1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1

INTRODUCTION 3

2. EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES IN EUROPE: CONCEPTS AND OVERVIEW 4

3. EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES AND CHILD POVERTY 6

4. ECEC: A DEFENCE AGAINST INEQUALITY AND POVERTY, NOT A PANACEA 11

A SYSTEMIC APPROACH

11

5. QUALITY IN ECEC SYSTEMS 13

COMMON PERSPECTIVES ON QUALITY ACROSS EUROPE

13

SYSTEM QUALITY

13

PEDAGOGICAL QUALITY

15

TOWARDS A EUROPEAN QUALITY FRAMEWORK

17

DISCUSSION POINTS

19

6. CONCLUSIONS 21

REFERENCES 23

2

This publication has been made possible thanks to a financial contribution from the

Bernard van Leer Foundation

This publication is supported under the European Community Programme for Employment

and Social Solidarity (2007-2013). This programme is managed by the Directorate-General

for Employment, social affairs and equal opportunities of the European Commission. It was

established to financially support the implementation of the objectives of the European Union

in the employment and social affairs area, as set out in the Social Agenda, and thereby contribute to the

achievement of the Lisbon Strategy goals in these fields.

The seven-year Programme targets all stakeholders who can help shape the development of appropriate and

effective employment and social legislation and policies, across the EU-27, EFTA-EEA and EU candidate and

pre-candidate countries.

PROGRESS mission is to strengthen the EU contribution in support of Member States' commitments and efforts

to create more and better jobs and to build a more cohesive society. To that effect, PROGRESS will be

instrumental in:

• providing analysis and policy advice on PROGRESS policy areas;

• monitoring and reporting on the implementation of EU legislation and policies in PROGRESS policy areas;

• promoting policy transfer, learning and support among Member States on EU objectives and priorities; and

• relaying the views of the stakeholders and society at large.

For more information see: http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/progress/index_en.html

The views expressed by Eurochild do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the European

Commission.

Published on 19 November 2012 by :

Avenue des Arts 1-2, 1210 Brussels

T +32 2 511 70 83 - F +32 2 511 72 98

www.eurochild.org - info@eurochild.org

3

INTRODUCTION

This paper was written by John Bennett as a background for Eurochild’s Policy Round Table on Early childhood

Education and Care: Towards an European Quality Framework on ECEC, held on 27-28 November in Leiden,

the Netherlands.1

The Round Table is the culmination of the work developed since 2008 of Eurochild’s Thematic Working Group

on early years and Eurochild advocacy to promote the rights and well-being of Europe’s youngest children. This

event is an important contribution to move towards a European Quality Framework on ECEC, building on the

exchange of practices and the extensive research that took place within two OMCs (Open Methods of

Coordination) – the OMC on education and the social OMC – and beyond, notably the research carried out by

the Child Care Network and OECD.2,3

The Round Table aims to stimulate the debate between policy makers at EU and national level and Eurochild

members and to propose concrete recommendations to develop a common framework for quality in ECEC in the

EU. This is a recognised need in various reports commissioned by the EC: “More work needs to be done on

defining, measuring and comparing quality in ECEC”;4 “the existing information on participation in childcare is not

sufficient to give accurate information on the affordability and quality aspects which are crucial for supporting the

participation of parents in the labour market and child development”.5

The overall policy framework on which discussions will take place are the implementation of the 2011

Commission Communication and Council Conclusions on ECEC: providing all our children with the best start for

the world of tomorrow,6 and the EU Recommendation on Child Poverty and Well-being (expected early 2013), of

which one main pillar is guaranteeing access to quality services.7 The discussion questions proposed in the

background paper are intended to guide the debate.

Although Eurochild aims to voice the concerns and promote the rights of all children, particular attention is given

to those children who due to their life circumstances or/and characteristics are more vulnerable to poverty and

social exclusion and hence, have an increased risk of seeing their rights violated.

1 http://tinyurl.com/ECEC-RoundTable-2012. The Round Table was co-organised by the International Child Development Initiatives and supported by the Bernard Van Leer Foundation.

2 Proposals for a Ten Year Action Programme, European Commission Network on Childcare and Other Measures to Reconcile the Employment and Family Responsibilities of Men and Women, January 1996.

