly, what hashappened in the years of experience that we've had, what theoutcomes have been. Lastly what the benefits are really that haveoccurred. We've had some things that we planned for and we thinkhave happened to some extent and other things that we didn'tnecessarily plan for that were sort of serendipitous effects ofinstituting a national accreditation system and so I thought Iwould share those with you and then open it to any questions thatyou might have.

First of all we started looking at the concept of nationalaccreditation in 1981 and we worked on the development of it forfour years and thz_t was what I considered to be now an investmentthat we put in, in that development of the system. You can all

56

Cl

appreciate the importance of pre-natal development to help theperson later on and certainly with us a new system thatconceptual development that we put in was really critical and wefeel that it has paid off. From the very beginning we had onegoal in mind and that goal has not changed. That goal is toimprove the quality of care and education provided for youngchildren in group progams. It's really important that we all,when we work with accreditation in our country, share thatunderstanding of that goal because occasionally in theintervening years there have been misconceptions about whataccreditation was about and we have had to confront those attimes. For example, some people think that what NAEYC was aboutwas to develop some form of an elitist system, what some peoplecall our good housekeeping seal of approval, that we would putthat on a select number of elite very wealthy centres forexample. That's been some people's view of what accreditationwas about. Actually that's quite the opposite of what we had inmind. What we had hoped was we would put in place a process thatwould bring about real and ldsting improvements in .all of theprograms that would get .involved in that process and thataccreditation would be the incentive for people to get involvedin that process and that process is one that I will desCribe ina minute which is a thorough self-study followed by an on-sitevalidation, followed by a national review. We knew, forinstance, that for, let's just carry it out for a little bit, ifwe were thinking about that view of accreditation as this sortof an elitist system of identifying these few model programs, ifwe were thinking of that as a goal, if there was a way.first ofall that we could, that if there is such a thing as those fewprograms that are models, and if we could find them we could putin a place such a system where we;could identify them, certainlythe children who are in those programs don't need the NAEYC'sseal of approval on their proaram, they're already in the topprograms in the country, they're doing just well thankyou and itwould be a terrible waste of our resources to go out and assistthose programs and provide them with some sort of seal ofapproval. What we had in mind was the process that would helpall children's programs. In effect what we think is that thekind of standards that we are talking about through ouraccreditation system describe the type of programs that allchildren should have access to, not just a few select childrenwhose parents have the resources or whatever, so that wascertainly not at our goal at all.

We also set about to develop a national set of standards and anational process for a very specific reason. In 1981 we werefacing a situation which has actually not changed in the interim,and that is we have r, States and we have 50 discrete sets ofstandards that vary enInously from one locale to the next in ourcountry. Just to give you one of the most extreme examples, .wehave a requirement for a ratio for infants in the state ofMassachusetts that requires one adult for every 3 babies and in

57

62

the State of South Carolina the standard is one adult for every8 babies. Now does that mean the babies in South Carolina aremuch more independent or the babies in Massachusetts are muchmore dependent. Actually it is all very ridiculous, it meansthat we have this tremendous disparity of what sets a base-linefor quality in these States. With that in mind, that tremendousdisparity, we felt we had a public education problem. How do youreally talk to parents about quality? How do you really talk tothe public about quality when you don't have any definition ofwhat it is and when what ycu have are these extreme variancesaround the country. We think that babies have similardevelopmental needs regardless of what part of the country theylive in and therefore there are standards for their programs thatshould be uniform throughout the nation - that's been one of ourgoals in establishing a national criteria. Another was that welooked at the way in which licensing operates as a system forensuring quality and we thought that there had to be another wayto bring about improvements. We looked at the goal of licensingand the goal is written identically to the goal of accreditation.It states very simply to improve quality and that is the goalof licensing and that of course is our goal as well. However weuse a different strategy to meet that goal. I think that in ourthinking conceptional.ly apout how accreditation differs fromlicensing, we were able to conceive of another model foraccomplishing that same goal. What we have as a licensing modelI think is probably similar to what you have here and that isthat it is a system of mandatory regulations that aregovernmentally imposed, that define a legal standard foroperation. Because it is a mandatory system the standards areby definition minimum. It's not likely that you'll ever seelicensing standards that will call themselves anything butminimum standards because of the aspect of it, there being whatis required for legal operation. Another aspect is of coursebecause they 'are minimum standards that therefore a 100% ofthose standards must be required because if you are doing lessthan a 100% of minimums then you really aren't doing acceptablepractices. If you do not achieve that 100% of minimum you areopen to sanctions, you are actually doing something that ispunishable and there are sanctions and punishments that can beimposed for violators of the minimum standards. Anotherimportant aspect of the licensing standards is that because theyare standards for legal operation, they do by definition, to someextent need to be objective standards because they need to bestandards that can be substantiated in a court of law, in otherwords they have to be relatively objective and people have to beable to agree readily on what they need.

Now the accreditation system operates slightly differently toachieve that goal. First of all we start by saying that it isa voluntary system and I think that that is a non-trivial :difference. It has a lot to do with motivation and I'll get backto that in a minute. When people choose to voluntarily subject

58

themselves to a higner standard then you have a differentmotivation to begin with. Secondly, the standards are aprofessionally monitored process rather than a governmentallymonitored process and sets by definition high quality standards.So it's what the profession defines as high quality practices.As a result we do not require a 100% compliance with thosestandards. They do always continue to be to some extent goalstandards for the field because we want them to be that goalthats out there for people to work toward, but when programs doachieve substantial compliance with those high quality standards,then they are recognised for that achievement and in fact theyare rewarded for it.

Another difference that is really important in the two systemsis that the kind of thing that we have found to be called qualityby people within the profession is not always as objectivelydetermined. There is most often a subjective portion of thede.:terminates of quality in practice. For instance some of thethings that are more readily measured such as the numbers ofadults to children are not actually the quality. Those thingsare really very much the predictors of the quality for instancein Massachusetts you may have one adult for 3 babies but you maystill not have quality. You may still have situations wherethose babies are left to cry and there isn't the responsivenessthat we have seen over here when the baby just happened to makea noise and immediately baby's needs are met. There is noguarantee that if you have those adults present that that willoccur. However there is a greater likelihood that you will andso other more objective indicators are really predictors of.'quality but the actual quality itself which we have foundconsensus about in all of our conversations with people in ourcountry and in all of our review of the research and again evenin some of my conversations I have had with you, there has beena real understanding, I think, within our. profession about whatquality is for instance if I said to you "What is quality?Where's the quality in an early childhood program? "What wouldyou answer? Where is it? It's in the staff, but what about thestaff, the staff personnel policies, the staff qualifications,what is it that's really the quality? It's the interactions withthe children isn't it? It's the way in which the adult interactswith the children. That component which is the actual qualitythat interaction, the nature of that interaction, and thepositiveness of it, the individualisation of it, all of thoseaspects of quality are things that do determine how well they arebeing done, require a level of professional judgment and sotherefore we feel that that is another variance with a licensingmodel. That there is some subjectivity in the accreditationprocess but it's okay that it be there because the people who aremonitoring it and who are implementing it are professionals.They are early child professionals who have that capacity toapply professional judgment. We have a situation that is adifficulty in licensing. Very frequently our licensing operators

59

64

do not have early childhood background and so it is realdifficult for them to even apply standards than apply any amountof judgment in the application of them. So all of that goetogether of why NAEYC decided that we should be the group thatwould not only establish the standards but that we would put inplace a process whereby we would encourage programs to worktowards those standards and then we would recognise thoseprograms that achieve that substantial level of compliance withthe standards. Let me say quickly how the process works. Afterwe had agreed upon our criteria, we looked at them and we decidedwell how are we going to tell whether anybody is doing thosethings and so we developed a system whereby a program can getinvolved in doing a self-study basically and looking at howtheir practice compares to these standards and that is, reallythe most important aspect of the process is the self studyprocess. A lot of times we leave the head to the next point inthe process at which is an on site visit and because we think ofthat as being the point which we determine compliance there tendsto be a considerable emphasis on that particular point butactually because our goal is to improve the program and becausethe greatest.amount of improvement occurs during that self studyprocess, we think that is the most important part of the process.The way the system works is the programs initiate a self studyprocess for which they pay a fee based on the size of theircentre and they receive materials that they use as tools to studytheir program and those materials address basically the fourmajor perspectives that occur in any early childhood programsthere are children, there are teachers, there are Directors orAdministrators and there are parents. And so we have a portionof the self-study processes that addresses each of thoseperspectives. .0bviously the most important perspective is whatis my experience as a child in the program, what is the qualityof my life in the program itself and so the most importantcomponent of the self-study process is an observation instrument,where we actually observe what goes on in the classrooms from thechild'.s perspective. That's the key part, because that's thequality. However, there are other aspects that are thosepredictors and supporters of quality that are also looked atduring the self-study and they are looked at from theperspectives of the people who know most about them. TheDirector or Co-ordinator of the program looks at all of thoseaspects and they do a self-evaluation of all of theadministrative aspects of the program. However a number of thoseadministrative aspects also have implications for the staff. Forinstance, the Administrator writes the personnel policies but itis in the staff's best interest to know what they say so,therefore we have a staff questionnaire from which we are ableto obtain the staff's perspectives on those aspects of thecriteria. And there is a third component that has to deal withthe parents perspective on how their needs are met in the programwhat kind of communications systems are available to them,

whether they are welcome visitors in the program. Those ar0aspects that they need to have input on and so thats recorded

60

65

through a parent questionnaire. So we have basically fOur pieceset information that are accumulated during a selfstudy processand what programs do is they measure themselves against criteria.They find that many of the criteria they are meeting and they cancongratulate themselves on that, it becomes a very encouragingsort of strengthening process. On the other hand they identifyareas which they are not meeting that become goals forimprovement and they do work toward those goals and after havingcome to a point where they feel like they are in substantialcompliance then they determine whether or not they want to becomeaccredited. So that self-study process is in itself a staffdevelopment and professional development tool that programs used.Some programs go through that process and still fihd that theyare not anywhere near compliance with our national standard andyet they have made some significant improvement and so they maynot actually go on for accredidation but a lot of really excitingimprovement and changes have taken place in the program as aresult of being invorved in that process. Now when we trialledthat process we had an interesting outcome which was that weweren't accrediting arir programs, we were just giving thesetools, these questionnaires, these observation instruments, tothe staff and parents and we found that they recorded amazingchanges in their programs. We didn't ask them to change anythingat all. All we asked them to do was to give us feed back on theinstruments and instead they came back and they said, "Oh, we didthis, we did that in response to looking at ourselves." So wethink that the process itself does bring about real and lastingchanges. However, we know the process is time consuming and anytime you put time in, you put money in and therefore we feelthat there needs to be an incentive for programs to get involvedin that process and that incentive is of course achievement orpotential achievement of accreditation. That accreditationbecomes the carrot that we hold out there for programs to worktoward that higher standard and if you think about again one lastcomparison with the licensing model you have one model that isbased on a motivator that is a stick basically. It's a potentialrisk of punishment or the threat of punishment, but many peopleare not motivated by a stick. They don't want just to do thelowest that is expected of them, they want to do much more thanthat, but they don't really have any way of being recognised forachieving a higher standard or at least they didn't until we didimplement the accreditation standard. We also felt that it wasimportant that people have that positive out there to work towardrather than always working to avoid the lowest or the worst case,that they have something positive to work toward and that wasreally what we had in mind with it.

