Australian Early Childhood Teaching Programs: Perspectives and Comparisons to Finland, Norway and Sweden [1st ed.] 9789811558368, 9789811558375

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xiv
The Importance of Early Childhood Teacher Programs (Wendy Boyd)....Pages 1-18
Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs (Wendy Boyd)....Pages 19-38
The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs (Wendy Boyd)....Pages 39-57
Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs (Wendy Boyd)....Pages 59-77
Professional Experience in Early Childhood Teacher Programs (Wendy Boyd)....Pages 79-95
Enablers and Barriers for Optimal Early Childhood Teacher Programs (Wendy Boyd)....Pages 97-110
Quality Programs, Quality Early Childhood Teachers: Conclusions and Recommendations (Wendy Boyd)....Pages 111-121

Citation preview

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN EDUC ATION

Wendy Boyd

Australian Early Childhood Teaching Programs Perspectives and Comparisons to Finland, Norway and Sweden 123

SpringerBriefs in Education

We are delighted to announce SpringerBriefs in Education, an innovative product type that combines elements of both journals and books. Briefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical applications in education. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to 125 pages, the SpringerBriefs in Education allow authors to present their ideas and readers to absorb them with a minimal time investment. Briefs are published as part of Springer’s eBook Collection. In addition, Briefs are available for individual print and electronic purchase. SpringerBriefs in Education cover a broad range of educational fields such as: Science Education, Higher Education, Educational Psychology, Assessment & Evaluation, Language Education, Mathematics Education, Educational Technology, Medical Education and Educational Policy. SpringerBriefs typically offer an outlet for: • An introduction to a (sub)field in education summarizing and giving an overview of theories, issues, core concepts and/or key literature in a particular field • A timely report of state-of-the art analytical techniques and instruments in the field of educational research • A presentation of core educational concepts • An overview of a testing and evaluation method • A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic or policy change • An in-depth case study • A literature review • A report/review study of a survey • An elaborated thesis Both solicited and unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in the SpringerBriefs in Education series. Potential authors are warmly invited to complete and submit the Briefs Author Proposal form. All projects will be submitted to editorial review by editorial advisors. SpringerBriefs are characterized by expedited production schedules with the aim for publication 8 to 12 weeks after acceptance and fast, global electronic dissemination through our online platform SpringerLink. The standard concise author contracts guarantee that: • an individual ISBN is assigned to each manuscript • each manuscript is copyrighted in the name of the author • the author retains the right to post the pre-publication version on his/her website or that of his/her institution

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8914

Wendy Boyd

Australian Early Childhood Teaching Programs Perspectives and Comparisons to Finland, Norway and Sweden

123

Wendy Boyd Southern Cross University Lismore, NSW, Australia

ISSN 2211-1921 ISSN 2211-193X (electronic) SpringerBriefs in Education ISBN 978-981-15-5836-8 ISBN 978-981-15-5837-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5837-5 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

This book presents a study into the structure, content and practices of early childhood teacher preparation programs in universities across Australia, with comparisons from three Nordic universities: Finland, Norway and Sweden. Within Australia, investment has been made to develop a national early childhood workforce strategy that focuses on the knowledge, skills and attributes of good quality early childhood educators. Significant investment has been made to train the early childhood educators, with attraction and retention of early childhood university-trained teachers being a cornerstone to this goal. Yet, little is known about the required structure, content and professional experiences within early childhood teacher programs that best prepare early childhood graduates. The book presents findings from a study that investigated academics’ perspectives of the ECT programs at their respective institutions to identify models for ECT programs. Twenty-seven Australian academics’ perspectives of the early childhood teacher programs are presented and compared to academics’ perspectives from three Nordic universities. Recommendations arising from this investigation of early childhood teacher programs are presented in the final chapter. The target audience of this book are early childhood education academics; decision-makers of early childhood teacher policy; researchers interested in improving the quality and status of early childhood education; and assessors of early childhood teacher (ECT) programs. The study considers the impact of policy upon the academics’ decisions for the structure and design of the ECT programs, and how policy influences the quality of the early childhood teacher program. The book makes a key contribution to identifying the structures, content, professional experience and recommendations for building the early childhood teacher workforce within Australia. Lismore, Australia

Wendy Boyd

v

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the contributions made by academics from 27 Australian universities and 3 Nordic universities who generously donated their time to be interviewed for this study. Your wisdom, professional insights and time that have been shared are greatly appreciated. The author would like to thank colleagues and friends who have offered advice and ideas on the way to proceed with the writing of this book.

vii

Contents

1 The Importance of Early Childhood Teacher Programs . . . . Structure of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aim of This Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Importance of Quality Early Childhood Teacher Programs . Early Childhood Education in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . History of Early Childhood Teacher Programs in Australia . . The Quality of Early Childhood Education in Australia . . . . . What Should Early Childhood Teachers Learn at University? Attracting and Retaining Early Childhood Teachers: The Status of Early Childhood Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of Early Childhood Teacher Programs in Australia . Early Childhood Education in the Three Nordic Countries . . . . Conceptualising a Quality Early Childhood Teacher Program . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs . . . . . . . . . Description of ECT Programs in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Structure, Design and Delivery of ECT Programs in Australia Structure of Professional Experience in Australia . . . . . . . . . The Design and Delivery of Early Childhood Teacher Programs in Nordic Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Aim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methodological Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interview Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

1 1 2 2 4 4 6 7

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

8 9 11 13 14 15

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

19 19 20 25

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . .

27 30 30 30 31 32 33 34 34

ix

x

Contents

Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35 35 36

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 39 40 40 41 43 44 45 46 47 47 48 49 49 50

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

51 53 54 55

4 Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Optimal Model for Early Childhood Teacher Programs . . . Structure of ECT Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student Outcomes and the ‘Less Than’ Optimal Model of ECT Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nordic Academics’ Perspectives of the Optimal Model . . . . . . . Essential and Desirable in an ECT Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Australian Early Childhood Teacher Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions in an Early Childhood Teacher Program . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

59 59 60 60 61

...... ...... ......

62 64 66

...... ...... ......

66 74 75

Programs . . . .

79 79 80 81 81 85

3 The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs . . . . . . Early Childhood Teacher Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection and Analysis for This Chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . The Quality of the Early Childhood Teacher Programs . . . . . . The Structure of the Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Entry into the Early Childhood Teacher Programs . . . . . . . . Entry via the Diploma of ECEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . English Language Standards for Entry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Quality of Teachers: Entry Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Professional Experience and Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Student and Community Approval . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Innovation and Social Justice of the Program . . . . . . . . . . . The Expertise of Fellow Academics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delivery of the Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . University Fiscal Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Assessment and Accreditation of the Early Childhood Teacher Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Status of the Early Childhood Profession . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 Professional Experience in Early Childhood Teacher Professional Experience in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Requirements for Professional Experience . . . . . . . . . . Structure and Duration of Professional Experience . . Timing and Placement of Professional Experience . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

Contents

xi

Quality of Placement on Professional Experience . . . . . . . . . . Supervision Models of Professional Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . Requirements of Professional Experience in the Nordic Countries Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

87 89 89 92 94

6 Enablers and Barriers for Optimal Early Childhood Teacher Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enablers and Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Support Within the University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Financial Imperatives and Quality of the ECT Program . . . . . . Attitudes to Early Childhood Education and Care . . . . . . . . . . Program Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teaching Online and Students’ Lives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

97 97 98 98 99 101 104 107 109 110

7 Quality Programs, Quality Early Childhood Teachers: Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs . . . . . . The Structure of Early Childhood Teacher Programs . . . Professional Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Status of Early Childhood Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delivery and Evaluation of the ECT Program . . . . . . . . The Way Forward: Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

111 111 112 112 114 115 116 117 119 119 120

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

Abbreviations and Terms

Academic

ACECQA AITSL Birth-5 Birth-8 Birth-12 Certificate III in ECEC Combined degree Diploma of ECEC Degree EC ECEC ECT Primary school Professional experience Program

The course coordinator/program director at each university responsible for the oversight of the early childhood teaching program Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership Early childhood teacher program that qualifies graduates to teach children from birth to 5 years old Early childhood teacher program that qualifies graduates to teach children from birth to 8 years old Early childhood teacher program that qualifies graduates to teach children from birth to 12 years old Certificate studied in Australia for working with children aged birth to 5 years An undergraduate degree that qualifies graduates to teach in early childhood and primary education Diploma studied in Australia for working with children aged birth to 5 years Program of study to achieve a qualification. Also called ‘program’ or ‘course’ Early childhood Early childhood education and care Early childhood teacher In Australia children aged from 5–12 years attend primary school Also called ‘practicum’ Program of study of 1, 2, 3 or 4 years at university. Undergraduate program is called a degree, while postgraduate programs can be a Graduate Diploma, or a Master of Teaching

xiii

xiv

Students Teacher Units

Abbreviations and Terms

Also called ‘pre-service teachers’ Graduate from university qualified to teach Subjects studied within a degree

Chapter 1

The Importance of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Abstract The aim of the study was to investigate academics’ perspectives of the ECT programs at their respective institutions to identify optimal models of ECT programs. Twenty-seven Australian academics’ perspectives were gathered about their ECT programs and compared with five academics from three Nordic universities. The entry, structure, design and assessment of ECT programs were investigated in-depth. Recommendations arising from this investigation of early childhood teacher programs are presented in the final chapter. The target audience of this book are early childhood education academics; decision-makers of early childhood teacher policy; researchers interested in improving the quality and status of early childhood education; and assessors of early childhood teacher (ECT) programs. It is anticipated that academics’ perspectives of optimal models of ECT programs may assist the design of good quality programs that prepare early childhood teachers (EC) teachers for their work. The study considers the impact of policy upon the academics’ decisions for the structure and design of the ECT programs, and how policy influences the quality of the early childhood teacher program. This study makes a key contribution to understanding academics’ approaches to the entry, design and assessment of ECT programs, and how the programs have been shaped in response to requirements and constraints, both within the university and beyond.

Structure of the Book This chapter introduces the study identifying why early childhood teacher programs are significant in the pursuit of quality early childhood programs for children. While it is important that children receive good quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) when attending ECEC centres, there are serious and persistent concerns regarding the quality of ECEC within Australia. The most influential factors in the provision of quality in ECEC are the qualifications and expertise of the ECEC workforce. Public policy in Australia requires early childhood teachers to have a university qualification in early childhood education but it is not known what the optimal model, design and delivery are for ECT programs to best prepare graduates to provide quality ECEC for young children. Thus, this book aims to provide information for © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 W. Boyd, Australian Early Childhood Teaching Programs, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5837-5_1

1

2

1 The Importance of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

academics and policymakers within Australia regarding the development of optimal ECT programs and in three Nordic countries in an effort. Chapter 2 provides the background to ECT programs; Chap. 3 presents the findings regarding the entry and admission into ECT programs; Chap. 4 examines academics’ perspectives of the optimal model of an ECT program; Chap. 5 outlines the way that professional experience is practiced in ECT programs, and Chap. 6 highlights the enablers and challenges for ECT programs. The final chapter, Chap. 7, reviews the findings of each chapter and makes recommendations for change of ECT programs.

Aim of This Research Based on research that investment in good quality early childhood education yields the best outcomes for children (Manning, Wong, Fleming & Garvis, 2019) and poor quality early childhood education leads to poor outcomes for young children (Penn, 2010), this study aimed to investigate academics’ perspectives of the ECT programs at their respective institutions to identify possible optimal models of early childhood teacher (ECT) education. Little is known about the design and delivery of quality ECT programs to ensure graduates are prepared to teach in early childhood centres. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of ECT programs by analysing academics’ perspectives regarding their early childhood teacher programs. Twenty-seven Australian academics were interviewed about their ECT programs and compared with five academics from three Nordic universities. It is anticipated that an understanding of features of optimal models of ECT programs and the barriers that influence the design of optimal ECT programs can be applied to inform the future design of ECT programs. Furthermore, the study considers the impact of policy upon the design of the ECT program, and how this influences the quality of the early childhood teacher program.

The Importance of Quality Early Childhood Teacher Programs There are an unprecedented number of children in early childhood education settings. Not only has maternal employment increased over the past 40 years (Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD), 2017), but there is increased recognition of the educational value of early childhood education experiences (Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2010). While children attend early childhood settings, it is important that they receive good quality early childhood education in a safe and secure environment; with health and well-being nurtured by the educators in environments so that children’s learning outcomes are optimised (Callanan, Anderson, Haywood, Hudson & Speight, 2017). The early childhood

The Importance of Quality Early Childhood Teacher Programs

3

environment influences a young child’s growth, well-being and development (Tayler, Cleveland & Thorpe, 2013) and determines lifelong outcomes (Heckman, 2013; The Front Project, 2019). The impact of the environment on children’s developing brain capacity has been shown to affect the hard wiring that occurs in the first years of life (Rutter, 2006). Brain development in the early years is shaped and formed in response to environmental experiences. Such sensitive periods in brain development are significant for lifelong learning with the provision of positive experiences considered necessary to ensure the best possible outcomes for children (Rutter, 2006). Research has shown that investment in good quality early childhood education (ECEC) produces significant returns for society over the long term. The Perry preschool program, from the USA, showed that for every one dollar invested in quality childcare saves society seven dollars in the long term through measures such as educational achievement, employment rates, delinquency and time in jail (Heckman, 2013; Schweinhart, 2003). A recent study in Australia showed this benefit to be two dollars for every one dollar spent (The Front Project, 2019). The quality of the ECEC program is closely aligned to the early childhood workforce (Dalli, Barbour, Cameron & Miller, 2018) and the quality of the interactions between children and teachers are a marked predictor of children’s learning outcomes (Sabol, Soliday Hong, Pianta & Burchinal, 2013). The higher the qualifications of educators, the higher the quality of practice (Sylva et al., 2010). What the early childhood (EC) teacher does influences the children’s experiences in the early childhood centre (Manning et al., 2019; OECD, 2018; Urban, Vandenbroeck, Lazzsari, Van Laere & Peeters, 2012). Within this context, the practices and expertise of the teachers matter. The most influential factors in the provision of quality education are the qualifications and training of the workforce (Pascoe & Brennan, 2017). Manning et al. (2019), in a study of empirical evidence, found a significant correlation between quality early childhood learning environments and qualified teachers. Their meta-analytic review found that the higher the teachers’ qualifications the higher the quality of early childhood education (Manning et al., 2019). This aligns with other research findings that the higher the qualification of educators the better the outcomes are for children (Hu, Torr, Degotardi, & Han, 2017; Sylva et al., 2010; Warren & Haisken-DeNew, 2014). It is recognised that it is difficult to identify the specific qualifications and staff characteristics; however, it is generally agreed that a high-quality workforce is critical to the provision of quality early childhood education (An & Bonetti, 2017). But further research is needed to identify what knowledge and skills are required by the educators (Manning et al., 2019). Currently, Australia suffers a shortage of early childhood teachers, and new regulatory requirements indicate that by 2023 Australia will need an additional 9,000 EC teachers (ACECQA, 2019e). Thus, there is a need to understand the process required to be an EC teacher and to develop systems that ensure effectiveness of teacher education programs (Tatto, Richmond, & Andrews, 2016) where teachers are prepared and committed to working in early childhood education. As well as a supply problem of EC teachers it is difficult to attract and retain early childhood teachers to the profession (McDonald, Thorpe, & Irvine, 2018) as early childhood teachers suffer from poor work conditions (Boyd & Newman, 2019). Teacher’s work conditions play a

4

1 The Importance of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

key role in staff-to-child interactions, and the staff-to-child interactions are linked to better outcomes for children in areas including literacy, numeracy and social skills (OECD, 2018). To attract and retain early childhood teachers requires recognition of the complexity of the work of early childhood teachers with salary that aligns with the nature of the work. This research seeks to investigate what an initial ECT program should look like that prepares EC teachers to be attracted and committed to working in early childhood education.

Early Childhood Education in Australia Early childhood education in Australia operates for children aged from 6 weeks up to 6 years old. Attendance is not compulsory; however, there exists universal access for children in the year before commencing school for 15 h of a preschool program delivered by a qualified EC teacher. This is gradually being extended to include 2 years of universal access to a preschool program prior to school, by jurisdiction (Australia has eight jurisdictions: six states and two territories) (Victorian Education and Training, 2019). Thus, there is a need for more qualified ECTs. The National Regulations for children’s services (ACECQA, 2019a) require at least one qualified EC teacher if an early childhood setting has children aged 4 years. The requirement for the number of EC teachers to be present in the early childhood setting varies across jurisdictions: while the National Regulations (ACECQA, 2019a) stipulates the need for one qualified EC teacher for 4-year-old children, in New South Wales (NSW) the number of qualified teachers is linked to the number of children who attend the centre. If there are 40 children in the centre, then there must be two qualified EC teachers, while if there are 60 children a day three EC teachers are required, and so on.

History of Early Childhood Teacher Programs in Australia To understand Australia’s current context regarding ECT programs, the history of ECT programs is presented. Strong support for education was popular during the mid- to late nineteenth century, schools were established, and teachers arrived from overseas with ‘progressive pedagogies’ (Wong & Press, 2016, p. 19). Recognition developed regarding the teaching required for children of different ages and kindergarten teaching colleges began. The Kindergarten Union was established in 1895 to provide free kindergarten for children in poor neighbourhoods. Early childhood teaching was described as stimulating children’s natural curiosity, teaching basic academic concepts and supporting positive attitudes to learning. Kindergarten Unions began to be developed in the late nineteenth century with the first teaching training college, Sydney Kindergarten Teachers’ College, commencing in 1896 and other teaching training colleges opening across Australian jurisdictions over the next

Early Childhood Education in Australia

5

30 years (Wong & Press, 2016). After World War II, the demand for preschool education increased with jurisdictions responding in different ways—for example, some preschools were on school grounds, while others were stand-alone centres (Wong & Press, 2016). With the rise of feminism in the 1960s, Australian women sought to engage in paid work, and this was possible if their child was in an early childhood centre. The family model that had been popular after the war was the father engaged in paid work, while the mother reared the children at home. With maternal engagement in paid work, these gendered lines of work changed. The Child Care Act legislated in 1972 provided long day care for children while women worked (Wong & Press, 2016). Thus, long day care programs, usually from 8 am to 6 pm, were offered alongside preschool programs that ran either half-days or the same hours as school from 9 am to 3 pm. This created divisions between practices, and the rise of the division between ‘education’ (found in preschools) and ‘care’ (as purported to be in long day care which is also known as child care). Aligning with the view of education and care, the qualifications of staff differed in each setting: qualified teachers were employed in preschools, while caregivers, often untrained, were employed in long day care centres. This division existed in the twenty-first century, with long day care centres being viewed as having less educational value than preschools. Indeed, the assessment and rating conducted by ACECQA show that preschools perform better in providing quality ECEC (ACECQA, 2019b). But National Regulations now require qualified ECTs uniformly across EC services (ACECQA, 2019a). As maternal employment rates grew the need for ECEC grew for children as well. Privatisation of child care centres was encouraged by the Australian government in the early 1990s to meet market demand. The Australian government provided funding to early childhood centres, who then were required to engage in the Quality Accreditation and Improvement System (QAIS), run by the National Childcare Accreditation Council (NCAC) (ACECQA, 2019c). This legislation resulted in many new child care centres being established, and significant privatisation of ECE. As ECEC has grown in Australia so too have the numbers of providers of early childhood education. The private sector has continued to grow to meet demand. In 2019, 82% of the 15,919 early childhood services were privately owned, with 48% being for-profit, and 36% not-for-profit (ACECQA, 2019b). In December of 2009, a National Partnership Agreement for a National Quality Agenda was signed off by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) (2009). As part of this new National Quality Agenda, the regulatory processes of the quality assurance system were replaced by one authority: the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). The National Quality Agenda had four key components: • A national legislative framework—the National Law and National Regulations. • A new national body, the Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), responsible for establishing consistent and efficient procedures for the operation of a National Quality Framework. • A National Quality Standard (NQS) with seven assessable quality areas.

6

1 The Importance of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

• A national quality rating and assessment process to complement the NQS (Productivity Commission, 2015). The National Quality Framework (NQF) required all educators to have a qualification in early childhood education and care. No longer would early childhood staff be able to be unqualified. Consequently, ECT programs were developed to meet the increased quantity of EC teachers required. Many universities across Australia who did not have an ECT degree developed ECT programs, embedded within their existing primary education programs. Existing ECT programs included a degree in birth-5 years and birth-8 years. More recently, the birth-12 years’ program has been developed which will be discussed later.

The Quality of Early Childhood Education in Australia Early childhood settings are assessed and rated for quality provision according to the National Quality Standard (NQS) and overseen by Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA, 2018). There are many ways to interpret what quality early childhood education and care is. Although it is recognised that quality is a multi-dimensional concept that aims to support children’s outcomes, it is ongoing, and contextualised in societal conditions (Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, 2007), within the NQS (ACECQA, 2018) quality is assessable. Within Australia, quality is assessed according to seven quality areas identified by ACECQA (2018) with ongoing assessment and rating of quality of ECEC settings. Serious and persistent concerns exist with the quality of EC services as 21% of early childhood services are not meeting the National Quality Standard (ACECQA, 2019b). That is, one in five children in early childhood services is not receiving education and care that meets the National Quality Standard (ACECQA, 2019b). This is unacceptable. The existing policy approaches in Australia, including the current regulatory environment, are not adequately addressing the quality of education for children’s optimal learning and development. This problem has arisen from persistent policy limitations which beg further inquiry focused on the quality of teachers operating in the ECEC sector. In December 2009, a national agreement was signed by all states and territories for the National Partnership Agreement (COAG, 2009) to review the quality system and develop a National Quality Agenda. Two strategies from the National Quality Agenda relevant to the improvement of quality are: 1. Ongoing assessment and rating of the quality of early childhood centres to raise the standard of care. 2. Building a National Early Years Workforce Strategy that focuses on the skills and attributes of high-quality early childhood educators to improve the supply and quality of the early childhood workforce. These two strategies are directly related: what the early childhood teacher does influences the children’s experiences in the early childhood setting, and consequently

Early Childhood Education in Australia

7

the quality of ECEC. Strategy 1 is explained above while the second strategy focuses on building the skills and attributes of early childhood educators to improve the supply and quality of ECEC. Within the National Quality Agenda (ACECQA, 2016), ‘educators’ refers to everyone who works with the children. This includes qualified early childhood teachers, educators with a Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care, and educators with a Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care. All educators working with children are required to be qualified at least to Certificate III level. Significant investment by the Australian government has been made for early childhood educators to become qualified including EC teachers. The Early Years Workforce Strategy 2012–2016 (Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood (SCSECE), 2012), from the National Quality Agenda (ACECQA, 2016), outlines key strategies for a qualified early childhood workforce. Training to become an EC teacher can be by studying a program for teaching children aged from birth to 5 years, or birth to 8 years, or birth to 12 years at a university, or in a few cases at a Technical and Further Education College (TAFE). On the back of this workforce strategy, the states and territories have their own workforce strategy. For example, NSW has the Early Childhood Education Workforce Strategy from 2018–2022 (NSW Department of Education, 2018), Queensland has the Workforce Action Plan, 2018–2020 (Queensland Government Early Childhood Education and Care, 2019) and so on. Each jurisdiction has addressed the goal for the workforce to become qualified. To facilitate this goal, the workforce needs to be having ECT programs that are accessible, with EC teachers prepared to commit to working in the early childhood field. But how should this be accomplished? ACECQA (2019d) provides minimum guidelines for ECT programs which will be discussed in Chap. 2.

What Should Early Childhood Teachers Learn at University? The Australian government’s investment in an ECEC workforce strategy has focused on preparing EC teachers to improve the supply and quality of the early childhood workforce (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), 2016). Early childhood teachers need to be capable and competent people who support and influence children’s interactions and experiences in early childhood settings (Ackerman, 2005). It is important that ECT programs prepare teachers who are skilled and knowledgeable about how best to support children’s learning, development and well-being. Darling-Hammond (2010) asserts that: The bottom line is we need highly effective, adequately researched models of preparation for all teachers without exception (p. 39). For early childhood teaching to move forward as a profession, there needs to be agreement on what teachers should learn, and how they should learn (Darling-Hammond, 2010). The teacher’s expertise, experience and education have powerful effects upon learning outcomes. However, it is not known what the optimal model for early childhood teacher programs is.

8

1 The Importance of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Various models of ECT degrees (also called programs) exist throughout the world but there is no agreement of the optimal model for ECT programs, nor agreement on the knowledge, skills and dispositions an early childhood teacher should have to provide good quality ECEC (Dalli et al., 2018). The structure of ECT models varies across the world from a focus on preparing teachers for working in settings from birth to 2 years, birth to 5 years, birth-8 years, birth-12 years or 9-12 months up to 7 years—the latter being the most common in the Nordic countries. This large variation produces an inconsistent approach to EC teacher preparation (Kagan & Roth, 2017), especially as disparate approaches exist even within the same country. Australia, for example, has ECT programs that focus on birth-5 years, birth-8 years and birth-12 years. Graduates from the two programs birth-8 and birth-12 years have career choice to work in either birth-5 settings (early childhood education) or primary school settings (five-12 settings). Not only is there an inconsistent approach to ECT preparation programs but the quality of existing programs is unknown. A report by LiBetti (2018) in the USA found that there was no clarity regarding the content and structure of existing ECT programs. LiBetti (2018) asserts that: We can’t say with certainty the type of content that early educators complete within these programs or what practices and strategies they learn. Without information on program content, we can’t develop research on program effectiveness (p. 5).

Early childhood teaching university programs are critical as they prepare graduates to teach. There is a need to strengthen the early childhood qualifications and provide valid structure to the early childhood teacher programs. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) in the USA convened a committee of experts to investigate how to ensure the inclusion of a well-qualified and adequately supported workforce. The key workforce recommendation was that: the early childhood education workforce should be provided with financial assistance to increase practitioners’ knowledge and competencies and to achieve required qualifications through higher-education programs, credentialling programs, and other forms of professional learning (p. 12).

In undertaking the investigation, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) identified that early childhood education professionals are not acknowledged, nor respected as a unified workforce (p. 27), although they make a strong contribution to children’s outcomes.

Attracting and Retaining Early Childhood Teachers: The Status of Early Childhood Education With the increased number of children, attending early childhood settings comes a need for more early childhood qualified teachers. Commencements in ECT programs rose from 2,948 in 2007 to 4,018 in 2016 (Australian Institute for Teaching and School

Early Childhood Education in Australia

9

Leadership (AITSL), 2019), an increase of 36% over 9 years. Furthermore, by 2023 an additional 9,000 EC teachers will be required to meet the demand in early childhood setting (ACECQA, 2019e). Research has shown that a shortage of ECTs existed in 2018, together with a lack of retention of early childhood educators (McDonald, Thorpe, & Irvine, 2018). The known reasons for shortages of staff include poor work conditions, low status of the profession, workers’ stress and unrealistic expectations of new educators (Press, Wong & Gibson, 2015). The high attrition rate of early childhood educators inhibits the development of secure relationships between children, families and staff, with consequential impact upon stimulating interactions (OECD, 2018), which has an impact upon the quality of early childhood education. This phenomenon exists beyond Australia: early childhood staff shortages are common across many countries (OECD, 2018; Schleicher, 2019). Accompanying the high turnover in early childhood staff research has shown that the majority of early childhood pre-service teachers, who study a birth-8 or a birth-12 years’ degree, do not want to work in early childhood settings but prefer to focus on working as a primary school teacher (Ailwood & Boyd, 2007; Boyd & Newman, 2019; Bretherton, 2010; Liu & Boyd, 2018; Thorpe, Boyd, Ailwood & Brownlee, 2011). Working in primary school is preferable as work conditions are more favourable. The academic program directors of ECT programs are faced with addressing how to build a sustainable highly skilled early childhood workforce (ACECQA, 2019e) through the structure, design and delivery of their programs. This places a large responsibility on the program directors to envisage the optimal model of an ECT degree and to obtain assessment and approval of the program within and external to the university. Consideration needs to be given to the knowledge, skills, dispositions, values and ethics that are important for being a highly skilled teacher.

Overview of Early Childhood Teacher Programs in Australia Public policy requires that qualified early childhood teachers (ACECQA, 2019d) work in early childhood centres for children aged 4 years and older, yet there is no research that informs the optimal model of an ECT program and well-researched models currently do not exist (LiBetti, 2018). Decisions by policymakers and academics for the optimal design and delivery of early childhood teacher programs informed by robust research are needed. It is known that higher early childhood teacher qualifications are associated with better outcomes for children (Manning et al., 2019); that staff with more pre-service training are likely to be emotionally satisfied and experience well-being in the workplace; and staff with high salaries and effective collaboration with their colleagues are likely to have better staff-to-child interactions (OECD, 2018). Further staff need to enjoy good work conditions as this will lead to staff well-being and children’s learning. Stakeholders within Australia are concerned about the quality of pre-service early childhood training, resulting in

10

1 The Importance of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Fig. 1.1 Early childhood ITE programs accredited by ACECQA, 2012-June 2017 (Fenech, 2017, with permission from Marianne Fenech)

a perceived lack of preparedness of ECT graduates (Boyd et al., In press; Pascoe & Brennan, 2017). The most common ECT program developed in Australia has been the birth8 years of program. Fenech (2017) mapped 98 ECT (ECT) programs offered across Australia—see Fig. 1.1 and found that the offerings vary across jurisdictions. Birth-8 programs are most common in Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, while in New South Wales, Victoria, Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory predominantly offer birth-12 or birth-5 programs. The three types of EC teacher programs include birth-5, birth-8 or birth-12 years, and the latter two programs are termed ‘combined degrees’ as they include a dual qualification of early childhood teacher and primary teacher. Combined degrees have been identified as having significant problems for becoming an EC teacher, as the graduates prefer to work in primary schools owing to: better work conditions, lack of career pathways in early childhood teaching and not feeling valued in early childhood education (Boyd & Newman, 2019; Harrison & Heinrich Joerdens, 2017; Liu & Boyd, 2018; Nolan & Rouse, 2013; Thorpe et al., 2011). While the government has approved early childhood teacher degrees to be built into primary degrees, there is significant slippage into the primary teaching area resulting in loss of potential teachers from the early childhood sector. Torii, Fox and Cloney (2017) recommend a review of such programs to focus on the capabilities required to be an effective ECEC teacher and to identify strategies to ensure the programs of study are appropriate. Teaching in early childhood settings is a complex profession with the roles and responsibilities complex and diverse. The quality of early childhood education and care is directly related to the capability of the staff and effectiveness of their teaching (Torii et al., 2017). As the structure of ECT programs is thought to not be preparing EC teachers adequately, this study turned to the ECT program models of three Nordic

Early Childhood Education in Australia

11

countries to compare with Australian models. The following section explains ECEC in these Nordic countries.