3 Starting Strong I & II, OECD, 2001, 2006 & 2012.

4 NESSE (Network of Experts in Social Sciences of Education and training) report on ECEC, Key lessons from research for policy makers, recommendation 15, p. 62, 2009.

5 SPC (Social Protection Committee) Advisory Report to the European Commission on Tackling and Preventing Child Poverty, Promoting Child Well-Being, p 70, 27 June 2012.

6 COM (2011) 66 final, 17.2.2011; 3090th Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council meeting, Brussels, 19 and 20 May 2011.

7 Idem footnote.

4

2. EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES IN EUROPE: CONCEPTS AND OVERVIEW

As used in this paper, ‘early childhood services’ are services supporting the holistic development of the young

child, through early childhood education and care programmes.8 These services include home-based and

community-based childcare programmes, parenting support and education programmes, crèches, kindergartens

and preschools for young children from pre-natal to six years (the customary age for compulsory schooling in

Europe). They recognise the critical importance of the home environment and that early childhood education and

care is provided in a variety of formal, non-formal and informal settings.9 As underlined in the UN Convention on

the Rights of the Child (Art.3.1) “In all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a

primary consideration”.

Access rates to early childhood services in Europe

In the framework of the Updated Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in Education and Training,10

the

Council proposed a new benchmark for access to pre-primary education “with a view to increasing participation

in early childhood education as a foundation for later educational success, especially in the case of those from

disadvantaged backgrounds: by 2020, at least 95% of children between 4 years old and the age for starting

compulsory primary education should participate in early childhood education”. This should support progress

towards the headline targets agreed in Barcelona:11

33% of children from birth to three years and 90% of 3 years

to mandatory school age.

The current EU average for participation in early education services for over-3s is 92.3%, but there are wide

variations in the number of hours per week as well as the quality of services in the early education sector (see

figures 1a & b).12

In 2010, only five Member States (DK, NL, SE, BE, ES) had achieved the 33% coverage rate in

childcare, set by the Barcelona targets, while five others (PT, UK, FR, LU, SI) approached the target.13

Fig. 1. Enrolment rate of children in early childhood services14

Fig. 1a - Under 3 years -

8 In most countries, accurate data does not exist on non-formal types of ECEC. The figures provided in this text refer to formal services recognised and supervised by governments.

9 See also Improving the well-being of young children in Europe: the role of early years services,p.30, John Bennett, Eurochild, June 2009.

10 COM (2008) 865 final, 16.12.2008.

11 Presidency Conclusions, Barcelona European Council, 15-16/03/2002, document SN 100/1/02 REV1.

12 A word of caution is perhaps necessary about reading access tables. Countries can appear impressive with a one-hundred per cent enrolment rate at the age of 3 or 4 years, but such access rates do not provide information on key questions, for example: Do the figures indicate enrolments or regular attendance? For how much time each day do children have access? Does the daily and yearly timing of the service allow important externalities to be achieved, such as, gender equality, access of parents to work? Is there an entitlement to services and is it aligned with parental leave policies? What is the quality of the service provided in terms of, the persons educating the children, the financing per child, the buildings and space (including outdoor space) allocated to young children; the pedagogical materials provided and the child:staff ratios? Who are the children not having access to services?

13 European Commission Communication (2011), Early Childhood Education and Care: Providing all our children with the best start for the world of tomorrow, COM (2011) 66 final, Brussels.

14 It should be noted that OECD research is based on a variety of child care and education services and the tables presented here do not show a difference between children reached by educational and/or care services.

5

Fig. 1b - At 4 years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Chart C2.1 Enrolment rates at age 4 in early childhood and primary education (2005 and 2010)

2010 2005

1. Year of reference 2009.Countries are ranked in descending order of the enrolment rates of 4 year-olds in 2010.

Source: OECD. Argentina and Indonesia: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (World Education Indicators Programme). Table C2.1. See Annex 3 for notes ( www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012).

Full-time and part-time pupils in public and private institutions

%

Source: OECD EAG, 2012

01020304050607080

% 0 - 2 years

OECD average =30%

Source: OECD Family Data Base (2012)

6

3. EARLY CHILDHOOD SERVICES AND CHILD POVERTY

According to the most recent EU SPC figures (July 2012),15

25 million children are at risk of poverty and

social exclusion in Europe. In a large majority of EU countries, children are more at risk of poverty or social

exclusion than the overall population, with a rate of 27.1% as against 23.5% on average in the EU (see table 1).