So once programs have done that self study and they decidewhether they want to be accredited then they compiled informationfrom their self-study into a program description which is thenvalidated or verified, the accuracy of that document is verifiedduring a validation visit. We send in a trained early childhoodprofessional to do that task and their role there is, we

61

6G

emphasise very strongly, that their role is not to evaluate theprogram. They don't go in and apply their own standard, what theydo is go in and use the same observation instrument that theteachers and directors use in their self study and they observethe classrooms and they compare their evidence on the basis oftheir observations to the evidence that was provided by the selfstudy. And where it agrees, where it can be verified, then itis validated and where there is a difference in what's seen onthat visit iz's not validated and the other thing they do is theylook at the documentation that is evidence presented for theadministrative items and they again verify whether or not theprogram is reporting accurately their compliance with thecriteria. In any case where there is an item that is notvalidated, in other words where there is a difference betweenwhat they see on the date of their visit and what the programreports normally happens, then there is an extra interview withthe Director at the end of the day and all the non-validateditems are discussed and both perspectives are reported in thedocuments, so that again it is a verification and we not onlywant the validator's prospective on a given day, but we want theDirectors prospective about what happened there. So if we havefor instance a mAsinterpretation or different interpretations ofthe criteria which happens not suprisingly, we record both ofthose interpretations because again the validator who is a personwho is from within the relative geographic area of the programand usually within a hundred miles in order to keep the costsdown for the centres, we take away from them the responsibilityof making the decisions and they are there basically to collectevidence to report that the document is accurate. Then it goesto the third step in the process which is the decision, thatoccurs at the National Office. We empanel teams of earlychildhood professionals whom we call commissioners and they cometogether in teams of three representing three differentgeographic areas of the State. Within a two day meeting theyreview 20 or 21 cases or programs of centres and they applyprofessional judgement in making their decision so that we don'thave-a point system. It doesn't go back to that objectivity ofjust getting the right number of points, it goes to someone whohas an application of professional judgement, they read the wholedocument, they determine that while it's true that the programis not meeting criteria in one area, they weigh that againstwhere they're meeting criteria in other areas and they make thedecision on the basis of looking at the whole. For example, whatwe found is that we have criteria in our document that definesstaff qualifications. We require what you would probably see asa low standard which is that a teacher in a classroom have a twoyear training certificate in early childhood. We find howeverthat because our State licensing standards are so low. Forexample, I'll give you a worse case scenario, in the State ofAlabama, a teacher in a child care centre is required to be 16years of age and able to read and write. That means of coursethat you have very unqualified people working in child care andto get a two year Diploma would be quite a higher standard. So

62

67

what we find is that we cannot apply that standard rigidly andwe also find that we don't have to because what we do is weighthe paper credentials against what we observe in the classroomsand we weigh most heavily obviously what we observe in theclassrooms and that is how the decision is made. So forinstance if we have a situation where we don't have trainedpeople, in fact if we have no trained people in the program itis virtually impossible for that not to show up in theobservation data and that's really what happens. We find forinstance that the issues of training and the issues of ratios andgroup size are such powerful predictors of the quality that inevery case where people are far away from meeting those standardsthere is significant evidence in what we've observed inclassrooms that warrants a negative decision. The next thingI wanted to mention is what the outcomes have been. We've hada high rate of programs to achieve accreditation on the firsttry. In fact about 87% or 88% have been accredited on theirfirst review, that 12% or 13% that have been deferred on theirfirst review of those programs they are told exactly what theyneed to do to get accredited, they're told which areas they needto improve and we've seen about 85% of those programs go on andachieve accreditation on a second and sometimes third try. Soagain it is a process that gets put in place once programs getinto that mode,of working toward higher standards we find thateven with that initial negative decision they are not discouragedvery often. They say well we've come this far, we've done allthis, we don't have that much more .to do, let's go ahead and goon with it. So we've seen that which was actually quitesurprising to me I assumed that whenever we turned a program downthey would just say well thankyou very much and we don't needyou. But actually that hasn't been the case at all'we found.quite the opposite that they persisted. I should give you alittle bit of statistics. We have in the three years, actuallywe've been in operation 3 1/2 years now in full operation. Wehave put 4 years into the development, we started the process,it takes people about 9 months to a year to really be ready for

a visit so s.e've only had accredited programs for about 3 1/2years. We have accredited 1,000 programs in that time, we haveanother almost 4,000 now in proce'ss, in other words they've begunthis self-study process. That of course is not a very highpercentage when we compare to the numbers that are potentiallyout there. We have it is estimated 60,000 licensed child carecentres in the States, so we're operating with a very large arenaand potential in that it is very high, however we have found thatsome of the outcomes of having the accreditation system have beenvery interesting. I think that they fall into three categories.First I think they fall into the outcomes that occur at theprogram level. What happens to these centres when they do thisprocess and I think they that we've been very cautious in sayingto them, they need to recognise what the potential benefits are.I think if people go into accreditation thinking that they'regoing to improve their enrolment or something like that, they'reprobably not going in with the really accurate expectation. Most

63

of our programs that pursue accreditation are already fullyenrolled and have long waiting lists so that isn't really anissue for them. What they find most particularly are basicallytwo outcomes that they report most consistently, one is improv.,dparent staff relationships. That's be,:n the most frequentlyreported positive outcome from the centre perspective. Whileparents may have previously thought that they had made a gooddecision about their children, there is always that nagging guiltand fear you may not have done the right thing so as a result Ithink they have reported greater trust on the part of parents andbetter communication and relationship as a result of the process.

Tht- second outcome that's most frequently reported is improvedstaff morale. We've seen considerable changes there where staffmembers in accredited programs not only developed professionallythemselves as a result of the process but then they (change oftape) then there is certainly a correlation there that programsthat do provide for professional development of staff, staff tendto stay and there is just a better relationship.

On the level of profession what accreditation has done from-thestandpoint of NAEYC are a couple of things. One is that theyhave more than anything we have ever done they have placed NAEYCin a position of respect in the nation. That we stand for qualityfor children and I don't think that we can underestimate thatoutcome. It was one interestly enough that was a very difficultdecision for our leadership to undertake initially. There wassome great concern among our staff among our board initially, howcan we set standards and make decisions on programs that some ofour members don't meet and some of our members will actually beturned down for accreditation. How can we do that? That wasvery threatening to us as an association, as a membershiporganisation and we were very cautious, it was a tremendous riskI think that we felt we were taking on our part. In retrospectwe find that it was probably the best decision that we ever madebecaUse, for example, our membership has doubled in the periodof tike since we initiated accreditation. Again I think you canprove anything by correlation, but I do think that there is somerelationship there in the fact there that NAEYC was willing takea stand on what quality is and that was a very important outcome.I do think that we have seen an enormous increase in ourreputatiOn with the general public and with policy makers. Forinstance we have become the source for information on earlychildhood in our nation from the public media, newspapers,magazines. It has almost become too much for us to handlebecause any time there's any story about children we arecontacted and we're able then to get our message out about whatquality is through the public media. That's been a tremendouschange. It was not crue prior to our taking such strong standsabout what quality is. We've also seen interestly enough ourinfJuence in public policy increased. For instance last yearewere having a debate in our Congress, unfortunately we're stillhaving it becauf,e the Bill did not get through the Congress, but

64

6(,)

we had proposed the Act for better child care which was the firstpiece of comprehensive child care legislation to be proposed inour Congress in our a genera ion and one of the parts of it hadto do with standards and NAEYC staff were asked to come in andbrief Congressional staff on what standards should be and whythey are so important and we could do that from our ownexperience with accreditation very readily. So I think that ourpotential to influence policy has greatly increased because ofthe stands that we've taken in this area. Another outcome thathas occurred for the profession has been a greater understandingor a greater identification of what resources are needea in thefield. The accreditation process focuses us, we find out whatprograms are not doing, we find out their weakenesses and we thenare able to focus our resource development in the area of ourpublications, our conference sessions, our video tapes, thingslike that around the areas that we identify as weak in theprograms that are seeking accreditation. So we've learned a lotbasically from doing the accreditation process. It is a lot ofhard work. In my conversations with'your leadership I have triedto be very realistic about what it is that you would heundertaking in doing it. However, from the standpoint of NAEYC'sexperience with it, it is a very large project but it's thecloet thing that we've ever done that is related directly towhat our goals area. Our goal has always been to act on behalfof the needs and the rights of young children. And it is the onething that we do that is the most directly affecting or helpingus to achieve that goal in children's programs.

65 70

VoluntaryAccreditation:

The New SouthWales Experience

Jan Kelly

University of Western Sydney, NepeanNew South Wales

INTRODUCTION

This paper reports on a project undertaken bythe NSW Branch of the Australian EarlyChildhood Association (AECA) to implementa voluntary self-study system for accreditingcentre-based early childhood services as highquality programs for young children and theirfamilies.

The background to the development of theproject, and its status at June, 1989, have beendescribed previously (Kelly, 1990). The de-cisions by the NSW Branch of AECA toinvolve itself in trialling the system developedby the American National Association for theEducation of Young Children (NA EYC)I wasprompted by national concerns about thequality of early childhood care and educationservices. The purpose of the project was toobtain data on the strengths and weaknessesof NAEYC's system and its relevance in theAustralian context. It was anticipated that thedata would be considered by AECA's NationalCouncil and would complement other workon accreditation systems being undertaken inQueensland and Victoria2.

The project was conceptualised in December,1988, in the doom and gloom of reducedgovernment funding for early childhood ser-vices and concern about local and nationalregulatory standards. It was planned in threephases. First was information sharing toinform government officers, service personnel,trade unions, community organisations, andservice providers about the system. Secondwas actual implementation of the self-studyprocess by service personnel, culminating incompletion of Program Descriptions for sub-mission to AECA (NSW Branch). Third wasthe validation and accreditation decision pro-cess to be conducted by a small panel ofexperts appointed by the project team.

The project was launched on I May, 1989, atan information dissemination meeting withthe then NSW Minister for Family andCommunity Services, the Hon. VirginiaChadwick, MP, officers of her Department,and representatives from the CommonwealthDepartment of Community Services andHealth. Subsequently, information sessionsdesigned to inform participants about theNAEYC system and to invite participation inthe project were held in a vari.;ty of metro-politan and country locations. The mainpurpose of these scssions was to encourage asmany services as were interested to begin theself-study process. The project team believed

PiI 66

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol 17 (1), March 1992

that the more programs which were involvedin working towards improving the quality oftheir services the greater would be the benefitto the children and families which the pro-grams served.

A significant boost to the number of well-informed personnel was made possible by afinancial grant from the NSW Minister forFamily and Community Services. This grantenabled the Branch to bring Dr SueBredekamp, NAEYC's National Academy ofEarly Childhood Programs Director of Profes-sional Development, to Sydney in November,1989, to conduct validator training courses.Some 60 early childhood educators fromNSW and other states benefited from thisexperience.

The project depended heavily on the interestof staff who were working in early childhoodservices and their willingness to examine theirpractices and to expose themselves to exam-ination by others. Jan Moffat (1990) andLouise Dungate (Dungate and McDonald1991), two centre directors whose programsundertook the self-study, vividly describetheir feelings about that undertaking andtheir experiences in working towardsachieving the quality criteria. Their descrip-tions provide valuable guidance for staff whoare beginning the task.

Some eighteen months after the project waslaunched, at a celebratory dinner attended byover 100 people, the Hon. Peter Staples, MP,Commonwealth Minister for Aged, Health,and Family Services, presented commemora-tive certificates to the first two Australianearly childhood services which had success-fully demonstrated the excellence of their careand education programs according toNAEYC's criteria.

It was a night of high excitement. It honouredthe dedication and expertise of the centre staffand those who had supported the staff as theyworked to improve the quality of their pro-grams. It affirmed the value of the system asan agent for staff development and for estab-lishing truly collaborative partnerships be-tween staff and parents. Above all, it cele-brated the improved quality of the children'sexperiences in the services which theyattended.

However, significant as the occasion was, itdid not mark the end of the Branch project.Indeed, the project appeared to have becomeeven more important than it was when firstbegun. In March, 1990, the then prime minis-

ter, the Hon. R. J. Hawke, made an electionspeech promise to develop a national systemof accreditation for child care services. Thatpromise was followed by the establishment ofthe Committee of Child Care Representatives,chaired by Mary Crawford, NIP. The Commit-tee reported its recommendations to theCommonwealth Minister for Aged, Healthand Family Services, the Hon. Peter Staples,in September, 1990. Among the recommen-dations were that the Minister establish anindependent national council to oversight theimplementation of an industry based, volun-tary accreditation process and that the inde-pendent council take note of the findings ofthe work done on the NAEYC system inNSW, Queensland and Victoria. An InterimNational Accreditation Council has now beenestablished, with Jane Singleton as its Chairand an allocation of $1 million from theAugust, 1991 budget. The nature and structureof Australia's national accreditation systemwill be determined by this Council by the endof 1992.

It is therefore timely to review and evaluatethe NSW experience in implementingNAEYC's system in the Australian context.The project has been operating for two and ahalf years: three programs have been accredi-ted; some 20 more programs are progressingtowards completing their Program Descrip-tions; and the first two accredited programsare due to present their first annual reports.There is sufficient data to demonstrate thatthe system is as relevant and beneficial inAustralia as it is in North America, and forthe same reasons. Other data gathered by theproject team may be useful in the developmentand implementation of an Australian nationalaccreditation system.

RELEVANCE OF NAEYC'S CRITERIAIN THE AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT

Overall, both centre and Branch personnelinvolved in the project have perceived the tencriteria areas in the system to be relevant,clearly defined and easy to follow, once someAmerican terminology has been Australian-ised. The main area of difference has concern-ed staff qualifications. However, given NSWstate licensing requirements for long day carecentres, and sensible interpretation ofAmerican staff descriptions, the Americancriteria have been readily achievable.