Early Childhood Education in the Three Nordic Countries Three Nordic countries, Finland, Norway and Sweden, continue to be world exemplars of excellence of early childhood education and were chosen for this study to compare with Australia’s early childhood education and care and associated ECT program system. The three Nordic countries are continuously ranked in the top countries for educational quality (OECD, 2017; The Economist, 2012; UNICEF, 2008, 2013, 2017). In 2017 Finland had the highest rating for quality education out of 41 countries in the world, while Norway was rated 9th and Sweden 16th. Australia was ranked 39th out of 41 (UNICEF, 2017). An earlier UNICEF report (2008) for ECEC benchmarks showed Australia ranked 23rd out of 25 OECD countries, with Finland, Norway and Sweden ranked within the top four countries on this measure, the fourth highest ranked country being Iceland (UNICEF, 2008). In spite of Australia’s aim to improve the quality of ECEC by implementing the National Quality Agenda (ACECQA, 2016), there has been little change in Australia’s rankings in education compared to other OECD countries from 2008 to 2017. By comparing Australia’s ECEC and associated teacher training with the three Nordic countries, this study highlights the strengths and challenges for Australian ECT programs and presents possibilities for change in the Australian ECT programs. The three Nordic countries have a similar social welfare model that share similar democratic values to the qualifications of early childhood teachers. The model, termed the social-democratic model, exists across all Nordic countries (Boström, Einarsdottir & Pramling Samuelsson, 2017). The social-democratic model strives to reflect values of civil rights, solidarity, equity and equality. Children are viewed as the responsibility of the society and the family. Systems exist to support families and children; mothers and fathers to participate equally in the workforce (Boström et al., 2017; Karila, 2012). The year before school, termed ‘preschool’ in Finland and Sweden, and ‘kindergarten’ in Norway, is for 6 year olds. Nearly, all children attend preschool the year before compulsory schooling. Public institutions provide education for young children, and there is a cultural belief that the State is responsible for children’s education (Karila, 2012). Child care is provided prior to this year before school from 9 or 12 months. Compulsory schooling begins at 7 years of age. In Australia, children commence compulsory school at 5 years of age, so preschool is for 4 year olds. Figure 1.2 shows the differences in attendance at ECEC settings across age variations of children. Less Australian children attend preschool than in Finland, Norway and Sweden (OECD, 2017; UNICEF, 2018). Australia invests significantly less in ECEC than the three Nordic countries. Figure 1.3 shows the comparative investment in ECEC.

12

1 The Importance of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

AƩendance at ECE %

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

< 3 years

3 years AUS

4 years FIN

NOR

5 years

SWE

Fig. 1.2 Attendance at ECEC settings up to and including 5 years old (OECD, 2017)

Spending on early childhood as % GDP

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

AUS

FIN ECEC*

Preschool**

NOR Total

SWE

Fig. 1.3 Spending on early childhood as % Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (OECD, 2017).* ECEC for Australia means for children aged birth to 4 years; for Nordic countries: children aged from 9 months to 6 years. ** Preschool means for Australia: 4 year olds; for Nordic countries: 6 year olds

In the Nordic countries, attendance at early childhood settings, for children aged from 9 to 12 months to 6 years is linked to the length of parental leave, and attendance is considered a right of the child regardless of parents’ work status (Rostgaard, 2014). Paid parental leave is 9 months in both Finland and Norway, and 16 months in Sweden. Consequently, attendance at EC settings prior to 12 months old is not common. The heavy investment in developing generous family policies in the Nordic countries has three aims: for work and family balance; gender equality in paid work; and support of children’s education (Haug & Storo, 2013; Rostgaard, 2014). All Nordic countries have national guidelines for ECEC which integrate a holistic perspective of play, care and learning (Boström et al., 2017). Early childhood education and care are all grouped under the Ministries of Education, which has benefits for ECEC (Boström et al., 2017). The concept of ‘lifelong learning’, a key goal of the

Early Childhood Education in the Three Nordic Countries

13

OECD (2009), has been implemented in all three countries with ECEC being viewed as the first stage of lifelong learning. Learning to learn is at the heart of lifelong learning (Sylva et al., 2010). Each of the three Nordic countries has an early childhood curriculum. Finland has the National Core Curriculum for ECE (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2016). The core of the curriculum is established and attuned to the local context. Norway’s early years’ curriculum is the Framework plan for kindergarten (Ministry for Education and Research, 2017) which has a strong focus on values and educare. Sweden has the Läroplan för förskolan, Lpfö, (Curriculum for Preschool) (Forskeforum, 2016) which emphasises lifelong learning. The Swedish ECEC curriculum focuses on values and tasks, national goals and guidelines for preschool education—care and education are intertwined into educare. Play is emphasised as being important and includes children’s active participation (Eurydice, 2018b). Staff qualifications are similar across the Nordic countries for ECEC and preschool. Early childhood teachers are required in the ECEC settings, with the early childhood teacher program being 3 years in Finland and Norway, and 3.5 years in Sweden. Finland revised early childhood teacher programs in September 2018 with new legislation for the requirements of early childhood teachers in early childhood settings. Changes were made to include three members of staff: one EC teacher, one social pedagogy and one nurse who had studied early childhood education; untrained staff would no longer be acceptable; and EC teachers will require a 5-year Master qualification by 2030. As in Australia the Nordic countries suffer from shortages in early childhood qualified staff and is related to the increase in the quantity of ECEC settings, and also funding for universities has not kept up with demand (Haug & Storo, 2013). However, Finland has taken the initiative to increase the student intake into their ECT programs as of 2019. In summary, the three Nordic countries Finland, Norway and Sweden reflect similar social contexts which differ from Australian educational settings. As the Nordic countries continuously rank in the top countries for educational quality, these countries were chosen for comparison with the Australian ECT programs.

Conceptualising a Quality Early Childhood Teacher Program The desired goal of ECT programs is that graduates are prepared to teach in early childhood centres. However, there is scant research regarding the optimal design and delivery of quality early childhood teacher programs to ensure that graduates are prepared to teach in early childhood centres. While there is substantive information about what primary and secondary teachers should learn (AITSL, 2019) with common practices identified amongst highly effective teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2010), similar information is not available for early childhood teachers. The Lifting our game report (Pascoe & Brennan, 2017) recommended the development of a new

14

1 The Importance of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

national workforce strategy which included the review of the current approach to, and knowledge of ECT programs. Other disciplines have developed training programs for students which may assist the conceptualisation of a quality ECT program. Ingvarson et al. (2014) identified the best principles for design, delivery and the assessment of teacher education programs (for primary and secondary teaching); and compared international best practice teacher education programs with Australian teacher education programs. Australian teaching programs were found to be consistent when compared internationally regarding recruitment and entry standards, accreditation of teacher education programs and transition to the profession. However, Australia did not have policies to support the status of teaching and provide professional work conditions (Ingvarson et al., 2014). It was also found that little was known about the effectiveness of Australian teacher education programs, and measures were not in place to monitor performance of the programs (Ingvarson et al., 2014). Benchmarking of Australian teacher education programs was recommended. Applying the model from a program developed for medical doctors (Bransford, Darling-Hammond & LePage, 2005) may assist in conceptualising an ECT program. In the early twentieth century, there was a ‘great unevenness’ in medical training. Changes were made to medical education by identifying and adopting core content; the dispositions for thinking like a doctor; identifying and learning intellectual capacities needed to be a doctor and how to teach students to be doctors—that is relevant pedagogies. The medical program was then accredited by an accrediting authority. Bransford et al., (2005) used this example from doctor training to state that to prepare teachers a teaching framework needs to include knowledge of learners and their development in social contexts; knowledge of subject matter and curriculum goals; and understanding of teaching and pedagogical practice (p. 11). Based on the above research, the development of an ECT program could be structured according to the identification and adoption of core content; the dispositions for thinking like an EC teacher; identifying and learning intellectual capacities needed to be an EC teacher; and being able to implement the required skills of relevant pedagogies. In the ECT program, a focus needs to be on students’ knowledge, skills and dispositions that align with the roles and responsibilities of EC teaching work. However, this needs to be informed by evidence, and so this study aimed to identify how academics perceived their ECT programs in Australia and in three Nordic countries.

Summary There are four points highlighted from This chapter: 1. The early childhood workforce is not of good quality (Kagan & Roth, 2017) with international studies showing that qualifications and training are inconsistent across and within countries.

Summary

15

2. There is an inconsistent approach to EC teacher preparation across Australia and the world, and the quality of existing programs is unknown. It is not known which model of initial ECT programs best prepares graduates to provide quality ECEC for young children (birth to 5 years) and their families (Fenech, 2017). Yet research has shown that the qualifications of EC teachers matter for children’s learning outcomes (Manning et al., 2019). 3. There is a need to understand the processes of learning to be an EC teacher, and of teacher preparation; and to develop systems to evaluate the effectiveness of teacher education programs (Tatto, Richmond, & Andrews, 2016). 4. The optimal structure of the ECT program to best prepare teachers is unknown. It is acknowledged that EC teacher graduates required knowledge, skills and dispositions that align with the roles and responsibilities of being an EC teacher. This study aimed to investigate academics’ perspectives regarding the optimal structure of the ECT program by investigating their practices within their university on entry and admission; structure; design and delivery; and assessment of the ECT programs. Academics from three Nordic countries provided their perspectives on the ECT programs offered at their respective universities so that comparisons can be made and possibilities explored for applying to Australian ECT programs.

References Ackerman, C. J. (2005). Getting teachers from here to there: Examining issues related to an early care and education teacher policy. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/ackerman.html. Ailwood, J., & Boyd, W. (2007). Undergraduate early childhood education students and their talk about child care. Pacific Early Childhood Education Research Association Conference. Hong Kong, July, 2007. An, R., & Bonetti, S. (2017). Developing the early years workforce: what does the evidence tell us? Retrieved from https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/early-years-workforce. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), (2019a). National regulations. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-law-regulations/national-regula tions. Australian Children’s Early Childhood Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019b). Snapshots. Retrieved from http://snapshots.acecqa.gov.au/Snapshot/index.html. Australian Children’s Early Childhood Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019c). NCAC archive. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/resources/information-sheets/ncac-archive. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019d). Qualifications assessment guidelines for organization applications. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/ qualifications/assessment/approval/early-childhood. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019e). Workforce forum. 13th September, Sydney. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2018). National quality standard. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard. Australian Children’s Early Childhood Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2016). National Quality Agenda. Retrieved from www.acecqa.gov.au. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2019). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards.

16

1 The Importance of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Boström, S., Einarsdottir, J., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2017). The Nordic perspective on early childhood education and care. In M. Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International Handbook of Early Childhood Education. The Netherlands: Springer. Boyd, W., & Newman, L. (2019). Primary + Early Childhood = chalk and cheese? Tensions in undertaking an early childhood/primary education degree. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119841456. Boyd, W., Fenech, M., Mahony, L., Wong, S., Warren, J., Lee, I-F., & Cheeseman, S. (2020). Employers’ perspectives of early childhood graduates. Early Childhood Conference, Hobart, 25–29 September (In press). Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teachers Should Learn and Be Able To Do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bretherton, T. (2010). Developing the child care workforce: Understanding fight or flight amongst workers. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education research. Callanan, M., Anderson, M., Haywood, S., Hudson, R., & Speight, S. (2017). Study of Early Education and Development: Good Practice in Early Education Report. Retrieved from http:// dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/28260. Council of Australian Governments (COAG). (2009). National partnerships agreement on the national quality agenda for early childhood education and care. Retrieved from files.acecqa.gov.au/…/nap_national_quality_agenda_early_childhood_education_care. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2007). Beyond Quality In Early Childhood Education And Care: Postmodern Perspectives (2nd ed.). London: Falmer. Dalli, C., Barbour, N., Cameron, C., & Miller, L. (2018). Closing comments: Future directions for early childhood policy. In L. Miller, C. Cameron, C. Dalli, & N. Barbour (Eds.), The Sage handbook of early childhood policy. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teaching education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47. Eurydice. (2018b). Teaching and learning in pre-primary education. Retrieved from https:// eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/teaching-and-learning-programmes-preprimary-education-1_en. Fenech, M. (2017). Preparing teachers for the early years: Evidence, ideology or market driven initial teacher education? Presentation for the ACECQA Higher Education Roundtable: 30 November. Finnish National Agency for Education. (2016). National core curriculum in early childhood education and care. Retrieved from https://www.oph.fi/en/education-system. Forskeforum. (2016). Läroplan för förskolan, Lpfö, reviderad 2016. Retrieved from https://forsko leforum.se/artiklar/laroplan-forskolan-lpfo-reviderad-2016. Harrison, C., & Heinrich Joerdens, S. H. (2017). The combined Bachelor of Education early childhood and primary degree: Student perceptions of value. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 4–13. Haug, K. H., & Storo, J. (2013). Kindergarten- a universal right for children in Norway. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 7(2), 1–13. Heckman, J. J. (2013). Investing in disadvantaged young children is an economically efficient policy. Paper presented at the Iowa Business Council: Early Childhood Summit, Iowa. Hu, J., Torr, J., Degotardi, S., & Han, F. (2017). Educators’ use of commanding language to direct infants’ behaviour: Relationship to educators’ qualifications and implications for language learning opportunities. Early Years: An International Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09575146.2017.1368008. Ingvarson, L., Reid, K., Buckley, S., Kleinhenz, E., & Masters, G. (2014). Best Practices Teacher Education Programs And Australia’s Own Programs. Canberra: Department of Education. Kagan, S. L., & Roth, J. (2017). Transforming early childhood systems for future generations: Obligations and opportunities. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49(2), 137–154.

References

17

Karila, K. (2012). A Nordic perspective on early childhood education and care policy. European Journal of Education, 47(4), 584–595. LiBetti, A. (2018). Let the research show: Developing the research to improve early childhood teacher preparation. Retrieved from https://bellwethereducation.org/publication/let-researchshow-developing-research-improve-early-childhood-teacher-preparation-0. Liu, Y., & Boyd, W. (2018). Comparing career identities and choices of pre-service early childhood teachers between Australia and China. International Journal of Early Years Education. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1444585. Manning, M., Wong, G., Fleming, C., & Garvis, S. (2019). Is teacher qualification associated with the quality of the early childhood education and care environment? Review of Educational Research, 89(3), 370–415. McDonald, P., Thorpe, K., & Irvine, S. (2018). Low pay but still we stay: Retention in early childhood education and care. Journal of Industrial Relations, 60(6), 647–668. Ministry of Education and Research. (2017). Framework plan for kindergartens. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/in-english/framework-plan-for-kindergartens/. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Transforming the financing of early care and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10. 17226/24984. NSW Department of Education. (2018). Early childhood education workforce strategy from 2018– 2022. Retrieved from https://education.nsw.gov.au/early-childhood-education/working-in-earlychildhood-education/workforce-strategy. Nolan, A. & Rouse. E. (2013). Where to from here? Career choices of pre-service teachers undertaking a dual early childhood/primary qualification. Australasian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1), 1–10. Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD). (2018). Engaging young children: Lessons from research about quality in early childhood education and care. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-en. Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD). (2017). Starting Strong 2017. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/starting-strong-2017-9789264276116-en.htm. Pascoe, S. & Brennan, D. (2017). Lifting our game: Report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools through early childhood interventions. Melbourne: Three’s a crowd. Penn, H. (2010). The debate about quality in the private for-profit childcare market. Conference paper for Social Policy Association, Lincoln, UK, 6th July. Press, F., Wong, S., & Gibson, M. (2015). Understanding who cares: creating the evidence to address the long-standing policy problem of staff shortages in early childhood education and care. Journal of Family Studies, 21(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2015.1020990. Productivity Commission (2015). Childcare and Early Childhood Learning. Retrieved from https:// www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/childcare#report. Queensland Government Early Childhood Education and Care. (2019). Workforce Action Plan, 2018–2020. Retrieved from https://earlychildhood.qld.gov.au/careers-and-training/workforceaction-plan. Rostgaard, T. (2014). Family policies in Scandinavia. Retrieved from www.fesnord.org. Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and Behaviour: Nature-Nurture Interplay Explained. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Sabol, T., Soliday Hong, S., Pianta, C., & Burchinal, M. (2013). Can rating Pre-K programs predict children’s learning? Science, 341(6148), 845–846. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1233517. Schleicher, A. (2019). Helping our Youngest to Learn and Grow: Policies for Early Learning, International Summit on the Teaching Profession. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1787/9789264313873-en. Schweinhart, L. J. (2003). Benefits, costs, and explanation of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Retrieved from www.hscope.org/Research/PerryProject/Perry-SRCD-2003.pdf.

18

1 The Importance of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC). (2012). Early years workforce strategy. Retrieved from https://apo.org.au/node/31262. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2010). Early Childhood Matters. London: Routledge. Tatto, M., Richmond, G., & Andrews, D. (2016). The research we need in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 247–250. Tayler, C., Cleveland, G., & Thorpe, K. (2013). The quality of early childhood education and care services in Australia. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(2), 13–21. The Economist. (2012). Starting well: benchmarking early education across the world. Retrieved from www.lienfoundation.org/sites/default/files/sw_report_2.pdf. The Front Project. (2019). A Smart Investment for a Smarter Australia: Economic analysis of universal early childhood education in the year before school in Australia. Retrieved from http:// www.thefrontproject.org.au/initiatives/economic-analysis. Thorpe, K., Boyd, W., Ailwood, J., & Brownlee, J. (2011). Who wants to work in childcare? Preservice early childhood teacher’s consideration of work in the child-care sector. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(1), 85–94. Torii, K., Fox, S., & Cloney, D., (2017). Quality is key in early childhood education in Australia. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/early_childhood_misc/10. UNICEF. (2018). An unfair start: Inequality in children’s education in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 15. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research–Innocenti. UNICEF. (2017). Building the future: Children and the sustainable development goals in rich countries. Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/series/16/. UNICEF. (2013). Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview. Innocenti Report Card 11. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research. UNICEF. (2008). The child care transition. Retrieved from www.unicef-irc.org. Urban, M., Vandenbroeck, M., Lazzari, A., Van Laere, K., & Peeters, J. (2012). Competence requirements in early childhood education and care. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED5 34599.pdf. Victorian Education and Training. (2019). Early childhood update. Retrieved from https://www. education.vic.gov.au/childhood/earlychildhoodupdate/Pages/default.aspx. Warren, D., & Haisken-DeNew, J. P. (2014). Early bird catches the worm: The causal impact of pre-school participation and teacher qualifications on Year 3 national NAPLAN cognitive Tests. Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 34/13: University of Melbourne. Wong, S., & Press, F. (2016). The development of early childhood education and care in Australia. In J. Ailwood, W. Boyd., & M. Theobald, Understanding early childhood education and care in Australia. (pp. 13–33). Crow’s Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Chapter 2

Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Abstract This study aimed to identify possible optimal models of early childhood teacher (ECT) education by highlighting academics’ perspectives of the early childhood teacher programs in Australia and three Nordic countries Academics provided their views regarding the structure, design, delivery and assessment of their programs. Across the world and within Australia there exist multiple, approaches to the structure, design and delivery of ECT programs. While it is known that the qualifications and training of the early childhood teacher are the most influential factors in the provision of quality education. The optimal model for preparation of early childhood teachers is unclear. Chapter 1 identified that the early childhood workforce is not of good quality which calls for an investigation into the current ECT programs and recommendations for future decisions regarding ECT programs. The first section of this chapter analyses the literature regarding early childhood teacher programs and highlights key factors that may influence the quality of ECT programs. The second section explains the research aims, the theoretical orientation to frame the research and the methodology and the rationale for the sampling of the 27 Australian academics and 5 academics from Nordic universities, as the key participants in the study and the analysis using a post-structural approach. This study’s findings make a significant contribution to understanding the diversity of ECT programs in Australia, and when compared with three Nordic countries, possibilities for future ECT programs’ structure are illuminated.

Description of ECT Programs in Australia The following section explains the background literature regarding policies of the structure, design, delivery and assessment of early childhood teacher (ECT) programs in Australia, compared with ECT programs from three universities in Nordic countries Finland, Norway and Sweden. In Australia, an ECT program aims to prepare students (also called pre-service teachers) to teach in early childhood settings upon graduation. An early childhood (EC) teacher in Australia has an approved early childhood teaching qualification and is required to provide education and care for children aged from birth to 5 years. Early childhood education and care (ECEC) is © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 W. Boyd, Australian Early Childhood Teaching Programs, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5837-5_2

19

20

2 Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

enacted within early childhood settings which have differing terminology across Australia including preschool, kindergarten, child care and long day care. Each service that receives funding from the government must be assessed and rated for meeting the National Quality Standard (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), 2018). The National Quality Standard (NQS) (2018) includes assessment and rating of seven quality areas that include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Educational program and practice, Children’s health and safety, Physical environment, Staffing arrangements, Relationships with children, Collaborative partnerships with families and communities, and Governance and leadership (ACECQA, 2018).

Early childhood education within Australia is available for all children aged from 6 weeks to 6 years. Parents pay fees which are means-tested against their income, and the shortfall is funded by the Government. Provision of early childhood services is comprised of for-profit and not-for-profit organisations.

Structure, Design and Delivery of ECT Programs in Australia The structure, design and delivery of ECT programs are developed by academics at each university following guidelines by ACECQA (2019b). The ACECQA guidelines include the structure, content, skills and design for EC teachers, the Diploma of ECEC, and Certificate III in ECEC. Within the university, a program director (also called a course coordinator) is responsible for the design and implementation of the ECT program. There are multiple models of ECT programs across, and within Australian jurisdictions, yet it is not clear which model of ECT programs best prepares graduates to provide quality ECEC for young children (Dalli, Barbour, Cameron, & Miller, 2018). There are three different structures of ECT programs within Australia which include birth to 5 (also written birth-5) years, birth to 8 (also written birth8) years and birth to 12 (also written birth-12) years’ programs, studied either at undergraduate, in a degree, or postgraduate level in a Graduate Diploma or a Masters. Undergraduate programs are mostly the equivalent of 4 years of full-time study, with some exceptions being 3 years of full-time study. Postgraduate programs take 1 to 2 years to complete. The postgraduate programs follow on from an undergraduate qualification which may or may not have early childhood content. At the time that this study was undertaken, the ACECQA guidelines (2019b) stated that: Early childhood teaching qualifications must include curriculum and professional experience that covers the age range from birth to five years of age (including transition to school). Qualifications that cover the age range from birth to eight years are preferred. Where qualifications span birth to 12 years, specialisation in early childhood will be required. For example,

Description of ECT Programs in Australia

21

we would expect to see a significant number of units and period of time devoted to early childhood (p. 3).

In late 2019, ACECQA updated the requirements for early childhood teacher birth to 12 programs and commencing in July 2020: Where qualifications span birth to 12 years, specialisation in early childhood will be required. At a minimum, at least a third of the course units must be devoted to, or inclusive of, early childhood (ACECQA, 2018, p. 3).

The ACECQA early childhood teacher program framework is very broad and open to interpretation. For example, one-third of the course units, which is around 11 units, are required for an early childhood teacher degree. Why is it not one-half? This suggests that primary school teaching is more highly valued, and that there is less to learn in early childhood teaching. This diminishes the status of early childhood education and sends a message to students that early childhood is less worthy than primary education. The roles and responsibilities of EC teachers are multiple and complex in daily teaching requirements, and the roles should be aligned to the accreditation requirements. But a clear delineation of the role and responsibility of an EC teacher is not available. If the role and responsibility of the EC teacher were explained, then structuring the course outline in a manner that suitably prepares EC teachers would be possible. Table 2.1 presents the content requirements from ACECQA (2018). Six content areas include: child development and care; teaching pedagogies; education and curriculum studies; family and community contexts; history and philosophy of early childhood and early childhood professional practice.

Influences upon the Optimal Model of Early Childhood Teacher Programs Little is known about the optimal structure, design, delivery and assessment of quality early childhood teacher programs to ensure that graduates are prepared to teach. This study investigated the quality of ECT programs by analysing academics’ perspectives of the components of ECT programs including: • • • •

Entry and admission, The structure, Design, which included delivery and professional experience, and The approval and assessment of the program.

As explained above, there are three different structures of ECT programs within Australia: birth-5 years, birth-8 years and birth-12 years of programs, studied either at an undergraduate or a postgraduate level. There has been some research investigating students’ and employers’ perspectives of these three structures. Research has shown that students feel that there is insufficient ECEC content in combined degrees programs that include both early childhood and primary teaching (Boyd & Newman, 2019); and early childhood employers, too, have expressed concerns that

22

2 Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Table 2.1 Content of ECT qualification requirements (ACECQA, 2019b) Content area

Elements of content area

1. Child development and care

Learning development and care Language development Social and emotional development Child health well-being and safety Early intervention Diversity difference and inclusivity Learners with special/additional needs Transitions and continuity of learning—including transition to school

2. Teaching pedagogies (not specified in the Diploma)

Alternative pedagogies and curriculum approaches Play-based pedagogies Guiding behaviour/engaging young learners Teaching methods and strategies Children with diverse needs and backgrounds Working with children who speak languages other than, or in addition to English Contemporary society and pedagogy

3. Education and curriculum studies

Early years’ learning framework The Australian curriculum Numeracy, science and technology Language and literacy English as an additional language Social and environmental education Creative arts and music Physical and health education Curriculum planning, programming and evaluation

4. Family and community contexts (not specified in the Diploma)

Developing family and community partnerships Multicultural education Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives Socially inclusive practice Culture, diversity and inclusion

5. History and philosophy of childhood

Historical and comparative perspectives Contemporary theories and practice Ethics and professional practice (continued)

Description of ECT Programs in Australia

23

Table 2.1 (continued) Content area

Elements of content area

6. Early childhood professional practice

Educational leadership Management and administration Professional identity and development Advocacy Research

the combined degree does not prepare graduates for early childhood teaching (Boyd et al., In press). While Pascoe and Brennan (2017) have recommended restructuring if the ECT programs Krieg and Whitehead (2015) explain that including a birth-5 teacher qualification within a compulsory schooling qualification occupies a ‘tenuous place in research, policy and practice’ (p. 42). Research that has delved into identifying the optimal model for an ECT program was conducted by Rowley et al. (2011) for the Australian government. Australian tertiary requirements for early childhood education were mapped and analysed 83 ECT programs based on information on universities’ websites in 2011. The report found 11 different course structures (pp. 9, 10) which varied in purpose and/or duration. Courses were categorised as ‘initial training’: an ‘upgrade’ or a ‘transfer’ course into early childhood teaching. The first category, the initial training courses, was either 3 or 4 years’ duration—similar to the current undergraduate programs; while the upgrade and transfer courses were 1 or 2 years, similar to the Graduate Diploma or Masters. The initial training courses were to teach children aged from birth-5 years, birth-8 years, birth-12 years, 3–8 years and 3–12 years; while the upgrade and transfer courses ages for teaching were not specified (Rowley et al., 2011). The report analysed the objectives and content; roles and functions; and the professional experience requirements of each course. Four key issues were identified, with 17 recommendations for change based on the analysis of early childhood teacher programs on each university’s website. The four key issues were: 1. There is a lack of clarity between course focus and outcome registration potential for prospective students. 2. There is a requirement to identify essential and sufficient ECEC content within ECT courses, irrespective of the length of the program. 3. There is a need to ensure appropriate and adequate professional experience in early childhood settings. 4. Qualified academic staff in early childhood education are needed to teach into the courses (Rowley et al., 2011, pp. 1–20). None of these four key issues identified for change in 2011 has been addressed in 2020. One of the 17 recommendations from the Rowley et al. (2011) report was: There is a need for research using a qualitative multiple case study design to increase Australian knowledge base about how research informs curricula and pedagogy in ECT

24

2 Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs programs, and how Primary curricula and the EYLF (Early Years Learning Framework) influence the nature of coursework (Rowley et al., 2011, p. 2).

This study has attempted to implement this recommendation: Each academic, responsible for the early childhood teacher program at their university, was interviewed to identify their perspectives of their program. The academics’ perspectives provide deeper understanding of the structure, design and delivery of early childhood teacher programs including how early childhood and primary education was informed. Such in-depth information aims to expose possibilities for improvement, and address barriers and challenges the academics perceived to implement good quality ECT programs.

Professional Experience in Early Childhood Teacher Programs in Australia Professional experience is considered a valuable real-world experience essential for early childhood pre-service teachers and a central part of the design of the teaching program (Girod & Girod, 2008). Professional experience is an opportunity for preservice teachers to observe, practice, evaluate and reflect upon the content they have learned in their degree; their philosophy of teaching and teaching approach; the required and appropriate pedagogy; and the theories of how children learn, in the real world. Professional experience is a key criterion for providing students with an understanding of ECEC practices to support attraction and recruitment of highly skilled staff (Schleicher, 2019). The opportunity to practice teaching with children is critical to enhance their skills and abilities to be an effective ECT (Hyson, Tomlinson, & Morris, 2009). Pre-service teachers value professional experience as the most important aspect of their teaching degree, and academics value the students’ opportunities to apply theory learned at university in the real world. Harrison and Heinrichs Joerdens (2017) found that of 180 early childhood pre-service teachers surveyed in a birth12 year’s degree the majority rated professional experience as the most influential aspect of knowledge building (64%), followed by coursework (27%) and assessments (9%). While students value, professional experience most highly in their program research has shown that early childhood graduates are not considered to be well prepared for teaching by early childhood employers and should consider more effective engagement in professional experience (Boyd et al., In press). Graduates in this study were found to be not well prepared in applying theory into practice, suggesting that the early childhood pre-service teachers may not be adequately learning how to apply theory into practice while on their professional experience.

Description of ECT Programs in Australia

25

Structure of Professional Experience in Australia There are many ways that professional experience is structured within Australia. There are variations in duration of professional experience; supervision models; timing and structure of practicum; and the diversity of contexts. Guidelines are published by ACECQA (2019b) regarding the minimum duration of professional experience. Professional experience is usually taken as one block of time, for example, pre-service teachers are placed by the university in an educational setting which may be from 10 to 50 days. Some programs allow pre-service teachers to commence professional experience one day per week while studying at university before completing a block of days of professional experience. Or students may commence with observation days, also known as ‘lead in’ days, where the preservice teacher becomes familiar with the educational setting prior to commencing their teaching practice. The observation days may include becoming familiar with the context and uniqueness of the early childhood centre: for example, the location and physical environment; demographics of families; staffing; management; and to develop relationships with the children, staff and families. The pre-service teacher shadows a mentor teacher, and then under the mentor teacher’s guidance engages in practice teaching. Some universities offer an Internship for towards the end of the degree. Internships are usually in a location of the student’s choice, and up to 10 weeks long. Students in an internship have autonomy and independence in their teaching as the real world of teaching for them becomes closer. During professional experience, students may be required to return to campus either weekly, midway or at the end of their practicum to encourage collegial discussions and reflections of their learning while they have been on practicum. This approach provides students with a safe place for discussing observed practices and sharing successes and challenges, and to co-construct learning with peers and academic mentors. Supervision is conducted either by academics from the university, or non-academics such as early childhood teachers, employed by the university. There are differences between universities when professional experience is undertaken. Some universities choose not to have any professional experience in the first year of the program so that the students build up strong theoretical knowledge prior to entering the real world. Research has shown that students prefer to commence professional experience early in their degree—from session 1 year one of their degrees (Harrison & Heinrichs Joerdens, 2017). This provides students the opportunity gauge whether this chosen degree suits their career aspirations. If it does not suit them, then they can withdraw from the program, save unnecessary higher education fees and seek an alternative career option. Chapter 5 presents the information about the academics’ professional experience programs and their perspectives of these programs.