Many of these children suffer from, what Eurostat (2012) defines as ‘severe material deprivation’.16

Table 1. Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion by age group, 2010

(%) Children (0-17 years)17 Working age population Elderly(=/>65 years)

EU27* 26.9 23.3 19.8

Belgium 23.2 20.0 21.0

Bulgaria 44.6 36.9 55.9

Czech Republic 18.9 14.1 10.1

Denmark 15.1 19.5 18.4

Germany 21.7 20.8 14.8

Estonia 24.0 21.8 19.0

Ireland : : :

Greece 28.7 27.7 26.7

Spain 29.8 25.1 22.6

France 23.0 20.0 12.0

Italy 28.9 24.7 20.3

Cyprus : : :

Latvia 42.0 37.0 37.7

Lithuania 34.3 34.0 30.0

Luxembourg 22.3 17.5 6.1

Hungary 38.7 30.5 16.8

Malta 24.4 19.1 21.9

Netherlands 16.9 16.5 6.2

15 Idem 5. The SPC report has been written to prepare a Recommendation that will become a framework to Europe’s fight against child poverty and identify essential policy areas for the years ahead.

16 That is, they belong to households that cannot afford 1) to pay rent/mortgage or utility bills on time, 2) to keep home adequately warm, 3) to face unexpected expenses, 4) to eat meat, fish or a protein equivalent every second day, 5) to take a one week holiday away from home, 6) to run a car, 7) to have a washing machine, 8) a colour TV, or 9) a telephone (including mobile phone).

17. Eurostat follows the CRC usage of the term ‘children’, that is, all children and young adults up to their 18th birthday, unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier (art. 1 CRC).

7

Austria 18.8 16.1 15.8

Poland 30.8 27.6 24.4

Portugal 28.7 24.1 26.1

Romania 48.7 39.7 39.9

Slovenia 15.2 18.1 22.8

Slovakia 25.3 20.2 16.7

Finland 14.2 17.1 19.5

Sweden 14.5 15.0 15.9

United Kingdom 29.7 21.2 22.3

Iceland 17.6 14.7 5.3

Norway 14.6 15.7 12.3

Switzerland 19.9 13.7 27.7

Source: Eurostat (2012)

Beyond this technical definition, we understand that poverty is not only a question of low income but also

implies the lack of sufficient cultural and social capital (Bourdieu, 1973). The negative impact of poverty is

greatly reinforced by social exclusion mechanisms, such as high levels of inequality in a society, lack of access

to basic services, denial of social participation, ethnic and class prejudice. As expressed recently by the EU

Committee of the Regions (2012): …it is unacceptable that 20 million children are in, or at risk of, poverty, and

that poverty is not simply about being on a low income and going without - it is also about being denied power,

respect, good health, education and housing, basic self-esteem and the ability to participate in social activities.18

Recent child poverty data shows that the current economic crisis is having a very negative impact on

children’s health and well-being, especially, but not exclusively, as one moves eastwards in Europe (Eurostat,

2012).It is important to remember that such indicators are statistical only and do not determine necessarily a

pathway to poverty for any individual child or family. As the British EPPE study observes: what parents do is

more important than who they are! (Sylva et al., 2003). However, parental choices are affected greatly by public

policy, for instance, about a third of French children who live in families with low parental education are deprived,

as opposed to considerably fewer than 10% in the Nordic countries (Eurostat, 2011). And France, which spends

significantly on families with young children, does considerably better than many other EU countries! (see Fig.1).

Eurochild surveys on the impact of the crisis on children and families show that the crisis has affected all

European countries, but to different degrees. The reports have consistently highlighted some key themes: rising

absolute poverty levels; growing unemployment, especially among marginalized groups; salary cuts increasing

in-work poverty; young adults lacking job prospects; growing numbers of children at risk or in the public are

system; negative impacts on children’s mental health; squeezed family budgets; rising family tensions and

discrimination; and widespread government spending cuts. The 2012 report demonstrates that the social

expenditure cuts introduced by several governments are directly felt by children and their families. These have

undermined their access to adequate resources, limited their access to – and damaged the quality of – service

18. The figure of 20 million children in poverty refers to 2004. The most recent EU SPC (July 2012) figures for 2010 state that 25 million children are at risk of poverty and social exclusion in Europe.

