“Exchange and cooperation for better welfare of children”, Project No.: BG051PO001-7.0.07-0086-C0001

Peer Review of Good ECD Practices:

Introduction to the Process25 March 2014

Sofia, Bulgaria

Iordan Iossifov

The Context“providing a quality service and universal access to quality pre-school education has been identified as one of the preventive policies to combat early school leaving as also confirmed by the Council of the European Union”

Barcelona Objectives. The development of childcare facilities for young children in Europe with a view to sustainable inclusive growth.

Report to the European parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and het Committee of the Regions

Objectives... … of the project:

to build up capacity to improve and broaden ECD services through transnational exchange of experiences and know-how of innovative and alternative practices for prevention of school dropout

… of the peer review:

to encourage the development, transfer and adaptation of innovative quality ECD services especially such with potential to overcome the negative trends related to dropping out of school

Selection of good practices

Setting up the criteria (see below)

Invitation to ECD service providers disseminated through European Networks (e.g. Eurochild, ISSA) to present their best practices

Collective review of the presented practices and selection keeping the criteria in mind

Invitations to the selected practices to draft ‘comments papers’ and to present at the peer review

The Criteria 1 Aimed at children 0-7 - is the target group children from 0-7

(which is the start of primary schooling in most EU countries)? Addresses at least three developmental domains - does the

intervention address at least three developmental (physical, motor, cognitive, communication and language, social and emotional) domain?

Parenting support – does the practice involve and/or support parents thus contributing to better conditions for nurturing and healthy development of children? What is the interaction between caregivers/support staff and parents?

Equity and inclusion – do the described practices/services address inequalities in health and development for the disadvantaged and most vulnerable children?

The Criteria 2

Accessibility and affordability - are the described practices/services accessible and affordable to all groups of children?

Multi-agency working – do the described practises involve various stakeholders and cross-institutional working in partnership?

Evaluation – has practice gone through an evaluation or is there a commitment for such? Is the service/practice effective, what is its impact upon children and is there any link with prevention of school drop-out?

Criteria’s Conceptual Framework 1

Governance quality stands for strong leadership and administration of ECEC, autonomy and flexibility of ECEC services to address local needs and effective systems of evaluation, monitoring and quality improvement of ECEC (Driessen, 2012; OECD, 2012).

Structural quality can be defined as “inputs to process characteristics which create the framework for the processes that children experience” (Taguma, 2012). Structural quality most often refers to centre facilities/resources, staff-to-child ratios, group size, curriculum and staff qualifications (Ishmine, Taylor & Bennet, 2010).

Criteria’s Conceptual Framework (2)

ECEC access quality refers to equity and inclusion (in terms of accessibility to all the groups of children), affordability (in terms of regularity and sufficiency of funding so that every parent can afford ECEC for their child), usefulness (in terms of supportive and attuned to families’ demands services), comprehensibility (in terms of integrated services), and availability (in terms of regional and geographical dispersion) of ECEC services (Lazzari & Vandenbroeck, 2013).

Process quality focuses on the nature of the interactions between various stakeholders (i.e. the child and teacher, child and child, teacher and parent, teacher and teacher, as well as the nature of centre leadership and teacher pedagogical skills) (Ishmine, 2010). These indicators pertain to the quality of a child’s daily experience.