26

2 Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Assessment and Accreditation of Early Childhood Teacher Programs Early childhood teacher programs are designed by academics within a university, based on the ACECQA guidelines (2019b) for the early childhood component. The program design addresses entry requirements, structure, content, delivery and professional experience. If the program includes primary and early childhood teaching, as with the birth-8 and birth-12 combined degrees, then the design also includes primary teaching entry, content, pedagogy and primary professional experience. The accrediting authorities within each jurisdiction assess the program design against the national teaching standards and procedures and accredit the program (NSW NESA, 2019). Early childhood teacher programs in Australia are accredited by ACECQA for the early childhood teaching component, that is, for the birth-5 years’ component. For programs that qualify teachers to teach both early childhood education (birth-5) and primary school (birth-8 and birth-12 years), the structure and content need to be submitted to both the state/territory teaching accrediting authority and to ACECQA, the early childhood accrediting authority, for approval. The accrediting authority provides information for universities regarding structure, knowledge, professional experience requirements and pedagogical approaches that students should experience within their study. To qualify to be an early childhood teacher plus a primary school teacher requires a significant amount of content, pedagogical skills and professional experience days. The combined teaching programs need to include all the material identified by ACECQA (2018) (see Table 2.1), plus the requirements from the Australian Curriculum (2019). There are 32 units of study in a 4-year Australian undergraduate program. An overview of the Australian Curriculum states that there are 1. Eight learning areas that include English, mathematics, science, humanities and social sciences, the arts, technologies, health and physical education, and languages. 2. General capabilities of literacy, numeracy, information and communication technology (ICT) capability, critical and creative thinking, personal and social capability, ethical understanding, and intercultural understanding. 3. Cross-curricular priorities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander histories and cultures, Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia, and sustainability (Australian Curriculum, 2019). Once academics have designed the program, then the program is submitted to the accrediting authorities for approval. This action situates the program directors in a powerful position to make decisions about the structure, content, admission and professional experience of the program, and requires their careful scrutiny (Gibson, McFadden & Zollo, 2018). This does not mean that all programs are the same or even equivalent (Edwards, Copeman Petig, Austin, & Montoya, 2018). Each ECT program will differ because each program director will approach the design and delivery of the program based on their professional knowledge, experience, the local context and their interpretation of the requirements by the accrediting authority.

Description of ECT Programs in Australia

27

The intent of accreditation of university ECT programs is to ensure that minimum standards are met to produce effective teachers prepared to embark upon teaching in ECEC. However, review needs to be undertaken as to whether the accreditation requirements for the combined early childhood/primary programs are effective. It is known that within Australia 21% of all early childhood settings are not meeting the National Quality Standard (ACECQA, 2019), but it is not clear if this is the result of staff effectiveness. However, it is known that having higher qualified staff in an early childhood setting improves the quality of the program for children’s learning and development (Manning, Wong, Fleming & Garvis, 2019). Based on the fact that early childhood education is not compulsory, Nuttall (2018) has argued that the accreditation process of the ECT program is not as robust compared to the accreditation process of primary school teaching courses. This is an area that requires review for new thinking about the assessment and accreditation process. Problems such as course overload and accreditation associated with the combined early childhood/primary teacher programs are not unique to Australia. Questions have been asked about how pedagogy is balanced between the early childhood and primary education, and how responsibility is achieved between the different Ministries across Europe who approve the courses (Oberheumer, 2011). Likewise, Halpern (2013) from the USA asserts that early childhood education and primary education should be kept separate. Primary schools have a ‘history of failing to respect the integrity of other institutions that join them in efforts to better meet children’s needs’ (p.1), so Halpern advocates for not combining early childhood and primary education (2013). There is often downward pressure to include curriculum from primary school in the early childhood education, as primary education is viewed by some as ‘real learning’. This is called ‘pushdown curriculum’ and ‘schoolification of early childhood’ by the OECD (2017). It is considered unsatisfactory as it relies on a different pedagogical approach to teaching to early childhood teaching. So, it is important to ask what the optimal design, delivery and assessment of early childhood teacher programs look like to best prepare EC teachers for their career. Then the accrediting authorities need to opt for optimal models ECTC programs so that children in early childhood educational settings receive quality ECEC.

The Design and Delivery of Early Childhood Teacher Programs in Nordic Countries In the Nordic countries, the design, delivery and assessment of early childhood teacher programs are undertaken at the institutional level, between institutions as in Norway and Sweden, or by an external evaluating authority as in Finland. There are no combined degrees; rather the early childhood teacher program focuses on teaching graduates to teach children from 9 to 12 months up to 7 years old. Early childhood teachers in Finland study at university for 3 years. The degree consists of studies in language and communication; basic education; professional

28

2 Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Table 2.2 Structure and content of the bachelor of early childhood teacher training Norway Year of study

Area of knowledge

Pedagogy

Professional experience

Years 1 and 2

Children’s development, play and learning

Integrated in all areas of knowledge

Minimum 100 days integrated in all areas of knowledge. 75 days in the first 2 years, and 25 days in the third year

Society, religion, beliefs and ethics Language, text and mathematics Art, culture and creativity Nature, health and movement One or two areas based on above Year 3 Specialisation Obligatory research thesis

Leadership, cooperation and development

skills needed in early childhood education and care and pre-primary education; subsidiary subjects; and options (Eurydice, 2018a). There is a focus on integrating theoretical studies with professional experience. Entry is via examination followed by group interviews and an aptitude test. Norway has an ECT program established by the National Curriculum Regulations for Kindergarten Teacher Education (Ministry for Education and Research, 2017). The ECT program outlines the structure and content for the 3-year degree for training teachers from 9 months to 6 years. The structure and content of the degree are presented in Table 2.2. The degree is aligned to the role of the early childhood teacher, research, and relevant legislation and planning. The degree provides details of the learning outcomes and knowledge, skills and general competence (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). A summary is shown in Table 2.1; however, there is considerably more detail available. As in Finland entry into the Norwegian ECT program is via an examination, interview and aptitude test. Sweden has a ‘decentralised education system’ with goals and learning outcomes set by the central authority. The government sets the education framework and has overall responsibility, and universities then have autonomy to establish their degrees according to these frameworks (Eurydice, 2018b).

Examination, aptitude test & group interview

Examination, aptitude test and group interview

Examination, aptitude test and group interview

Finland

Norway

Sweden

Nordic countries

Non-academic entry

Diploma of ECEC

12 months up to 7 years

9 months up to 7 years

12 months up to 7 years

Birth-8 birth-12

Secondary school Birth to 5

Australia

Structure

Entry and Admission

Country

3.5 years

3 years

3 years

University’s decision

Guidelines from Ministry of Education and Research

University’s decision

ECEC and primary education

Face-to-face classes

Face-to-face classes

Face-to-face classes

Face to face and online

Face to face and online

Knowledge skills Delivery disposition

Design and delivery

Undergraduate: 4 Early childhood Postgraduate: 1 to 2 education and care (ECEC)

Duration years

Table 2.3 Summary of models of ECT programs based on literature Assessment and accreditation

75 days

100 days

75 days

Minimum of 80 days–birth to 8/birth to 12 years

Academics from other universities

Academics from other universities

Finnish Education Evaluation Centre (2019)

ACECQA + State authority, e.g. NSW NESA

80 days in birth to 5 ACECQA centres

Professional experience

Description of ECT Programs in Australia 29

30

2 Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Summary Table 2.3 presents a summary of the entry, structure, design, delivery, professional experience and assessment of programs within Australia and within three Nordic countries: Finland, Norway and Sweden.

The Study The following section outlines the aim of this research, the theoretical framework and the methodological approach employed to collect and analyse the data from the study.

Research Aim This research aimed to scope and investigate ECT programs within Australia; and compare findings with ECT programs in three universities in the Nordic countries of Finland, Norway and Sweden. The Australian programs were chosen as Australia’s ECT programs are relatively new and are growing rapidly. Yet, the quality of early childhood centres in Australia continues to be of concern. The three universities from the Nordic countries were chosen for comparison as these three countries consistently rate in the top ten countries in the world for providing quality education (OECD, 2017; The Economist, 2012; UNICEF, 2008, 2013, 2017). The study investigated what can be learned by exploring the scope of Australian ECT programs and comparing this to three Nordic countries’ ECT programs. Public policy in Australia demands that ECTs have a university degree (ACECQA, 2019b) but there is little research that informs the optimal approach to the design and implementation of ECT programs. Consequently, a comparative study was employed with a view to illuminate possibilities for structure and content of ECT programs in Australia. Such recommendations are made in the final chapter. The primary research goal is underpinned by the following research questions: What are the academics’ perspectives who are responsible for ECT programs regarding: • • • • •

How ECT programs are structured? Why? What are the entry and admission requirements? What content should be in the ECT programs? How should EC teachers learn to teach? What practices, pedagogical approaches and theoretical knowledge do EC teachers need to understand and implement? • How is professional experience structured and implemented within ECT programs?

The Study

31

• What are the key challenges and opportunities in ECT programs? • How are ECT programs assessed? • How are Australian ECT programs similar, and different, to ECT programs in the three Nordic countries? What can be learned from this comparison? Early childhood teacher program directors are key players in the structure, design and delivery of early childhood teacher programs which have a direct impact upon the early childhood workforce. Academics who design the ECT programs are subject to the internal and external accrediting authorities’ guidelines and assessments. This nexus was explored within this study, and recommendations made for how this might work more effectively are made in Chap. 7. The target audiences of this book are early childhood education academics; decision-makers of early childhood teacher policy; researchers interested in improving the quality and status of early childhood education; and assessors of ECT programs. Therefore, this research aims to contribute to ongoing research regarding the employment of a highly skilled and sustained early childhood workforce.

Methodological Framework The purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate academics’ perspectives of ECT programs. The study employed a post-structuralist orientation to the research to investigate the complexity and multiplicities that exist in early childhood teacher programs. This orientation was applied to examine the multiple truths of the quality of early childhood teacher programs. Poststructuralism enables one to highlight uncertainties and incongruities; to raise questions regarding power and knowledge; and to delve into uncertainties to think in a different way (Wright, 2003). This orientation was valuable for this research as the academics’ understanding of, and responsibility for, the ECT program/s provides multiple perspectives and complexities of the ECT programs. The academics were viewed as having the expertise, autonomy and experience to design and assess their ECT programs and explain how this translated into producing effective EC teacher graduates. The Foucauldian concepts of discourse analysis, power/knowledge and regimes of truth were the methodological approaches taken in this research to consider multiple ways of constructing ECT programs. Foucault (1972) describes discourse as ‘practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak. Discourses are not about objects; they constitute them and in the practice of doing so conceal their own intervention’ (p. 49). The Foucauldian post-structuralist approach allows the problematisation of systems of thought and organisation (Wright, 2003). Insights were gained by considering the perspectives on power, and the relationship that power has to knowledge and truth ‘and to subjectivity—our identity, (and) who we think we are’ (Moss, 2018, p. 2). As such Ball (1994) explains that discourses are ‘about who can speak, when, where and with what authority’ (p. 22).

32

2 Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

In this inquiry, the discourse of the structure of ECT programs was under investigation. While the employment of EC teachers is a requirement to meet the Australian Children’s Services Regulations (ACECQA, 2019a), early childhood teacher programs at universities do not have a singular structure. Rather ECT programs have multiple structures in response to contextual complexities that include interpretations of admission procedures, content, curriculum, pedagogical approaches, professional experience and the institutional framework within which the program is situated. Particular focus was given to gaining insight into the ‘policy discourses’ and ‘policy texts’ (Ball, 1993) as experienced by the program directors. The program directors are responsible for ensuring that the policy landscape of the ECT programs meet internal university requirements, where power relations influenced who was heard, and who was silenced (Foucault, 1990). External accreditation was required from the multiple professional authorities included the Australian Children’s Early Childhood Quality Authority (ACECQA), the teacher accrediting authorities— Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) and jurisdictions, the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) and the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Authority (TEQSA). Program directors made decisions about the design and delivery of the early childhood teaching programs negotiating policy tensions for the differing requirements for the ECT program (Gibson et al., 2018) The academic program directors (also known as course coordinators) were viewed as being in an ideal situation to know the entry and admission procedures; structure; design that includes content; professional experience; delivery; and the challenges and opportunities within their program. The research aimed to explore the discourses, regimes of truth and uncertainties that were associated with the structure of early childhood teacher programs, both within Australia and three Nordic countries, with a view to renew thinking about current early childhood teacher programs and the impact upon pre-service teachers in those programs.

Participants All Australian university program directors (N = 39) who offered early childhood teacher programs were invited to participate in a one-hour interview about their programs. Participants were purposefully selected (Patton, 2015) to develop understanding of their perspectives about the ECT programs at their university. Twenty-seven program directors agreed to participate in a semi-structured interview, a response rate of 70%. The Australian academics were interviewed by phone. A small sample from three Nordic countries was invited to an interview. The author visited three universities, and these interviews took place face to face. This small sample was obtained through collegial connections—initially asking each of the program directors to be interviewed. All three program directors responded positively with the Norwegian university program director including two colleagues in the interview. Five academics from three Nordic universities, one in Finland, three in

The Study

33

Norway and one in Sweden, were interviewed and their perspectives are presented to compare the approaches taken within Australia. Program director duties include to • • • • • • • • •

know the content and structure of the program and why it exists as it does; connect with other academics teaching in the program; assess students’ entry requirements for the programs; provide credit for prior study and experience; collaborate with students with any issues they may have; ensure that professional experience opportunities are optimal; report on the progress of the course to the university; ensure that the course meets external accreditation requirements; have input into the re-structure of the program based on feedback from graduates, academics and external stakeholders.

Interview Procedure The Australian academics were invited by email to participate in the interview at a time suitable to the program director. All academics who accepted this invitation were provided with the 13 interview questions prior to the interview. The interview questions were drawn from the literature review and the author’s experience as a program director. The questions were designed to elicit the participants’ description and evaluation of their ECT program/s and to generate rich data about the quality of their program. The questions were 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

On a scale of 1–10 how good do you think your ECT program is? Why? Can you explain your response? What would you see as its strengths? What would you see as the areas where improvement is required? Can you please talk about the requirements for entry into your program? Can you please talk about the requirements for professional experience in your program? Across Australia there are university teacher programs for teachers from 0– 5 years, 0–8 years and 0–12 years. Do you see any difference in the graduates from these courses? Please explain. What would you think is an optimal program to train an EC teacher? What do you believe is essential in a university ECT degree? Why? What do you believe is desirable in a university ECT degree? Why? Do you actively encourage early childhood students into working in early childhood teaching? Please explain. What support do you have in the organisation for this course coordinator role? What do other staff in your school/faculty think of this program? Have you benchmarked this program with others in your country?

34

2 Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Interviews were recorded with the participants’ consent and transcribed. The transcriptions were then returned to the academic for validation prior to analysis. Information from public websites of the relevant universities was accessed to provide background knowledge of the ECT programs. Interviews lasted from 30 to 60 min.

Analysis of Data Data analysis followed the practices of qualitative analysis that included iterative reviewing of the transcripts (Denzin & Lincoln, 2017) and identifying the discourses that arose from the interviews. The data was analysed according to the key structural components of an ECT program, including entry, strengths and areas for improvement in the program; optimal models of program/s; professional experience within the program and evaluation of the program. Each participant’s responses were read, re-read and mapped across the initial discourses. Sections of the transcripts were located and recorded (in writing) that enabled the linking of the interview transcripts to discourse analysis, power/knowledge and regimes of truth. This analysis involved segmenting with extended phrases and sentences representative of participants’ responses.

Ethical Considerations Participants’ identity was protected, and details of universities were kept confidential to ensure that ethical practices were maintained. Program directors are in a position of being responsible to their employer—the university, and their position as an academic requires them to advocate for their university to promote their courses. However, they may/may not agree with the principles framing their courses. Prior to interviewing each of the program directors was assured, their anonymity would be protected. Therefore, the quotes used in this book are referred to as ‘Academic birth-5 years’ ‘Academic birth-8 years’ or ‘Academic birth-12 years’ meaning they were responsible for coordinating that ECT program. Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from Southern Cross University, approval number ECN-18-133. Participants were provided with a detailed information sheet, the interview questions, and gave their consent for interview. Two academics required ethics approval from their university prior to the conduct of interviews. All academics’ identity has been protected. There were no pseudonyms given for the academics.

The Study

35

Limitations It is important to acknowledge that a limitation of this study is the likelihood that academics will be influenced by an obligation of respect and responsibility towards their university/workplace. This may impact the credibility of their responses, and the findings may have bias. The findings need to be viewed with this limitation in mind. Nonetheless, the data makes a valuable contribution to an under-researched area. There is little research that has investigated a country such as Australia’s ECT programs to warrant further study in the development of early childhood teachers within Australia.

Summary This chapter presented an overview of the ECT programs: entry, structure, design and delivery, and assessment in early childhood teacher programs from Australia, and in Finland, Norway and Sweden. Australian ECT programs have three structures, two of which include a combined primary/early childhood teacher program. Within the combined programs, research has highlighted concerns that there is inadequate study dedicated to ECEC. In addition to this research, the ACECQA early childhood teacher program guidelines are also open to interpretation. The dominant discourse of primary education is apparent within these guidelines as the guidelines suggest that primary education is more highly valued than early childhood education, and that there is less to learn in early childhood teaching. This approach ultimately diminishes the status of early childhood education. In the Nordic countries, the ECT programs are targeted at graduates being prepared to teach children aged from 9 months up to 7 years. Alongside concerns regarding the structure of Australian ECT programs, the assessed quality of early childhood education and care by the National Quality Standard (ACECQA, 2018) indicates that 21% of early childhood settings are not meeting these standards. What the early childhood teacher does influences the children’s experiences in the early childhood centre (Manning et al., 2019; OECD, 2018; Urban, Vandenbroeck, Lazzsari, Van Laere & Peeters, 2012) so the quality of early childhood teacher programs to improve the preparedness of ECTs is paramount. The program directors are in a powerful position to make decisions about the structure, design; content, entry and admission; professional experience and delivery of the program. Careful scrutiny needs to be given by the program directors to the design and delivery of the programs (Gibson et al., 2018). There are wide variations between Australian universities regarding the structure of professional experience: how many days in each setting, supervision of students and the timing of the placements. Research has shown that students value professional experience above all other components of their study (Harrison & Heinrichs Joerdens, 2017), so it is important that professional experience provides optimum preparation

36

2 Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

for early childhood teaching. In the Nordic countries, professional experience is focused on fixed number of days, in specific locations and timing within the program. The aim of the study, the research questions, theoretical framework and methodology for the research were covered to provide insight into how the study was conducted and analysed. Each academic, responsible for the early childhood teacher program at their university, was interviewed to identify their perspectives of their program. The academics’ perspectives provide deeper understanding of the structure, design and delivery of early childhood teacher programs. Such in-depth information provides vital information on the opportunities to improve, and the barriers perceived to challenge, the early childhood teacher programs. A post-structural approach was applied to examine the dominant discourses of the data.

References Australian Children’s Early Childhood Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019). Snapshots. Retrieved from http://snapshots.acecqa.gov.au/Snapshot/index.html. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2018). National quality standard. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019a). National regulations. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-law-regulations/national-regula tions. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019b). Qualifications assessment guidelines for organisation applications. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/ qualifications/assessment/approval/early-childhood. Australian Curriculum. (2019). Primary curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurri culum.edu.au/resources/primary-curriculum/. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse, Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 13(2), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0159630930130203. Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham: Open University Press. Boyd, W., & Newman, L. (2019). Primary + Early Childhood = chalk and cheese? Tensions in undertaking an early childhood/primary education degree. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119841456. Boyd, W., Fenech, M., Mahony, L., Wong, S., Warren, J., Lee, I.-F., & Cheeseman, S. (2020). Employers’ perspectives of how well prepared early childhood teacher graduates are to teach in early childhood education and care services. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood (In press). Dalli, C., Barbour, N., Cameron, C., & Miller, L. (2018). Closing comments: Future directions for early childhood policy. In L. Miller, C. Cameron, C. Dalli, & N. Barbour (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of early childhood policy. Los Angeles: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/978152640 2004. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Singapore: SAGE. Edwards, B., Copeman Petig, A., Austin, L., & Montoya, E. (2018). Teaching the teachers of our youngest children: The state of early childhood higher education in Tennessee. Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of California, Berkeley. Eurydice. (2018a). Initial education for teachers working in early childhood and school education: Finland. Retrieved from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/initial-edu cation-teachers-working-early-childhood-and-school-education-24_en.

References

37

Eurydice. (2018b). Teaching and learning in pre-primary education. Retrieved from https:// eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/teaching-and-learning-programmes-preprimary-education-1_en. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. (2019). Evaluating the state of the Finnish education system: Results of the Finnish education evaluation. Retrieved from https://karvi.fi/en/higher-education/. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. New York: Pantheon. Foucault, M. (1990). The will to knowledge: The history of sexuality (Vol. 1). Middlesex, UK: Penguin. Gibson, M., McFadden, A., & Zollo, L. (2018). Discursive considerations of child care professional experience in early childhood teacher education: Contingencies and tensions from teacher educators. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 39(4), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10901027.2018.1458259. Girod, M., & Girod, R. G. (2008). Simulation and the need for practice in teacher preparation. Journal of Technology and Teacher, 16(3), 307–337. Halpern, R. (2013). Tying early childhood education more closely to schooling: Promise, perils and practical problems. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–28. Harrison, C., & Heinrich Joerdens, S. H. (2017). The combined Bachelor of Education early childhood and primary degree: Student perceptions of value. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 4–13. Hyson, M., Tomlinson, H., & Morris, C. (2009). Quality improvement in early childhood teacher education: Faculty perspectives and recommendations for the future. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 11(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v11n1/hyson.html. Krieg, S., & Whitehead, K. (2015). Where are the early years of school in contemporary early childhood education reforms? An historical perspective. Australian Educational Research, 42, 319–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-014-0161-0. Manning, M., Wong, G., Fleming, C., & Garvis, S. (2019). Is teacher qualification associated with the quality of the early childhood education and care environment? Review of Educational Research, 89(3), 370–415. Ministry of Education and Research. (2017). Framework plan for kindergartens. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/in-english/framework-plan-for-kindergartens/. Moss, P. (2018). Michel Foucault: Power, knowledge and truth. In P. Moss (Ed.), Alternative narratives in early childhood. London: Routledge. NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA). (2019). Initial teacher education. Retrieved from https://www.educationstandards.nsw.edu.au/wps/portal/nesa/teacher-accreditation/how-accred itation-works/higher-ed-providers-ite. Nuttall, J. (2018). Engaging with ambivalence: The neglect of early childhood teacher education in initial teacher education reform in Australia. In C. Wyatt-Smith & A. Adie (Eds.), Innovation and accountability in teacher education. The Netherlands: Springer. Oberheumer, P. (2011). The early childhood education workforce in Europe between divergencies and emergencies. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 5(1), 55–63. Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD). (2017). Starting Strong 2017. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/starting-strong-2017-9789264276116-en.htm. Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD). (2018). Engaging young children: Lessons from research about quality in early childhood education and care. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-en. Pascoe, S. & Brennan, D. (2017). Lifting our game: Report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools through early childhood interventions. Melbourne: Three’s a crowd. Patton, M. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rowley, G., Kos, J., Raban, B., Fleer, M., Cullen, J., & Elliott, A. (2011). Current requirements for tertiary qualifications in early childhood education: Implications for policy. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012…early_childhood_misc.

38

2 Research of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Schleicher, A. (2019). Helping our youngest to learn and grow: Policies for early learning. International Summit on the Teaching Profession, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/ 9789264313873-en. The Economist. (2012). Starting well: benchmarking early education across the world. Retrieved from www.lienfoundation.org/sites/default/files/sw_report_2.pdf. UNICEF. (2008). The child care transition. Retrieved from www.unicef-irc.org. UNICEF. (2013). Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview. Innocenti Report Card 11, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. UNICEF. (2017). Building the future: Children and the sustainable development goals in rich countries. Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/series/16/. Urban, M., Vandenbroeck, M., Lazzari, A., Van Laere, K., & Peeters, J. (2012). Competence requirements in early childhood education and care. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED5 34599.pdf. Wright, J. (2003). Poststructuralist methodologies—The body, schooling and health. In J. Evans, B. Davies, & J. Wright (Eds.), Body knowledge and control. Studies in the sociology of physical education and health (pp. 34–59). Routledge: London.

Chapter 3

The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Abstract This chapter presents the academics’ perspectives regarding the quality of early childhood teacher (ECT) programs within Australia and in the three Nordic countries: Finland, Norway and Sweden. Within Australia, there is not one specific model for an early childhood teacher qualification; however, within the Nordic countries, there are established ECT programs to teach children aged from 9 months up to 7 years. Academics were asked about the quality of their ECT programs within their university. A post-structuralist orientation was used to analyse the data. The research highlights that the optimal ECT program structure within Australia was the birth-5 program as it focused solely on teaching children aged from birth to 5 years; however, quality was influenced by external influences, such as assessment by the accreditation authorities, which influenced internal decisions on the structure, design and delivery the ECT program. Entry into the ECT programs presented tensions: applicants into combined programs were not committed to teaching early childhood education, rather they intended to teach in primary. The Nordic countries also had this problem and had implemented screening by the way of examination, interview and aptitude testing at the entry point. The low status of early childhood education was evident in academics feeling marginalised within the university, and also impacted the students’ perspectives of early childhood education and care (ECEC).

Early Childhood Teacher Programs Chapters 1 and 2 highlighted that public policy in Australia requires ECEC centres to employ qualified early childhood teachers, or equivalent (ACECQA, 2019c); yet, there is little research that informs the optimal model for an ECT degree/program. Well-researched models that comprehensively prepare graduates for teaching in early childhood education do not exist (LiBetti, 2018). Decisions by policymakers and academics for the optimal design and delivery of early childhood teacher programs informed by robust research are needed. The need for this research is based upon past research that has identified that higher early childhood teacher qualifications are associated with better outcomes for children (Manning, Wong, Fleming, & Garvis,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 W. Boyd, Australian Early Childhood Teaching Programs, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5837-5_3

39

40

3 The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

2019); that staff with more professional experience training are likely to be emotionally satisfied and experience well-being in the workplace; and staff with higher salaries and effective collaboration with their colleagues are likely to have better staff-to-child interactions (OECD, 2018). Research has also detected that stakeholders within Australia are concerned about the quality of graduates’ early childhood teacher training, resulting in a perceived lack of preparedness of graduates for early childhood teaching (Boyd et al., In press; Pascoe & Brennan, 2017). The quality of the ECT program is linked to the structure, design, delivery and assessment of the program. The key features of an ECT program/degree include entry and admission into the program, structure of the program, content of the program, structure of professional experience, delivery of the program and assessment of the program. The optimal model of ECT programs is unknown warranting the need for this research into ECT programs.

Data Collection and Analysis for This Chapter This chapter reviews the academics’ perspectives regarding the quality of their ECT program. Twenty-seven Australian academic program directors/course coordinators representing 70% of programs directors at Australian universities and five academics from three Nordic universities were interviewed. The interviews were conducted between September and December 2018. The 27 academics represented 40 Australian ECT programs. Perspectives from five academics were gathered from three Nordic universities—one each in Finland, Norway and Sweden, and comparisons made. The questions asked of the academics relevant to this chapter were: 1. How good do you think your early childhood teacher program is? Why? Can you explain your response? 2. What would you see as its strengths? 3. What would you see as the areas where improvement is required? 4. Can you please talk about the requirements for entry into your program? The data was analysed using discourse analysis from Foucault’s thinking about the power and relationships, knowledge and truths.

The Quality of the Early Childhood Teacher Programs Quality of early childhood teacher programs is a multi-dimensional concept that is ongoing and contextualised (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 2007); within this study, the ‘quality’ of the ECT program was interpreted to be associated with academics’ perspectives as to how good their ECT program was, especially with regard to the

The Quality of the Early Childhood Teacher Programs

41

strengths of their ECT program. Four themes emerged as the key contributors to the quality of early childhood teaching programs. The themes identified were the • The strengths of the ECT programs were vast and included: the design and delivery of the program; the structure of the program; the feedback from students on the program; the innovations within the program; the expertise of academic colleagues; delivery mode; and university fiscal requirements. • The entry/admission into the early childhood teacher programs was varied across Australia and at times was felt to be inadequate as a result of pathway programs, that is, entering the ECT program via a Diploma. The Diploma was thought, by some academics, to be of questionable quality. Entry into programs in the Nordic countries included an examination, an aptitude test and an interview to assess students’ motivation and capability for study within the course. This aimed to identify those students committed to early childhood education. • The accreditation authorities influenced the design and structure of ECT programs. • The status of early childhood education in society was felt to diminish the quality of early childhood teacher programs and influenced students’ perceptions of ECEC. Reasons for these themes included external influences, such as approval by the accreditation authorities, and internal factors, such as the structure, design and staffing of the early childhood teaching degree.

The Structure of the Programs Within Australia, there are multiple pathways to study to be an early childhood teacher qualification. The ECT programs/degrees differ in many ways: differences include entry requirements; the content of the degree; the structure of the degree— studying an early childhood teaching program only or early childhood with primary teaching degree (termed ‘combined’); and the duration and structure of professional experience. The three models of ECT programs in Australia are to teach children aged from 6 weeks to 6 years (known as birth-5 years); or 6 weeks to 8 years (known as birth-8 years); or 6 weeks to 12 years (birth-12 years). If a graduate is qualified in the birth-8 or birth to 12 years’ degree, then they can teach in both early childhood settings (for children aged from birth to 5 years) and primary schools (for children aged from 5 to 12 years). Within the Nordic countries, the ECT programs are only for graduates to teach children aged from 9-12 months up to 7 years. Overall, the academic program directors favoured the birth-5 programs to train early childhood teachers, while the program considered to be of least quality was the birth-12 years’ program. Fenech conducted an analysis of the 98 ECT programs offered across Australia in 2017—see Fig. 3.1. The offerings varied across jurisdictions. Birth-8 programs were most common in Tasmania, Queensland (QLD), South Australia (SA) and Western Australia (WA), while in New South Wales (NSW), Victoria (VIC), Northern

42

3 The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Fig. 3.1 Early childhood ITE programs accredited by ACECQA, 2012–June 2017 (Fenech, 2017)

Territory (NT) and Australian Capital Territory (ACT) predominantly offer birth-12 or birth-5 programs. At the time of data collection in late 2018, changes were evident to the structures of ECT programs—see Fig. 3.2. There were significant differences across the Australian jurisdictions in the structures of the programs: DistribuƟon of progams N=40 NT WA SA VIC QLD NSW/ACT 0%

10%

20%

30%

40% 0-5

50% 0-8

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0-12

Fig. 3.2 Distribution of programs in study (N = 40) (no data was available from Tasmania ) NT = Northern Territory; WA = Western Australia; SA: South Australia; VIC = Victoria; QLD: Queensland; NSW/ACT = New South Wales/Australian Capital Territory

The Quality of the Early Childhood Teacher Programs

43

• Birth-5 years’ programs were offered in three states: New South Wales (NSW), Queensland (QLD) and Victoria (VIC); • Birth-8 years’ programs were offered in three states: QLD, South Australia (SA) and Western Australia (WA). • Birth-12 years’ programs were offered in four jurisdictions: Northern Territory (NT), NSW/ACT and Victoria (VIC). Based on the data, the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), NSW and Victoria mainly offered birth-5 and birth-12 years’ programs; while QLD, SA and WA offered predominantly birth-8 years’ programs—see Fig. 3.2. These results differed from Fenech’s (2017) analysis of programs published in 2017 in that there were no birth-8 programs in NSW nor Victoria; and no birth-12 programs in WA nor QLD. The change in NSW was because the NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA), the state accrediting authority no longer accredits birth-8 years’ degrees and only birth-12 degrees. The academics’ responses suggested that the teacher accreditation authority in NSW NESA was a powerful influence in determining structures of early childhood teaching courses. The influence of accrediting authorities is discussed in greater detail below.