8

provision (eg. health, education, welfare), and restricted the opportunities for children to participate fully in family

and social life. As a result, children’s health and wellbeing are declining.19

Fig. 2. Expenditure on early education

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Chart C2.2 Expenditure on early childhood educational institutions as a percentage of GDP (2009)

Total Private expenditure on educational institutions in percentage of GDP Public expenditure on educational institutions in percentage of GDP

Countries are ranked in descending order of public and private expenditure on educational institutions.1. Includes some expenditure on child care.Source: OECD. Argentina: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (World Education Indicators Programme). Table C2.2. See Annex 3 for notes ( www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012).

% of GDP

By funding source

The two largest groups of low-income and marginalised children in Europe are children from immigrant and

Roma backgrounds. They are the children least likely to have access to early childhood services. According to

Kind en Gezin, (2010):

Use of child care by ethnic minority children and children from underprivileged families is much lower (in

Flanders) than in the population of children as a whole. Only 32.6% of ethnic minority children and 21.0%

of children in underprivileged families use child care on a regular basis (compared to a 70.8% use by

Flemish children). Compared with spring 2004, regular use by ethnic minority children has increased

considerably, but use by underprivileged children has stayed the same.

Table 2. Use of child care by disadvantaged groups in Flanders (2009)

Regular use Limited use No use

Flemish children 70.8 5.5 23.7

Ethnic minority children 32.6 6.1 61.3

Children born into underprivileged families 21.0 8.7 70.4

Children born into families that are not underprivileged 65.7 5.6 28.7

19 Surveys on the impact of the economic and financial crisis on children and young people, Eurochild, 2009, 2010, 2011 &

2012.

9

Children in one-parent families 54.6 9.5 36.0

Children being brought up by a married or cohabiting couple 63.8 5.6 30.6

All children 63.2 5.8 31.0

Source: Kind en Gezin (2010), The Child in Flanders, 2009

A report by NESSE has been devoted to migrant children and their education.20

It throws light on the situation of

these children in European education systems and on the education policies and practices that contribute to their

successful integration into European schools and societies. As these categories converge in certain populations,

the author of the report points out that findings from the research on migrant children can also be valid for

children from other groups, such as ethnic minority children – notably Roma – and children from low-income

groups.

It is estimated that as many as 50 per cent of the European Roma population – the great majority being EU

citizens is composed of children below the age of 15 years. Another estimate suggests that Roma children under

six years are more numerous than the pre-school population in Spain and possibly (reliable statistics on Roma

populations do not exist) as numerous as the combined total of pre-school children in the five Nordic countries

(Roma Early Childhood Inclusion Overview Report, 2012).

Their situation is illustrated in the following table:

Table 3. Early childhood indicators from Serbia, 2005

National population Roma settlements

Infant mortality rate (IMR) 7 per thousand 14 per thousand

Child mortality rate before 5th

birthday 11 (2005)1 15 per thousand

Low birth weight infants -2500 grams 4.8 per cent 10.2 per cent

Underweight for age (-2SD) in children 0-59 months 1.4 per cent 7.7 per cent

Under-height for age (-2SD) in children 0-59 months 5.4 per cent 20 per cent

Suspected pneumonia 3.4 per cent 10.4 per cent

Received all vaccinations (18-29 months) 58.5 per cent 26.6 per cent

Immunization rate 87.0 per cent 63.0 per cent

Children with at least one disability2 11.0 per cent 23.0 per cent

Child appears mentally slow2 1.3 per cent 4.6 per cent

Early childhood education 3-5 years 44.0 per cent 8.0 per cent

Percentage of families providing support for preschool

children’s learning3

85.7 per cent 47.4 per cent

Percentage literate women, 15-24 years 96.4 per cent 52.4 per cent

Source: UNICEF MICS for Serbia, 2006, 2010.

1. The figure is for 2005. Recent World Bank data provide a much improved figure of 7.1%.

2. As reported by mothers.

3. Household members engage children in four or more activities that promote learning and school readiness*

In summary, as expressed in the RECI Overview Report (2012):

20. Education and Migration: Strategies for Integrating Migrant Children in European schools and Societies,

2008.