No one has felt that any of the criteria arcsuperfluous, though some have suggested that

Australian Journal of Early Chi4dhood, Vol 17 (1). March 199272

the criteria should be more specific in relationto staff inservice, requirements for infants,and requirements when special needs childrenare integrated in the program. Others, particu-larly personnel working in high non-Englishspeaking background population areas, havequestioned the cultural basis of the accredi-tation model, but they have not yet beenspecific about the aspects which they feel to beunsuitable. They have, however, been quiteclear about the need for parent questionnairesto be available in a range of communitylanguages, and their own inability to fund thenecessary translations.

It should be noted that all project participantshave worked with the first edition of Guide toAccreditation (Bredekamp, 1985, third print-ing 1987). The National Academy of EarlyChildhood Programs, NAEYC's accreditationdivision, recognised that periodic review ofthe criteria is an essential component of acredible accreditation system. It began thefirst review process in 1989, after the systemhad been in full operation for three years, andmore than 1000 programs had been accredited(National Academy, 1989). Feedback fromthe field indicated how well the system workedand hence no major revisions in the 'criteriawere necessary. However, experience demon-strated that the descriptions of some cfiterianeeded to be much more specific, particularlyin relation to interactions among staff andchildren, curriculum requirements and re-quirements for special needs children. Someadditional aspects were also needed in admin-istration, health, safety and nutrition criteria.The revised criteria were accepted byNAEYC's Governing Board in July, 1990,and the revised edition of the accreditationmaterials became available in 1991. Whetherthe revised specifications redress Australiancriticisms will require further experience withthe new materials.

SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMSUNDERTAKING SELF-STUDY

On first receiving the self-study materials,many personnel, at all levels in the field, havefound the documents to be complex andconfusing. Thc relationship between thecriteria and the four compontats of self-study(Classroom Observation, AdministratorReport, Staff Questionnaire, Parent Ques-tionnaire) has often bccn unclear initially.The size of the task has appeared to beoverwhelming.

68

In addition, a number of personnel have feltthreatened by the standards specified in thecriteria. They have lacked sufficient self-esteem to acknowledge what is often the highquality of their work with children. Somehave felt that they could never reach thecriteria, have become discouraged and wantedto abandon the process.

These kinds of reactions were acknowledgedby NAEYC's National Academy from theoutset. The Academy recognised that, despitethe quite clear guidelines which are publishedin the self-study materials, staff would needsupport as they worked through the process.The Academy set up a toll-free number whichit advertised widely in its print and videopublications. Academy staff who were know-ledgable about self-study were then only aphone call away when staff had questions towhich they needed answers. In addition, theAcademy was able to put programs in touchwith others who were engaged in self-study sothat centres could form support groups formutual self-help (Carter, 1986).

The NSW Branch project team also recognisedthat Australian programs would need supportwhile they undertook self-study. The hardquestion was how such support could beprovided by a voluntary organisation workingwithout funding for the project, no toll-freenumber, and no qualified office staff toanswer curly or even basic questions. Theanswer was support group meetings, heldevery four to six weeks, and led by membersof the project team. The chief purposes ofthese meetings were to provide a forum forstaff to share problems and successes withothers, and to establish networks with otherswhom they could contact between meetings.

In 1989, given the disparate geographic loca-tions of the small number of centres engagedin self-study, all participants travelled longdistances to meetings. Later, once a largernumber of centres were involved, regionalmeetings were established and travel timeswere reduced. By the end of 1991, regularmeetings were being held in live metropolitanregions, and initial meetings have been held intwo other metropolitan regions and fourcountry regions.

Project team members know how essentialthese support group meetings have been forcentre staff. At the meetings, criteria can beexplained, misconceptions can be clarified,fears can be defused, ideas can be shared and,perhaps most importantly, flagging spirits

Austraban Journal of Early Childhood, Vol 17 (1), March 1992

can be regenerated and staff encouraged tocontinue. The effort to organise and attendmeetings is rewarded by the knowledge thatthose involved are identifying what is goodabout their programs as well as what needs tobe done to make their programs even better.The "pat on the back" is particularly valuablesince, as some group leaders have remarked,early childhood personnel can be particularlycritical of self and individuals' self-esteem asearly childhood workers can influence theirconfidence in completing the accreditationprocess. Support group meetings have provedto be useful motivators for staff and havecomprised an important part of the self-awareness and self-development process. Inthe context of the project, they have been anecessary adjunct to regular accreditationmeetings between staff at their own centres(Community Child Care, 1991; Moffat, 1990).

Leaders of support group meetings have feltthemselves challenged in their roles, sincethey too were learning about the Academy'ssystem. Some have reported feelings cf iso-lation and uncertainty about the advice theywere giving. It has been found necessary tohave regular meetings for these people as well,so that common problems can be identifiedand advice can be more consistent. Of course,the very fact of more meetings adds to theload which volunteer leaders assume inaddition to their busy professional lives.Tribute must be paid to these people for theirdedication and commitment to improving thequality of programs for young children andtheir families.

POSITIVE OUTCOMES OF THE NAEYCSYSTEM

Louise Brennan, a Project Officer with Com-munity Child Care Co-operative, asked thestaff of one of the first accredited programshow accreditation had affected them. Theircollective response was "Go for it!" (Com-munity Criild Care Co-operative, 1991).Common among the staff reflections were thethemes which NA EYC has previously identi-fied as positive outcomes of the systemimproved staff communication; increasedstaff confidence and pride in their work;increased staff professional development;increased parent knowledge of, and partici-pation in, the community of the centre; in-creased parent-staff communication; and, notleast, higher quality of children's experiencesa higher standards of health and safety

factices (Bredekamp, 1989; Bredekamp and

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol 17 (I), March 1992cn

Apple, 1986; Bredekamp and Berby, 1987;Carter, 1986).

Most particularly, what shines out of the staffcomments, and is supported by the commentsof staff at support group meetings, is thesincerity and commitment with which staffexamined their own practices and changedthemselves to accommodate to the criteria.An administrator learnt to delegate. A regis-tered nurse learnt about individual prog-ramming. A teacher was reminded to programmore from her observations of the children.Another teacher realised that she didn't allowtime for children to respond to her initiatives.An assistant discovered that she used muchnegative language and worked to shift tomore positive interactions. A cook learnt thatthe program was actually planned and notjust a spontaneous happening. All learnt thatthe process of self-examination was not nec-essarily threatening when it occurred in amutually supportive climai.e.

In addition, in an unpublished report toAECA (NSW Branch), the director of oneaccredited program noted the reduction instaff turnover from 38% prior to beginningthe self-study process, to 18% during the self-study, and to 0% after accreditation. Shecommented:

Not only has the turnover been drasticallyreduced but complaints and feelings ofdissatisfaction have also decreased dram-atically. The effect of self-study and re-flection with colleagues is very rewarding. .. The acknowledgment of the good jobwe do is a very positive aspect. Thisendorsement of our beliefs about ourefforts has been very satisfying.

(Dungate and McDonald, 1991)

COMMON COMMENTS ABOUT THENAEYC SYSTEM

The following lists some questions whichcentre staff commonly ask about the NAEYCsystem, some common statements about thesystem and some advice which the projectteam can offer, based on the experiences ofcentre staff and support group leaders inNSW.

I. This model of accreditation is too big.Where do I start?

OR

The standards are too high. We couldnever achieve this.

/4

There are at least two suggestions which canbe made about responding to statements andquestions such as these. First, it is importantto break the task into chunks which the staffperceive to be manageable. Second, it isimportant to start with criteria in which stafffeel that they have some strength. Workingthrough these components will provide staffwith some positive feedback which shouldencourage them to continue. It is importantthat staff feel confident in their ability to do agood job and that the collaborative nature ofthe self-study will support them in achievingtheir goals.

2. How can we ever meet all of these criteria?

It is a common misunderstanding that, inorder to be accredited under the system, theprogram must fully meet all criteria. This isnot the case. The system is looking forsubstantial compliance with the criteria, notperfection. Indeed, of the first 95 programswhich the Academy accredited, no programachieved full compliance with all criteria(Bredekamp and Apple, 1986). Instead, Com-missioner panels weigh criteria in relation toone another and make their decisions on thebasis of the overall quality of the children'sexperience in the program. This is the mostuseful advice to give anyone who feels over-whelmed by the criteria examine the waysin which the service meets each criterion interms of the children's experience. The systemallows for programs to explain how they meetthe criteria in ways other than those outlinedin the materials. Of course, some criteria, suchas some of the health and safety criteria, aremandatory.

3. My employer/organisation says that thecentre must be accredited. My staff arenot interested.

NAEYC's system is voluntary and its successdepends on the professional commitment ofall centre staff to improving the quality oftheir programs. It is not a gold star for goodperformance but an organic process in whichstaff professional development is an integyalcomponent. To try to compel anyone toundertake self-study is counterproductive.Therefore, generating motivation to beginand to continue is a matter for each individualcentre. Self-study can only be successful ifstaff are genuinely interested in improving thequality of their programs.

4. How much time will it take to do?

Understandably, busy early childhood work-

ers want to know how much extra time theywill have to put in to achieve accreditation.However, there is no recipe book answer tothis question. Much will depend on the start-ing point of the program. What can be said isthat time for discussion in staff meetings andfor team building is critical to the success ofthe process, and the centre will need to reach asatisfactory solution to the question of how toprovide for this. There will perhaps be asmany answers to this question as there areprograms.

5. How much will it cost to do?

Again, this is an understandable question andone for which there is no single answer. Whatcan be said is that, in NSW, given baselicensing standards, the three accreditedprograms have not had to make major capitaloutlays. The major cost would have beenpayment for staff time, if staff had notundertaken so much of the process outside oftheir normal working hours.

6. What do we do when staff leave?

High staff turnover is a matter of continuingconcern in early childhood services. However,with respect to self-study, stability in direc-tors, and the leadership which directors offer,seem to be far more significant factors insuccessfully achieving accreditation than in-stability among other staff (Mulrooney, 1990).Once a centre has begun the process, then newstaff can be appointed knowing that self-study is a component of the job.

7. How does accreditation work when acentre offers several services? Can amobile service be accredited?

The best way to answer these questions is interms of the fundamental principle of exam-ining the overall quality of the program interms of the children's experiences. As indi-cated previously, the system allows for pro-grams to explain how they meet criteria inways other than those outlined in the self-study materials. The National Academy hasaccredited a diverse range of centre-basedprograms (Recken, 1989) and there is nothingto suggest that diverse Australian programscould not also demonstrate how they complywith the quality criteria.

8. What happens on a validation visit?

As centres approach completion of theirProgram Descriptions, thoughts turn to thevalidation visit. There are many fears about

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol 17 (1), March 1992

70

"the assessor" and misunderstandings aboutthe validator's role, even though this is clearlydescribed in the self-study materials. This isone area which the project team feels couldhave been handled much more effectively hadsuitable administrative support been availableto the project team.

9. Why should we start on an Americansystem? Shouldn't we wait for the Aust-ralian one?

These, too, are reasonable questions.However, AECA (NSW Branch) began totrial NAEYC's system knowing that it wasbased on extensive research and expertise.The purpose of the project was to obtain dataabout the relevance of NAEYC's system in theAustralian context. As has been ir.dir,atedpreviously, that relevance has been amplydemonstrated. Given that a wheel has beenalready invented and found to work, whyshould Australia go back to the drawingboard and try to develop a new one? After all,young children and their families have muchin common, whatever their culture, particu-larly with respect to families' concerns abouttheir children's development.

CONCLUSION

The experiences of the AECA (NSW Branch)project team in implemeating NAEYC's accre-ditation system in NSW have mirrored theNational Academy's experiences on a smallerscale. Data from the project are insufficient asyet to give indications about broad scaleadvantages which may arise from use of thesystem. However, on the data collected thusfar, there appear to be no immediate or longterm disadvantages and the positive outcomesfor the quality of programs for young childrenand their families far outweigh any negativeswhich may have been experienced by staff intheir efforts to implement the system. Indeed,what comes through strongly are so manypositives for staff as well as for children andtheir families.

Four aspects appear to be most significant inthe results of the A ECA (NSW Branch)project thus far:

1. most importantly, NAEYC's accredita-tion system has been found to work in theAustralian context, with relatively few minoradjustments;

2. wide scale interest in NAEYC's systemhas been generated through the extensive

information workshops which Branch per-sonnel have conducted;

3. different degrees of knowledge about,and understanding of, the system can beaddressed successfully, provided that there isa sufficient number of people with availabletime and the willingness to conduct intro-ductory sessions, and those people have acapacity to accommodate different levels ofknowledge within large group meetings. Asthe number of centres undertaking the self-study process grows, there will be less difficul-ty in accommodating the different levels ofexpertise which centre staff may haveachieved;

4. centre staff need support while they areundertaking the self-study process. This canbe provided by voluntary group meetings, butmeetings outside normal working hours placeadditional stress on both centre staff andvolunteer support personnel. In addition,without a central office staffed by people whoare both available and qualified to adviseenquirers, there can be delays and inconsis-tency in the support which centre personnelrequire.