Entry into the Early Childhood Teacher Programs There were multiple entry pathways across Australian universities into an early childhood teaching program: entry immediately after completing secondary school, entry via previous study and non-academic entry via past vocational experience. The most common entry pathway for undergraduate programs was via assessment from secondary schooling. The Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) (Universities Admissions Centre [UAC], 2019) is the score students achieve in the final year of secondary school. Accepted ATAR scores into the early childhood teacher degrees/programs varied across universities and ranged from 60 to 78 (out of a possible 100). In Queensland, the rating scale was an ‘Overall Position’ (OP), and OP entry was 14 on a scale of 0–25, which is equivalent to 56/100. For mature age students, entry could be via non-academic pathways such as past study and/or work experience with written statements indicating their desire to enter the course and outlining reasons. Interviews were held at some universities to determine the applicant’s motivation for entering the course; however, academics said they could not financially afford to undertake interviews although they felt that this would be beneficial to identify the students’ motivations for early childhood teaching. Entry into an early childhood teaching degree (birth-5 years) across most universities had a lower ATAR level (more than or equal to 56%) than a primary degree program (5–12 years) (more than or equal to 70%). Academics had witnessed students coming into the early childhood teaching degree so that they could move into the primary degree in their second year of study. Most academics who ran a combined early childhood primary degree reported that most of the students came

44

3 The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

into the program to work in primary schools. This aligns with previous findings that investigated students’ preferred employment options following their graduation. Most students studying in a combined degree of early childhood and primary teaching program prefer to work in primary schools (Ailwood & Boyd, 2007; Boyd & Newman, 2019; Bretherton, 2010; Liu & Boyd, 2018; Thorpe, Boyd, Ailwood, & Brownlee, 2011). Using early childhood entry to gain access to a primary teaching degree not only occurred in Australia but also in Finland. To judge if students were motivated to study early childhood alone, the entry into the ECT program was based on an examination, an aptitude test followed by a group interview of seven to eight applicants. Applicants were judged on their interactions and perceived motivations within the group for suitability into the course. The group of applicants was given a task, and academics judged their interactional abilities, that is, how the students listened to each other, worked in the group and what was their motivation. One of the reasons for identifying motivations was that some students tried to use the ECT program to gain access into the primary degree: We have had that kind of problem that many of our students who have got the place to study in our early education have the motivation that they would like to go to primary school education. They try to find out how to get the place in primary school teacher training. So, we try to figure out the motivation, that do you really want to come to early education? (Finnish academic)

Entry via the Diploma of ECEC In Australia, courses are classified according to the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) (Australian Qualifications Framework, 2013). The Diploma of Early Childhood Education, 2 years of full-time study, is classified as AQF level 5 and a degree is AQF level 7. Postgraduate degrees include the Graduate Diploma which is AQF level 8, and Masters AQF level 9. Then enter the Diploma AQF level 5: to qualify, individuals who apply integrated technical and theoretical concepts in a broad range of contexts to undertake advanced skilled or paraprofessional work and as a pathway for further learning (AQF, 2013, p. 38).

A degree, which is AQF level 7, is described as: to qualify individuals who apply a broad and coherent body of knowledge in a range of contexts to undertake professional work and as a pathway for further learning (AQF, 2013, p. 47).

Usually, applicants with a Diploma of ECEC were granted entry, and credit, or advanced standing, into the ECT degree. Universities have discretionary powers for granting of credit. Some universities gave no credit for having studied a Diploma in ECEC, while others gave up to 2 years out of 4, for a degree, that is 50% credit. Australian academics had been told by students that they had ‘shopped around’ to find the university that would provide them with the most credit into the degree. Students

The Quality of the Early Childhood Teacher Programs

45

compared the duration and cost of degrees at different universities to minimise the expense of the degree, and length of time before completion. For example, if a student received 1 years’ credit for having a Diploma at one university compared to none at another, then this was a saving of 2 years and associated cost reduction for the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) loan (StudyAssist, 2019). The HECS is a living allowance loan for students to study. Such actions work in duplicitous ways: it saves the university student money to study for a shorter time; it is likely to boost enrolments for the university, however, at what cost for the preparedness, and associated quality of the early childhood teaching program? Does the student who shops around and finds optimal credit for the degree benefit? Does the allocation of up to 2 years’ advanced standing trade-off the quality of the program in any way? In three programs, academics had implemented a structural decision to build the birth-5 years’ degree in having successfully completed the Diploma of ECEC. This was viewed as a strength of the ECT program by these academics as it provided a clear pathway of study. But entry via the Diploma required additional support to study at the required academic level and students struggled to work at the AQF level 7 of study and required additional support. Often there was no funding to do support these students: One academic said that her university provided support through a ‘gateway unit’ that delivered academic writing and professional identity support to transition from the Diploma to the teaching degree. Some academics felt that the quality of the Diploma of ECEC had deteriorated as an entry into the ECT degree and felt that they needed to interview each applicant to judge their capability for studying the degree. The deterioration of the quality of the Diploma was felt to have occurred as a result of the privatisation to teach the Diploma.

English Language Standards for Entry To obtain entry, applicants had to be proficient in English. Two university academics explained that students who had English as a second language struggled with study in the program, even though the students had passed the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) test (2019) at the required level. International students were also identified as requiring more support after successful entry; not just for academic support, but also emotional support. They were away from their family and friends in a culture different from their own. To be successful in their studies in Australia, these students needed to be supported in many ways.

46

3 The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

The Quality of Teachers: Entry Changes Entry into a primary teaching degree changed in 2015 owing to Australia’s declining ranking in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (2018). To address this decline, changes were made to entry requirements into teacher education degrees to improve the quality of teachers (Nuttall, 2018). It is unclear if this change has been effective in improving Australia’s ranking in education internationally. The changes raised the benchmark for entry into any primary program. Student admissions had reduced as a result of these changes—which was a financial concern for universities. To counteract these entry requirements, universities had established a first-year ‘foundation’ year of study in a generic arts degree. Upon successful completion of the first year, students can transfer into the teacher education program for the next 3 years, thus graduating as a 4-year teacher. The academics in the study complained that the first-year student cohort had increased in size as students across all teacher education programs, early childhood, primary and secondary students, were in the first-year Arts degree, plus Arts students. The size of the first-year group of students was greatly increased which academics viewed negatively: we have lost the idea of a cohort, and academics felt that students were becoming generalists due to these changes. Australian academics, responsible for the birth-12 years’ programs, felt that the structure of the degrees had brought together too many students in the first year, minimising the opportunity for learning communities to be established. As a result of studying the generic degree in the first year, the 4-year teaching degree had become just 3 years of studying education, and resulted in an overfull program, as one academic from a birth-12 program explained: we have to squeeze everything of an educational nature into the 3 years. So, in an effort to ‘improve’ the quality of teachers undertaken by the Departments of Education, universities had responded by changing the structure of the degree so that enrolments did not decline. The universities took action to ensure their financial well-being as they responded to declining enrolments as a result of an external authority changing the entry requirements. Nordic countries experienced similar fiscal constraints that influenced the size of the student cohort. The course in Norway was structured with a large cohort of students in the same core units in the first 2 years of the 3-year degree. In the third year, the students split into specialisation areas. The academics felt that their relations with students were less familiar as there were no small groups in the first 2 years of study, and students had expressed concern about impersonal nature of the course. The academics expressed regret that they were unable to give students more time and that owing to the larger intake of students they do not know them as well. As one Norwegian academic stated: Many years ago, I worked with a group of 30 students and I followed them for three years. Then I could really give this kind of mentoring. You’d get to know the students. Now there are 110 students per year. Now when students come to me, they say, I’m one of your students I don’t think you know me.

The Quality of the Early Childhood Teacher Programs

47

This change was explained as being due to the fiscal requirements of the university: It’s the economy in it. It depends on the money and the funding how many hours we can teach…. the government gives more money to train primary teachers than our teachers. There is no reason for that, but they really get more funding because when they reviewed the program, they said they were worried about the quality of the primary and secondary programs. There is no reason other than status and tradition and thinking school is important. We are working on getting more funding for early childhood.

There was tension relating to the struggle between offering quality support to students and the university’s fiscal constraints. Furthermore, this comment indicates the dominance of primary and secondary education when compared to ECEC. It is well known that the early years of a child’s life has significant impact upon lifelong outcomes, and that the qualifications of the EC teachers impact the child’s learning environment; yet here we see a concerted effort to protect the tradition of primary education.

Professional Experience and Quality Professional experience was viewed as providing a quality early childhood program. However, there was a wide variation in the number of days students were required to complete. Across the combined birth-8 and birth-12 years’ degrees, some academics thought there was inadequate time in early childhood professional experience owing to the requirements for days in primary educational settings. Concern centred on the perception that there was not enough time for students to develop competence or clear understanding in both settings, and that students were not being well supervised on practicum. One academic stated that: Universities have stepped away from monitoring students on professional experience for cost effectiveness (Academic birth-five).

The quality of early childhood settings for professional experience was raised as an issue for the quality of the ECT course. There are just over 20% of early childhood settings in Australia not meeting the National Quality Standard (ACECQA, 2019b) so finding quality compliant settings for students to complete their professional experience was a challenge. Chapter 5 fully addresses the nuances of professional experience across the universities in the study.

Student and Community Approval Favourable feedback from students and the local early childhood community was cited as an indicator of the quality of the program. Feedback indicated that the university course was meeting the goal of preparing graduates for the job of teaching in early childhood education with the rate of employment of graduates of the program

48

3 The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

being high. Two academics said that their program was of good quality because it had clear purpose and vision. As one of these stated: What we do purposefully is actually help our pre-service teachers to think about their own teaching philosophy, their vision, their values, their beliefs and then how that filters into their pedagogy and practice… We don’t want to have this factory of telling and romanticizing about what early childhood teaching should look like and should involve… When they came out as early career teachers their colleagues from other universities were less confident and had a romantic view of what early childhood should be (Academic birth-8).

Innovation and Social Justice of the Program The majority of academics responsible for birth-12 programs regarded their program as superficial, weak or watered down. Other academics responsible for birth to 5, or birth to 8 programs viewed their program as comprehensive, cutting edge, unique, diverse, inclusive and culturally sound. Programs that had content based on current early childhood practice and that was informed by research were viewed as innovative and providing rich learning for the students. As one academic stated: We try and build a social justice disposition in our students, so we start that from the very first unit of study. Philosophy is worked into all of our units, but we also have very specific units on social justice. Also, we try to build that leadership disposition. I’m really proud of our program, I really like it. I think it’s much stronger than the previous version that we had (Academic birth-5).

The key areas where content was deemed to be lacking were Indigenous studies in early childhood; arts and music; educating and caring for infants and toddlers; and opportunities for practice-based. Two academics felt that early childhood teaching degrees would be improved if they were interdisciplinary, that is, they included content about health, speech, physiotherapy, nutrition, arts and social work. The Finnish government had responded to a need for improvements in the early childhood field. At the time of interview, the intake had increased to 140 students, where the intake had been 80 students per annum. This increase had arisen as a result of the identified shortage of EC teachers. The academic explained that the restructure of roles of the teacher and the nurses in the nursery were changing which she thought would enhance the quality of the ECT program: The nursery nurse did very much the same kind of things as teachers…we really have to know and be aware of what is the role of the teacher and what is the role of the nursery nurse because their training is different, teachers train in universities…..it is the highest level in Finland…the teacher is the one who is responsible for pedagogy and everybody should know that. That has been on big discussion here in Finland. There has to be teacher leadership.

It contrasted markedly with Australia where university places were capped even though there was a shortage of early childhood teachers, and more EC teachers were required in 2023 (ACECQA, 2019a).

Professional Experience and Quality

49

The Expertise of Fellow Academics The expertise of the academics who taught into the ECT program had mixed views: some viewed their colleagues’ expertise as a strength, others as a weakness of the program. Academics who had experience teaching children from birth to 5 years, who were specialists, researchers and passionate about early education, were viewed as providing a quality program for the students. These academics with expertise in ECEC teaching wove play, children’s learning and development, and early childhood curriculum into the program. Academics who were research-active and making a strong contribution to early childhood education contributed to the quality of the degree. Such academics were good advocates for the programs. As one academic explained: Our strengths are in our staff because we have specialised early childhood staff from birth to eight, who have worked across a range of settings in different states. We also all conduct research, so I see that as a huge (bonus)- we have a research centre within our program, and I think that’s one of our strengths. So, we are actually keeping contemporary and that goes back into our content (Academic birth-8)

Three academics felt that the birth-12 years’ course was weak because there were insufficient staff to teach into the early childhood component of the course; and fellow academics did not understand ECEC yet were required to teach into the program. These programs encompassed two curriculum areas: The Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (DEEWR, 2009) for early childhood settings and the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum, 2019). There was a lack of academics who understood early childhood pedagogy as one academic stated in exasperation: So, you’re having arguments about content because they don’t understand the pedagogy and practices of early childhood education…It’s really tough because we are marginalised in education and misunderstood…it’s exhausting (Academic birth-12).

Many academics felt that they and their early childhood colleagues were marginalised, or forgotten, within the school/faculty where they worked. Early childhood academics felt that they had to be strong advocates to ensure that early childhood education was not overlooked in course content decision-making. Concern was expressed about the high number of casual academics teaching into the early childhood teaching degree.

Delivery of the Course The delivery of the mode of study was a moot point for the quality of the programs. Some academics viewed online delivery as a strength because it suited students working in the field as they studied. Online learning provided students the flexibility regarding when and where they chose to do their study. Academics acknowledged that online pedagogy was a necessary space to move into; however, five academics

50

3 The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

raised this as an area where they felt challenged to teach effectively. Most academics said they preferred face-to-face teaching as relationships could be established with the students to support student learning. Face-to-face teaching and learning was viewed as a strength because it built learning communities of students. However, having to attend face to face came at a cost for some universities as students needed to make a time commitment to attend class. For example, two universities had an 80–90% compulsory attendance rate, respectively, and for students who engaged in full-time paid work, it was not possible for them to attend classes, so they sought an alternative university. The Finnish academics thought that their degree needed to include more online teaching and use digital learning with students. The degree currently had a 70% face-to-face attendance requirement. This meant that students must attend 70% of classes. She said that: I think we have had maybe too much face to face learning, and it is no use to do that because digital learning environment is just as good. We really have had so much learning face to face and I think it is a kind of waste… The students have to come here to the university campus and also, they get tired and we have had traditional timetable of two hours for one course and then two hours for the next one. It is not the content; it is the way we do it.

This contrasts markedly with many Australian academics who thought that the ECT programs should have more face-to-face teaching. One Australian academic stated that in her birth-5 course there was a 90% attendance requirement and found that face-to-face attendance contributed to the: whole learning experience for the students. In both the Finnish and the Australian universities, there were approximately 30 students in the class. The Australian academic said: We get to know our students really, really well. There’s more scope to build a learning community (Australian academic birth-five).

University Fiscal Requirements The need for universities to meet fiscal requirements was viewed as a constant tension which challenged the quality of the early childhood teaching program. Academics explained that there were attempts to water down the course for affordability reasons, for example, by cutting back on professional experience supervision; lowering of entry requirements; and professional experience being done in a students’ workplace which made it cost-effective for the university. Decisions such as these were viewed as weakening the integrity of the program and influencing the quality of the experience for students. This demonstrates the tension of meeting economic imperatives for the university, while maintaining integrity of the ECT courses. Meeting university economic goals, while placing the quality of the early childhood teacher courses at risk, indicates the lack of power that program directors had to deliver a quality program.

Assessment and Accreditation of the Early Childhood Teacher Programs

51

Assessment and Accreditation of the Early Childhood Teacher Programs A key process in the design of an early childhood teaching program in Australia was for the program to be assessed and accredited. Early childhood teacher programs are required to be assessed and accredited by ACECQA, and if they contain primary teaching also by the state accrediting authority (for primary schools), for example, NSW Education Standards Authority (NESA). Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) is the national authority that accredits all early childhood teacher programs, while for combined early childhood/primary teacher programs each state/territory accrediting authority, under the guidance of AITSL, accredits the primary component of the program. If the program is not approved, then the graduates from the course are not recognised as teachers. ACECQA (2019c) provides an outline for accreditation of the required course content for early childhood teacher programs; however, there is little detail about the duration of study in the program. Across Australia the duration of study varies according to the status of the program: an early childhood teacher undergraduate degree is 3 or 4 years long, while a postgraduate degree such as a Graduate Diploma of Education (Early Childhood) or the Master of Teaching (Early Childhood) is 1 to 2 years of full-time study following an undergraduate degree. Meeting the external accrediting authority’s approval was viewed as a strength and essential for the conduct of the course at university by some academics. Some academics felt that the ACECQA accredited degree was good because graduates could become registered early childhood teachers, in the states of NSW and Victoria. This was thought to support the status of early childhood teachers in the profession. Contradictorily, the academics responsible for the birth12 years’ degree viewed the accreditation by the state/territory accrediting authority as a weakness for the provision of a good quality ECT degree. Academics expressed a high level of frustration centred on the quantity of primary education required in the degree compared to ECEC content. It was felt that the primary education content overshadowed early childhood education to meet the requirements of the accreditation authority, and there was too little early childhood education content in the degree. Many academics had advocated for more early childhood units of study within their birth-12 years’ degrees but had been unsuccessful or had made minor gains—such as one extra unit in the 32 unit degree. Academics felt pressure both internally and externally to abide by primary accreditation authorities’ decisions, such as having few early childhood units in their degree, or more days in primary practicum placements, as the primary education units dominated the birth-12 degree. Across the combined birth-12 years’ degrees, the number of early childhood educational units for children aged birth-5 years ranged from 3 (9%) to 19 (59%) units, out of possible 32 units. The academics affected by the low number of EC units expressed concern and frustration as one academic stated: I’m so frustrated at the difficulty to actually weave early childhood content in the birth-12 program and to meet (the state accrediting authority’s) requirements…we have five standalone early childhood units and that really isn’t enough. It’s very difficult to see how I

52

3 The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs can actually increase that given (the state accrediting authority’s) continuing demands for specialisations and curriculum (Academic birth-12).

The academics’ frustration, and lack of agency, highlighted the discourse of power present in the design of a quality ECT program. The accrediting authority for early childhood education, ACECQA, and the accrediting authorities for the primary component of the combined early childhood primary degree were deemed to be forcing out early childhood content in favour of primary content. The accreditation authorities’ influence was significant having created rules and truths that affected the program directors’ autonomy in the development of early childhood teacher programs. Some academics recognised that the birth-12 years’ degree was as vocationally attractive for students as there were more career opportunities associated with studying a combined degree. However, many academics described the birth-12 program as weak or watered down. The course had too much primary content, and in the academics’ words it is content overloaded, which led to superficial learning, it is tokenistic, it is too school heavy and entailed hothousing of students. Academics felt that teaching time had been eroded as a result of the combined degrees. It was felt that it was difficult for students to learn the content of both teaching in early childhood and primary education as the two pedagogical and philosophical approaches to teaching were different. This aligns with previous findings that students (Boyd & Newman, 2019) and early childhood employers (Boyd et al., In press) think that the combined degree is unsuitable to be a proficient early childhood teacher. Another concern was that in Queensland it was possible to become an early childhood teacher if you are qualified as a primary school teacher and then complete the Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care (2019). These graduates had only studied early childhood education at AQF level 5, not AQF level 7. As one Academic birth-12 stated: How is it possible to be a university qualified early childhood teacher when you have never studied early childhood at university, only primary teaching?

Positioning early childhood teacher training as being unnecessary for study at university highlights how early childhood education is not considered to be as important as primary teacher training. Bringing a Foucauldian lens to this, one must ask how can this ‘truth’ be acceptable to the early childhood teaching accrediting authority? The discourse that primary education is dominant does not bode well for good quality early childhood teacher programs when ECTs are trained in early childhood primary combined degrees. In the Nordic countries, early childhood teacher programs were evaluated and reviewed by a panel of members from other universities. A report is then written about the overall program. The program has to be oriented to preschool. What is actually in the program differs a lot across Sweden and this is allowed. Norway is similar to Sweden except for the first 2 years of the program follow the requirements of the Ministry of Education and Research (2017). In Finland, early childhood teacher programs are assessed and evaluated by the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre

Assessment and Accreditation of the Early Childhood Teacher Programs

53

that have core values of trustworthiness of the evaluation; independence; openness and boldness—to be open the scrutiny of the public (Finnish Education Evaluation Centre, 2019). There were no combined degrees in the Nordic countries, so the inclusion of primary within the early childhood degree did not present as a problem. In spite of this, the Norwegian academics had resisted an attempt for the early childhood teaching degree to be combined with primary teaching. The Norwegian academics explained that they felt a lack of respect afforded to early childhood teachers by primary school teachers. This perception was based on the experience of the academics. They had offered to assist primary education to better understand children from a strength’s based perspective; however, the academics felt that primary teachers continued to work from a deficit view of children. It was apparent to the Norwegian academics that when children started school the primary teachers wanted to know about the child’s difficulties, not the strengths of the child. Another area of concern for the academics was a requirement for play-based learning in the lower primary class. Primary school teachers were reluctant to implement play in the program. The academics had offered to conduct lectures on play, but the primary teachers had declined saying that they knew about that. The Norwegian academics talked about how they had decided not to have a combined birth-12 degree. There had been discussion whether to include primary education or not: It was very clear that we should not have this, if you have one to 12 years, it is the primary school dictates what is happening in my university. It’s a kind of power in status (Academic, Norwegian University).

The power of primary education’s dominance was evident with the Norwegian academics resisting the inclusion of primary education within the early childhood teaching program. In the USA, Halpern (2013) and, in Europe, Oberheumer (2011) have warned against including primary with early childhood teacher training owing to its dominance. Halpern advocates for not combining early childhood and primary education (2013). There is often pressure to include curriculum from primary school in the early childhood education, termed ‘pushdown curriculum’ and ‘schoolification of early childhood’ (OECD, 2017). It is considered unsatisfactory as it relies on a different pedagogical approach to teaching to early childhood teaching. So, it is not only in Australia that the regime of truth that primary education is powerful.

The Status of the Early Childhood Profession The low status of the early childhood profession was apparent in the academics’ perspectives about their ECT programs. The low pay of EC teacher graduates and poor work conditions of early childhood teachers compared to primary school teacher counterparts were an area of concern for academics. Because Australian primary school teachers were paid up to 20% more than early childhood teachers (on average) when students graduated with a birth-8 or birth-12 degree than they were more likely

54

3 The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

to seek employment in primary education. Losing good graduates in primary education was considered a loss for Australian children who benefit from good teaching. If students studied a birth-5 program, then employment options were focused only on early childhood. While some universities enjoyed enrolments that satisfied the fiscal goals of the university, there were concerns that they found it difficult to advocate students to work in early childhood education as a result of the perceived low status of EC teachers with the low pay and poor working conditions. One academic explained that: Early childhood is recognised within COAG (Council of Australian Governments) as a sector and it is an approach to curriculum, learning, and teaching with young children. It is a conceptual tradition which implies a set of theories and understandings that teachers need (Academic birth-8).

Within Australia, the significance of the early years is recognised in government policy, yet the academics’ experience of financial support to provide a good quality program was of concern by many program directors. Inadequate resources to provide good quality early childhood teacher programs were contributing to the ongoing low status of early childhood education. It is important that early childhood teacher programs are well resourced and subject to scrutiny to ensure the quality of the program (Nuttall, 2018). However, this was not the experience of many academics. In Finland, the status of early childhood education was undergoing change; however, academics explained how that status was perceived differently within society and their university. Discussions in Finnish society had led to early childhood education being better understood resulting in improved standing in society. As she stated: Early education is very valued in society. It has been a long way, but I think there is so much discussion and debate in society nowadays concerning early education that it is kind of understood that it is an important part of the general education system. So, education doesn’t start when the child goes to primary school. Parents know how important early education is and there is also scientific knowledge of what early education means

The Nordic countries have a focus on lifelong education (Boström et al., 2017), with a focus on civil rights, solidarity, equity and equality. While the status of early education was thought to be increasing owing to it being better understood throughout society, early childhood teaching in Finland and Norway still had lower status than primary teaching. There were attempts to bring the ECTs to pay in parity with primary teachers; however, EC teachers were paid 23% less than primary teachers. Primary teachers have a Master qualification in Finland which was not yet required for EC teachers but would be by 2030. Further discrepancies between early education and primary education were discussed during the interviews.

Summary The most favourable program structure for early childhood teacher education was the birth-5 program as it focused solely on teaching children aged from birth-5 and

Summary

55

did not include the need for students to learn how to be a primary school teacher as well. Including primary teaching within the ECT program was viewed by the majority of participants as reducing the quality of the early childhood teaching course—the increased content and professional experience requirements of primary education diminished the early childhood content and pedagogy. Additionally, the accreditation authorities’ power over the structure and content of the combined degrees was thought to be the disadvantage of the EC teaching component of these courses. This finding aligns with findings from Europe (Oberheumer, 2011; OECD, 2017) and the USA (Halpern, 2013). The academics in this study recognised the inconsistencies in entry requirements into an early childhood teaching degree across Australia. Across universities, there was a wide range of ATAR scores, or different levels of credit given for past study for entry into the ECT program; as one academic stated: there should be consistent benchmarks nationally in terms of entry into these programs. For courses that included primary teaching entry requirements had changed to respond to the decline in educational attainment compared to other countries. The course structures had been altered to make entry into the courses more difficult. The rationale being for this was to improve the quality of teachers and thereby improve the educational attainments of students on the PISA scores (2018). The ECT program was viewed as being of financial benefit to the school and university; however, the program was often overlooked/forgotten in school business decisions. The academics felt that colleagues who had qualifications and experience in ECT were more effective teachers for students than those academics without qualifications/experience in the birth-5 years area. Across universities, early childhood academics made comments on feeling marginalised within their schools. As ECEC suffered low status in society (Press, Wong, & Gibson, 2015) so too was this the situation in universities, with fellow academics making comments as to why a degree is required to teach ECEC ‘as it is only babysitting’. The low status of being an early childhood teacher was key problems that need addressing to enhance the quality of ECT programs.

References Ailwood, J., & Boyd, W. (2007, July). Undergraduate early childhood education students and their talk about child care. Pacific Early Childhood Education Research Association Conference, Hong Kong. Australian Children’s Early Childhood Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019b). Snapshots. Retrieved from http://snapshots.acecqa.gov.au/Snapshot/index.html. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019a). National regulations. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-law-regulations/national-regula tions. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019c). Qualifications assessment guidelines for organization applications. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/ qualifications/assessment/approval/early-childhood.

56

3 The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Australian Curriculum (2019). Primary curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurri culum.edu.au/resources/primary-curriculum/. Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). (2013). Australian qualifications framework (2nd ed.) Retrieved from https://www.aqf.edu.au/. Boström, S., Einarsdottir, J., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2017). The Nordic perspective on early childhood education and care. In M. Fleer & B. van Oers (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood education. The Netherlands: Springer. Boyd, W., & Newman, L. (2019). Primary + early childhood = chalk and cheese? Tensions in undertaking an early childhood/primary education degree. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119841456. Boyd, W., Fenech, M., Mahony, L., Wong, S., Warren, J., Lee, I-F., & Cheeseman, S. (2020) Employers’ perspectives of how well prepared early childhood teacher graduates are to teach in early childhood education and care services. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood (In press). Bretherton, T. (2010). Developing the child care workforce: Understanding fight or flight amongst workers. Adelaide: National Centre for Vocational Education research. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2007). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives (2nd ed.). London: Falmer. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). (2009). The early years learning framework. Bardon, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Fenech, M. (2017, November 30). Preparing teachers for the early years: Evidence, ideology or market driven initial teacher education? Presentation for the ACECQA Higher Education Roundtable. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. (2019). Evaluating the state of the Finnish education system: Results of the finnish education evaluation. Retrieved from https://karvi.fi/en/higher-education/. Halpern, R. (2013). Tying early childhood education more closely to schooling: Promise, perils and practical problems. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–28. International English Language Testing System (IELTS). (2019). IELTS. Retrieved from https:// www.ielts.org/. LiBetti, A. (2018). Let the research show: Developing the research to improve early childhood teacher preparation. Retrieved from https://bellwethereducation.org/publication/let-researchshow-developing-research-improve-early-childhood-teacher-preparation-0. Liu, Y., & Boyd, W. (2018). Comparing career identities and choices of pre-service early childhood teachers between Australia and China. International Journal of Early Years Education. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1444585. Manning, M., Wong, G., Fleming, C., & Garvis, S. (2019). Is teacher qualification associated with the quality of the early childhood education and care environment? Review of Educational Research, 89(3), 370–415. Ministry of Education and Research (2017). Framework plan for kindergartens. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/in-english/framework-plan-for-kindergartens/. Nuttall, J. (2018). Engaging with ambivalence: The neglect of early childhood teacher education in initial teacher education reform in Australia. In C. Wyatt-Smith & A. Adie (Eds.), Innovation and accountability in teacher education. The Netherlands: Springer. Oberheumer, P. (2011). The early childhood education workforce in Europe between divergencies and emergencies. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 5(1), 55–63. Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD). (2017). Starting strong 2017. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/starting-strong-2017-9789264276116-en.htm. Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD). (2018). Engaging young children: Lessons from research about quality in early childhood education and care. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-en. Pascoe, S., & Brennan, D. (2017). Lifting our game: Report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools through early childhood interventions. Melbourne: Three’s a crowd.

References

57

Press, F., Wong, S., & Gibson, M. (2015). Understanding who cares: creating the evidence to address the long-standing policy problem of staff shortages in early childhood education and care. Journal of Family Studies, 21(1), 87–100. Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2018). Program for international student assessment. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/. Queensland Government Early Childhood Education and Care. (2019). Workforce action plan, 2018–2020. Retrieved from https://earlychildhood.qld.gov.au/careers-and-training/workforceaction-plan. StudyAssist. (2019). HECS–HELP. Retrieved from https://www.studyassist.gov.au/help-loans/ hecs-help. Thorpe, K., Boyd, W., Ailwood, J., & Brownlee, J. (2011). Who wants to work in childcare? Preservice early childhood teacher’s consideration of work in the child-care sector. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(1), 85–94. Universities Admissions Centre (UAC). (2019). Australian tertiary admission rank. Retrieved from https://www.uac.edu.au/future-applicants/atar.

Chapter 4

Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Abstract The goal of early childhood teacher (ECT) programs is to prepare graduates for teaching in early childhood centres. Within Australia, there are multiple approaches to early childhood teacher programs governed by policy, regulatory systems and universities. While the optimal structure of an ECT program favoured by academics in this study for teaching early childhood was the birth to 5 degree because it focused on preparing students to work in early childhood education and care (ECEC) centres, ECT programs were viewed to be ‘academically weak’. Comparisons between Australia and the Nordic countries’ views of the optimal structure were that the Nordic countries favoured a focused ECT program and resisted the input of primary education in their programs. The essential and desirable components of an optimal model of an ECT program Australian and Nordic academics were not content that focused upon the roles and responsibilities of early childhood teachers, but also a focus on EC teachers being professional. Early childhood teachers in the optimal model for the ECT program are positioned as committed professionals who engage in critical reflection on policy, philosophy and practice, and have dispositions to enact early childhood teaching, were viewed as essential. This view should be evident to all students within the ECT program.

Introduction This chapter presents Australian academics’ perspectives of an optimal model for ECT programs. ACECQA (2019) provides broad guidelines for the design and delivery of early childhood teacher programs; however, little is known about the optimal model for the design, delivery and assessment of early childhood teacher programs to ensure that the graduates are prepared to teach in early childhood centres. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the optimal model for ECT programs by interviewing program directors of early childhood teacher programs, and investigated what was essential and desirable in early childhood teacher programs.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 W. Boyd, Australian Early Childhood Teaching Programs, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5837-5_4

59

60

4 Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Data Collection and Analysis The approach taken to the research is explained in detail in Chap. 2. In summary, 27 Australian academic program directors representing 70% of program directors at Australian universities and 5 academics from three Nordic universities were interviewed about their perspectives of early childhood teacher programs. The interviews were conducted between September and December 2018. The program directors were responsible for 40 early childhood teacher programs in Australia. Perspectives from five academics from the three Nordic universities’ ECT programs are presented and comparisons made with Australia. The questions asked of the academics that relate to this chapter were as follows. Question 1 was not asked of the Nordic academics. 1. Across Australia, there are university teacher programs for teachers from birth5 years, birth-8 years and birth-12 years. Do you see any difference in the graduates from these courses? Please explain. 2. What would you think is an optimal program to train an early childhood teacher? 3. What do you believe is essential in a university early childhood teacher degree? Why? 4. What do you believe is desirable in a university early childhood teacher degree? Why? The study was conducted under a post-structuralist orientation that enabled one to raise questions regarding power and knowledge, and to delve into uncertainties to think in a different way (Wright, 2003). Data was analysed using discourse analysis from Foucault’s thinking about the power and relationships, knowledge and truths.

The Optimal Model for Early Childhood Teacher Programs Various models of early childhood teacher (ECT) programs exist throughout the world but there is no agreement of an optimal model for EC teacher education. Around the world, the models vary in structure from a focus on preparing teachers for working in diverse settings from birth to 2 years; birth to 5 years; birth 8 years; birth to 12 years; and 1 to 6 years—the latter being the most common in the Nordic countries. The large variation in foci produces an inconsistent approach to EC teacher preparation (Kagan & Roth, 2017), especially as disparate approaches exist even within the same country. Australia has ECT programs that focus on birth-5 years, birth-8 years and birth-12 years, while in the Nordic countries there is one early childhood teacher program that qualifies graduates to teach children aged from nine from 12 months up to 7 years.

Structure of ECT Programs

61

Structure of ECT Programs As explained in Chaps. 1–3, there are three structures of early childhood teacher programs within Australia—the birth to 5, birth to 8 and birth to 12 years’ programs which vary across jurisdictions. Western Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and Queensland all have birth to 5 or birth to 8 programs, while New South Wales, Victoria, Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory have birth to 5 and birth to 12 programs. Up until 2017, the most common structure of the ECT program in Australia had been the birth-8 years’ program; however, in response to guidelines from the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2019), the programs have changed in NSW and Victoria from birth to 8 to more birth to 12 years. Tatto, Richmond, and Andrews (2016) ask who is benefitting from this program re-structure? One would hope that it would benefit the quality of the ECT program for the students undertaking the course. However, it is known that the birth-12 years’ structure increases student intake and thus benefit the universities financially. Students benefit as they have dual career options in early childhood or primary (Boyd & Newman, 2019). Increased student intake also benefits academics, indirectly, as it supports job security. Ultimately, Tatto et al. (2016) suggest that such a program may have detrimental effects upon the quality of the early childhood teacher program. In line with Tatto et al.’s (2016) assertion, research has shown that there are problems with the quality of the combined early childhood/primary programs with the content and skills required not being adequately addressed. In many ECT programs, the content for learning to teach in birth-5 years’ settings has been found to be marginalised in favour of primary school teaching content and graduates are not prepared to teach in early childhood settings (Boyd & Newman, 2019; Boyd et al., In press; Kaga, 2018). When ECT programs target birth-5 years, the training is enhanced which enables pre-service teachers (students) to delve more deeply into their study of teacher practice (Kaga, 2018). In the Nordic countries, the early childhood teacher program model is consistent across each country. There are no early childhood/primary combined degrees, rather the early childhood teacher program focuses graduates to teach children from 9 months to 7 years old, and early childhood teachers in Finland study at university for 3 years. The degree consists of studies in language and communication; basic education; professional skills needed in early childhood education and care and preprimary education; subsidiary subjects; and options (Eurydice, 2018a). There is a focus on integrating theoretical studies with professional experience. In Norway, the ECT program was established by the National Curriculum Regulations for Kindergarten Teacher Education (Ministry for Education and Research, 2017). The ECT program outlines the structure and content for the 3-year degree for training teachers from 9 months to 6 years. Chapter 2 shows the details of the structure and content of the Norwegian degree. The degree is aligned to the role of the early childhood teacher, research, and relevant legislation and planning. Sweden has a ‘decentralised education system’ with goals and learning outcomes set by the central authority. The

62

4 Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs

government sets the education framework and has overall responsibility, and universities then have autonomy to establish their degrees according to these frameworks (Eurydice, 2018b).

Student Outcomes and the ‘Less Than’ Optimal Model of ECT Programs When academics were asked about an optimal model for ECT programs, many academics raised the limitations of why current EC teacher models were not optimal—thus the title for this section is ‘less than optimal’. This, at times, led the academics to offer ideas for how to make it optimal. Australian academics identified problems that students may experience associated with program structure. Professional teacher registration, early childhood teacher programs being ‘academically weak’ and the low status of being an early childhood teacher were the key problems. Each of these problems will now be addressed. Being a registered teacher is thought to improve the quality of early childhood teachers, align work conditions to primary school teachers and improve the professionalism of early childhood teachers (Fenech, 2019). But there are problems regarding teacher registration because in some states, teachers cannot be registered with a birth-5 degree even though they can be recognised as a teacher in other states. This led one academic to state that she actively counselled students out of early childhood education teaching because she knew the students would not be able to obtain teacher registration. Yet, AITSL in 2018 required all early childhood teachers in Australia to register under a consistent national system (Fenech, 2019). The diversity in the teacher registration creates inequities and problems across the jurisdictions in Australia. Students need to navigate the teacher registration landscape prior to enrolment to see which degree suits their desired goals. Rules for teacher registration also need to be considered by the academics when they design/renew early childhood teacher programs. Taking a Foucauldian analysis here, we see power being asserted by each state in determining what programs will/not be suitable for teacher registration. An optimal model for ECT programs requires consistency across jurisdictions for teacher registration as it aligns with professionalism and teacher identity. The birth-5 model was perceived as being academically weak, and academics said that students had said they were bored studying and practising early childhood education. One academic stated: (The ECT program is) theoretically weak and academically weak. They (early childhood students) don’t buy into the school curriculum which is really wrong. Whether you’re teaching it or not you need to know what your children are going onto and this idea that a four year old is not going to be ready for some of those school concepts is not okay (Academic birth-8).

Student Outcomes and the ‘Less Than’ Optimal Model of ECT Programs

63

The devaluing of the ECT program for being academically weak was viewed as a deterrent to study the birth-5 early childhood teacher programs. This not only affected students’ decisions to study early childhood education, but the university’s employment of staff was impacted upon. High rates of casualisation of academic staff were the norm instead of tenured, experienced and research-active, early childhood staff. As an academic stated: In terms of ‘optimal’ I think a limitation of our program is that in the academy early childhood education is still highly devalued. In consequence we have significant casualisation of staff. Now I think casualisation of staff is an issue for all universities, but I think early childhood is the poor man’s cousin. We have incredibly high casualisation rates. So, in terms of the optimal program, it would be staffed by specialist academics with current research in the field who were employed on a permanent basis and have good connections with the sector (Academic birth-5).

In summary, the birth to five ECT program structure was viewed as the optimal structure for preparing to be an early childhood teacher; however, there were significant concerns regarding registration of early childhood teachers and the ongoing undervaluing of early childhood as a profession and within society. The birth-8 model was highly regarded by the academics which aligned with the ACECQA’s preferred course structure (2019) that: Qualifications that cover the age range from birth to 8 years are preferred. Academics favoured the birth-8 programs because it was considered to provide a good for transition to school; it is good for working in foundation primary; it is backed by the OECD definition of an early childhood teacher where learning is fluid across early childhood and primary. The justification for the early childhood teacher programs to be across birth-8 years was explained as follows: I think there’s a significant place for our course with a zero to eight years focus, so we maintain that linkage between the prior to school and the school sector. Because … we need professionals who understand both curricula, and different types of pedagogy for the different contexts and age groups. It makes sense that we have early childhood trained teachers in schools (Academic birth-8).

The idea of having a balance between the early childhood and primary teacher knowledge was identified as being essential in the birth-8 and the birth-12 years’ programs. An academic explained how this was done at her university: What is important is a really good balance, really solid child development …community engagement, leadership development as well as learning framework and content areas. So, it is complex…we have balanced ourselves really nicely between the content that ACECQA wants and the content that our teacher registration board wants, and I think we have got a really nice mix (Academic birth-8).

Even though the birth-8 program was highly regarded, problems with this model for students were acknowledged. Graduates were reported to have trouble obtaining work in primary schools in some states as the qualification was too limiting and many principals of primary schools thought graduates of the birth-8 program were not prepared to teach the upper grades of primary school. Because the birth-8 degree covers early childhood and primary teaching, one academic advocated against this

64

4 Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs

degree because the graduates had many gaps in their knowledge compared to a standalone primary teaching degree, or a stand-alone birth-5 teaching degree. Another criticism of this degree was too much focus on the primary content of the degree, that is, the 5–8 years’ knowledge and skills for teaching, and not enough on birth-5 years. It was recognised that the birth to 12 program supported students to become have a dual qualification as an early childhood and a primary school teacher. However, many problems were identified with the birth-12 model. The birth-12 program was perceived to not only diminish the early childhood specialisation causing it to be of poor quality, but it also was too watered down …necessitating huge compromises to be made to the content. The birth-12 program was thought to create graduates who are ill-prepared, who had significant gaps in knowledge, understanding and the ability to apply theory to practice. Students enrolled in this degree were thought to be too primary oriented to be early childhood teachers, and it was thought that these students when they graduate would promote a pushdown curriculum as indicated by the OECD (2017). It was recognised that primary teaching had better work conditions and was considered to be an easier job than teaching early childhood education: They (students) tend to go into primary and they don’t go into early childhood because of the pay conditions and it seems to be easier for them. Primary teaching is more prescriptive, so they find that easier to work with, rather than interest-based, play-based programs and knowing how to really assess children’s learning and development (Academic birth-12).

The birth-12 program was perceived by the academics to be unsatisfactory for preparing early childhood teachers, as identified in past research (Boyd & Newman, 2019; Boyd et al., In press; Pascoe & Brennan, 2017). There are multiple complexities and uncertainties regarding the quality of the birth-12 early childhood teaching program. The Australian government’s policy and investment to increase the number of early childhood teachers is resulting in graduates in birth-8 and birth-12 programs preferring to teach in primary school. The investment of the Australian government to train up the early childhood workforce (Productivity Commission, 2011) is significantly at risk. While the investment is not meeting its goal of increasing the number of early childhood teachers, it is likely to be benefitting the student enrolments at universities (Tatto et al., 2016). One academic called the early childhood program ‘a cash cow’ for the university, while another stated it was all about bums on seats and the bare minimum (in resourcing). This problem is further discussed in Chap. 6.

Nordic Academics’ Perspectives of the Optimal Model The Nordic countries experienced significant autonomy in decision-making regarding the structure and design of the early childhood teacher program compared to the Australian academics. The Finnish academic explained she had autonomy to make decisions about the structure of their programs without oversight from internal or external authorities. All students studied a 3-year degree to teach children aged

Nordic Academics’ Perspectives of the Optimal Model

65

from 9 months up to 7 years. In talking about why Finland led the world, in education, according to OECD, the academic from Finland stated: We are very independent. Every university may have some emphasis of their own in their training. We don’t have national assessment. During 1995 kindergarten teacher training started in the universities, so I think then we got professors and researchers into early education.

The Finnish academic perceived that the ECT program provided students with ‘good pedagogical training’ and the latest research was embedded within the program. However, owing to society’s changes, there was a need to emphasise more of the contextual changes and diversity of society in the ECT program. The status of early childhood education was perceived to be improving. Discussions in Finnish society had led to early childhood education being better understood resulting in improved standing in society. As she stated: Early education is very valued in society. It has been a long way, but I think there is so much discussion and debate in society nowadays concerning early education that it is kind of understood that it is an important part of the general education system. So, education doesn’t start when the child goes to primary school. Parents know how important early education is and there is also scientific knowledge of what early education means

While the Norwegian early childhood teacher degree had a national set structure, the Norwegian academics who taught into the ECT program were proud of their approach to their program. The content of the first 2 years of the degree was structured by the Norwegian Ministry for Education and Research with all universities across Norway teaching the same structure. The third year included specialisations, which allowed each university to contextualise their degree. There were perceived advantages in terms of equity in this approach as all students in Norway studied the same units in the first 2 years of the degree. This assisted students if they needed to change study locations during their first 2 years of study and assisted employers as they would know what graduates had studied in their first 2 years of the degree. While there may be concerns around the standardisation of this approach, it had very strong advantages compared to the Australian patchwork approach, where there were varying approaches to content, structure and professional experience. No one program is the same as another, yet graduates are all identified as early childhood teachers. All Norwegian graduates from these courses are similarly trained, and the content focuses on children aged from 9 months up to 7 years. In Australia, you could be an early childhood teacher after having studied as little as three early childhood subjects (10%) within an EC/primary teacher degree. The Norwegian academics were proud of having resisted including primary education in their degree. They felt a lack of respect afforded to early childhood teachers by primary school teachers, based on experience of the academics. There had been discussion whether to include primary education, but had decided against it: It was very clear that we should not have this, if you have one to 12 years, it is the primary school dictates what is happening in my university. It’s a kind of power in status (Academic Norwegian University).

66

4 Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs

The academics collaborated were motivated, committed, cooperated and felt responsible for the education of their students, and there were no casual staff employed. This contrasted significantly with the many of the Australian academics’ experience where reports of feeling marginalised were common within their university, where there were many more casual academics teaching into the ECT program than tenured staff, and felt the impact of external regulatory bodies upon the design of the degree programs. Australian academics had identified the need for tenured academic staff experienced and qualified in early childhood research to teach in early childhood teacher programs as being essential in an early childhood teaching program. The ECT program in Sweden was 3.5 years long, unlike Finland and Norway which was 3 years long. The program was integrated across departments within the university, not just within the department of education. For example, students studied at the Departments of Sociology, Art, and Philosophy as part of the preschool teacher program which provided a broad perspective of the world. As a result of this integration, the progression of the program had to be carefully monitored, with the integration of theory and practice viewed as motivating students’ engagement. However, a structural problem with the degree was that the units of study were only 5 weeks long which was considered to be a problem for assessing students. It was causing stress for the students and the teacher. The length of the units was because the student organisation had requested it. Student’s voice had been given power and implementation recognising that democracy was visible; however, there were resultant problems as implementation of the 5-week units of study had not been researched well.

Essential and Desirable in an ECT Program The academics were asked the following: What do you believe is essential and desirable in a university early childhood teacher degree? Why? Analysis of the responses of these two questions gave rise to the following themes: the knowledge, skills and dispositions early childhood teachers require for effective teaching. These will each be discussed.

Australian Early Childhood Teacher Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions in an Early Childhood Teacher Program Researchers and teacher educators broadly agree that knowledge, skills and dispositions are the key qualities of effective teachers (Fonseca-Chacana, 2019). According to the Australian program assessment guidelines from ACECQA (2019), the ECT

Australian Early Childhood Teacher Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions …

67

program needs to include: child development and care; teaching pedagogies; education and curriculum studies; family and community contexts; history and philosophy of early childhood and early childhood professional practice. Early childhood teachers have multiple roles and responsibilities which are complex and diverse. The six areas of program guidelines from ACECQA are broad and refer to the knowledge, skills and dispositions required of an early childhood teacher, although the skills and dispositions required of an early childhood teacher are not explicitly outlined. Teacher’s dispositions need to be developed as part of a holistic approach to teacher education that include knowledge and pedagogical skills (Fonseca-Chacana, 2019). There is inconclusive evidence whether dispositions can be learned within the teacher program, or if they are stable aspects of the teacher’s character (Nelson, 2015). Regardless, Nelson (2015) asserts that dispositions can be developed within the program of study that ‘draw upon modes of responses to situations and problems that arise within specific contexts’ (p. 86), and Fonseca-Chacana asserts that the dispositions are ‘intellectual, intrapersonal and interpersonal’ (p. 266). An early childhood teacher program needs to ensure that appropriate teacher dispositions directly relevant to the roles and responsibilities of an early childhood teacher are included within the design and delivery of the program. The ACECQA (2019) provides details of the knowledge, skills and dispositions for early childhood teacher degrees, diplomas and certificates (2019) as explained above and in Chap. 2, Table 2.1. The six areas in the early childhood teacher qualification include child development and care; teaching pedagogies, family and community contexts, history and philosophy of childhood, and early childhood professional practice (see Table 4.1). These areas include two extra areas in addition to the Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care. In Australia, the Australian Quality Framework (AQF) has identified levels of study— the Diploma is an AQF level 5 while a degree is AQF level 7. When applying to gain entry into a degree a student who has a Diploma can request assessment for recognised prior learning associated with the Diploma, which will reduce the length of study time. An academic stated that the optimal model for an early childhood teaching degree should be built upon the Diploma: I like the way that a degree builds on a diploma model- that is building on pre-existing knowledge. This provides a strong relatability to the profession. The weakness of that is it breeds the belief that you don’t need to have a highly academic understanding of theoretical underpinnings…there should be an acknowledgement of being an early childhood specialist, beyond just a degree in education as such. (Academic birth-12)

The participants’ responses were mapped to the ACECQA (2019) course requirements—see Table 4.1. The responses were mapped according to the number of times that element was mentioned. The interviewees were asked what they considered to be ‘essential’ and ‘desirable’ in an early childhood teacher program. One would expect that their responses, based on what they considered to be essential and desirable, would be considered of great importance and have high priority for them within the program. The interviewees were not directly asked to give any weight; however, the terms ‘essential’ and desirable’ have intended prioritisation. Higher levels of citations indicate that these elements are considered to be essential and desirable, more than other elements that were mentioned less frequently.

68

4 Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Table 4.1 Mapping of academics’ responses to ACECQA’s framework (2019) Knowledge, skills and dispositions Mapped elements 1. Child development and care

2. Teaching pedagogies (not specified in the Diploma)

3. Education and curriculum studies

Learning development and care

Frequency Total 6

Language development

1

Social and emotional development

2

Child health well-being and safety

1

Early intervention

1

Diversity difference and inclusivity

4

Learners with special/additional needs

3

Transitions and continuity of learning including transition to school

3

Alternative pedagogies and curriculum approaches

3

Play-based pedagogies

6

Guiding behaviour/engaging young learners

0

Teaching methods and strategies

0

Children with diverse needs and backgrounds

4

Working with children who speak languages other than, or in addition to English

0

Contemporary society and pedagogy

2

Early Years Learning Framework

3

The Australian curriculum

3

Numeracy, science and technology

7

Language and literacy

8

English as an additional language

0

Social and environmental education

5

Creative arts and music

7

Physical and health education

3

Curriculum planning, programming and evaluation

3

4. Family and community contexts Developing family and community (not specified in the Diploma) partnerships Multicultural education

5

21 (15%)

15 (11%)

39 (28%)

27 (19%)

6 (continued)

Australian Early Childhood Teacher Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions …

69

Table 4.1 (continued) Knowledge, skills and dispositions Mapped elements Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives

5. History and philosophy of childhood

6. Early childhood professional practice

3

Socially inclusive practice

7

Culture, diversity and inclusion

6

Historical and comparative perspectives

4

Contemporary theories and practice

9

Ethics and professional practice

5

Educational leadership

10

Management and administration

4

Professional identity and development

3

Advocacy

1

Research Total

Frequency Total

18 (13%)

20 (14%)

2 140

Table 4.1 identifies a strong focus on early childhood education in the responses from the academics. Ensuring that the ECT program was closely aligned to the roles and responsibilities of an early childhood teacher’s work was important for these academics. The following comment typifies this response: I think that there needs to be a huge focus on just what happens in early childhood, the most rapid period of growth and development that ever occurs. I just don’t think we really truly understand what’s going on with children’s brains and their bodies, how they think, how they learn. That needs to be at the core of it all: what’s good for kids (Academic birth-5).

Overall, the knowledge area of Education and curriculum studies was identified as the most frequently cited area as being essential and desirable in an ECT program— with numeracy, science and technology, and language and literacy, being the most common. These areas overlap with four of the primary key learning areas (Australian Curriculum, 2019) that focus on eight key learning areas of English, mathematics, science, the arts, humanities and social sciences, technologies, health and physical education and languages (Australian Curriculum, 2019). Early childhood teachers are required to explicitly teach according to the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (DEEWR, 2009), which focuses on broad learning outcomes for children, yet the primary education was most frequently identified as being essential for the early childhood teaching degree. There is currently a national strategic policy focus 2016– 2026 provision of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) in education programs in Australia with (Department of Education, 2020), and this could reflect this focus. The arts were identified as essential, and many academics thought that the arts were lacking in early childhood degrees, as one academic stated:

70

4 Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs Definitely more arts. Arts gets watered down with all the other requirements, especially in the birth to eight courses, and even more in the birth-12 course. We have one arts unit that has everything in it, we need three…the arts are really important in early childhood- you need music drama and the visual arts (Academic birth-12).

While academics identified that the key learning areas from the Australian Curriculum were essential, there was also concern expressed by many academics regarding the heavy focus on the key learning areas in primary making the ECT program ‘too schoolified’, as has been identified (Halpern, 2013; OECD, 2017). As one academic explained: I’d love to see some pushback to be able to say well actually an emergent curriculum or a child-centred pedagogy- that is a curriculum specialization. If I was fantasising about what we were doing in early childhood teacher education, it would be starting with core values. We just seem to be swamped with teacher performance assessments, and the final years LANTITE (a literacy and numeracy test for graduates) (Academic birth-8).

The second most highly rated ACECQA mapped area was Family and community contexts. This area was not included in the Diploma of ECEC. For those students who had entered into the ECT program via the Diploma pathway, the academics’ recognition that this is an important area for study is reassuring as this is an important part of an early childhood teacher’s work. When academics review an application for credit (also known as recognised prior learning, or advanced standing) for an applicant who has a Diploma into an ECT program, they need to be mindful of the two areas not included in the Diploma: being Family and Community Contexts, and Teaching pedagogies. Families and communities were a key area the Norwegian academics felt needed more focused attention as their graduates did not how to talk with families, nor how to understand family situations. They were working on improving this aspect of their program, and this was also stated by the academic from Finland. Understanding the pedagogy of learning through play as an early childhood teacher was identified as an essential area of an early childhood teaching degree. Learning through play is viewed as essential pedagogical practice by the EYLF (DEEWR, 2009). The following response identifies the importance of having the skills to be able to teach learning through play, and the comment aligns well with what it means to be an early childhood teacher, explaining that learning is not necessarily teacher-led: I think it is essential that they (students) are getting strong preparation on the whole planning cycle from start to finish using a play-based environment. I think some people still think the play-based idea is a novel approach. I don’t know why because we have been doing it a long time. I think they really need a strong focus on teaching through play, and not just intentional teacher-led teaching. They need to understand how all the incidental things that happen during the day, the child-initiated things, can just as easily be focused teaching time by the way you respond, rather than necessarily something that you have planned and put on your program (Academic birth-5)

Child development and care, and applying learning into practice, were viewed as essential in the ECT program by the academics. As one academic stated:

Australian Early Childhood Teacher Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions …

71

Child development I think is absolutely essential. I really do believe that students need a strong foundational knowledge in child development in order to then use that foundational knowledge to think creatively about what they can do with curriculum (Academic birth-12).

Another academic stated: I see significant gaps in their (students’) knowledge, their understanding, their ability to apply what they’ve learned in theory to a practical application (Academic birth-12).

Social and emotional development was viewed as important area by the academics. The increasing rates of mental health issues for children and adolescents across Australia has resulted in a national focus on mental health education and support (Be You, 2019). Two academics also identified that teaching degrees needed to include study in childhood trauma. As children were thought to be exposed to different types of trauma in early childhood, it was important for early childhood teachers to understand how to support children through difficult times. Teachers require skills to be able to effectively teach (Nelson, 2015). Building students’ capacity to critically reflect and have agency follows on from the idea of having a strong professional identity. Many academics indicated that being a critical reflective practitioner was an important skill to have as an early childhood teacher. As the following academic stated: I think really critical to a university degree is the building of capacity in students to think and to exercise professional autonomy and professional judgement. So, we are not teaching black and white, they’re teaching professionals. To build that critical thinking in terms of ethical dilemmas or thinking about how they’re going to approach curriculum for a particular child- that is really critical (Academic birth-five)

The academics identified teacher dispositions necessary as an early childhood teacher. Having the disposition (and skill) to be a leader, a manager, administrator, whilst identifying as an early childhood teacher was viewed as important. An early childhood professional needs a strong professional philosophy underpinning their approach to early childhood education. Being a good team member, a good role model and a leader was viewed as important as identified in the next two comments: They (early childhood graduates) need to understand that they need a good academic background and be good role models for speaking, writing and communicating. You need good management skills, don’t you? You’re not going to manage a child care service if you can’t run a meeting and look after budgets and do all those things (Academic birth-5). We need that leadership and management stuff to really enter into the school spaces even though we’re not really training people to be school principals it’s the principles of leadership that we want to get through that straddle that context (Academic birth-12).

The focus on teacher identity was important: if an early childhood student feels they have an identity as an early childhood teacher, then this is more likely to lead to commitment, and motivation to be the best early childhood teacher they can be. A focus on one’s professional and personal strengths will support the development of identity as explained by this academic:

72

4 Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs I think this comes down to the personal traits that they might develop as a teaching professional. I think it goes right back to my first point about philosophically our purpose … it has always been in early childhood to help our graduates to think about what they want to know about it and what they believe is integral to early childhood. So, they don’t come out all looking the same (Academic birth-8).

The core values of commitment to early childhood with a willingness to take initiative were dispositions essential as an early childhood teacher. As one academic explained: They’ve (students) all got different strengths and abilities, different arts, majors and minors to help them to become [discipline-diverse], different professionals and I think that’s what our sector needs, is a way of different ways of thinking about early childhood but with that common law of play-based divergent child centred … all the things … more important and integral (Academic birth-12).

Many academics identified the interpersonal and intrapersonal dispositions which Nelson (2015) referred to as being necessary for teachers. These included empathy skills, enjoying being with children, and effective communication with children, families, staff and community. There was a focus by some academics on the need for implementing social justice in ECEC which aligns with the History and philosophy of childhood (the fifth rated area). This includes a focus on inclusion of all children, cultural understanding and children’s rights. For me the essentials are child centredness, emergence, definitely social justice, that sort of work that they (early childhood teachers) do and the way that they work respectfully with young children and families (Academic birth-8).

A review of Table 4.1 reveals that the academics did not mention some areas of the ACECQA Qualifications Guidelines (2019). The areas omitted were guiding behaviour/engaging young learners, teaching methods and strategies (other than play), and working with children who speak languages other than, or in addition to English/English as an additional language. Guiding children’s behaviour is often an area of significant challenge for early childhood teachers, yet this was not present in the essential part of an early childhood teacher program. Three broad features identified by three academics as essential in an early childhood teacher program addressed the needs for a. The program to be built upon a comprehensive well-researched evidence base; b. The program must have a clear vision across the whole university with integrity of approach and leadership by all staff teaching into the program; and c. It needs to be acknowledged that the early childhood teacher degree is within a sectorial difference to a primary teaching degree. These are admirable features for the design and delivery of an early childhood teaching degree. Nordic early childhood teacher knowledge, skills and dispositions in an early childhood teacher program The quest for integration and sequential progression across the ECT programs was evident in each Nordic country. The Norwegian academics identified that knowledge

Australian Early Childhood Teacher Knowledge, Skills and Dispositions …

73

should be better integrated across the degree to: get progression from first year to third year more explicit …and be clear how this is visualized and exemplified in each area of knowledge. Integration of the units within the degree was one of four key themes that arose from the interviews with the Nordic academics on what is essential in an early childhood teaching program. The other three themes were to understand how to conduct research, support each student to become an early childhood teacher and work effectively with families. Including research was also considered essential in every Nordic university in this study. The Finnish academic said that students should get a basic knowledge of research and the research thesis that the students complete fulfilled this requirement. The reason why this was essential was so that the graduate teachers: If they want to figure out something in day care, then they know how to conduct research to do this. It gives them a basic understanding. These research projects are done in cooperation with the [EC settings] who provide topics of things they would like to know (Finnish academic).

Just 2 of the 27 Australian academics thought that research was essential for early childhood teachers to learn within the program. Each of the Nordic countries considered establishing relationships, and supporting university students was essential for the success of the early childhood student and the program. The Swedish academic explained that all education students were placed together in the first year where they learnt about values of education. Democratic values were embedded within the program which aligned with the Finnish academic who explicitly stated that the ECT program supported the students to become professional. These values included democracy, children’s influence, gender, equality and inequity, race and ethnicity. As she said: We aim to give the students opportunities for success despite their backgrounds. As in Finland and Sweden, the Norwegian academics too placed a great deal of importance upon supporting students’ success. They said that they would like to see more of the arts and drama included to give the students confidence in speaking, as: They (students) can be very shy. So, they need to (learn) how to use their voice, to be a storyteller and to be a leader. So, then you need more work on these skills.

This was given minimal attention by the Australian academics. The development of one’s identity to be an early childhood teacher was a theme that arose from each Nordic country. The early childhood degree required applicants to aspire to study and take responsibility to be fostered into the university’s culture: a value-based approach. For the Finnish academic this meant that: The most important thing is that the course builds upon reflection. It builds upon robust research, not only practice. It’s important as a practitioner to be able to step outside of those processes and check them- (engage in) reflection… We try and establish some kind of personal connection with the students and connect the course to their experiences.