The establishment of the Interim NationalAccreditation Council, with its support infra-structure, is therefore welcomed. It is to behoped that the experiences of the AECA(NSW Branch) in implementing NAEYC'saccreditation system will be taken into accountby that Council and that the accreditationsystem which the Council develops will be ascomprehensive as the NAEYC system and asopen to revision in the light of experience asthe NAEYC system has been.

REFERENCES

Bredekarnp, S. (cd) (1985) Guide to accreditation.Washington, DC: NAEYC

Bredekarnp, S. (1989) Regulating child care quality:Evidence from NA EYC's accreditation system.Washington, DC: NAEYC

Bredekamp, S. and Apple, P. (1986) How early childhoodprograms get accredited: An analysis of accredita-tion decisions. Young Children 42(1), 34-38.

Bredekamp, S. and Berby, J. (1987) Maintaining quality:Accredited programs one year later. Young Child-ren 43(1), 13-15.

Carter, M. (1986) NAEYC's accreditation project: What'sit like in real life? Child Care information Exchange49, 38-41.

Community Child Care Co-operative (1991) Accredi-tation go for it! Rattler 13, 8-10.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol 17 (I), March 1992 76

Dungate, L. and McDonald, K. (1991) Report on theaccreditation process (pilot study), March-Decem-ber, 1990. Typescript.

Kelly, J. (1990) Achievable ceilings: Accrediting earlychildhood programs. In Relich, J., Dockett, S. andFarmer, S. (eds) Lxarning and early childhood:How important are the early years? Sydney:NSWIER/UWS, Nepean.

Moffat, J. (1990) Working towards accreditation adiary of our experiences on the long road toaccreditation. Rattler 13, 8-10.

Mulrooney, M. (1990) Reaccreditation: A snapshot ofgrowth and change in high-quality early childhoodprograms. Young Children 45(2), 58-61.

National Academy (1989) Academy reviews accredita-tion criteria. Young Children 44(6), 67-69.

Recken, R. (1989) Who gets accredited? Young Children4.4(2), 11-12.

ENDNOTES

Explanation of the reasons for selection of the NA EYCsystem by AECA (NSW Branch) are given in Kelly(1990). Readers who may be unfamiliar with this systemare referred to Bredekarnp, S. (ed) (1987) Accreditationcriteria and procedures. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

2 For Queensland, see McCrea, N.L. and Piscitelli, B.(eds) (1989) Handbook ofhigh quality criteriafor earlychildhood programs Kelvin Grove, Qld: Brisbane CAE;McCrea, N.L. and Piscitelli, B. (eds) (1989) Guide toself-study and accreditation of early childhood pro-grams. Kelvin Grove, Qld: Brisbane CAE.For Victoria, see AECA Victorian Branch (1988) Co-ordinator's report and Playroom observation schedule.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to thank all project team memberswho contributed to this paper. Any errors,omissions or commissions are of course theauthor's responsibility.

Australian Journal of Early Childhood, Vol 17 (I), March 1992

77 72

Accreditation-vo for it!Early in 1991, the Dee Why andSan Remo Child Care Centres

became the first children's ser-vices in Australia to be accredited.Louise Brennan visited Dee Whyand asked the staff how accredita-tion had affected them. The collec-tive response was "Go for it." Wehave reprinted in full many of thecomments ma& by staff of the DeeWhy Children' s Centre to give youa real sense of their experience ofaccreditation.

Dee Why is a long day care centre runby the Warringah S hire CounciL It has 60places and is open between 730 am and530 pm. The centre was purpose-built 15years ago. The staff consist of a non-teaching director, an administrativeassistant, a permanent relief person whois CCC-trained, ten teaching staff, andtwo cooks who job-share a 5-day weekjob.

Louise Dungate Is the non-teach-ing director. Louise has a mastersdegme In Early Childhood Educa-tion and worked for 13 years in apreschool before coming to longday care.

like to spend at least fifty percent ofmy time each day in the rooms and beavailable to staff. I'll go from one roomto another and see how everybody is and

Louise, standing, and Beth, theAdministrative Assistant. Louise:"Accreditation taught me to delegate. fttaught staff to have a say in things.-

how the children are. I greet the childrenin the morning at the door. I'm usually therust person they sec, so I know all thefamilies and all the children."

Why did you decide to try accreditation?"I'd read about accreditation in Young

Children for years and thought.When isthis amazing being going to come toAustralia? I wonder if it would help? Itsounded so wonderful in the journals.They didn't really give the nitty gritty,they just said it was there. Then thedevelopmentally appropriate practicethings came out in the NAEYC journals.I used them when I was in preschools.Eventually I heard through JuneWangmann [then Co-ordinator of Com-munity Child Care] thataccreditation washere. I had a look at it and thought, thisis how I can bring all those things togetherand make sure I've covered everything."

Louise suggested to the staff that theyhave a meeting to discuss accreditation.Their first reaction was to say "What onearth is that?" Louise had only boen in thejob for five months and the staff wereinitially apprehensive at what they saw asmom change. Louise explained that it wasa way of checking the whole service to seeif they were running a top quality centre.

"Most of them looked pretty daunted. Ichose a couple of criteria and read themout. One example was Staff treat thechildren with respect. They realised thatthey already did that and that the ac-creditation process just meant breakingup everything into little chunks. Wedecided we could have an accreditationmeeting onCe every fortnight. We wakedout a time line and agreed that by Aprilwe'd do such and such."How did you get things started?

-Classroom observations were the firststep. Some staff resisted these, so I sug-gested they do them together rather thanalone.

"We had dilemmas about what ishumiliation to a chikL..what is good dis-cipline... what is "respect" in your voiceand so on, To trial the classroom observa-tions. I asked each of the two people inthe rooms to think about how they andtheir room m easured up. Mter threeweeks I went into the roornto see howthey matched and if there were discrepan-cies.

"I think carly childhood people can bevery critical of themselves, so I wanted tohear that criticism and then match it up[with what they were actually doing].There weren't many discrepancies. Totest it we put our names in a hat and we

each got a pretend validator for cactiroom. The pretend validator went into aroom they had never worked in beforeWe had the cook involved in that_ Shcwas looking at it with the eyes of somebody Itle a parent who isn't trained. Also,she is part of our centre and would seethings and she certainly did. So that'show we started with all the classroomobservation things. Once that wasfinished we got onto the parents."

Dee Why sent out a newsletter tellingpeople what was involved in the ac-creditation system and what theaccreditation process involved. It ex-plained to the parents that unless they alldid it there was no way they could get pastrust base. A meeting was held. Part of thecriteria for the accreditation was to havewritten policies.

"We had policies but they were all overthe place They went out in newslettersand they were never collected together.So we wrote a handbook. I gave eachmember of staff a piece that was draftedout and that needed things added to it.They had to take that away for two weeks,then comment and bring it back to thestaff meeting.

"At the parent meeting parents came upwith policies they wanted put in, likerelief staffHow did we choose reliefstaff and what do we do about itenrol-ment procedures, maternity leave. Allsorts of things. Although the staff didninety percent of the book we had someinput from pareuts, but not nearly as muchas I would like. That was the first time theparents had ever been asked to come tothe centre for a meeting or to discussanything to do with the centre."

In order to help parents become in-volved, the service offered child care forthe evening.

"At the parent meeting we also spent alot of time telling them about program-ming and what we did, how we looked atindividual children's needs. They had noidea that we did that and were thrilled.They said, Why haven't you told us thatbefore? So out of that came the fact thatwe need to have regular parent get-togethers.

"Then we gave them the questionnaireThere are two questionnaires: an openended and a closed one [yesIno responses]. The open-ended questionnaire isreally quite brutally blunt We wanted tohear nitty gritty awful things. They wen.anonymous and we had a box that wascaled. Everybody replied to that."

78 RA7TLER 18, Winter 1991

What sorts of comments did you get?"Lots of good things. Some of the badthings were, I don't know whether mychild's eaten all of their lunch. I knowthey've eaten some, but I don't know ifthey've eaten it all. I don't know if theywere sick during the day, or I don't knowif they were unhappy during the day, orwho are their friends. I don't get enoughtime to talk to the teachers about thingsthat I need to talk abow. How do youdiscipline my child? Is it the same aswhat I do? Really basic questions aboutwhat happens with the children. So thatwas really awful and we had lots to dofrom that. Just doing that survey would beinvaluable for any centre.What were some of the majordifficulties or chalknges that you facedgoing through this as a director?

"The administrative work wasenormous. The administrative stuff andgetting the staff handbook done, gettingnew staff in and getting them orientated,is such a huge task but it's so important.We were pleased with the way all the staffwere programming. I expected all of theprogramming for children to be done onan individual basis and to bechild-focussed. My major concerns werewith the outside area. The playgroundswere real nightmares. Two of them arelovely and two of them are horrible. Thestaff felt that too. Two of our playgroundswould be better as parking lots.What do you see as major advantages ofgoing through the accreditationprocess?

"What it did to the staff. We're such abig staffI5. rve never worked with thatmany people before. We were all in-volved and they all pulled together and

"My major concerns were with the outsidebeen better as parking lots'

everybody put in something. It was sucha team effort, but it had to be.

"It taught me to delegate. It taughtthem to have a say in things. They tookon the reins. They own it now. Earlychildhood people have such lousymorales usually, about the way they areworking, and they realised as they wentthrough the criteria that they were doing80-90% of it and they felt really goodbecause here was this smff in writingabout what was the best you could do forchildren in your care. And they weredoing it and that made us feel ;zany goodand encouraged them to do all the rest. Attimes we thought we'd never do it. We'dhave a meeting and say We can't do this.It's too hard."

How frequently did you have meetingsaSout accreditation?

"Within our centre we had themprobably every two or three weeks forabout four months, each approximatelyhalf an hour long. We'd tag them on tothe back of a staff meeting when we'dfinished all the other business. Peoplewho wanted to stay, stayed."

Louise said that staff attendance at theaccreditation meetings was voluntary.Staff also participated in support meet-ings with other services going throughaccreditation. "I was very proud of mystaff. They'd turn up, all of them, everysingle one of them, to these meetings."

Were there any other meetingt or reliefworkers employed to replace you whileyou were undertaking any part of theprocess?

"No. The support I had personally wasthrough the support meetings, talking tomy own staff and talking to Jan Kelly[from the Australian Early Childhood As-

area.. Two of our playgrounds would have

sociation] who was our support per-son.felt that if I was concerned about anything, I could talk to the staff."

You're saying that you really needsolid core of staff?

"Yes. But if you've had a huge turnoveand you' ve got your staff, I think it woukbe wrong to say, Okay I'm going to walnine months and see if they stay. Get inuit and do it and I think you'll see that thestay because they've got this to go forAnd some of them would say, when it goreally dark, Well at least I can put this ormy reference!. That was in the darketmoments!

"Apart from playgrounds, we felt v.aweren't doing enough to recognise diiferent children's cultures, but thevalidator disagreed with us. He said wewere and felt we were a lot better than wefelt. We also felt that our environmentwas very harsh and open and that weweren't a soft cosy, homely place. We arestill very much a long day care centre witha whiff of institutionalisation about it sowe've still got a long way to go with that

Did the parents identify anything thatthey felt was a major achievement as aresult of the accreditation process?

"A lot of parents came and congratu-lated the staff after we sent out anewsletter letting them know we'd beenaccredited. One parent now wants to helpus with our anti-bias, multicultural sniff."Where to now?

"We're not going to rest on our laurels!There's so much more that we can do.Staff are more aware of the way they'replanning the environment they are reallythinking about how it looks to a child.

"We want the parents to own the centre.That's basically what it all boils down to.We've got a centre that they say they'reproud of but we want them to own it.We've changed the type of news we givethem slightly. Now it's not just remindersand things that am coming up but alsostaff gossipwhat staff are doing, theirhobbies and so on. We give them anec-dotes of what the children have said. Wepersonally invite them in on a one-to-onebasis."

What support or role did council havethrough this whole process, given thatthey're your employer?

"My supervisor was excited that wewere doing it. I didn't ask for anythingspecific. I certainly overspent my budgetin maintenance and playground-buildingby about $6,000. One of our rooms waso hot it was 41-42 degmes in summerThat's where the money went But wecould have got accreditation without thatCouncil have been told we've been accredited and they're all very proud.