The Swedish academic explained that for students who do not have an academic background the university supported them to become a preschool teacher by working with their dispositions of personal and professional identity:

74

4 Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs I think one of the best things we do is we try to make it possible for students who do not have an academic background to actually manage the program. In the first year we explain the difference between everyday knowledge; (and) the knowledge that we produce here at university. There is an actual transition between from being a private person to being the preschool teacher. (We explain that) the difference between being a private person and following a curriculum is that you have an obligation (Academic Sweden).

This transitioned support was viewed as a strength of the Swedish program, to go from being a private person to becoming a professional person. Another essential skill identified by all Nordic academics was being able to work with families and acknowledging that families are more demanding nowadays. The Finnish academic explained that the term partnership with families was being replaced by cooperation with families. This is an interesting finding for Australian academics and early childhood teachers because partnership with families is a key quality area in the National Quality Standard (ACECQA, 2018) and one of five principles of the Early Years Learning Framework (DEEWR, 2009). Establishing partnerships with families is essential for early childhood teachers, yet the Nordic countries were replacing ‘partnerships with families’ with ‘cooperation with families’. Partnerships imply the practice of a reciprocal, respectful relationship between two parties, whereas cooperation implies that two parties will cooperate to meet an agreed outcome. The Finnish academic explained the need for this change because families had become more diverse with recent surges of immigration and that cooperating with families was more appropriate than forming a partnership.

Summary This chapter reviewed academics’ perspectives for an optimal model for an early childhood teacher degree. The dominant discourses and regimes of truth regarding academics’ perspectives of the optimal structure of Australian early childhood teacher programs have identified that benefits arise from the current models of ECT programs. Early childhood teacher programs that focused only on the birth-5 years were considered the most appropriate for learning how to an early childhood teacher. These programs were viewed to offer the focused knowledge, skills and dispositions to prepare early childhood teachers. There was recognition of problems associated with the birth to 5 programs as the discourse about the low status of early childhood education was pervasive in infiltrating the academics’ views that students who enter this course were ‘academically weak’. Further, some academics felt that early childhood education was marginalised within universities in the following ways: student admissions were strongly associated with meeting university fiscal goals overriding concern for the quality of the program; and there was a lack of tenured experienced early childhood academics to teach into the program leading to casualisation of lecturers in the ECT programs, and reduction in the quality of delivery of the program.

Summary

75

But the combined early childhood/primary degrees do not necessarily benefit the quality of the ECT program (Tatto et al., 2016) and in fact may be detrimental to the quality of the program, the early childhood teacher graduates and consequently the children. Meeting the requirements of the external regulatory authorities was deemed to have a significant impact upon the focus on content and skills, with the primary curriculum being thought to be too dominant. Whenever primary education is included in an early childhood teaching degree, the status of early childhood education will remain low as comparisons will always be made by students, academics and society. If ECEC is to stand alone as a profession, then it needs to gain status in its own right as an area for quality provision of early childhood education. In the Nordic countries, all early childhood teachers undertook only one specific ECT program. There was resistance to including primary teaching within the program as this was viewed as being too dominating. Not only do we see the discourse of primary dominance reigning in Australia, but it was evident in the Nordic countries which aligns with past research from the OECD (2017) and Halpern (2013). This focus upon one ECT program meant that the entire course was focused on the knowledge, skills and dispositions for the EC graduates. Relationships with students were of key concern to support developing early childhood teacher identity. This opens up possibilities for considering optimal Australian ECT programs. Would it be possible to develop an ECT program with a direct focus on early childhood teaching in the birth to 5 area with 3 years of study? Comprehensive and well-researched evidence-based models for early childhood teacher program currently do not exist (LiBetti, 2018); however, this chapter offers possible policy changes for the way forward for ECT programs. Stakeholders within Australia are concerned about the quality of early childhood teacher training, resulting in a perceived lack of preparedness of EC teacher graduates which has been linked to the quality of the early childhood teacher program (Boyd et al., In press; Pascoe & Brennan, 2017). There needs to be agreement on what teachers should learn, and how they should learn (Darling-Hammond, 2010) and the dispositions for working effectively as an early childhood teacher (Fonseca-Chacana, 2019). Decisions by program directors for the optimal design and delivery of early childhood teacher programs can be informed by this research. This chapter contributes to the body of research to identify optimal models of early childhood teacher programs in order to promote a highly skilled sustained early childhood workforce.

References Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), (2018). National quality standard. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019). Qualifications assessment guidelines for organization applications. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/ qualifications/assessment/approval/early-childhood. Australian Curriculum (2019). Primary curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurri culum.edu.au/resources/primary-curriculum/.

76

4 Optimal Models for Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2019). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards. Be You. (2019). Mental health in education initiative. Retrieved from https://beyou.edu.au/aboutbe-you/evidence-base. Boyd, W., & Newman, L. (2019). Primary + early childhood = chalk and cheese? Tensions in undertaking an early childhood/primary education degree. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119841456. Boyd, W., Fenech, M., Mahony, L., Wong, S., Warren, J., Lee, I-F., & Cheeseman, S. (2020) Employers’ perspectives of how well prepared early childhood teacher graduates are to teach in early childhood education and care services. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood (In press). Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teaching education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47. Department of Education. (2020). Support for science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.au/support-science-technology-engineeringand-mathematics. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace relations (DEEWR). (2009). The early years learning framework. Bardon, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Eurydice. (2018a). Initial education for teachers working in early childhood and school education: Finland. Retrieved from https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/nationalpolicies/eurydice/content/initial-edu cation-teachers-working-early-childhood-and-school-education-24_en. Eurydice. (2018b). Teaching and learning in pre-primary education. Retrieved from https:// eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/teaching-and-learning-programmes-preprimary-education-1_en. Fenech, M. (2019). Where to for the registration of early childhood teachers? Retrieved from http:// thespoke.earlychildhoodaustralia.org.au/registration-early-childhood-teachers/. Fonseca-Chacana, J. (2019). Making teacher dispositions explicit: A participatory approach. Teaching and Teacher Education, 266–276. Gibson, M., McFadden, A., & Zollo, L. (2018). Discursive considerations of child care professional experience in early childhood teacher education: Contingencies and tensions from teacher educators. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29(4), 293–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10901027.2018.1458256. Halpern, R. (2013). Tying early childhood education more closely to schooling: promise, perils and practical problems. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–28. Kaga. (2018). The relationships between early childhood and primary education in France and Sweden. In L. Miller, C. Cameron, C. Dalli, & N. Barbour (Eds). The Sage handbook of early childhood policy. Los Angeles: Sage. Kagan, S. L., & Roth, J. (2017). Transforming early childhood systems for future generations: Obligations and opportunities. International Journal of Early Childhood, 49(2), 137–154. LiBetti, A. (2018). Let the research show: Developing the research to improve early childhood teacher preparation. Retrieved from https://bellwethereducation.org/publication/let-researchshow-developing-research-improve-early-childhood-teacher-preparation-0. Ministry of Education and Research. (2017). Framework plan for kindergartens. Retrieved from https://www.udir.no/in-english/framework-plan-for-kindergartens/. Nelson, P. J. (2015). Intelligent dispositions: Dewey, habits and inquiry in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 86–97. Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD). (2017). Starting strong 2017. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/starting-strong-2017-9789264276116-en.htm. Pascoe, S., & Brennan, D. (2017). Lifting our game: Report of the review to achieve educational excellence in Australian schools through early childhood interventions. Melbourne: Three’s a crowd. Productivity Commission. (2011). Early childhood development workforce. Retrieved from www. pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/education-workforce-early-childhood/report.

References

77

Tatto, M., Richmond, G., & Andrews, D. (2016). The research we need in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 247–250. Wright, J. (2003). Poststructuralist methodologies—The body, schooling and health. In J. Evans, B. Davies, & J. Wright, (eds.), Body knowledge and control. Studies in the sociology of physical education and health (pp. 34–59). Routledge: London.

Chapter 5

Professional Experience in Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Abstract Professional experience is a valuable component of teaching programs providing opportunities for students to practise and apply their knowledge and skills under the guidance of a teaching mentor. In this study, academics strongly endorsed the role of professional experience for students’ learning to be an early childhood teacher. The majority of the Australian universities had more professional experience days than the minimum required by Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) but there was no consistency across universities. Most universities had face-to-face supervisory visits to students, and where that was not possible, for either location or fiscal reasons, the students were contacted by phone or digital technology. Four key problems regarding professional experience emerged: that the minimum number of days for professional experience for children aged from birth to 2 years, as required by ACECQA, was only 10 days which was considered too few days to form relationships and learn how to work with children this age; professional experience in early childhood education was in some universities conducted under the auspices of the Diploma of ECECC which meant that students did not undertake practice at the degree required level AQF 7; the quality of the EC centre where the student was placed for professional experience was at times poor, which was thought to negatively impact upon the student’s learning experience; and professional experience frequently only began in the second year of study. Professional experience within Nordic countries was consistent within each country, at either 75 or 100 days depending on the country. Students were visited by paid academics to ensure that the students’ practices were appropriate, and first year of study always include professional experience. Partnerships between early childhood settings and the university existed which supported students’ placement and also supported the early childhood centre staff in professional learning.

Professional Experience in Australia Professional experience is considered a valuable real-world experience for early childhood pre-service teachers and a central part of the structure of the teaching degree (Girod & Girod, 2008) to prepare teaching pre-service teachers (students).

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 W. Boyd, Australian Early Childhood Teaching Programs, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5837-5_5

79

80

5 Professional Experience in Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Professional experience is an opportunity for pre-service teachers to observe, implement and reflect upon the • content they have learned in their study at university, • the skills required as a teacher and how they approach their teaching, and • the theories of how children learn in the real world. The opportunity to practise teaching with children is critical to enhance the students’ skills and ability to be an effective early childhood teacher (Hyson, Tomlinson & Morris, 2009). Australian research has shown that students are attracted to working in early childhood centres when they experience professional experience in a good quality EC centre (Thorpe, Millear & Petriwskyj, 2012). Having professional experience in a good quality early childhood centre is key for students’ knowledge and skills. Pre-service teachers have been found to value professional experience as the most important part of their teaching degree, and academics value the students’ opportunities to apply theory learned at university to the real world. Harrison and Heinrichs Joerdens (2017) found that of 180 early childhood pre-service teachers surveyed in a birth-12 years’ degree the majority rated professional experience as the most influential aspect of knowledge building (64%), followed by coursework (27%) and assessments (9%). Professional experience is a key criterion for providing students with an understanding of ECEC practices to attract and recruit highly skilled staff (Schleicher, 2019). But research in Australia has shown that early childhood graduates are not considered well prepared for teaching by early childhood employers and should consider more effective engagement in professional experience (Boyd et al., In press). The Boyd et al. study found graduates to be not well prepared in applying theory into practice, nor how to establish relationships with families.

Data Collection and Analysis The approach taken to this research is explained in detail in Chap. 2. In summary, 27 Australian academic program directors representing 70% of program directors at Australian universities, and five academics from three Nordic universities were interviewed about their perspectives of early childhood teacher programs. The interviews were conducted between September and December 2018. The program directors were responsible for 40 early childhood teacher programs in Australia. Perspectives from five academics from three Nordic universities’ ECT programs are presented and comparisons made with Australia. The question asked of the academics regarding professional experience was: Can you please talk about the requirements for professional experience in your early childhood teacher program?

The study was conducted under a post-structuralist orientation that enabled one to raise questions regarding power and knowledge, and to delve into uncertainties to

Data Collection and Analysis

81

think in a different way (Wright, 2003). Data was analysed using discourse analysis from Foucault’s thinking about the power and relationships, knowledge and truths.

Requirements for Professional Experience The requirements for professional experience in ECT programs have been analysed according to the structure and duration; the timing and placement; the quality of placements; and supervision models of professional experience.

Structure and Duration of Professional Experience The academics viewed professional experience as critical for the students’ development as a teacher to apply theory learnt at university to practice with young children. As one academic stated: Early childhood is not an industry where you get to just talk theories. It is very, very handson, a very practical approach…And I think there needs to be recognition that whilst, yes, we still need to comply with the academic requirements to be a degree we also need to consider the practice as well (Academic birth-5).

The number of professional experience days in each ECT program is shown in Table 5.1. Not all courses’ details were provided during the interviews; thus, there are only 33 programs presented in Table 5.1. Most universities had more days than required by the accrediting authorities ACECQA (2019) or AITSL (2019). The ACECQA stipulates the minimum number of days supervised professional experience students must complete in professional experience in the birth-2 years’ room, and in the 3–5 years’ room: 1. 80 days supervised professional experience for undergraduate early childhood teaching qualifications. This must include a minimum of 10 days supervised professional experience with children aged birth to under 3 years old (0–35 months), and a significant number of days in early childhood settings with children aged 3 until before they start formal schooling. The remaining balance may be undertaken with school aged children. 2. 60 days supervised professional experience for post graduate early childhood teaching qualifications. This must include a minimum of 10 days supervised professional experience with children aged birth to under 3 years old (0–35 months), and a significant number of days in early childhood settings with children aged 3 until before they start formal schooling. The remaining balance may be undertaken with school aged children (ACECQA, 2019, p. 3).

There were some deviations from the expected professional experience approaches. These are indicated by the asterisks: *At university 3 the early childhood practicum component in the birth-12 degree is completed prior to studying at university. The degree is structured as a partnership

130

45**

Birth-12

Birth-12

Birth-5

4

5

Birth-8

Birth-12 (Postgrad)

15

Birth-5 (Postgrad)

12

Birth-12

Birth-12

11

Birth-12

Birth-8

10

14

105

Birth-8

9

13

65

Birth-8

8

140

85

90

100

110

95***

115

115

Birth-12

7

110

Birth-8

6

100

80

Birth-12

80

Birth-5

3

80

Birth-5

2

120

Birth-12

1

Total days

Program type

University number

40:45:00

45:45:00

60:40:00

60:40:00

65:50:00

65:45:00

55:45:00

40:40:00

50:50:00

Ratio EC: Primary

20

20

20

20

20

20

Unknown

10

15

25

20

20

20

20

20* in Diploma

20

25

15

Birth-3 years

Table 5.1 Structure and duration of professional experience (n = 33)

20

20

25

40

40

40

Unknown

30

70

40

20

25

45

35

20* in Diploma

45

55

45

3–5 years

5

5

50

–

–

–

Unknown

30

25

–

20

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

5–8 years

–

45

45

40

–

40

–

50

–

–

65

45

40

–

–

60

5–12 years

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

50

25

5

50

15

(continued)

Internships******

82 5 Professional Experience in Early Childhood Teacher Programs

120

60

Birth-5 (Postgrad)

Birth-12

Birth-5 (postgrad)

17

18

Birth-8

Birth-8

Birth-8 (Postgrad)

Birth-5

Birth-12

23

24

25

26

27

135

100

80

80

95

95

110

Birth-12

Birth-8

22

60** (undergrad)

Birth-5

80

Birth-5 (Postgrad)

21

90

Birth-5

20

90****

Birth-12

19

60

90

Birth-8

16

Total days

Program type

University number

Table 5.1 (continued)

60:40:00

40:40:00

40:55:00

50:60

60:75

50:40:00

40:80

Ratio EC: Primary

25

15

15

15

15

20

20

10

20

20

10

30

20

10

10

Birth-3 years

35

60

25

25

25

30

40

50

20

40

40

30

20

50

15

3–5 years

20

5

40

40

55

60

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

40

5–8 years

20

–

–

75

–

–

–

40

–

80

–

–

5–12 years

30

25

–

–

–

–

15

40*****

–

–

–

–

Internships******

Requirements for Professional Experience 83

84

5 Professional Experience in Early Childhood Teacher Programs

with a Diploma of ECEC in the first 2 years, and then the next 2 years are undertaken at university where the primary education is studied. This means students are not assessed at AQF level 7 for early childhood practice. This will change after July 2020 with new regulations introduced by ACECQA. **At universities 5 and 21 students entering the birth-5 degree had completed early childhood either via a Diploma or a Bachelor of Teaching, so there were less days required in professional experience. Credit was given for past successful study. Students find their own centre for their professional experience. The centre must be a different type to that they are working in, for example, if the student is working in a preschool then they must find a childcare centre. ***At University 9 students in this birth-8 degree have a 10-day practicum trial in the first year of study to see what age group they would like to focus on. Then they can choose two 30-day placements and do a final 25 days in a setting of their choice. The professional experience office in this university ensures the students have completed all accrediting authorities’ requirements for the number of days. ****University 19 online students find their own placement, but for face-to-face students, placements are found by the university. *****University 20 postgraduate students in the birth-5 qualification can choose if they want to do their professional experience in a birth-3 or a 3–5 years’ room. Students do 4 days per week on practicum, and then attend university 1 day a week to share experiences and receive mentoring from academics and peers. ****** Universities 2, 6, 8, 9, 15, 20 and 24 offered students an internship completed at the end of their program, and in a setting of their choice. The range and average duration of professional experience are shown in Table 5.2. Eight ECT programs of the 33 (24%) analysed had the minimum number of days required by ACECQA (2019) with 22 having more than the required number—from 5 to 80 extra days. Having extra days for professional experience was viewed as giving the course integrity (Academic birth-12). Of the combined early childhood/primary programs, the ratio of the number of early childhood days compared to primary days was analysed showing there were seven programs (44%) had more EC days than primary, five programs (31%) had more primary than EC and four programs (25%) had the same number of days in early childhood and primary. Table 5.2 Duration of professional experience across courses Program type

U: Undergraduate P: Postgraduate n = number of programs

Range of days

Birth-5 years (n = 10)

U (n = 4) (2 omitted**)

80–90

83

P (n = 4)

60–76

65

U (n = 9)

90–140

107

Birth-8 years (n = 10)

P (n = 1) Birth-12 years (n = 13)

80

Average duration

80

U (n = 12

80–135

105

P (n = 1)

105

105

Requirements for Professional Experience

85

The length of professional experience for birth to 3 year olds was a catalyst for discussion. The requirement by ACECQA (2019) was 10 days. Six ECT programs had only 10 days of professional experience with children aged from birth to 2 years. Concern was expressed by academics that working with infants was viewed as developing and implementing relational pedagogy, and they questioned if this could be achieved in 2 weeks. As one academic (birth-12) stated: Being with infants takes time to form relationships and this cannot be accomplished in two weeks.

Academics stated that many students resisted doing a practicum placement in a birth to 3 year’s room because: What we say to the students is ‘What we want you to do is to think about the role of the teacher in the birth—two years’ room’. They actually see the value of the birth-two setting rather than just seeing it as care. I do find that 80 to 90 percent of our students really value this experience when they have done it. They don’t value it before (Academic birth-5).

An innovation at two universities was for students in the birth-8 degree to have a 10-day practicum trial in the first year of study to see which age group they would like to focus on. The students then chose two 30-day placements and a final 25 days in a setting of their choice (the Internship). The professional experience office in this university ensured that the students had completed all accrediting authorities’ requirements. Overall, there was a wide variation of professional experience duration and context. Some universities met the minimum ACECQA requirements and others went beyond. This raises the question of how many days should students have on professional experience, should it be fixed number of days and in what context should the placement/s be? Should the students be able to choose their context— for example, birth to 2, or 3 to 5? These are questions that should be addressed to stimulate thinking of doing professional experience otherwise. The following section explores the timing and placement of professional experience.

Timing and Placement of Professional Experience The timing of the professional experience placement was another area of different approaches. Some academics tried to position the professional feedback in response to students’ feedback. For example, an academic explained that they had swapped two practicums as students exhibited high levels of anxiety about doing a practicum in an early childhood centre for their first practicum. This first practicum had been changed to a primary school practicum where students reported feeling more comfortable. Not having professional experience in the first year of study at university was highlighted as a problem by several academics because some students abandoned their degree after their first professional experience as they found they were unsuited to this career. Finding this out earlier in the programs was better for students as they could then stop studying the program. However, some universities were unable to include

86

5 Professional Experience in Early Childhood Teacher Programs

professional experience in students’ first year of the degree owing to the structure of the degree. The decision to not have professional experience in the first year of study of the degree was determined by the accrediting authority for primary schools. As explained in Chap. 4, some universities had the first year of study as a foundation year in the Bachelor of Arts to enable transfer into the Bachelor of Education in the second year. This was especially the case for the birth-12 years’ degrees. One academic stated: Philosophically from early childhood we work from the perspective that relationships are foundational. So, part of putting students out to practicum in first year was recognising and understanding the importance of relationships and really starting to build the skill and capacity to use relationships as pedagogy. The one thing we have always held dear is that observation was the key to good early childhood pedagogy. If they’re not doing practicum in first and second year, they’re just not getting the required skill of observation. It takes a long time to learn how to be a good observer and how to translate that into curriculum. (Academic birth-12).

Internships are usually a large block of time on professional experience at the end of a degree. Students could choose their placement area. The internship was highly valued by academics and students as a time for students to take responsibility and leadership in the educational setting; and to consolidate their identity as a teacher prior to stepping out into the real world. Academics highlighted some of the challenges students had with professional experience placements relating to their personal lives. As many students engage in paid work to support themselves throughout their study the duration of professional experience of up to 10 weeks significantly cut into their paid work time. As one academic stated: The biggest barrier (for students) is about the way they are living now. They’re increasingly self-funded and so to have a block of time from six to ten weeks is really hard for them to stop their income and also maintain bills—such as rent, food and utilities (Academic birth-8).

Academics from universities where students were able to complete their practicum in their workplace were in support of this practice as it meant students did not suffer financially to complete their professional experience. However, completing professional experience in one’s own centre is fraught with potential conflict and challenges. For example, it may be difficult for the mentor teacher, who is also a colleague of the ‘student’, to be unbiased in their assessment of the ‘student’s’ progress in their professional experience. In other cases where students had to do their professional experience in an early childhood centre where they were not working the students protested. These students had gained entry into the course via the Diploma of ECEC and were already working in an early childhood centre. As stated: Students invariably tell me ‘I’m already doing that’. We say to them ‘well no you’re not because you’re working as an educator now not as a teacher. So, you need to go in as a student teacher (on your practicum) and work with a teacher’ (Academic birth-5).

This comment highlights that doing a practicum is not just about being in an early childhood setting but indicates that students are required to engage more deeply

Requirements for Professional Experience

87

than a Diploma qualified educator on their practicum. The latest requirements from ACECQA to be implemented in July 2020 indicates that professional experience must be done in a degree, not only a Diploma of ECEC.

Quality of Placement on Professional Experience The quality of the early childhood settings for placing the students for their professional experience was of concern for academics. There are 21% of early childhood settings in Australia who are ‘working towards’ the National Quality Standard (NQS) (ACECQA, 2019), that is, 21% of early childhood settings are not meeting the NQS. Some academics explained that: We have a policy where we only send our students to centres that have been rated as meeting or exceeding (the National Quality Standard). Only in very exceptional circumstances would we send a student to a ‘Working Towards Meeting’ (the National Quality Standard) centre (Academic birth-5 years).

But it was still an issue for some universities to locate enough early childhood centres that were of the required quality for their students’ professional experience placements. As one academic noted: (We) struggle to find enough practicum placements for students that are of high quality, they may not necessarily get the most ideal mentoring in the service that you really want for those students to make the transition to being an early childhood teacher) (Academic birth-5)

Including primary education with the early childhood education in one degree was highlighted as a problem. An academic explained that of 30 students enrolled in the birth-12 degree approximately three (10%) would choose to work in an early childhood setting. She had asked students what influenced their decision to work in primary, and not early childhood education, and the student had responded: ‘Well I really liked early childhood, really wanted to go there, but when I go to the centres I’m really bored. There was nothing happening with the children.’ But when they went to primary, it was much more structured for them. They had lessons they had to plan and deliver, and so I think some of them found that easier (Academic birth-12).

Not only does this highlight the problem that students do not want to work in ECEC (Boyd & Newman, 2019), but it also suggests that the quality of the early childhood centres was unsatisfactory. If there was ‘nothing happening’, as the student indicated, then this is of concern. Early childhood centres should be busy places with children deeply engaged in playing and learning, not a place where ‘nothing is happening’. If students are allocated to a centre that is not meeting the NQS, it could be expected that their professional experience in the setting may not be informative and they may learn poor quality practices. However, some universities required students to find their own placement. It would be good practice if universities reviewed the quality rating of each centre prior to agreeing to the student’s placement. The quality of each centre, that is, the rating and assessment outcome, is publicly available in Australia

88

5 Professional Experience in Early Childhood Teacher Programs

(Starting Blocks, 2019). Concern about the quality of the primary school settings was also of concern: Even in schools they’re [pre-service teachers] seeing some things that we wouldn’t want them to be—some practices we wouldn’t want them to be using (Academic birth-8).

When the EC setting is of good quality, then students were found to have a very different professional experience. Thorpe et al. (2012) found that students developed a willingness to work in childcare, following professional experience in a good quality centre. An academic stated: What I find is when they go to the high end, good quality early childhood centres, students initially prefer to work there, because it’s less stress than school….but my colleagues and I have discovered that up to about five years this is fine, then the graduates realise the money isn’t nearly as good (as primary), and the career progression isn’t there (Academic birth-8).

This academic indicated that while students enjoyed working in good quality centres for the first 5 years, the academic thought that they abandoned working in EC settings after 5 years, owing to the work conditions, and the lack of career pathways in early childhood. Retention of staff in early childhood settings is a significant issue for Australian early childhood settings with 20% expected to leave the sector each year (McDonald, Thorpe & Irvine, 2018). This comment raises the issue that all universities face when students do professional experience: what happens when students witness practices that are considered poor quality, and/or unsuitable to as effective teaching? How will students know what is poor quality practice? What happens if there is no available supervisor/mentor to discuss this with? One way to address this is for students to return to the university midway/during/at the completion of their placement to discuss and share their experiences in practice. There were two universities that had this strategy in place. As one academic explained: I think the professional experience is critical, this opportunity for students to put theory into practice. But also, to come back to university to debrief, to talk through stuff. There needs to be finishing off at the end. But I really think critical to a university degree is the building of capacity of students to think and to exercise professional autonomy and professional judgement. So, we’re not teaching black and white concepts, they are teaching professionals (Academic birth-5).

An innovation occurring at one university was the development of a mentor teacher online support program being established for the teachers who take students, and this was to be accredited with the state accrediting authority so that it would also count towards professional development for the teacher supervising the early childhood students. The quality of the early childhood centre where the students undertake professional experience needs to be monitored to ensure that students are exposed to good pedagogical practices with positive role models.

Requirements for Professional Experience

89

Supervision Models of Professional Experience Professional experience provides students with the opportunity to apply their academic learning to the real world. It is an excellent opportunity for them to ‘try out’ teaching. Supervision of students while they are in the field is paramount for a rewarding experience and contributes to students’ professional practice. Supervisory models are thus of importance for the student’s professional experience. The supervisory models identified by the academics varied significantly. Many models of supervising students existed—see Table 5.3. The main supervisory models were face-to-face visits, phone calls, emails, Skype and texting, usually conducted by non-academic staff who had teaching experience in the field. Seventeen of the 27 universities (63%) had face-to-face supervision visits for students. Nineteen universities used technologies including phones, Skype, texts or email, to supervise students some in conjunction with face-to-face supervision. Phone calls for supervising were common for universities who had students studying online. Six universities who made phone calls did not make face-to-face visits. Academics explained that the reasons for no visits were fiscal: Years ago, academics went out and visited. That no longer happens because we had a huge (financial) cutback and they wouldn’t put it in the academics’ workloads (Academic birth-5).

Supervisors who visited students were both academic and non-academic. The non-academic staff were usually practising teachers in the field. The supervisors were provided with university EC material to assist with supervision of the student. The mentor teacher, that is, the EC teacher in the early childhood setting, assessed the student’s progress, not the university supervisor. There were one to three visits made per placement, of two to four hours per student duration. Concern about the quality of supervision was expressed by several academics especially as it related to the cost of paying the supervisors. As one academic stated: I’ve noticed over the years a real deterioration of support for teachers and for students on placement. In the past where we would have had six hours of supervision per student teachers it is now down to three. There’s some suggestion that we may not have supervision on all placements—especially in fourth year. I do think that we need to be able to support students in professional experience to have this integration of the academic work with the practical and having a really strong connection between what’s happening between the university and placement centres (Academic birth-12).

Requirements of Professional Experience in the Nordic Countries The structure of professional experience is presented in Table 5.1. All academics supervised students face-to-face only (Table 5.4). Key points identified as being of significance by the Nordic academics were

90

5 Professional Experience in Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Table 5.3 Duration and models of supervision of professional experience University number

Program

Total days

Supervision: Yes Visits to students

Supervision: Yes Phones/digital contact

1

Birth-12

120 75

One visit per year—in own centre

Yes

Birth-5 2

Birth-5

80

1 visit

Yes

3

Birth-12

80

EC practicum is completed prior to university

4

Birth-12

100

No

Yes

5

Birth-12

130

Yes

Yes

Birth-5

45

6

Birth-8

110

Internal students

Online students.

7

Birth-12

115

1 visit

Yes

8

Birth-8

115

Internal students

Online students.

9

Birth-8

95**

Yes

No

10

Birth-8

110

1 visit

Yes

11

Birth-12

90

Yes*

No

12

Birth-5 (Postgrad)

65

Yes

Online meetings

Birth-12 (Postgrad)

105

13

Birth-12

90

Only if problem

Yes

14

Birth-12

85

Yes

No

15

Birth-8

160

Three visits

No

16

Birth-8

90

Only if problem

Yes

17

Birth-5 (Postgrad)

60

Only if problem

Yes

18

Birth-12

120

Two visits

Yes

Birth-5 (Postgrad)

60

19

Birth-12

90

Only if problem

Yes

20

Birth-5

90

Yes

No

Birth-5 (Postgrad)

76

21

Birth-5

60

Yes

No

Birth-12

135

22

Birth-8

110

1 visit

No

23

Birth-8

95

1 visit

No

24

Birth-8

95

50 km

25

Birth-8 (Postgrad)

80

1 visit

Yes

26

Birth-5

80

No

Yes

27

Birth-12

100

Two visits

Yes

Requirements of Professional Experience in the Nordic Countries

91

Table 5.4 Professional experience in Nordic countries Country Age group

Duration

Finland 9 months to 6 years 75 days across 3 years

Supervision models Visits to all students

Norway

100 days across 3 years, including 25 days Visits to all students in third (the final year)

Sweden

100 days across three and a half years at the same setting

Visits to all students

• a 5-day professional experience was implemented in the first year of the program for Norwegian students so that students could develop an early understanding of early childhood teaching, • students in the Swedish program had the same setting for the professional experience over the 3.5 years of the degree, • in Finland in the final year the students had practice being the leader of the early childhood setting. The academics from the university in Norway viewed professional experience in the first year as essential. As one academic stated: The first block is five single days and then it’s a 20 day block. I think it’s very special that we have most of the time out in practical during the first two years. Because many programs in other countries have most of that in the end of their studies…I think the rationale is that they should be introduced to the field very early and then the theoretical subjects should be linked to that work.