RATTLER 181 Winter 1991 /9BEST COPY MILO!!

o.

Colleen works in the 3-year-olds' room: itmakes you re-think things more often. ftgives you an klea of where your work isat."

"Coming back, I can see the staff havereally grown together. You find helpeverywhere you go. There's always reas-surance and always talking and goingthrough things with Louise, our director.When you have questions she sits downwith you and does things. You're put inthe situation where you have to do thingsfor accreditation and that's quite good.You learn a lot. For the centre, good thingswere getting in more plants, dividing theroom up, hanging things off the walls,making the whole room more homely."

Cathy has worked In child care for17 years and Is currently In thebabies' room at Dee Why.What were the major benefits of theaccreditation process?

"It really made me look at myself and Iwas quite happy to find I was doing theright thing after all. You,kpow you thinkthat accreditation is this BIG thing youhave to do. But when you really lookedat it, it was good for us because we foundwe were doing the right things alreadyand it made us look at the things we hadn'taccomplished. If it wasn't too costly thenwe we would decide we could go aheadand do it.

"It was very thorough. There were tinythings we had to look at that we weren'tdoing. There was one little thing wehadn't been doing. Children have runnynoses out in the yard. You see three orfour. You grab tissues and you go andwipe noses, one after the other, withseparate tissues. The accreditation ques-tionnaire asked us if we washed our handsin between wiping each child's nose. Wethought, No, we don't. You couldn't real-ly run inside to wash your hands and thencontinue the process! So to cut corners abit and stay inside the accreditation

guidelines we used those 'wet ones'. Sowhen we grabbed a tissue, we grabbed awet one. Our solution was simple, and itworked_ Also, we have [introduced] dif-ferent colours for change mat covers.Yellow for babies under 12 months andwhite for older babies. They get washeddaily as well as being wiped down aftereach change. They're easy to wash. Theydon't have grooves in the pLastic, whichis good too.

"The process has been very good for allthe staff and for the centre. It makes youfeel good about yourself. It'll be easiernext time, in three years time."How did you feel the day the valMnrorwas here?

"Oh my goodness, my finger nailswere nearly chewed to the bone. We werefirst to be done. He came straight to thenursery at half past eight in the morningOne of our staff member's had their carbreak down on the way in, so we were onedown. And we were tearing our hair out.There he was, watching it all and Ithought We're not going to pass! We' renot going to pass! But anyway he wasquite good. He came up to us and saidr mjust as nervous as you are.. That made usfeel a lot better. After that it went quitewell. A day to remember. Everythingwent quite smoothly."

What personal goals did you identify?"It's so very important I feel, to have

that rapport with children. To get a strongbonding with the children. To make theirday happy. Just to be there for them all thetime. That to me is the most importantpart of caring for very young babies. Theyneed your attention. They need yourtime. For parents I think they feel it's a

Cathy: TAccreditationj made me look atmyself and I was quite happy to find I wasdoing the right thing after all"

feather in their cap that their child comesto an accredited centre."

Kirsten has been a teacher In thefour-year-olds' room for two years.

"Finding dine when we could all gettogether was hard. With all the differentshifts. It always had to be on our owntime."So how do you feel about it being a

totally voluntary process?"I think it's great. I really think that that

implies a high quality affair. If you 'rewilling to volunteer time on your own topromote yourself and improve yourselfthen you're a quality person!"W hat challenges were there for you inthe process?

"Louise went away for five weeks andI had to go through a lot of the adrninistra-tive tasks that I really had no idea aboutbefore. It was really satisfying to see howmany things we were already doing."What other benefUs were there for youpersonally?

"It. gave everyone a great boost inmorale. We all had thought before, I domore than you and l' m more importantthan you. f ye got more children than youso my job's harder than yours. This reallymade everyone aware that everyoneworked hard and going into each othersrooms showed us what people actuallydid. Parent communication improved forme. Talking about accreditation openedup avenues that got a rapport going. So itwas a good experience."

Now that you've been stamped, whatnext?

"We have to do it again in 3 years orbefore if the staff turnover is high. ff Iever left the centre, I'd hle to do it inanother centre. Now that we know whichareas to concentrate on we need to look atthat further. [We will also] look at train-ing and on-going courses and things likethat to help us keep improving. Everynow and then I think we should flickthrough the accreditation guidelines tocheck how we are going."What would you say to other serviceswho were thinking of going through theprocess?

"GO for it!"

s I PEST COPY AVALR"

RATTLER 18, Winter 1991 76

Beth is the Administrative Assis-tant at Dee Why.What was one of the most wonderfulthings about going through the processof accreditation?

"I guess for me it was a fulfilling wayof ensuring we were doing the right thingin the -entre.

Did you notice any difference betweenthe parent contact when you began theprocess and when you became anaccredited centre?

"I felt the parents became more inter-ested in what we were doing."Do you remember particular difficultiesor major challenges that you had to faceyourself?

"Probably time. We had a lot of writteninformation we bad to compile. A lot ofreports we had to write."How did you manage to find the time?

"Basically we had to do a lot of it outof hours, a lot of it after work. We had alot of support meetings with other centresthat came together about once a month tonut out problems and share resources.That was really helpful.

With regard to beinga member of a teamdid you notice any difference?

"Yes, for sure, everyone pulledtogether really hard and worked well."

Diane has been at the service tenyears.What was one of the hard things aboutgoing through the accreditation process.

"Probably just assessing ourselves.Like looking at every area to see if we'redoing the right thing for that child."Part of the process is assessing ourselvesas professional workers too isn't it?How did you find that aspect?

"That was fun. When we assessed whatwe were doing, we were doing what wehad to be doing [according] to the book.Some of [the staff] said things like Howdo you punish a child? Do you sit it in thecorner? Is that humiliating the child? Oris that just muzishing the child? That wasreally hard.

Monique has been employed atDee Why for nine months. She Iscurrently doing the AssociateDiploma In child Care and works inthe two-year-olds' room.W hat was difficult or challenging aboutthe accreditation process?

"We worked hard to make sure ourprogramming was as good as we couldmake it. We put a lot of thought into it.Safety procedures and making sure theroom was safe as well. Because I hadn'thad much experience in programmingbefore, I had to learn how to actually takeon a teacher's responsibilities

t-

45:

ye,

Sandra the cook: "I got to know a lot ofthings I den? know before. How the roomswere run. Programming. I didn't realise thegirfs actualy had time to sit down and dothings like that"

I really enjoy my job a lot more. I feelhie I'm walking away every day havingdone something, rather than just turningup.

What was beneficial?"It's something to be proud of. There

was a lot of team work involved. I'm moreconfident now and learning how tomanage myself and how to manage them.

Michelle is a registered nurse. Shehas worked at Dee Why for threeyears and is currently working Inthe three-year-olds' room.

"It was good because I'd never doneany programming or anything like that.My background didn't cover that. I foundI had to go away and do some reading.Actually I think it [accreditation] wasgood for the cenne, especially from thepoint of view of the parents, to have some-one come in and ski that this a very goodcentre and meets these certain criteria"What was hard about it?

"I didn't find it hard. I think the hardestthing was for Louise and Beth who had todo all the administrative things. We weregiven another room to go into to see ifthey were meeting the standards. I foundthat really interesting because I hadn'tworked in any of the other rooms before.We found we all marked ourselves very,very hard and by getting someone else inwe realised we were marking ourselvestoc harshly."

Did you notice any changes in the waysthat parents related to you?

"A lot of parents didn't realise that wedid programs or that we had developmen-tal checklists. We do individual programsfor each child.

"If you're leaving your child here for acertain number of hours every day, forsometimes five years, you should be able

to know that your child is getting the bescare they can possibly get. Hospitals anaccredited, so should child care centrebe. It's a different type of care but it's sti Icare."

Sandra the cook works three day;a week and has been at Dee Wiz)for a year and a bit. Sandra we;asked to comment on the practice:in one of the rooms.

"I felt like I was being a bit of a spy buit all worked out well in the end. I habeen in the rooms a couple of times arelief and I wally enjoyed it. The othenall took it well. They did it to me. Thckitchen was pretty right."

What was good about the process?"I used to work at Woolworths. Tha

was very inflexible. I find this veryflexible, working with the team here.got to know a lot of things I didn't knowbefore, like how the rooms were runprogramming. I didn't realise the girhactually had time to sit down and dcthings like that. I thought they sort 01worked it out as they got here. I didn'trealise they had to sit down and plan italL"

flow did you feel the day the validatorcame here?

"Very nervous. I didn't know whetherwe were supposed to feed him. Thepeople here are really a great team tcwork with. I think everybody works veryhard. You've got to have someone likeLouise pushing. Louise is a great boss. Ireally think without her we wouldn't havebothered. We all tend to be a bit slack. Weall want to do these things but we thinkabout it and don't really do it."

Colleen works In the 3-year-oldsroom as a CCC.

"A lot of things changed outdoors whileI was away. New plants and a new sandpit. I could tell that the staff were work-ing together more. Just talking more toeach other, communicating more aboutchildren, about things that happen in thecentre.

"We used to have themes that we wouldwork on together. We would look at in-dividual children, but not as much as wedo now. With the program we have no v.and the checklists, we can set specifkgoals and work with each child. When Icame back there had been a big changeIt shows you can work esily with Ottchecklists and observations. We're observing children more often to see hovthey develop. We do the observations antime we can. If one of us has group timethe other observes. It gives you the opportunity as a professional to work on yourprogram. It makes it easier to develop a.the right direction and it makes you rethink things more often. It gives you ar .idea of where your work is at.

75 80 RATTLER 18; Winter 1991

In April 1990 the Newsletter gave the following editorial..

A LETTER TO THE MINISTER

Following the election AECA wrote to the new Minister with responsibility forChild Care, the Hon Peter Staples, outlining a range of issues and concerns thatthey would like to discuss with him. The following are excerpts from that letter:

"The decision by Government to expand and substantially strengthen itsChildren's Services Program (CS?), as announced by the Prime Minister onMarch 8, is one which is welcomed by this organisation. Many of theannounced changes to the fee relief system are also welcomed. Thedecision to extend fee relief to for-profit centres, however, represents amajor shift in policy direction for the Government, and gives us cause forserious concern.

AECA strongly supports the need to retain a system which is amenableto planning, which is both interested in and able to provide care ofacceptable quality to high needs groups in the community, as well asmainstream users, and which is fully accountable.

Maintenance of the CSP depends very much on continuing operationalsubsidies at least at their present value in real terms. We note that theannouncement was silent on the issue of operational subsidies, and wouldlike to receive clarification that the intention is to retain operationalsubsidies in real terms as a central and crucial part of the program. It isonly through operational subsidies that the Commonwealth is able to retaincontrol over important policy concerns such as priority of access, integrationof children with special needs, and parent involvement in management.

AECA strongly endorses those decisions which will bring fee reliefprovisions into closer alignment within the various strands of the CSP,thereby reducing anomalies which have created serious problems for someprograms within the CSP

We acknowledge that both the significantly expanded range of incomelevels over which fee relief will apply, and the changed withdrawal rate forfee relief are measures which will help to make child care more affordablefor many families. We regret that this issue was not addressed byincreasing fee relief ceilings to the level of approved fees, as this wouldhave given greater relief to those families on minimum incomes byeliminating gap fees. We are still concerned about the problem of gap fees,especially for families already eligible for full fee relief, and hope that theirsituation can be monitored closely.

77 8 2

1 he major cost increases which will result from all these decisionstaken together give us our greatest cause for concern for the future of theCSP. Given the right budgetary times which are likely to lie ahead, weforesee continuing pressure to withdraw from operational subsidies andindexation of fee relief ceilings, even if there is a current agreement thatthey be continued.

Unless private sector funding can be brought into the planningprocess, the balance between public and private sector child care provisionwill potentially be distorted towards the private sector, irrespective ofintention. This is an issue we would like to discuss with you further.

We would also like to discuss with you your concerns to maintainquality of program provision through a system of accreditation. We arecurrently exploring a range of issues surrounding national standards andaccreditation, as well as various approaches to service accreditation systems.

-Ve agree that the implementation of an accreditation or nationalstanuards system will take some time. We are therefore concerned at theannounced intention to give all services provial accreditation as ofJanuary 1, 1991, as we believe fee relief, once given, will be very difficultto take away from any service, and especially so if they have been receivingthose funds for a significant period of time "

8 378

In July 1990 the Newsletter ran the following editorial...

OPTIONS FOR A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF SERVICEACCREDITATION FOR THE CHILD CARE INDUSTRY

A Consultative Committee has been established by Government to assess theoptions for a national system of service accreditation for the child care industry.

During the 1990 election campaign the Prime Minister promised that theGovernment would work with key interests in the child care industry to develop asystem of service accreditation which will ensure that children have access toquality care. The Minister for Aged, Family and Health Services has now movedto establish this Committee. It will be chaired by Mary Crawford MP who is amember of the Government's Caucus Committee on Community Services, Healthand Welfare. /Who are the Members?The membership of the Committee will consist of representatives from thecommercial sector, union organisations, the non-profit sector and the Children'sServices Program National Advisory Committee. Anne Stonehouse has been askedas President of AECA to be a member of the Committee.

The Terms of Reference:The Committee will be required to:

i. Assess a range of possible child care accreditation options;

ii. Make recommendations to the Minister for Aged, Family and HealthServices on an accreditation system which would:

over time, encourage consistent standards and improve quality acrossthe child care industry in Australia;

facilitate involvement of all interested parties (including providers inall sectors, staff and parents, State and Local Government, and thechild care unions) in the setting and maintenance of standards;

achieve a standard of care which provides quality outcomes forchildren and parents at an affordable cost to users and Governments;

be a complementary system to Stateaerritory licensing regulations.

iii. Provide a draft report to the Minister for Aged, Family and Health Servicesby the end of July 1990 setting out the Committee's recommendations for anational accreditation system;

79 8 4

iv. Provide a final report to the Minister for Aged, Family and Health Servicesby the end of September 1990 following further consultation on the draftreport.

The Process:Submissions will be sought from key organisations in the industry and these willbe considered by the Committee. AECA has been invited to make a submissionwhich has to be in by 20 July 1990. The Department of Community Services andHealth will provide the Committee with a summary paper which draws together thekey elements of the submissions received. It is envisaged that the Committee willmeet for three days in Canberra from 29-31 July to consider the options andprovide a draft report which makes recommendations to the Minister for Aged,Family and Health Services on the structure and nature of a national system ofservice accreditation for the child care industry. The final report will be presentedto the Minister by the end of September 1990 following further consultations onthe draft report.

c-. r77t.)

80

A further extract from the July 1990 Newsletter...

AECA SUPPORTS VOLUNTARY ACCREDITATIONOF EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGIIANIS

There is increasing recognition of the need to assure quality in early childhoodprograms. State licensing regulations have an essential role in maintainingminimum standards, but by their very nature can only go part of the waytowards quality assurance.

An approach which has been successfully developed within some professions iscalled accreditation. There are many different accreditation models inAustralia, including the Standards for Health Care Facilities and OutcomeStandards for Australian Nursing Homes. All of these models are referred to asaccreditation and produce documents called 'Accreditation Guides'. What allof the approaches to accreditation have in common is the purpose of improvingstandards within their profession.

The Australian Early Childhood Association is actively investigating possibleways of introducing a national system of accreditation for early childhoodprograms in Australia. One model which AECA is examining closely is asystem of voluntary accreditation developed within the United States by theNational Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) for use byearly childhood programs there. This system is entirely voluntary, and NAEYCargue that this is essential if their system is to work as intended. The purposeof the system, is to raise standards of care generally, rather than to pick outthose few centres already offering programs of high quality. Much of theimpact of the system comes about through improvements in practice whichresult when staff in centres examine their practices.

The self-study phase of the process involves parents and staff working togetherto evaluate the program against a set of criteria carefully designed to definequality in very specific identifiable ways. They may then decide to call in anoutside validator, who is an eTiy childhood professional, to confirm their selfratings. The system of accreditation developed by the Australian Council fbrHealth Care's Standards is very like the NAEYC approach to accreditation.

AECA is considering developing a similar system for Australia, recognisingthat some modifications will need to be made to make it suitable for thiscountry.

For more information, contact the National Office of the Australian EarlyChildhood Association (PO Box 105, WATSON, ACT 2602 . Ph: 06.241 6900.Fax: 06.241 5547).

81 HG

In the August 1990 Newsletter the editorkil read...

THE DRAFT REPORT

The Commonwealth Committee which was established recently to assess theoptions for a national system of Service Accreditation for the Child Care Industryreleased a Draft Report for Consultation and the Committee will meet again in thenear future to consider the responses to that report and make its final

recommendations to the Minister.

AECA was generally pleased with the recommendations contained in the DraftReport and in its submission raised some key issues Which needed to be resolved.

The Draft Report was based on a number of propositions, some of which wereexplicit and some implied. Those propositions were:

that the s, stem should be voluntary and should be industry controlled;

that there is a specific body of knowledge about child development andearly childhood education and care upon which the accreditation systemshould be based;

that the system would use the expertise of early childhood professionals;

that a process of self-motivated, self-study is directly connected to improvedpractice and should be integral with the accreditation system;

that the system would encourage broad and equitable participation in theaccreditation process; that is, it would not be elitist;

that the system for voluntary accreditation should be independent ofGovernment;

that the quality assurance in child care services may be achievedprogressively;

that the voluntary system should be structured in such a way as toencourage participation and give services useful feedback on their progresstowards accreditation;

that the system should set achievable levels of quality in child care services;

that some level of quality assurance that linked to first steps towardsaccreditation should be tied to fee relief.

8 782

In addition, the Report contained suggestions about the components of the proposedaccreditation system. These are that:

an independent Council with broad industry representation should beestablished to be responsible for the development of a system of voluntaryaccreditation;

the system that is established will be based on a series of discrete modulesdesigned to encourage progressive movement towards accredited status;

the conditions fo fee relief should include compliance with some level ofquality assurance;

there should be a structural link between the receipt of fee relief and thevoluntary accreditation agency;

an extensive community information program needs to be an integral part ofthe accreditation system.

There are important issues and questions yet to be addressed. These will affectsubstantially the extent to which an accreditation system moves services towardimprovements in quality or unwittingly undermines this process. For AECA themajor issue is as follows:

Given the proposed link between the quality related conditions forfee relief and the voluntary accreditation system, what steps needto be taken to protect the integrity of the voluntary accreditationprocess? In other words, how can the system be set up to promoterather than jeopardise involvement by servkes in voluntaryaccreditation?

AECA's response to the Draft Report addressed this issue and in doing soidentified the following questions:

1. What should be the nature of the compulsory criteria related to quality,compliance with which will be required for fee relief?

2. What are the roles of early childhood professionals in the development andassessment of the accreditation criteria in both the voluntary elements of theaccreditation progress as well as those required for receipt of fee relief?

3. What is the connection between the role of the person assessing compliancewith quality related criteria for fee relief and that of the validator (orequivalent) in the voluntary accreditation system?

83 83

4. How can progression from compliance with the quality related criteriarequired for fee relief to participation in the voluntary accreditation processbe promoted?

5. What is the level of quality at which the accreditation system is aimed?

6. How must the system be structured so as to make it clear that neitheraccreditation nor the status of having met the conditions for receipt of feerelief, once gained, carried permanent status?

7. What is the nexus between the commitment to broad participation in theaccreditation process and user rights, and how should this be givenexpression in the system?

: 0

84

The following paragraph was in the December 1990 Newsletter...

ACCREDITATION UPDATE

The Child Care Act Amendment Bill was finally passed by parliament on 6December, paving the way for fee relief to be extended to commercial andunfunded community long day care centres from 1 January 1991. A proposalto establish an industry based voluntary accreditation system will be put toCabinet early in tl,e new year by the Minister for Aged, Family and HealthServices, Peter Staples. If the proposal is to be meaningful, it will be essentialthat the Accreditation Council is granted sufficient start up funds to be able tooperate effectively and independently of annual government budget processes.

9 085

In February 1991 the Newsletter had the following editoriaL.

THE ACCREDITATION DEBATE

The government has promised to introduce a system of accreditation for child care,but cannot deliver on that promise without the approval of Cabinet in the firstinstance, and then of Parliament.

The recent debate surrounding the passage of the amendments to the Child CareAct needed to allow fee relief to be paid to commercial child care centres revealed

a disturbing lack of understanding of quality issues in child care amongParliamentarians of all political persuasions. This lack of understanding is almostcertainly reflected within the community and must be overcome because parentvoices will be much more effective than those of workers in convincing policymakers that quality counts. We need to give them hard facts in a language whichis concrete and accessible to people outside the field. The misconceptions whichmust be countered are that:

minimum standards of care are sufficient;

early childhood professionals advocating for quality care are justfeatherbedding the industry and are unconcerned about costs;

there is no evidence of any impact of the quality of the program onchildren;

a national system of accreditation would add unnecessary duplication toState/Territory Licensing activities and would represent a Federal takeoverof a previously State-based responsibility;

parents can and do recognise quality, and have the right to determine theirpreferred standard of care.

accreditation costs will make child care unaffordable.

Minimum standards alone are not sufficient

Minimum standards for child care are just that--the minimum required by law of aservice if it is to operate as a child care facility. All States and Territories licensechild care centres which are open for the full day and these regulations currentlyvary greatly from one State/Territory to another. Licensing conditions simplyreflect the minimum operating standard permitted of a long day care service in thatState/Territory. That is, they set out the 'least you can provide and still get yourmoney', to put it crudely.

8691

Much scope for improvement lies beyond the minimum standards prescribed. Forone thing, licensing standards are apt to be limited in nature and they tend toemphasise characteristics that are easily measurable. For example, they typicallystipulate physical features of the centre or describe easily defined characteristicsrequired of staffing such as minimum staff/child ratios etc.

However, they do not directly measure what the program is actually like for thechildren who are in it. Such measures are more meaningful for parents and otherswishing to evaluate a program, but they are also much more complex measures todesign and carry out and are less frequently found in licensing standards.

Early childhood professionals care about children

Child care workers who stay and advocate for better programs do so because oftheir commitment to child care to children. They are better placed than anyoneelse to understand the seriousness of low standards of care for children and torecognise when a service is not working well. Although working conditions andsalaries have improved in recent times, a child care worker would still be far betteroff moving to virtually any other industry to pursue the normal ambitions of mostworkers.

There is increasing evidence of the impact of quality of child care on children

For many years there has been substantial evidence of the benefits of high qualitypreschool and long day care programs. Many of these studies compare childrenwho have attended a program with those who have stayed at home and find thatthose who have attended the programs fare better.

Some of the best conducted studies indicate that positive outcomes for childrenhinge on the nature of the program, and not simply on attendance in an earlychildhood program per se. David Weikart carried out a study of this kind andfound that positive impacts of attendance in his special preschool program andanother like it were evident ten years later. Weikart believes that it was the waythe programs were run that made the long term difference in outcome.

Increasingly, researchers are beginning to report negative impacts of poor qualityprograms. Studies are now beginning to show not merely that high qualityprograms are of benefit to children, but that poor quality programs damage them.

87

92

A national system of accreditation will not duplicate State/Territory licensing

The purpose of an accreditation system is to identify areas of improvement possibleover and above the minimum required by law. An accreditation rating takes intoaccount the overall functioning of the program, not just its easy to describephysical features. Accredited status means that a centre is presenting a programwhich in the eyes of the field is of genuinely high standard.

Accreditation is not a new concept. Systems of accreditation exist in other fields,such as the health care industry, where their value in assuring quality for clientshas been recognised. Here, as in child care, it is recognised that a voluntarysystem of accreditation which is developed and administered within the industry,based on the best professional knowledge available about good practice, is the bestway of raising and/or maintaining standards for clients.

Parents can and do recognise quality, but not necessarily its absence

Parents recognise when their children are in a good program, but may not detectcare of a lower standard unless they have experienced a better program directly.Parents also tend to rationalise aspects of their child's care which they are unhappyabout, and typically report high levels of satisfaction with the child care they areusing. Admitting, even to oneself, that your child may be in a poor program isvery threatening to parents who already are apt to feel guilty about using childcare, and who in any case have little choice. A recent analysis of parent data froma large new American study of child care programs, the National Child CareStaffing Study, showed that 80% of mothers were satisfied with their presentcentre, even when the program was rated by the researchers as being of lowquality, or of minimally acceptable quality.

Parents have the right to choose the level of quality they want for theirchildren but they also have the right to enough information to enable them tomake an informed choice

One of the most important features of an accreditation system for child care is thatit would provide users with clear information about the standard of care beingprovided by a centre and about the criteria against which the standard wasmeasured. Compare this with the present situation in which centres are licensed tooperate on the basis of minimum standards and 'buyer beware' rules apply.

88 () 0A-, A.)

In April 1991 the Newsletter reported on the...

ACCREDITATION DINNER

A recent dinner to celebrate the successful completion by two child care centresof a pilot accreditation program in New South Wales was a very specialoccasion for the NSW Branch of AECA and for a great many others who cameto congratulate the centres and to celebrate the striving for quality which theirsuccess represents. The Minister for Children's Services, Peter Staples,attended, as did all the senior officers from the Child Care Division ofDCS&H. In his press release, the Minister headlined the dinner, "NSW pilotchild care accreditation project paves way for national accreditation."