This contrasts with Australia where many students did not commence professional experience until the second year of their degrees. Having professional experience in the first year allows students to decide if this vocation choice suits them. All Nordic universities had paid partnerships between universities and early childhood centres to support the students’ professional experience, and to support the early childhood centres. This was perceived to support the quality of the experience for the early childhood students and guaranteed placements. The Norwegian academics explained the university had an obligation to pay their mentors for supervising their students, and the university also ran professional development for staff at these centres. Although it was described as ‘the most expensive part of our program’, it was seen as a ‘kind of obligation’. The Swedish model of placements of students was unique. The students were placed in an early childhood centre in the first year and stayed there throughout their degree to gain practice in working with children aged 1 to 6 years. The academic at this university explained that this system mostly worked well: So, there’s some benefits and some challenges with that. The students say they like it. But there’s also some discussions around the setting—if you have a very good setting then of course you will love it. But if you’re not so lucky that would be more of challenge for the student (Swedish academic).

92

5 Professional Experience in Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Overall, there was stability and consistency in the Nordic countries unlike in Australia where there was a huge range of diversity in the professional experience programs.

Summary There were many ways that professional experience in ECT programs was organised within Australia. The academics had produced complex EC teacher professional experience programs that had a diversity of structures, duration, timing, placements, quality of placement and supervision models unique to their university and context. The significant variations produced an inconsistent approach to professional experience within ECT programs, but it is uncertain if it is adequate and appropriate as recommended by Rowley, Kos, Raban, Fleer, Cullen, and Elliott (2011) because approaches have been evaluated. It is not possible to identify which approach to professional experience is best to prepare early childhood teachers. Amongst the 27 universities across Australia, there was not one program of professional experience the same as another. Each academic had opted for a different approach aimed to produce a quality professional experience to support the development of effective teachers. Within such uncertainty, this calls for further research to identify optimal professional experience designs and how this links to becoming an effective early childhood teacher. It was different in the Nordic countries where the duration of professional experience was consistent in the Nordic countries at either 75 or 100 days; all students were supervised by academics to ensure that the students’ practices were appropriate. Key problems regarding professional experience emerged. A minimum of 10 days of supervised professional experience for pre-service teachers with the birth to 3year-old children was not long enough to develop and build secure relationships with the children, and to learn how to provide a stimulating learning environment. As the pre-service teacher’s professional expertise develops, they must learn how to communicate with the children and interpret their cues (Recchia & Shin, 2010). Ten days is unlikely to be adequate time to establish relationships, observe and learn how to provide valuable learning experiences for infants and toddlers. The duration of this practicum represents a perception within society that all children under 3 years do is to play, sleep, eat and need toileting, with no consideration of learning (Couse & Recchia, 2016). Play by toddlers is not viewed as learning, but rather something of leisure. The perception that play is not learning, and that infants and toddlers are not learning, but rather just being cared for, or ‘baby-sat’, needs to change (Pyle & Danniels, 2017). In some universities, the professional experience was conducted under the auspices of the Diploma of ECECC which meant that students did not undertake practice at the degree required level AQF 7. It is expected that this will change when the new ACECQA (2019) requirements are implemented in July 2020 as stated by ACECQA (2019):

Summary

93

In addition, we would typically not expect any of the required supervised professional experience days to be credited from a lower level qualification (e.g. from the Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care) (p. 2).

The quality of the EC centres where students were placed was at times not meeting the National Quality Standard (ACECQA, 2018), which was thought to negatively impact upon the student’s learning experience. Students’ experiences while on placement have been found to influence decisions for working in early childhood education (Thorpe et al., 2011, 2012). It is important that pre-service teachers have the opportunity to witness good quality education and care. Such models provide exemplars of pedagogical leadership for their future vocation (Recchia & Shin, 2010; Schleicher, 2019). Some universities had strategies in place to ensure that students were placed with experienced mentors, and not placed in poor quality centres, while other universities were unable to be selective as they could not locate enough early childhood centres for all of their students. If academics are not going to assess the student’s progress while they are on professional experience, then the quality of the mentor or the non-academic supervisor matters: This person needs to have a deep understanding of what the student needs to learn and to assist them accordingly. Having a mentor teacher that is a good role model who supports one’s learning while on professional experience is important for the early childhood pre-service teacher to gain confidence and efficacy in their teaching. Not only is mentoring important during professional experience but it has been found to facilitate the construction of professional identity when new graduates commence their teaching (Kupila & Karila, 2019). Problems exist with having a suitable mentor teacher for students undertaking a practicum with children aged from birth to 3 years in Australia. This is because qualified ECTs are not required to teach young children across many jurisdictions. Many rooms in EC centres for children aged birth to 3 years are led by educators who have a Diploma, not a trained EC teacher. An EC teacher is required to sign off the student’s professional experience report. This is problematic for the student as they will not be mentored and guided by an ECT but need to be assessed by one. It is highly recommended that early childhood academics are the assessors of the students while on professional experience. This will cost universities money; however, the end result would be that students would benefit from the quality feedback they would receive from academics. Poor supervision has the power to influence the pre-service teacher’s experience, while they are practising being a teacher. Professional experience frequently began in the second year of study which needs addressing as having professional experience in the first year enables students to gauge whether this degree suited their career aspirations and has been identified as a preference of students (Harrison & Heinrichs Joerdens, 2017). If it did not suit them, then they can withdraw and save unnecessary higher education fees. All Nordic countries had professional experience in the first year of the program. Partnerships existed between a few early childhood settings and universities in Australia which supported students’ placement, and also supported the early childhood centre staff in professional learning. In the Nordic countries, partnerships were the norm. Under such partnerships, a reciprocal exchange of services was made

94

5 Professional Experience in Early Childhood Teacher Programs

between the universities and the cooperating early childhood centres, who were exemplars of good quality pedagogical practices. The pre-service teachers had the opportunity to witness mastery of pedagogical practices and be mentored by exemplary teachers that support their learning and development as an ECT, while the university offers professional learning for the early childhood centre benefitting. This is an important nexus as the pre-service teachers commence their professional experience with knowledge and theoretical understandings but may not have yet witnessed best practice examples of theory being implemented into practice.

References Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019). Qualifications assessment guidelines for organization applications. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/ qualifications/assessment/approval/early-childhood. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2018). National quality standard. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/national-quality-standard. Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL) (2019). Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from https://www.aitsl.edu.au/teach/standards. Boyd, W., Fenech, M., Mahony, L., Wong, S., Warren, J., Lee, I-F., & Cheeseman, S. (2020). Employers’ perspectives of how well prepared early childhood teacher graduates are to teach in early childhood education and care services, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood (In press). Boyd, W., & Newman, L. (2019). Primary + Early Childhood = chalk and cheese? Tensions in undertaking an early childhood/primary education degree. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119841456. Couse, L. J., & Recchia, S. L. (2016). Handbook of Early Childhood Teacher Education. New York: Routledge. Girod, M., & Girod, R. G. (2008). Simulation and the need for practice in teacher preparation. Journal of Technology and Teacher, 16(3), 307–337. Harrison, C., & Heinrich Joerdens, S. H. (2017). The combined Bachelor of Education early childhood and primary degree: Student perceptions of value. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 4–13. Hyson, M., Tomlinson, H. & Morris. C., (2009). Quality improvement in early childhood teacher education: Faculty perspectives and recommendations for the future. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 11(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v11n1/hyson.html. Kupila, P., & Karila, K. (2019). Peer mentoring as a support for beginning preschool teachers. Professional Development in Education, 45(2), 205–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.142 7130. McDonald, P., Thorpe, K. & Irvine, S. (2018). Low pay but still we stay: Retention in early childhood education and care. Journal of Inducstrial Relations, 60(5), 647–668. Pyle, A., & Danniels, E. (2017). A continuum of play-based learning: The role of the teacher in play-based pedagogy and the fear of hijacking play. Early Education and Development, 28(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1220771. Recchia, S. L., & Shin, S. (2010). Baby teachers: How pre-service early childhood students transform their conceptions of teaching and learning through an infant practicum. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 30(2), 135–145. Rowley, G., Kos, J., Raban, B., Fleer, M., Cullen, J., & Elliott, A. (2011). Current requirements for tertiary qualifications in early childhood education: Implications for policy. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012…early_childhood_misc.

References

95

Schleicher, A. (2019). Helping our Youngest to Learn and Grow: Policies for Early Learning, International Summit on the Teaching Profession. Paris: OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1787/9789264313873-en. Starting blocks (2019). Startingblocks.com.au. Retrieved from https://www.startingblocks.gov.au/. Thorpe, K., Millear, P., & Petriwskyj, A. (2012). Can a childcare practicum encourage degree qualified staff to enter the childcare workforce? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(4), 317–327. Thorpe, K., Boyd, W., Ailwood, J., & Brownlee, J. (2011). Who wants to work in childcare? Preservice early childhood teacher’s consideration of work in the child-care sector. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(1), 85–94. Wright, J. (2003). Poststructuralist methodologies-The body, schooling and health. In J. Evans, B. Davies, & J. Wright, (Eds.). Body knowledge and control. Studies in the sociology of physical education and health (pp. 34–59) Routledge: London.

Chapter 6

Enablers and Barriers for Optimal Early Childhood Teacher Programs

Abstract This chapter presents academics’ perspectives of the enablers and barriers for the design and delivery of early childhood teacher (ECT) programs that effectively prepare early childhood teachers. Features that enabled Australian academics to implement optimal ECT programs are discussed and considered to inform future policy. Many Australian academics felt marginalised within their university, while academics in the Nordic countries felt supported. The chapter explains how support for academics in their work as program directors was perceived as both an enabler and a barrier to the provision of the optimal quality of ECT programs. Barriers that existed within the universities included inadequate time in the program director’s workload; the influence of the university’s fiscal requirements to meet student intake; attitudes to early childhood education; the program structures; and teaching online. The key external barrier was the perceived negative impact that the accreditation authorities had on the quality of the ECT program. Competing discourses existed for academics as they aimed to ensure that student intake was optimal to keep the university’s budget on track, and at the same time ensure the quality of the early childhood teaching program. Implications are discussed.

Introduction This chapter presents academics’ perspectives of the enablers and barriers for ECT programs that effectively prepare graduates as early childhood teachers. The data was collected from the following two questions: 1. What support do you have in the organisation for this course coordinator role? 2. What do other staff in your school/faculty think of the ECT program? Enablers and barriers were also identified as a result of other questions asked during the interviews and have also been included in this chapter.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 W. Boyd, Australian Early Childhood Teaching Programs, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5837-5_6

97

98

6 Enablers and Barriers for Optimal Early Childhood …

Enablers and Barriers The key enablers and barriers identified by academics included the support that the academics received to do their job and the people who they worked with; the constraints of the budgetary requirements of the university; the status of early childhood education and care (ECEC); the program structures; the delivery of the program; and the concern about students’ lives. Each of these factors was seen to influence the quality of the ECT program as an enabler to offer the optimal ECT program, or as a barrier. These enablers and barriers will now be discussed.

Support Within the University Support from colleagues within universities was identified as both an enabler and a barrier, depending on each academic. The support for the academics was viewed to come from many areas: support came from the Dean/Head of School for the ECT program; the provision of administration support was viewed as an enabler; support to place students in professional experience; collegial and team support. Support from the Dean/Head of the Faculty/School was presented favourably by many academics, particularly if the Dean/Head of School supported and understood the importance of providing a quality ECT program. One academic stated: I have strong support. Our Dean is highly supportive, the head of school highly supportive. They have a deep respect for early childhood and a willingness to facilitate what we need. They have gone out of their way to understand the course requirements- that is ACECQA’s requirements (Academic birth-5).

Being united in the workplace with colleagues in teaching early childhood education was of great importance to the academics, enabling them to work in a supportive workplace. Many academics explained that there were too few early childhood academics in their university saying, they were too thinly spread (Academic birth-12), others talked about how they felt valued and respected by each other: There are multiple supports. I work with an amazing team of academics, and we have a very participative approach, so we have monthly management meetings that are an opportunity to share our concerns and successes and continue to raise the quality and support each other (Academic birth-5).

The following quote indicates how some academics felt valued: When I’ve approached management about concerns that I have in terms of staffing or problematic issues they’ve been resolved quickly. I feel like, at least at our institution, early childhood is highly valued as a disciplined well-respected course and we have been given wonderful opportunities to work in interdisciplinary ways to advance our teaching and research (Academic birth-8).

Six of the 27 academics’ responses were very negative when asked what support they had for their role. These six academics stood out as they felt they had no support

Enablers and Barriers

99

in terms of workload time, financial support and collegial support for their role. Lack of administrative support was frustrating for some academics: I have insufficient support. I am surrounded by very good people who will pitch in and help. But we need more admin (administrative) support. I spend a lot of my time doing very routine admin tasks that really don’t require an academic to do….

Because of not having adequate administrative support, these academics stated that they lacked time to complete tasks to optimise the quality of the course: Look, it’s busy, everyone’s just busy. What we really need is extra time once a month to come together and talk about our programs and the alignment of the curriculum and assessment. There’s just no time to do that. So, we end up having corridor conversations and cobbling things together and hoping for the best (Academic birth-12).

Another academic stated that because she was so busy there was a lack of time for being innovative within the course: So, it’s just not enough. There’s no time to think. You’re on task all the time. There’s no time to be innovative. There’s a lot of things I would like to do in the program with the team but very little time to do it (Academic birth-12).

Academics expressed concern about not being supported by colleagues to make changes within courses which they felt influenced the quality of the ECT program. For example, when a change to course structure was required an academic did not feel supported, as she stated: The early childhood courses make a significant contribution to School of Education and primary and secondary tend to go up and down according to the whims of the (state accrediting authority) and federal government directives. The demand for early childhood is consistent and growing and strong…But when I tried to shift a unit, I had to go through a rigorous process of defending why that was important for students (Academic birth-5).

Collegial and administrative support were greatly appreciated; however, ensuring that the university’s financial imperatives were met was identified as a challenge to the provision of support for some program directors.

Financial Imperatives and Quality of the ECT Program The ECT programs were viewed as providing financial income for universities, as strong student intake provided income for the university. While having strong student intake ensured the security of their positions, there were challenges associated with the provision of a quality ECT program as a result of the focus on financial imperatives. Academics voiced their concern about this: This is a constant conflict between profit and quality; (The ECT program) is a cash cow for the university; and It is all about bums on seats and the bare minimum (in resourcing).

100

6 Enablers and Barriers for Optimal Early Childhood …

Competition for limited financial resources between early childhood, primary and secondary education was mentioned as a challenge as one academic explained: The more established professors do not value early childhood. There’s a limited budget out there for education and if early childhood is muscling in there that’s going to be a lot less for them (Academic birth-8).

While early childhood colleagues were deeply appreciated, the casualisation of the early childhood academics within the university was identified as a barrier to the delivery of an optimal ECT program. Meeting the university budgetary requirements influenced the tenure of early childhood academics to teach into the ECT program. The number of early childhood qualified academics, at any one university, who worked in the early childhood teacher program ranged from one to 27 tenured academics with similar student enrolments. Where there was a low number of early childhood academics, there was usually a large number of casual teaching staff employed: That’s one of the limitations: it is not the casuals themselves because they work incredibly hard, but the fact that so much of the workforce is casualised… We’re pretty lucky, we tend to have the same casuals, but their ability to maintain their own lives and manage their own obligations on casual teaching doesn’t always last as long as we would like it to and then they go off and they find permanent positions elsewhere because they have no choice. So, you know, it does have an impact on the students, this casualised workforce (Academic birth-12).

Academics thought that casualisation of the university workforce impacted on the quality of the ECT degree and resulted in early childhood academics feeling marginalised and overlooked: They (university) also have no early childhood lecturers or professors leading the process. They do not employ anyone as all their lecturers (EC) are employed on a casual basis. There’s this constant conflict between profit and quality, and the course gets watered down all of the time (Academic birth-12).

The academics talked about being very thin on the ground. Having so few academics qualified in the EC discipline was likely to lead to the students in the ECT program being less inclined to opt to work in the ECE field. This lack of tenured early childhood academics was likely to send a strong message to students and to academic colleagues that this course was not considered to be of great importance as it was not prioritised for employment of academics. One academic explained that her Head of School: She has a strong passion for early childhood, and she would always want to make sure that we got early childhood people teaching early childhood subjects because, otherwise, what we find is if you get a primary person, over a couple of years, we find that the early childhood [knowledge] gets morphed out because they don’t know about ECEC (Academic birth-12).

A further challenge highlighted by academics was that some academics who had been employed as ECEC qualified had incorrectly made this ECEC claim in order to obtain employment. Academics felt that this caused deterioration in the quality of the ECT program delivery for students as these academics did not have real-world experience of early childhood teaching.

Enablers and Barriers

101

In comparison, the Nordic academics collaborated, were motivated, committed, cooperated and felt responsible for the education of their students, and there were no casual staff employed. This contrasted significantly with many of the Australian academics’ experience where reports of feeling marginalised were common within their university, where there were many more casual academics teaching into the ECT program than tenured staff; and they felt the burden of external regulatory bodies upon the design of the degree programs. Financial imperatives impacted the students in their professional experience placements. Some universities were able to financially resource the creation of professional partnerships with early childhood centres so that students were placed in good quality centres for their professional experience. Money was set aside for academics to deliver professional learning to the ECEC centre staff. As one academic explained: We have some, some wonderful partnerships with centres who have a qualified educator, who is doing amazing practice. This is just a wonderful experience for our students. We try and track them a little bit, but anecdotally, the students who have that wonderful experience work in that EC sector (Academic birth-8).

Lack of financial resourcing for forming ECEC partnerships in some universities was thought to impede students’ professional experience opportunities, resulting in unsuitable supervision of students, early childhood placements being of poor quality and minimal payment to early childhood mentors resulting in poor quality mentoring. The Nordic countries all had engaged partnerships with their community of early childhood centres. This was viewed as being mutually supportive for the universities and for the ECEC centres. This section has presented the enablers and challenges for program directors of the provision of a quality early childhood teacher program while meeting the university’s fiscal requirements. The next section reviews the academics’ perspectives regarding attitudes to early childhood education as it transpires within the university.

Attitudes to Early Childhood Education and Care Attitudes towards the early childhood teacher program within Australian universities varied, ranging from being highly respected to the academics feeling marginalised within the university. Academics talked about how the early childhood teaching program gets forgotten, is overshadowed, is marginalised and some colleagues were dismissive of early childhood education, especially within the birth-8 and birth12 years’ programs. Academics explained that primary and secondary education were well-staffed with academics, but not ECEC. Academics explained that ECEC was not well understood by most primary and secondary academics, and there was still a view amongst academic colleagues that: Working in early childhood is just where people play with children all day (Academic birth-5).

102

6 Enablers and Barriers for Optimal Early Childhood …

The majority of the ECEC academics felt marginalised, overlooked and undervalued. Additionally, an issue was that some primary students were seen to be disrespectful of early childhood students. As one academic noted: students in the birth-12 years’ degree are often disrespectful of early childhood; another stated that: we need to make early childhood students feel worthy. The reported lack of respect shown to ECEC as a profession that existed within the universities resonates with the reported low status of early childhood education within society (Nuttall, 2018). This provides a challenge for early childhood academics’ work in the university environment. Academic role models may have influenced the primary students to be disrespectful of early childhood students if academics did not understand the early childhood education content. Not only was there a reported lack of respect but academics were mindful that in the birth-8 or birth-12 programs, the academics who taught primary education often did not understand the curriculum framework for early childhood, the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, (DEEWR), 2009). There was a pedagogical disconnect between learning in birth-5 settings compared to learning in primary school settings. The academics who taught across the primary/early childhood programs were supposed to teach the EYLF with the students. All Norwegian graduates from the early childhood teacher programs were similarly trained, while in Australia some ECT degrees had only 3 early childhood subjects within a 32 subject early childhood/primary degree. In July 2020, new guidelines are to be implemented by ACECQA that required one-third of the degree to include, or be devoted to, early childhood education (ACECQA, 2019). The Norwegian academics were proud of having resisted including primary education in their degree. They felt a lack of respect afforded to early childhood teachers by primary school teachers. There had been discussion whether to include primary education or not: It was very clear that we should not have this, if you have one to 12 years, it is the primary school dictates what is happening in my university. It’s a kind of power in status (Academic Norwegian University).

Many academics in Australia viewed the birth-12 years’ program as a barrier to the provision of quality of an ECT program. The birth to 8 and birth to 5 years’ degrees were viewed more favourably for studying ECEC teaching. Concerns that graduates from these combined degrees then went on to teach the primary school curriculum in early childhood centres were raised by several academics. One academic explained it as: What concerns me is the pushdown curriculum and when someone is in a kindergarten in a school, they start to be school-like. An example is one of our students did a placement in a kindergarten at a school and she said oh, yes, and on Tuesday we went to library and on this day, we had Physical Education (PE), and I’m thinking this is kindergarten; why are you doing PE and library: This is the pushdown curriculum and that concerns me (Academic birth-12).

This aligns with the enactment of ‘schoolification’ (OECD, 2017), and Halpern’s (2013) observation that primary education has more power than early childhood, and

Enablers and Barriers

103

that the two should not be aligned within one course. Such approaches do not prepare graduates for teaching in ECEC. Attitudes to ECEC was linked to the low entry requirements into an ECT program. Some students in the birth-8 and birth-12 years’ program had gained entry into this course as the entry level was lower, and these students had wanted to study primary education but had not been able to gain entry into that course. Academics explained that students had told them this was an easy way into the primary course. Students had advised the academics that working in primary was optimal for work conditions: better pay, better holidays and it was better for family life compared to early childhood education. One academic explained it like this: I think high quality entry into the degree is key and I think we are still all really trying to do that. But we need the best, brightest coming into early childhood. Not the ones who have chosen early childhood because they are not very good at that. They just made the cut and I think that is a lesson that we are still learning from other countries. Then, I think, being able to have an approach to early childhood that is cohesive throughout the degree. So, I think having a team within your university that is delivering the program that is all advocating for the same philosophies (Academic birth-8).

Gaining entry into the primary program had also been identified in the Nordic countries, so their entry into the early childhood teacher program included an aptitude test, an exam and an interview to assess the motivation of the student to study early childhood education. It is perplexing why ECEC had a lower entry requirement to that of primary education as research delivered over the past 20 years has identified the significance of the importance of the early years of life on lifelong learning. There appears to be resistance to welcoming the professional status of ECEC into universities. Some Australian academics had included interviews as part of entry into the early childhood teacher program. One entry pathway was via the Diploma of ECEC. Academics expressed concern about the quality of the Diploma of ECEC. As explained in Chap. 4, the Diploma is an Australian Quality Framework (AQF) level 5 course, whereas a degree is AQF level 7. Having a Diploma was one entry pathway into the early childhood teaching degree; however, it posed many challenges for the academics. Students who had gained entry vis the Diploma were often not ready to study at AQF level 7 which required more in-depth thinking and reflection than the Diploma which was AQF5. The conduct of an interview was used to assess the motivation of the applicant; however, for some academics this was not possible owing to lack of financial resourcing in the university. A positive message came from one academic that the restructuring of her School within her university had made ECEC visible for years where in the past it had not been, as she stated: When I joined (this university) we had a lot of primary focused topics, but we had an early childhood stream. That meant that every faculty meeting we had it felt like our team was constantly saying…and just reminding them all the time, that hello, we’re early childhood and we don’t necessarily work in schools. There’s different language and terms that we might not use….in the last two years I have noticed a real shift. People come to our team now for expert lectures around early childhood curriculum…and we’ve been invited into research opportunities so there’s a seamless synergy going on (Academic birth-8).

104

6 Enablers and Barriers for Optimal Early Childhood …

The status of early childhood education was undergoing change in the Nordic countries, and the academics explained how that status was perceived differently within society and their university. The academic from Finland felt that important discussions in Finnish society had led to early education being better understood resulting in improved standing in society. As she stated: Early education is very valued in society. It has been a long way, but I think there is so much discussion and debate in society nowadays concerning early education that it is kind of understood that it is an important part of the general education system. So, education doesn’t start when the child goes to primary school. Parents know how important early education is and there is also scientific knowledge of what early education means.

The Nordic countries have a focus on lifelong education (Boström et al., 2017), with a focus on civil rights, solidarity, equity and equality. While the status of early education was thought to be increasing owing to it being better understood throughout society, early childhood teaching in Finland and Norway had lower status than primary teaching. The academic from Finland explained that there were attempts to bring the EC teachers to pay in parity with primary teachers; however, EC teachers were paid 23% less than primary teachers. Primary teachers have a Master qualification in Finland which was not yet required for EC teachers but would be by 2030. The Norwegian academics explained that they felt a lack of respect afforded to early childhood teachers by primary school teachers. This perception was based on experience of the academics. They had offered to assist primary education to better understand children from a strength’s based perspective; however, primary teachers continued to work from a deficit view of children. It was apparent to the Norwegian academics that when children started school the primary teachers wanted to know about the child’s difficulties, not the strengths of the child. This section has presented academics’ perspectives on the prevalent attitudes to early childhood education and how they perceived it to impact upon the ECT program. The next section presents the challenges some academics felt in having the early childhood teacher program assessed and accredited.

Program Structures The need for the ECT programs to be assessed and accredited by external authorities posed significant challenges for the Australian academics. The Nordic academics did not discuss this as a challenge. The diversity of requirements across jurisdictions provided challenges in many ways: the content and structure of the ECT programs; the terminology between jurisdictions; and the various requirements for professional experience. As explained in Chap. 3 ECT programs, the birth-5 years’ component was accredited by ACECQA, while the birth to 8 or birth to 12 programs then the 5–12 years’ component was assessed and accredited by the relevant jurisdiction, under the supervision of AITSL. Academics responsible for birth-8 years’ and

Enablers and Barriers

105

birth-12 years’ degrees explained that this was a challenge as there were requirements/demands made by the accrediting authorities that had adverse implications on the quality of early childhood programs especially regarding the content of early childhood education within the program. The structure of the early childhood/primary degree was viewed as an advantage for the students by some academics as it enabled them to be qualified with a dual degree. However, inequity existed across universities regarding the number of early childhood units within a degree that led to a 4-year qualified early childhood teacher. For example, the minimum number of early childhood units in a birth-12 year’s degree across the 27 universities was three early childhood units out of 32 (9%), with the maximum of 20 out of a possible 32 units (62.5%). Rowley et al. (2011) highlighted that an early childhood teacher qualification needs to provide the graduate with enough early childhood content, skills and knowledge for working with children under 5 years. There needs to be a rigourous way of assessing ECT content to align with Rowley et al.’s recommendation to improve the quality of the program. Academics who coordinated the birth-5 years’ teaching programs reported that they were satisfied with the quantity of the early childhood content within the degree. Some changes have been made in policy to change this situation. In 2019, ACECQA (2019) announced that by July 2020 ‘One third of all units must be devoted to, or inclusive of early childhood’ (p. 2). However, why is it only one-third? Why not one-half? Furthermore, there needs to be clarity around what ‘inclusive of early childhood’ means- how will this be accomplished? Becoming a registered teacher was treated differently across jurisdictions by each accrediting authority. An early childhood teacher, that is, from birth-5 years, is recognised as a registered teacher in New South Wales and Victoria, but not in some other states such as Queensland or Western Australia. This was viewed as a challenge for the academics who aimed to ensure that students felt that they were entering a teaching profession. There were challenges associated with the structure of professional experience which are outlined in Chap. 5. These include the timing and duration of professional experience; the quality of the early childhood centres for the students’ placements and the supervision of the students. A further barrier identified was that where the kindergartens, for 3 to 5 year olds, were placed on the primary school grounds, academics had witnessed ‘pushdown’ from the primary curriculum, as explained below: We have been fighting back for some time now. But I think that with kindergartens coming into schools they have taken on more of the tone of pre-primary, year one, with a lack of play (based learning). We hear a lot of stories about principals and other leaders of the school being very opposed to play pedagogies and not really understanding what that ultimately looks like. We have been releasing our position statement on play to really put it out there, and we need to see it make a meaningful comeback (Academic birth-8).

This comment highlights the different pedagogical approaches between the Australian Curriculum (Australian Curriculum, 2019) which is content-driven and the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) (DEEWR, 2009). The Australian Curriculum is not only content-driven but the pedagogical approach at school is often teacher-led compared to that in an early childhood centre which is play-based

106

6 Enablers and Barriers for Optimal Early Childhood …

(Boyd & Newman, 2019). Research has shown that young children learn best through play (Pyle & Danniels, 2017). Academics expressed significant concerns about the Australian Curriculum being pushed down into early childhood centres. Having the early childhood centres on school grounds seems to have influenced what happens in pedagogical approaches in these early childhood centres. Another issue that was a challenge for the academics within Australia was different terminologies used to describe the place for ECEC. For example, there is prekindergarten, kindergarten and preschool, that all mean early childhood education for 3 to 5 years. But in New South Wales kindergarten was the first year of primary school. Academics felt that this diversity was unacceptable and did not support ECEC as a whole: Why are we not—we’re in the same country—why are we not having the same name? I know it’s ludicrous (Academic birth-12).

In the Nordic countries, research was included in every early childhood teacher degree and viewed as an enabler to support students’ learning as an ECT. Each of the Nordic universities required all students to complete a research project. Academics explained that studying how to do research would give the graduates skills to conduct their own research as a teacher. It was acknowledged by the Australian academics that having academics on staff who conducted research contributed to the quality of the degree at their university, but it was not highlighted as being essential within the degree for the students. Another identified enabler in the Nordic countries was supporting the identity of students. Academics from the Nordic countries talked about the need to connect with students and encourage students to interrogate their personal and professional identity. Students were encultured into university learning and challenged to think about their identity as an early childhood teacher. Such an approach not only connects students to their study, but also helps them develop an understanding of their developing professional agency and identity. Some Australian academics focused on students being supported upon entering university; however, this was usually to assist students in academic study. Australian academics talked about the need to build the capacity of students to build critical thinking that contributes to having professional autonomy and professional judgement; however, the notion of enculturating students into a teacher identity was discussed rarely. This section on program structures has highlighted that the combined degree program structures were enablers for students who wanted a dual qualification, but were barriers to the optimal quality of an ECT program owing to the dominance of primary content and pedagogical approaches. Academics identified barriers for their programs in that across Australian jurisdictions there are differences in qualifying to be a registered teacher, and differences in nomenclature for ECEC services. Nordic countries identified enablers as including research in their programs and supporting the emerging identity of their students.

Enablers and Barriers

107

Teaching Online and Students’ Lives Teaching and learning online was raised by the academics as a challenge to effective provision of their program. Academics felt that they did not have the skills in teaching online. As one academic stated: The educators recognise that we could probably improve our online pedagogies and we certainly have plans to continue to do that. We actually have people here who are ready to help us with improving our online pedagogy (Academic birth-12).

Another academic raised questions about how to align online teaching with the nature of the early childhood professional which is based on relationships. She stated that: The only thing I would say we need to think about as a sector is how we go with fully online delivery. There’s such a huge demand for it. I’m interested in online learning, but I don’t know enough about it to know how you do [prepare with] what is a very social discipline. I don’t know how you prepare people for working in such a relational job, if you know what I mean? (Academic birth-8).