Although his speech gave no indication of when national accreditation wouldcome, what he had to say was very supportive of the need for accreditation. Itwas clear that he gained a great deal from the opportunity to spend an eveningtalking with the centre directors and parents from the San Remo and Dee Whychild care centres who had successfully completed the trial process.

Progress towards an Australian system

The NSW Branch of AECA has been trialling the accreditation systemdeveloped in the USA by NAEYC. The Branch has promised to provide freevalidation and support for the first 10 services to achieve accredited statuswithin the trial system. Support groups are still helping services with the self-study component of the process, with new services welcome. The Vic Branchof AECA have drafted their own set of observation schedules in a bid to makeaccreditation more suited to the Australian context. Their tool can be obtainedfor $10 by writing to the Branch. The ACT Branch of AECA have beentrialling an adaptation of the NAEYC accreditation system prepared for theQueensland State Government. June Wangmann, this year's Creswick/KimptonScholar, is currently in the USA studying a range of approaches to accreditationthere. This information, together with our growing national familiarity withvarious tools and approaches, should help us create a truly Australian system.

Accreditation for all early childhood programs

Although the first thrust of most of the work being undertaken on accreditationis directed at long day care, AECA is very interested in seeing accreditationprograms for all early childhood programs, perhaps even including primaryschool settings. It is encouraging that the Family Day Care Council has writtento the Minister, calling for the inclusion of FDC in a national system ofaccreditation and endorsing the recommendations of the Crawford CommitteeReport.

89 9 4

Some further thinking on Module 1

A number of groups and individuals have been sharing ideas on the kind ofquality related criteria which should be in Module 1, the part of theaccreditation system which has been recommended to be tied to fee relief.There is growing agreement that this module should contain criteria which arean integral part of the full voluntary system, and which represent features ofquality which the community as a whole would see to be fundamentalrequirements for children in care. This approach would require that thevoluntary system be developed in advance of Module 1. Basing the content ofModule 1 on a comrnonsense view of those things that no child should have todo without would greatly enhance everyone's ability to understand, accept andcomply with the requirements of the module.

/

The May 1921 Newsletter provided this article...

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED ACCREDITATION?

Over recent months this newsletter has provided many updates on progresstowards developing a national system of voluntary accreditation of earlychildhood programs. But a number of people are still puzzled as to what ismeant by accreditation, and what impact introducing such a system will haveon them and the way they will be expected to work with young children.

There is increasing recognition of the need to assure quality in early childhoodprograms. State licensing regulations have an essential role in maintainingminimum standards, but by their very nature can only go part of the waytowards quality assurance.

Voluntary accreditation is an approach which has been successfully developedwithin some industries. There are different models of accreditation, but theyhave in common the goal of self improvement of standards. The industry orprofession sets its own standards and helps individual services wanting tobecome accredited to meet them.

One model which is being examined closely is a system of voluntaryaccreditation developed within the United States by the National Associationfor the Education of Young Chiidren (NAEYC) for use by early childhoodprograms there.

Their system is entirely voluntary, and NAEYC argue that this is essential if itis to work as intended. It is interesting to hear from June Wangmann who iscurrently working at NAEYC and studying their system from the inside, thatState Governments are increasingly wanting to use the system, but remove itsvoluntary aspect. The purpose of the system is to raise standards of caregenerally, rather than to pick out those few centres already offering programs ofhigh quality. Much of the impact of the system comes about throughimprovements which result when staff in programs examine their practices inthe light of very concrete descriptions of good practice.

The self study phase of the process involves parents and staff working togetherto evaluate the program against a set of criteria carefully designed to definequality in very specific, identifiable ways without at the same time being tooprescriptive and implying there is only one good way to do things. Whenready, programs then cal in an outside validator, usually another servicedirector with validator training, to confirm their self ratings. Ratings are thensent to an independent council which confers accredited status on the service ormakes suggestions for further improvements.

919 6

The idea that a compulsory module might be added to this voluntary systemfelt very radical when it was first mooted last year. In the light of what we arelearning about overseas experience, it now seems less so. It will be good toshare June's knowledge when she gets back.

0, 792

In July 1991 the Newsletter gave the following information...

ACCREDITATION UP-DATE

June Wangmann's TripJune Wangmann, one of this year's Creswick/Kimpton Scholars, is back fromher trip to North America to look closely at a range of service accreditationsystem operating in the USA and Canada. June has brought back with her astaggering amount of detailed information about accreditation of centre basedservices and Family Day Care. She was particularly fortunate to be able tospend time working alongside staff in NAEYC, and gained invaluable insightsinto how their system really works, warts and all. June will be preparing areport of her trip for the Creswick/Kimpton Foundation at the completion of herstudy.

On the Government FrontJune had additional funding for the study tour from the CommonwealthDepartment of Community Services, Housing and Health, who have now askedher to prepare a public report of her findings. This report, expected in early tomid July, will be circulated widely. The Minister, Peter Staples, has written tohis Caucus colleagues indicating that June's report will form an important basisfor her response to the recommendations of the Crawford Committee. In hisletter the Minister said,

I intend t's.at the report should be available for discussion andconsultation following its completion in early July. This willprovide a further opportunity for input into the Government'sconsideration of the issues. The Government will certainlydraw on Ms Wangmann's report in its consideration of aresponse to the committee's recommen4ations. I expect to behi a position to outline a response to that report by August1991. Following the announcement of the Government'sresponse, I expect also to be able to announce the form andcomposition of an industry body to con- mence detaileddevelopment of an accreditation system.

While some in the community may be disappointed at theapparently slow progress on accreditation, clearly thecomplexity of the issues involved require detailedconsideration, and sufficient time for the community toconsider the approach recommended by the committee. I amconfident, nevertheless, that we are making steady progresson implementing the Prime minister's promise that we willfulfil this historic opportunity to establish a .ensibleframework for quality outcomes in chid care.

93

Proposals for the Link Between Fee Relief and QualityThere has been some concern that the standard of quality which would berequired for access to fee relief would be unrealistic and too difficult. AECA'sposition, which is shared by the ACTU and NACBCS, is that the qualitycomponent of the fee relief provision should measure compliance with practiceswhich the average person would agree that no child in child care should haveto do without.

In general terms, there is agreement that this component of the fee reliefprovision must:

be a direct assessment of quality;

be acceptable to the child care field as a whole. That is, therequirements should be features of quality that centres agree relate toquality programs; that parents agree they want for their children andthat politicians and others can make sense of; be achievable withminimum field support;

be assessable by appropriately trained and qualified staff;

be based on observable outcomes for children rather than predictors ofquality;

be integral to the full voluntary system.

It is AECA's view that the elements of this module need to be embedded in thefull accreditation tool. This requires that the entire tool is created first, out ofwhich the criteria meeting the above requirements can be selected for themandatory module.

Q 9

94

The August 1991 Newsletter gave the following editorial..

THE BUDGET: HOW CHILD CARE FARED

AECA has promoted the budget as a good result in tight times, and so it was.

The Government has taken the next sten towards honouring its election promise toestablish a system for the accreditation of child care services. The work of theMinister to ensure this outcome needs to be acknowledged. In a climate wheredemands of fiscal restraint were made on all Ministers, retaining the current levelof funding would have been an achievement. What child care got in the decisionto put in place an accreditation system was a real increase.

One million dollars has been provided to establish an industry-based accreditationcouncil. That council will have the task devising a system of accreditation withboth a compulsory and a voluntary component.

The budget declared the 1st of January 1994 as the date by which all servicesreceiving fee relief will have to comply with the compulsory elements of the newsystem. This means that the Council well need to have virtually completed thedevelopment task in time for the operational costs of the proposed accreditationsystem to be provided for in the 1992/93 budget.

By requiring a link between accreditation and fee relief the Government haseffectively said that there are some things that no child in child care should have todo without. AECA endorses this and believes that what will be required arepractices that the average person would see as basic and that most centres wouldsee as good sense and already have in place.

The establishment of the Council places in the hands of the industry itself theresponsibility for the quality of child care services. The Government is to becongratulated and the child care industry should celebrate this as a crucial steptowards real community recognition that the care of other people's young childrenin a group setting is indeed a professional task.

A cautionary note is not out of place however. An accreditation system alonecannot guarantee quality. What is also required are good regulations and theprovision of adequate funding by Government.

This budget re-endorsed the principle of indexation, which was the major gain inthe last budget, and maintained the link with the Family Allowance Supplement(FAS) cut off as the minimum threshold for eligibility for fee relief. The effectwill be that from April 41992 the threshold will increase from $20,756 to $22,056.The upper limit will not change, so there will be mixed results for parents.

95 100

Operational subsidies remain and funds have been provided to assist commercialand employer sponsored child care services to integrate children with special needs.No one would deny the funds available for this work are inadequate overall but, inprinciple, support for the process of integration needs to be available across allservices.

For Outside School Hours Care (OSHC) and Occasional Care the impact of thechanges will not all be good. The changes to operational subsidies and fee relief inthese services will benefit some families whilst others, particularly users of OSHC,are likely to face higher fees.

The Government's child care strategy is a crucial element in its overall labourmarket strategy. This focus has been reinforced in this budget as users of childcare have been divided into those using child care for work-related purposes andothers. The fee relief provisions will be more generous for work-related use. Thischange will highlight the effective penalty imposed on single income families bycurrent policies.

The potential impact of the changes is to encourage the combined provision of longday care and occasional care. To some extent this acknowledges what is alreadypractice and may well enable some occasional care services to remain viable byextending their hours of operation to become long day care providers. Whetherthis is good for children and families where only one parent is in the paidworkforce remains to be seen.

Overall a good result in tight times.

10196

The November 1991 Newsletter curried the following item...

INTERIM NATIONAL ACCREDITATION COUNCIL

An Interim National Accreditation Council is at last being set up. Its timelinewill be -Atremely tight. The Minister hopes the first meeting will be in midDecember, and that the Council will have details of a proposed accreditationsystem linked to fee relief eligibility ready by april 1992. The Interim Councilis expected to have a life of 12 months, after which a permanent structurewould need to take over.

The organisations that have bee invited to nominate one or more representativesto the Council are:

Australian Early Childhood Association (AECA)National Association of Community Based

Children's Services (NACBCS)National Family Day Care Council (NFDCC)Australian Confederation of Child Care Inc.Australian Federation of Child Care Associations (AFCCA)Council for Equal Opportunity in EmploymentConfederation of Australian Industry (CAI)Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)Training InstitutionsAustralian Local Government Association (ALGA)State Government Working Party on Uniform national RegulationsCommonwealth Department of Health, Housing and CommunityServices, and two parents, to represent consumers.

The Minister may also invite up to three additional representatives.

The Minister's hopes for what the Interim Council can achieve within itstimeframe are quite high. The Council will be required to develop a detailedproposal for a system of full accreditation with a mandatory initial module.The proposal needs to consider assessment criteria and processes, reassessmentschedules and mechanisms for reporting results to the Department, if eligibilityfor fee relief is in question, it will also be required to develop costings andexplore questions of how much the industry itself could contribute towardsrunning the Council. These two tasks are to be reported on in draft form byApril, and finally by the end of June.

The Interim Council is also asked 4(3 determine the composition of thepermanent Council, prepare a Constitution and other legal documentationrequired for incorporation. Draft reports of this work are to be ready by theend of June.

In between these tasks, the Council is to develop and commence a communityawareness campaign. By the end of October, the Council is to submit a final,detailed report on the accreditation tool, about which there is to have beenextensive consultation with all sectors of the industry including parents. Thetool is to have been piloted, and the pilot to have been evaluated!

Additionally, the Interim Council will need to establish an administrative unit.it will also have to develop a detailed budget for its own operation and anotherbudget for the operation of the permanent Council.

This is clearly an impossible timeline. The Interim Council's first task must beto set out a realistic timeframe which, however, must include setting theongoing funding in place in the 1992 budget decisions.

( 3

98

The December 1991 Newsletter ran the following editorial..

THE AGENDA FOR THE CHILDREN'S SERVICES INDUSTRY IN 1992

The children's services industry has been under sustained pressure in 1991 and it isunlikely that this will abate in 1992.

In 1991 the Review of Federal/State Financial Relations opened up the possibilityof untying the Commonwealth Specific Purpose Grants to the States therebyplacing essential community services in jeopardy.

The tagging of grants for specific purposes has been the mechanism increasinglyused by the Commonwealth to ensure the nationwide provision of essentialcommunity services. The untying of Commonwealth funds for health, housing,education, child care and a range of other community services would give Statetreasuries control over these funds. In a context where almost all Stategovernments are facing a very difficult fiscal climate the untying of specificpurpose grants would offer an almost irresistible opportunity to increase spendingin other areas by dismantling or cutting back on the community services previouslyprotected by their specific purpose funding.

The withdrawal of the Premiers from the Special Premiers Conference leaves thisissue unresolved, it is not off the agenda however and the way it is resolved hasprofound implications for the equitable provision of community services in thiscountry.

In 1992 the industry will need to be vigilant if the provision of communityservices, including children's services, is not jeopardised in a deal with thePremiers to help resolve their fiscal problems.

In 1991 also, it seemed that the child care sector of the children's services industryhad finally won a commitment from Government to the establishment of a nationalsystem for the accreditation of long day child care services. The Governmentdecided that there were some things which no child in Government subsidisedservices should have to do without and declared that all services receiving feerelief would need to comply with some quality related criteria. Ono million dollarswas allocated in the 1991/92 budget for the establishment of an InterimAccreditation Council and for the development of the accreditation program.Significantly, no funds were provided for the recurrent costs of the Council.

The Interim Council is to meet for the first time on the 18th and 19th ofDecember. it has been asked to report back to the Minister in April 1992 withdetails of a proposed accreditation system, with the link to fee relief spelt out and

with options for industry contributions towards administering the proposed system.In undertaking this task the Minister expects the Council to consult widely with theindustry.

71- is hard not to be cynical about this exercise. The scope of the task, the timeavailable to do it and the acknowledged necessity of consulting with the industry ifthe system is to have credibility on the ground, impose what seems to be animpossible burden on the Council. And yet do it they must if the Minister is tomake a credible bid for funds to cover the recurrent costs of the system in the1992/93 Budget and if the system is to be established and fflrided appropriatelyprior to the next election.

The alternative is for the Interim Council to look for a compromise which willachieve the 1992/93 Budget commitment and allow the permanent AccreditationCouncil to be established. What must not happen is that the promise of aneffective accreditation mechanism, which provides the industry with systematicapproach to improving the quality of its services, it is lost.

The Government's strategic vision of a more skilled and adaptable workforce asthe leading edge of ensuring this country's capacity to become more competitive ina global economy has made workforce training a major policy focus in 1991. Theproponents of competency based training and national competency standards claimmuch for this approach. It does offer the potential of a systematic approach to therecognition of prior learning. In theory it would go a long way to dealing withsome of the current demands for comparability and portability of workforce skills.There are many who remain sceptical of this approach and see it as mechanisticand as having the potential to de-skill some workers.

Our industry needs to come to grips with these issues because they have thepotential to transform it. The care and education of young children is a complexand crucial task which requires complex and sophisticated skills and understandingsif it is to be done well.

The question of who should decide the competency profile of workers in thisindustry is a crucial one. Should it be done by a narrowly tripartite groupinvolving Government, business and unions or should it be done by a moreinclusi,,e group. These questions are being answered now and as an industry weneed to have our say.

This year too there has been a major focus at the national level on the early yearsof schooling. This is the first time in many years that the education of youngschool children has been so squarely on the public agenda. AECA wascommissioned by the Schools Council to write a major discussion paper on theseearly years. Jean Gifford wrote the paper which will be published by the SchoolsCouncil early in 1992.

10 5100

In the April 1992 Newsletter the editorial read...

ACCREDITATION: NOW OR NEVER

If we are to achieve an accreditation system at all let alone one which will work inthe interests of children, parents and workers, the industry will need to workconstructively together over the next four weeks or the whole process may bederailed.

The Interim Accreditation Council has put out a consultation kit to give theindustry something to bite on. It does not represent the Council's preferredposition. The kit has in it much with which the industry would both agree anddisagree.

The industry has a choice to make. It can use the consultation process to assist theCouncil to develop a national accreditation system which has the potential to giveus all a better understanding of the importance of our work. The alternative is forthe industry to use the next four weeks to undermine the work of the InterimAccreditation Council and to discredit accreditation.

AECA has developed a framework for thinking about what we want anaccreditation system to do and what this says about its basic structure, the nature ofthe content and approaches to assessment to assist the industry to respond to theconsetation kit. Copies are available from this office or the Lady Gowrie ChildCare Centres in your State.

In the final analysis, the system we develop needs to balance simplicity, fairness,protection (of the service and the reviewer) and openness to variety in theinterpretation of good practice.

It really is now or never.

The June 1992 Newsletter informed readers of...

AECA's Accreditation Submission

AECA believes strongly that accreditation must belong to the field. If it is towork, the system developed here must reflect Australian values and needs, andmust be 'owned' by the industry. This means that there must be broad consultationat all stages in the development of the system. To help individuals andorganisations involved in children's services consider their expectations of anaccreditation system, AECA prepared a hand-out, A Suggested Framework forThinking About an Australian Accreditation System and Responding to the INACConsultation Kit. This was distributed at the consultation meetings, and feedbackindicates that it helped many groups approach the complex task of responding tothe kit. In addition, AECA distributed to national child care associations a

summary of key issues and AECA's position in relation to them the week beforeresponses were due.

AECA's submission to INAC recommended that:

The Accreditation System consist of a Council, accreditation panels andtrained reviewers;

The accreditation process to be based on self-study and self-assessmentfollowed by an outside review visit;

Expert panels determine accreditation status of services;

Panel members and reviewers have early childhood qualifications, childdevelopment knowledge and experience in the child care industry;

Accreditation criteria to be limited to the key quality factors of interactions,curriculum, health, nutrition and safety and the important contributingfactors of management and staff development;

Accreditation should be Hsed on achievable standards that could reasonablybe expected of all services;

Accreditation criteria should be expressed in terms of general principle's,leaving room for their achievement through a variety of means;

Fee relief eligibility be tied to compliance with a subset of accreditationcriteria;

107

102

Fee relief-linked criteria should represent basic quality features that allcould agree no child in care shou:d have to go without;

Ratings should be on a 3 point scale (not met, partially met, fully met), andmultiplied by a public weighting based on the relative importance of eachcriterion;

Accreditation status to be yes/no, determined by the panel on the basis ofsubstantial compliance with the criteria;

Compliance with fee-relief-linked criteria to be yes/no, determilieo by thepanel on the basis of percentage compliance with the criteria.

One group has been advocating a system based on self-study, but with no outsidereview. Other groups have recommended a fully voluntary system with no linkswith fee relief. AECA understands that the Minister has said categorically that thelatter is not an option from the Government's perspective, however.

The Interim National Accreditation Council (INAC) met on the 19th of June tobegin to consider responses to its consultation kit which they had distributednationally and widely to the children's services sector. The Council needs toprovide advice to th,:. Minister on a framework for an accreditation system by 30June. A follow-up meeting is scheduled for the last week-end in June to finalisethe Council's position on such critical issues as the nature of the link betweenaccreditation and fee relief.

The model of accreditation circulated for purposes of consultation in theconsultation kit was not a model that the Council had agreed on. It was providedsimply as a basis for discussion and had no status within the Council. INACintends to draft a model based on responses to the consultation and provide theindustry with the opportunity for further response.

AECA is drafting a model based on the principles outlined in our submission andhopes to have the opportunity to present the model to INAC in the near &inure.Many people have said that the principles seem sound, but have difficultyimagining what a system based on them might look like.

The August 1992 Newsletter carried the following...

Accreditation: Second Round of Consultation

The field is to have another chance to have significant input :hto the developmentof an Australian accreditation system. The Interim Accreditation Council hasreleased a new set of documents for comment by 2 October. A draft Handbookpresents revised components, principles and descriptors, their proposed link to feerelief, a guide to self study and an explanation of the principles and the descriptorsviewed within a developmental framework.

The guide to self study was prepared by Dr Jan Kelly of the University of WesternSydney. The elaboration of the principles and descriptors was written by JoanFaragher from the Footscray TAFE in Victoria.

The draft components presented in the handbook are very different from thosepresented in the first round of consultations, and broadly reflect the commentsreceived during that consultation. It is clear that the Interim Council is seriousabout listening to the industry as a whole. It will be very important for all groupsto take the challenge of responding to the present draft documents very seriously.

Two additional documents have been sent out for comment: a proposedcomposition and structure of the permanent Accreditation Council and a CostingsEstimate of the draft Accreditation System.

The three documents have been sent to all long day care centres, to Peak Bodiesand to all training institutions. Responses to the drafts will be collated withinformation gleaned from a small pilot of the draft tool that is being carried outnationally in 32 centres. The pilot centres have been picked to represent a spreadof community based, commercial, special needs and multipurpose Aboriginalcentres. The Council plans to employ a consultant to put together a final draft andhopes to present its final report to the Minister by the end of October.

It was very disappointing that the 1992-93 Budget did not provide a commitmentof funds to establish a permavent Accreditation Council. This decision was put onhold, pending a clearer indication from the Interim Council of what is intended.Support for accreditation within the industry is high, but opponents of the systemare working hard to undermine the Council's chances of success. Comments fromthe C : written submissions, 195 telephone submissions and comments from 16public meetings, 8 pre-consultative meetings and a Sky Channel Teleconferencereveal a very wide acceptance of the idea of accrezation across all sectors of theindustry. Unfortunately a small, but well organisLA and very vocal minority ofcommercial proprietors is working hard to discredit the Council and persuadeGovernment to abandon the comept of accreditation. Continued public expresEionof support for a National Accreditation System will be crucial. Awarenesscampaigns among users of services and the public at large using the just releasedset of consultation documents are needed. Direct lobbying of key politiciansremains crucial as well.

109

104

Further Accreditation news in October 1992...

Reformatting of the INAC Accreditation ToolAECA's submission to the consultations with peak organisations which were undertaken by theInterim National Accreditation Council proposed modification of the format of the accreditationdocuments, some changes in the content, a clearer scoring system, a significantly expandedvoluntary component and the addition of a basic care component.

The reformatting proposed by AECA was minor but it would have several important benefits.Below is a section of the INAC consultation tool as it was presented in the consultationdocuments and how it would look if reformatted in the way suggested by AECA.

INAC format for 13A

Descriptors

Principle Minimal Good Exc't

Staff communicatewith each other

Staff talk to each otherin a friendly andcourteous manner

All minimal plus- staffexpress themselves inclear and open-endedways and listen to eachother. Staff are aware ofa need for a teamapproach

All in goodplus staff workeffectively asa team

Using the AECA format, the same principle and criteria would be written as follows:

13A. Staff communicate with each other

Staff talk to each other in a friendly and courteous manner 1 2 3

Staff express themselves in clear and open-ended ways and listen toeach other. Staff are aware of a need for a team approach.

1 2 3

Vol Staff work effectively as a team 1 2 3

Key: Criteria in bold and marked with a large asterisk are required for all services andrepresent the base line feature that every child in care should be guaranteed

Shaded criteria marked with a normal asterisk are self selected for fee relief are fullaccreditation that could be achieved by a centre still working on quality

110

105

Voluntary only c,iteria are marked with Vol and are limited to services undertaking afull voluntary accreditation. These are more complex features of quality best left tothose seeking full accreditation.

In short, the effects of the changed format are to alter the names of the criteria from minimum torequired, from good to self-selected, and from excellent to voluntary only. It presents the criteriasingly down the page and each criteria is rated I - 3 with 1 = becoming evident, 2 = significantlyevident and 3 being fully met.

The effect of the proposed reformatting is to eliminate the use of the judgemental labels'minimum', 'good' and 'excellent' whilst preserving the reality of a hierarchy among standards. Itmakes xplicit whether the criteria are required for fee relief, potentially optional or not to beconsidered for fee relief. By providing for a graded rating I - 3 for each criteria rather thansimply met or unmet the reformatted tool recognises the reality that in many cases the answerwon't be a simple yes or no.

The presentation of the criteria in a line down the page allows a principle to have as manydifferent criteria as required, and as many self selected and voluntary levels as are judged useful.It also frees the tool from the artificial need to put equal 'somethings' in each of the 'minimum','good' and 'excellent' columns and makes it easier to adapt over time.

The changes to content proposed by AECA would result in the inclusion of additionalcomponents dealing with integrating children with special needs, child care in a multiculturalenvironment, anti bias issues generally and an additional component entitled 'Basic Care' in orderto pick up features that ensure sound personal care is being provided.

AECA's submission also commented on the composition and operations of the proposedAccreditation Council including the structure and membership of the Council, the StandingCommittees including the qualifications of their members, the proposed appeals mechanism, andthe qualifications and training of reviewers.

INAC has one more meeting and, given their track record of responding to the concerns of thefield, we can expect that the proposal which ultimately goes to the Government will take up atleast some of these proposals.

lii106