There was vocalized resistance to changing the delivery of the courses to online delivery of the degree instead of preferring the face-to-face mode of teaching. Two academics stated: I would say we could improve with some more face-to-face teaching time. The students are asking for that and of course the trajectory—the [traditional] trajectory is very much to create more and more online offerings and they have their limitations, particularly when you want to have experiences that are out of the classroom and in addition to out of the classroom, I’d like to see more nature play type experiences for our students as well (Academic birth-12).

And They (students) value face to face and they certainly contribute well in a face to face context (Academic birth-8).

This contrasts with the Finnish academic’s perspective who thought that online teaching and digital learning was a better delivery mode for their EC teaching degree. Her degree had a 70% face-to-face attendance requirement, meaning that students must attend 70% of classes which she thought was wasteful. She said that: I think we have had maybe too much face to face learning, and it is no use to do that because digital learning environment is just as good. We really have had so much learning face to face and I think it is a kind of waste… The students have to come here to the university campus and also, they get tired and we have had traditional timetable of two hours for one course and then two hours for the next one. It is not the content, it is the way we do it.

This contrasts with many Australian academics who thought that the ECT programs should have more face-to-face teaching. In Australia, teaching online reduces the cost of delivering the course. There was a resistance to teaching online and losing the opportunity to establish relationships with students through face-toface teaching as one Australian academic stated: face-to-face attendance contributed

108

6 Enablers and Barriers for Optimal Early Childhood …

to the whole learning experience for the students. Overall online delivery of the ECT degree was viewed as a challenge for Australian academics, and resistance to online delivery owing to the relational nature of early childhood teaching. Face-to-face teaching was preferred to online teaching as it was viewed to support students’ learning in Australia unlike the Finnish academic who thought students tired of face to face and did not learn as effectively. Academics expressed concern for students’ lifestyles while studying, recognising that many students worked full-time while studying full-time, but also recognising how online delivery of the ECT program suited the students. Students could choose when and how they studied: The strengths of the program are online, so it suits people that are working in the field. This offers flexibility to support students who are working in the field. The reality is they can’t take time off from low-paid jobs to go and sit at the university and pay lots of money for university units. So, in the current context, we’re doing the best that we can keeping our professional standards to support those students (Academic birth-5 years).

Students working many hours in paid employment while studying full-time simultaneously were raised as a challenge for the academics: The biggest barrier I think when I chat with students about it is the way that they’re living now. They’re increasingly self-funded and so to have a block of time off of six or more weeks—and they can actually extend their placement if they want to with some of our placement electives. That’s really hard to stop your income for 10 weeks or 15 weeks and also maintain bills, like you’ve got your rent and your food bill and your accommodation costs, utilities (Academic birth-8).

As a result of working, full-time students were not attending classes, unless they were compulsory. Research has shown that students who attend classes are more successful than not attending students. Therefore, some universities had introduced compulsory attendance. Several academics expressed a preference for having mature age students in their course. The reason for this was that these students had chosen to return to study after working for some years and were very focused upon EC teaching study. As one academic stated: I love these students because they’re mature aged, they’ve had lots of life experience, and they’re there because they really want to do EC teaching (Academic birth-8).

Online teaching was resisted by Australian academics. While it was seen to be economically practical, the nature of ECEC was relational and face-to-face teaching was seen to support this type of pedagogy. However, it was resisted by the Finnish academic, as compulsory face-to-face attendance was viewed as wasteful and tiring for the students.

Summary

109

Summary This research highlighted enablers for providing quality early childhood teacher programs. Supportive colleagues who understood early childhood education were thought to contribute to the quality of the program and better prepare early childhood teachers. However, academics who taught within the program but did not understand early childhood education teaching were viewed as a barrier to provision of a quality experience for students. Some academics who taught across these programs were not conversant with the value of play and tended more towards ‘schoolification’ (OECD, 2017). The structure of early childhood combined primary teaching programs presented significant challenges associated with the competition for content. As highlighted in other chapters, it was thought that the external accrediting authorities for primary education were having a negative impact upon the quality of the ECT program. Policy changes announced for implementation in July 2020 (ACECQA, 2019) support onethird of content being early childhood within an early childhood/primary program. Why is this not one-half? Early childhood education and care is worthy of study to the same extent as primary education. This sends messages to students and academics that the primary component of the course is more important than the early childhood education component. Not only does this policy direction from ACECQA (2019) impact upon the quality of early childhood teaching program but it continues to diminish the status of early childhood education within Australia. It is time for early childhood teaching programs to be solely focused on birth to 5—with attention aligned to the roles and responsibilities of preparing graduates to be professional early childhood teachers. This is the case in the Nordic countries who continue to provide the best quality of early childhood education in the world (UNICEF, 2017). The Australian government’s investment in the ECEC workforce strategy has focused on developing highly skills ECTs to improve the supply and quality of the early childhood workforce (ACECQA, 2016), yet this is resulting in graduates preferring to work in primary teaching. If there is a perceived need to continue to offer birth-8 programs as is likely to be the case in Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia, there also needs be a focus on preparing teachers with a birth to 5 focus. Within the Universities there need to be adequate financial resources to employ tenured early childhood trained and experienced academics, program directors need to be adequately paid for the work they do, with resourcing for good quality professional experience that supports the delivery of a quality ECT program that prepares early childhood teachers for the significant work they do.

110

6 Enablers and Barriers for Optimal Early Childhood …

References Australian Children’s Early Childhood Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2016). National quality agenda. Retrieved from www.acecqa.gov.au. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019). Qualifications assessment guidelines for organisation applications. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/ qualifications/assessment/approval/early-childhood. Australian Curriculum. (2019). Primary curriculum. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurri culum.edu.au/resources/primary-curriculum/. Boström, S., Einarsdottir, J., & Pramling Samuelsson, I. (2017). The Nordic perspective on early childhood education and care. In M. Fleer, & B. van Oers (Eds.), International handbook of early childhood education, Springer International Handbooks of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-94-024-0927-7_45. Boyd, W., & Newman, L. (2019). Primary + Early Childhood = chalk and cheese? Tensions in undertaking an early childhood/primary education degree. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119841456. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace relations (DEEWR). (2009). The early years learning framework. Bardon, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Halpern, R. (2013). Tying early childhood education more closely to schooling: Promise, perils and practical problems. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–28. Nuttall, J. (2018). Engaging with ambivalence: The neglect of early childhood teacher education in initial teacher education reform in Australia. In C. Wyatt-Smith & A. Adie (Eds.), Innovation and accountability in teacher education. The Netherlands: Springer. Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD). (2017). Starting Strong 2017. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/starting-strong-2017-9789264276116-en.htm. Pyle, A., & Danniels, E. (2017). A continuum of play-based learning: The role of the teacher in play-based pedagogy and the fear of hijacking play. Early Education and Development, 28(3), 274–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1220771. Rowley, G., Kos, J., Raban, B., Fleer, M., Cullen, J., & Elliott, A. (2011). Current requirements for tertiary qualifications in early childhood education: Implications for policy. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012…early_childhood_misc. UNICEF. (2017). Building the future: Children and the sustainable development goals in rich countries. Innocenti Report Card 14, UNICEF Office of Research, Innocenti, Florence.

Chapter 7

Quality Programs, Quality Early Childhood Teachers: Conclusions and Recommendations

Abstract The final chapter makes 12 recommendations grounded in the key findings, with reference to the literature and existing policy, from the research that investigated academics’ perspectives of early childhood teacher (ECT) programs in Australia and three Nordic countries: Finland, Norway and Sweden. As explained in Chap. 1, the target audience of this book are early childhood education academics; decision-makers for early childhood teacher policy; researchers interested in early childhood teacher programs and early childhood education and care; and policymakers in the field of ECT programs. The study makes a key contribution to understanding academics’ approaches to the entry, design and delivery of ECT programs, professional experience and how the programs have been shaped in response to requirements and constraints, both within and beyond the university. It is anticipated that ECT program directors and academics will find this a useful reference for the future design, delivery and research of ECT programs. This book makes a key contribution to understanding the diversity of ECT programs’ landscapes in Australia. The comparisons with three universities from Finland, Norway and Sweden open up possibilities for alternative ECT program design and delivery for renewing ECT programs within Australia. Quality ECT programs aim to prepare graduates to ultimately support children’s learning. Limitations of the study are addressed in the final section of the chapter.

Overview of the Study The following section presents the key findings from the study with reference to the literature and key policy requirements of ECT programs. The key findings relate to the perceived quality of the ECT programs with reference to the structure; design and delivery; and assessment. The aim of the study was to investigate academics’ perspectives of ECT programs to identify optimal models of early childhood teacher (ECT) programs. Comparisons with three university programs in Finland, Norway and Sweden open up possibilities for renewal of ECT programs in Australia. It is known that investment in good quality early childhood education yields the best outcomes for children (Manning, Wong, Fleming & Garvis, 2019), and poor quality © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 W. Boyd, Australian Early Childhood Teaching Programs, SpringerBriefs in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5837-5_7

111

112

7 Quality Programs, Quality Early Childhood Teachers: Conclusions …

early childhood education leads to poor outcomes for young children (Penn, 2010). But how these programs are structured and designed is unknown. This study fills this gap and recommends how quality ECT programs can be re-structured to ensure that graduates are prepared to teach in early childhood centres. Twenty-seven Australian academics were interviewed about their ECT programs and compared with five academics from three Nordic universities. The key findings are presented that relate to the quality of the ECT programs.

The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs With so many children attending an early childhood education and care (ECEC) centre, focus has turned to the qualifications and expertise of the early childhood (EC) teachers, as they determine the quality of the environments for children’s learning and development (Manning et al., 2019). It is not just the quality of ECTs that is important but Australia requires an additional 9,000 EC teachers by 2023 (Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, 2019). Urgent action is needed for the development of a highly skilled, and sustainable EC workforce. Problematically, there is a declining enrolment rate in ECT programs coupled with a low completion rate of 60% (Job Outlook, 2019). Recruiting 9,000 ECTs in 4 years is an ambitious target as Australia suffers a shortage of EC teachers and has low retention rates of EC teacher who work in EC centres (Department of Education & Training, 2017; McDonald, Thorpe, & Irvine, 2018). The quality of the ECT program influences the preparedness of early childhood graduates. The ECT university program directors make decisions about the design and delivery of the ECT program under university internal influences and external policy requirements. This study has identified academics’ perspectives on the strengths, structure, design and delivery of their ECT programs highlights areas that are working well, and areas for improvement. By teasing out the nuances of strengths and areas for improvements helps to inform approaches for optimal ECT programs. A theme that emerged frequently from the study was the impact of the low status of ECEC—this impacted students, academics and the ECT programs.

The Structure of Early Childhood Teacher Programs Overall, the structure of the ECT program needs to focus on the intended outcome of the program which is to prepare early childhood teachers for the provision of quality ECEC. The birth-5 ECT program was viewed as the optimal structure to prepare EC teacher graduates as an early childhood teacher because this program focused solely on the roles and responsibilities for teaching children aged from birth to 5. It did not include the need for students to learn how to be a primary school teacher as well. Past research has found that ECEC employers value the preparedness of ECTs who have

The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

113

undertaken a birth-5 teacher program of study, rather than a combined EC/primary teacher program (Boyd et al., In press). It is important that EC teaching students are prepared during their study to be an ECT, and for academics who teach into the ECT programs to understand how to best prepare ECTs (Tatto, Richmond, & Andrews, 2016). The structure of the Nordic ECT programs was grounded in the roles and responsibilities of the EC teacher graduate, which did not include studying how to be a primary teacher. Thus, the Nordic programs were designed to be fit for purpose, focused on preparing graduates for the work they encounter in the preschool settings upon graduation. But what happens when an early childhood teacher program is combined with a primary teacher program, as was the case in the majority of the ECT programs analysed in this study? The academics’ programs represented in this study were 10 (30%) birth-5 programs, 10 (30%) birth-8 programs and 13 (40%) birth-12 programs (see Table 5.2). While the birth-8 ECT program was valued by the Australian academics as it provided graduates with an understanding of children’s experiences within the early childhood setting, and the primary setting as well as children’s transition from early childhood into primary education, problems were identified with the combined EC/primary programs, that is, the birth-8 and birth-12 programs. The inclusion of primary teaching was found to reduce the quality of the ECT program owing to the increased content and professional experience requirements of primary education, which diminished the early childhood content and pedagogy. Academics expressed frustration at having to exclude so much ECEC content at the expense of including primary content at the request of the external accreditation authorities and the internal requirements of the university. The accreditation authorities’ influence on the content of the birth-12 courses was thought to disadvantage the EC teaching component. The requirements for primary curriculum were too dominant. While ever primary education is included in an early childhood teaching degree, the status of early childhood education will remain low as comparisons will always be made by students, academics and society, and primary has a tradition of being perceived as ‘real learning’. The Australian state and territory accreditation authorities have the power to impose requirements for primary education to the disadvantage of the EC teaching content. This structure has a negative impact upon the quality of the ECT programs. The perceived power of primary teaching has also been identified by research from the US (Halpern, 2013), Europe (Oberheumer, 2011) and in Norway in this study, where academics had resisted the power of primary in their ECT program in this study. This highlights the dominant discourse and power of primary education based upon tradition and thinking that school learning is more important than the early years of learning. Academics recognised the inconsistencies in entry requirements for the Australian ECT programs and felt that this impeded the quality of the ECT program. Australia can look to the Nordic countries as they had overcome entry problems, to a certain extent, by having an entry examination followed by a group interview that assessed applicants’ attitudes, interactions and motivations for wanting to study ECEC. In this way, they could accept students who were genuinely motivated to study EC. To enact this within Australia would require academics to assess students at interview, which takes time and resources.

114

7 Quality Programs, Quality Early Childhood Teachers: Conclusions …

Professional Experience The structure of professional experience impacted the quality of the ECT programs. Professional experience was viewed as essential for implementing theory learned at university into practice to become an effective EC teacher, so academics aimed to provide optimal professional experience placements and experiences for students. However, optimal professional experience was not always possible owing to the timing, duration, supervisory models and availability, or lack of, good quality ECEC centres. University financial constraints affected various aspects of the professional experience program: the professional administrative support for placement of students; employment of qualified supervisors; the conduct of supervision of the student; and length of professional experience. Most universities provided placements for students; however, some students had to find their own placements; or did their professional experience in their workplace which raises concerns about the quality of supervision and mentoring. There was significant concern about the 10 minimum days required for professional experience with children aged from birth to 2 years. This was inadequate to learn to be an ECT with this age group, even though this is the minimum duration stated by Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA, 2019). Professional experience needs to commence in the first year within all degrees. Waiting until the second year of study is a significant barrier for students to identify if this is the career they desire. The Nordic academics identified that professional experience was important in the first year, and they intentionally prepared their students in the first year for their studies to merge their personal identity to being a professional EC teacher. Their ECT programs had a retention rate close to 100%, while Australian universities’ retention rate was 69% close to the OECD average of 70% (OECD, 2016). Focusing on the students being enculturated into the program is likely to increase the retention rate and influence students to favourably perceive the importance of their studies. The quality of the EC centres for professional experience influences students’ desire for working in an EC teacher setting. Unfortunately, Australian academics reported difficulty to locate sufficient numbers of ECEC centres of good quality for students’ professional experience. Formal partnerships between universities and ECEC centres known to be of good quality may guarantee good quality placements for students’ professional experience. Good quality EC setting favourably influences a student’s desire to work in EC, whereas when a centre is of poor quality, students viewed working in EC less favourably (Thorpe, Boyd, Ailwood, & Brownlee, 2011). Supervision of professional experience influences what a student learns. While it varied across universities, the optimal supervisors are the ECEC university academics who understand the ECT program. In all of the Nordic countries, the ECEC academics were responsible for supervision of EC students. Rowley et al. (2011) recommended that there needed to be provision of adequate and appropriate professional experience in early childhood, but it has not occurred. Couse and Recchia (2016) explain that

The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

115

it is difficult and complex to create a ‘streamlined model’ (p. 379) of ECT education. It is not possible to identify which approach to professional experience is best to prepare early childhood teachers as there were multiple and inconsistent approaches. Amongst the 27 universities across Australia not one program of professional experience was the same as another, yet graduates are expected to be equally prepared to teach in ECEC centres. Such uncertainty calls for further research to identify optimal professional experience opportunities to become an effective early childhood teacher. It was different in the Nordic countries where the duration of professional experience was consistent in the Nordic countries at either 75 or 100 days; all students were supervised by academics to ensure that the students’ practices were appropriate and professional experience was supported in the first year of study.

Status of Early Childhood Education The low professional status of ECEC was a key theme that affected many aspects of the quality of the ECT program. The low status of ECEC was thought to influence the students’ decision-making; primary students’ perspectives of their ECEC colleagues; the academics colleagues’ perceptions of the ECT programs; leaders’ decision-making for resources within the university; and the support academics felt they had, or did not have, within the university. The ongoing low status of the ECEC profession influences the attraction and retention of teachers working in ECEC settings. This finding prompts the question why is this so, and what can be done to raise the status of ECEC teachers? The discourses that ‘anyone can look after children’ and ‘why do you need an ECT degree to do babysitting’ need to be challenged. Most humans are capable of producing and raising children who are successful, which prompts opposers of children being in ECEC centres to cite such statements. But being a parent is very different from being an early childhood teacher who is responsible for the educational program of a large group of children. Their roles include observing, planning and evaluating each child’s learning and development; working closely with families to support each child; working with colleagues to offer the optimal learning environments that are safe and secure; and engaging in ongoing professional learning. The job description is very different from that of a ‘babysitter’ and deserves the respect of society for providing the important early learning experiences of society’s children in a safe secure and stimulating environment. Universities operate for the delivery of courses which costs money, so student enrolments into their courses are directly linked to fiscal requirements. At times, academics expressed concern that this compromised the integrity and quality of the program. This discourse was evident in this study as the ECT program was viewed as being of financial benefit to the university in terms of student enrolments—termed a cash cow or bums on seats by two academics, but the program was often overlooked and under-resourced in school business decisions. High numbers of casual academics were employed to teach into the programs which were thought to compromise the

116

7 Quality Programs, Quality Early Childhood Teachers: Conclusions …

quality of the program. Colleagues without ECEC qualifications and experience were required to teach into the combined programs and often did not have adequate expertise in the birth-5 area. Across universities, early childhood academics made comments on feeling marginalised within their schools. As ECEC has suffered low professional status in society (Press, Wong & Gibson, 2015), so too did academics feel marginalised in universities, with fellow academics making comments as to why a degree is required to teach ECEC ‘as it is only babysitting’. Academics reported that most students in combined degrees expressed a desire to move into primary teaching for better work conditions. Early childhood students felt there was a negative attitude to them within their classes, by not only the tutors but also fellow (primary) students. Early childhood education was deemed the ‘poor cousin’ in the relationship between primary and early childhood teacher education programs. This aligns with past studies that have shown that students reject ECEC in favour of primary owing to the work conditions in ECEC, the low status of ECEC and lack of career pathway influences students’ decisions (Boyd & Newman, 2019; Harrison & Heinrich Joerdens, 2017; Liu & Boyd, 2018; Nolan & Rouse, 2013; Thorpe et al. 2011). The Nordic countries had been dealing with the low professional status of ECEC in their society, a democratic values based society that valued families and children. But there was still a lot of discussions to be had to progress the status of early childhood education. The Nordic countries had generous parental leave policies, so families with children were valued within society. Parents were able to stay at home without financial penalty until the child was 12 months old. Such policies provided clear indication that society appreciated parents’ paid work, and that caring for children was important. This differs markedly with Australian parental leave policy of 18 weeks which does not even meet the recommended length of time to breastfeed for 6 months, as recommended by the World Health Organisation (2011). Such societal attitudes and policies need to change so that students feel valued for their chosen profession and not inferior compared to primary teaching. The low professional status of ECEC needs to be addressed, not just within Australia but across the world. Society’s perceptions significantly influence who chooses to work in ECEC and why. Furthermore, such negative perceptions are pervasive within universities where ECEC academics feel undervalued and marginalised. There need to be strategies to improve the status of the early childhood profession. Raising the status of ECEC is a long-term goal that requires a multi-pronged approach across society, government and policymakers, universities and the early childhood field.

Delivery and Evaluation of the ECT Program This research highlighted opportunities for improving the quality of early childhood teacher programs by investigating academics’ perspectives of their early childhood teacher program. Supportive colleagues who understood early childhood education were thought to contribute to the quality of the program and better prepare early

The Quality of Early Childhood Teacher Programs

117

childhood teachers. However, academics who did not understand early childhood education teaching within the program were viewed as a barrier to provision of a quality experience for students. It is time that the early childhood teaching program offered to students be only birth to 5—with a focus upon the roles and responsibilities to prepare highly skilled graduates to be a professional early childhood teacher. This is the case in the Nordic countries who continue to provide the best quality of early childhood education in the world (UNICEF, 2017). The Australian government’s investment in the ECE workforce strategy focused on developing effective ECTs to improve the supply and quality of the early childhood workforce (ACECQA, 2016), yet this is resulting in graduates working in primary teaching. Universities need to be provided with adequate financial resources to employ tenured early childhood trained and experienced academics, program directors need to be adequately paid for the work they do, with resourcing for good quality professional experience that supports the preparedness of early childhood teachers. To provide reliable data on optimal and effective ECT programs requires an effective evaluation of the program. While accrediting authorities approve the program prior to implementation, there is no evaluation of the effectiveness of the program, a process that is highly recommended (Tatto, Richmond, & Andrews, 2016). While it is known teacher preparation programs can be powerful in transforming teaching and learning, evaluation of the teacher programs needs to occur to determine if the program was successful in developing effective teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2010). One way this can occur is through benchmarking of the program with another program at another university. In this study, there was minimal benchmarking undertaken by universities of the Australian ECT programs, but it was common practice in the Nordic countries.

The Way Forward: Recommendations Comprehensive and well-researched evidence-based models for early childhood teacher program currently do not exist (LiBetti, 2018); however, this study offers possibilities for the way forward for policy changes, actions and future research to improve the design and delivery of ECT programs. The discourses that have arisen within this study open up possibilities for academics to speak with authority about the integrity of ECT programs. Pushing back against the ‘power of primary’ as asserted within accreditation authorities needs to occur as it is evident that this power is influencing the quality of ECT programs, not only in Australia. Further discussions within universities are needed about the trade-off made on the quality of ECT programs with student intakes into the program. The quality of the ECT program suffers when financial resourcing is cut back, such as not funding professional experience adequately; or when increased student intakes are but there is little resourcing for increased numbers. There needs to be discussion about the impact upon the quality of the ECT program.

118

7 Quality Programs, Quality Early Childhood Teachers: Conclusions …

Recommendations for the way forward to develop and implement a good quality ECT program and best prepare graduates for EC teaching include the following 12 recommendations: Recommendation one Universities work with ACECQA to develop and implement an ECT program that aligns with the roles and responsibilities of the early childhood teaching professional, that is, it is fit for purpose. The program should be only 3 years of study, as was the model in the Nordic countries, and focused on birth to 5 years. This will also work towards meeting the supply requirements of EC teachers by 2023. Accreditation of this program by ACECQA should be endorsed and include more content, skills and dispositional training than the current early childhood primary teacher programs, endorsed by ACECQA. Recommendation two As part of recommendation 1, the qualification guidelines, including professional experience details, be reviewed, refined and aligned with the roles and responsibilities of an EC teacher so that graduates are well prepared for being an EC teacher. Currently, the guidelines are too broad and non-specific for the complexity of roles and responsibilities of an EC teacher. The guidelines are open to interpretation, which can lead to lack of integrity of the ECT programs as only one-third of the content must be ECEC (ACECQA, 2019). Mapping of the roles and responsibilities needs to be undertaken so that clarity is available for the design and delivery of a quality ECT program. Recommendation three To progress the quality of ECT programs, an independent authority is required to evaluate ECT programs, and resources should be made available for this process. It is not possible to currently identify how ECT programs are preparing EC teachers for their work. Therefore, research needs to be conducted that investigates EC teachers’ perceptions of their program of study: what were its strengths and how it could be improved to inform future program design and delivery. In Finland, the ECT programs were assessed for their trustworthiness, independence, their openness and their boldness (Finnish Education Evaluation Centre, 2019). Can Australia consider the evaluation of their programs under similar guidelines with alignment to the EC teachers’ role? Recommendation four To provide financial resources at the university level for benchmarking of ECT programs between universities to improve the quality of the ECT programs. Recommendation five To create equitable entry requirements that select students who are both qualified and motivated to be an EC teacher. Recommendation six To conduct research to evaluate the structures, duration, timing, placement, quality of placement and supervision models of professional experience within an ECT program, to identify the optimal model for preparation for being an EC teacher.

The Way Forward: Recommendations

119

Recommendation seven For universities to support the development of partnerships between universities and good quality EC centres to ensure students undertake their professional experience in an early childhood centre of good quality. Recommendation eight For universities to ensure that supervision of students while on professional experience is undertaken by ECEC qualified and experienced academics to support the quality of the ECT program. Recommendation nine If ECT programs are to continue to include primary teaching content, then equal content of ECEC and primary education must be present, and the integrity of each teacher training program is not compromised. If there is insufficient time to ensure integrity of the course in the 4-year program, then the program could be lengthened to 5 years. If this is not achievable, the combined degree structure is not viable. Recommendation ten To develop an affirmative action program for employment of ECT program academics that are both qualified and experienced in teaching ECEC. Academics teaching into ECT programs must have qualifications and expertise relevant to teaching in ECEC centres. Recommendation eleven To identify short, medium and long term, strategies with stakeholders such as ACECQA, Governments, ECEC organisations, universities and training facilities to raise the status of ECEC in Australia and the world. Recommendation twelve For university personnel to be aware of the significance of the quality of ECT programs, and provide adequate resourcing for the academics, professional experience and student support.

Limitations This study reported the findings from a study where academics were interviewed about their ECT program. It is likely that bias exists within the responses made by the academics; nonetheless, findings from this study are important for implications for future structure, design and delivery of ECT programs. A key limitation of the study is that the questions were quite general. There was not deep investigation for example of how decisions were made about professional experience structures. There is a need for research into the complexities of the ECT programs and how they map onto the roles and responsibilities of early childhood teachers.

Conclusions This study aimed to investigate initial ECT education programs within Australia to identify their fitness for purpose, and to highlight optimal structures, design and

120

7 Quality Programs, Quality Early Childhood Teachers: Conclusions …

delivery of ECT programs, to ensure that good quality EC teachers are prepared to teach in ECEC centres. The comparison of the findings with ECT programs in three Nordic countries, Finland, Norway and Sweden, who are constantly ranked as delivering good quality education, was used to suggest possible ways forward for the ECT programs in Australia. This research has opened up new ways of thinking about ECT programs to lead to reconceptualising the structure, design and delivery of the program. Ways forward are proposed. The reader is encouraged to reflect upon what can be done to improve the quality of ECT programs within Australia. What system could assist academics design and deliver quality ECT programs? How can the accreditation authorities best prepare ECT graduates? Twelve recommendations have been made for the way forward for ECT programs within Australia based on this study’s findings. Improving the quality of the ECT programs will motivate students enrolled in these programs to make a career of ECEC teaching, resulting in better life outcomes for the children they teach, the children’s families and society in general. By improving the quality of ECT programs the status of ECEC may improve as recognition is given to the importance of this professional status of early childhood education and care.

References Australian Children’s Early Childhood Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2016). National quality agenda. Retrieved from www.acecqa.gov.au. Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA). (2019). Qualifications assessment guidelines for organization applications. Retrieved from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/ qualifications/assessment/approval/early-childhood. Boyd, W., & Newman, L. (2019). Primary+early childhood=chalk and cheese? Tensions in undertaking an early childhood/primary education degree. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1), 4–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939119841456. Boyd, W., Fenech, M., Mahony, L., Wong, S., Warren, J., Lee, et al. (2020) Employers’ perspectives of early childhood graduates. Early Childhood Conference, Hobart, 25–29 September (In press). Couse, L. J., & Recchia, S. L. (2016). Handbook of early childhood teacher education. New York: Routledge. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teaching education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47. Department of Education & Training. (2017). Final Report-Improving retention, completion and success in higher education. Commonwealth of Australia: Author. Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. (2019). Newsroom: Employment projections. Retrieved from https://www.employment.gov.au/newsroom/employment-pro jections. Finnish Education Evaluation Centre. (2019). Evaluating the state of the Finnish education system: Results of the Finnish education evaluation. Retrieved from https://karvi.fi/en/higher-education/. Halpern, R. (2013). Tying early childhood education more closely to schooling: promise, perils and practical problems. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–28. Harrison, C., & Heinrich Joerdens, S. H. (2017). The combined Bachelor of Education early childhood and primary degree: Student perceptions of value. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 42(1), 4–13.

References

121

Job Outlook. (2019). Explore careers. Retrieved from https://joboutlook.gov.au/Career?keyword= early%20childhood. LiBetti, A. (2018). Let the research show: Developing the research to improve early childhood teacher preparation. Retrieved from https://bellwethereducation.org/publication/let-researchshow-developing-research-improve-early-childhood-teacher-preparation-0. Liu, Y., & Boyd, W. (2018). Comparing career identities and choices of pre-service early childhood teachers between Australia and China. International Journal of Early Years Education. https:// doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2018.1444585. Manning, M., Wong, G., Fleming, C., & Garvis, S. (2019). Is teacher qualification associated with the quality of the early childhood education and care environment? Review of Educational Research, 89(3), 370–415. McDonald, P., Thorpe, K., & Irvine, S. (2018). Low pay but still we stay: Retention in early childhood education and care. Journal of Industrial Relations, 60(6), 647–668. Nolan, A., & Rouse. E. (2013). Where to from here? Career choices of pre-service teachers undertaking a dual early childhood/primary qualification. Australasian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1), 1–10. Oberheumer, P. (2011). The early childhood education workforce in Europe between divergencies and emergencies. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 5(1), 55–63. Organisation for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD). (2016). Education at a glance. Retrieved from https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/education-at-a-glance-2016_eag-201 6-en. Penn, H. (2010). The debate about quality in the private for-profit childcare market. Conference paper for Social Policy Association, Lincoln, UK, 6th July. Press, F., Wong, S., & Gibson, M. (2015). Understanding who cares: creating the evidence to address the long-standing policy problem of staff shortages in early childhood education and care. Journal of Family Studies, 21(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2015.1020990. Rowley, G., Kos, J., Raban, B., Fleer, M., Cullen, J., & Elliott, A. (2011). Current requirements for tertiary qualifications in early childhood education: Implications for policy. Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012…early_childhood_misc. Tatto, M., Richmond, G., & Andrews, D. (2016). The research we need in teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(4), 247–250. Thorpe, K., Boyd, W., Ailwood, J., & Brownlee, J. (2011). Who wants to work in childcare? Preservice early childhood teacher’s consideration of work in the child-care sector. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(1), 85–94. UNICEF. (2017). Building the future: Children and the sustainable development goals in rich countries. Retrieved from https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/series/16/. World Health Organisation, (WHO). (2011). Exclusive breastfeeding for six months best for babies everywhere. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2011/breastfee ding_20110115/en/.