10

Extreme poverty, intolerable living conditions, low educational levels and lack of employment gravely

undermine Roma family life and the health of infants and young children. Infant mortality rates in Roma

families run, in general, to twice or three times the rate in majority populations.

The social exclusion of the Roma is greatly reinforced by majority prejudice and discrimination, which

limits Roma access to adequate housing, appropriate education and health services. The life expectancy

of Roma men and women runs, depending on the country, from 8 to 15 years less than majority

populations.

The early development of Roma children, during infancy and the pre-kindergarten period, is not

sufficiently supported. There is a general under-estimation of the importance of the period 0-3 years and

thus, little spending on specific developmental programmes for children in the age group.

National kindergarten and primary education systems are failing to recruit, include, retain and educate

Roma children. According to the most recent UNDP/FRA survey of Roma populations in eleven

countries, on average, only one out of two Roma children surveyed attends pre-school or kindergarten.

Most Roma children (9 out of 10) are enrolled in compulsory education but participation in education

drops considerably after compulsory school: only 15% of young Roma adults surveyed complete upper-

secondary general or vocational education.

Cash conditional transfers – offering financial incentives to ensure children’s attendance in early childhood

services – are being considered or already being introduced across several countries in Central and Eastern

Europe (building on some positive experience in Latin America). They are particularly aimed at increasing

participation rates of Roma children. However, the approach is not without controversy. Financial incentives

alone, without ensuring a more inclusive, welcoming environment for ethnic minority children, is likely to have

little impact. However, CCTs may be beneficial if part of a wider package of professional training, family support

and awareness raising.

Unless more energetic policies are developed by national governments, economic and social prospects are not

promising for the EU countries with growing Roma populations (World Bank, 2010). The present rate of child

poverty in Europe and especially among Roma children is a matter of serious concern not only for their

economic future but also for Europe’s reputation for human rights and its respect for its treaties and legally

binding instruments, such as the EU Directive 2000/43 on Equal treatment on grounds of racial and ethnic origin

(the Racial Equality Directive) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

One should also take into account the personal cost to children. Research is clear that poverty is the single

greatest threat to the child’s well-being, health, education and social mobility (Irwin, Siddiqi, and Hertzman, 2007;

The Lancet, 2005, 2007; Marmot Review, 2010, OECD, 2010). The risks are greatest for children who

experience poverty when they are very young, especially when poverty is severe and persistent.

11

4. ECEC: A DEFENCE AGAINST INEQUALITY AND POVERTY, NOT A PANACEA

The provision of early childhood development and education services is a necessary but insufficient policy for

breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty. Early childhood services provide young children with the

socialization, language development and knowledge that enables them to make a good start in school. In

addition, the early childhood centre can provide to children from at-risk backgrounds a protected space where

their holistic needs can be met, namely, child health and nutritional needs, socio-emotional well-being and

involvement in learning in an atmosphere without stress or threat.

Too often, because of environmental (out-of-school) factors, children at risk are not sufficiently supported,

leading to education failure, drop-out and a wasted investment of scarce public funds. Comprehensive services

are needed to reverse this vicious cycle. When early childhood policy is properly linked to housing, health,

social and employment policies, child poverty can be reduced and in turn, early childhood services can

contribute more effectively to the development of young children, to better parenting skills, to future educational

achievement, and to greater social inclusion in schools and society (World Bank, 2010). Though time-consuming

to organise, such services are relatively cheap compared to the far greater public expenditure in later years on

health and remedial education issues. In addition, they ensure the physical well-being of young children and it is

the right thing to do.

A SYSTEMIC APPROACH

Despite their great promise, early childhood services cannot break the cycle of poverty alone. To believe

otherwise ignores the evidence. The countries in Europe that have excellent social and education services are

egalitarian with strong social protection systems. They collect taxes pro rata, organise their societies to

redistribute wealth, provide public services and seek to ensure an acceptable level of well-being for children. As

noted by Pasi Sahlberg21

,

High-equity education in Finland is not a result of educational factors alone. Basic structures of the

Finnish welfare state play a crucial role in providing children and their families with equitable

opportunities for starting a successful educational path at age of 7. Early childhood care, voluntary free

preschool (attended by 98%), comprehensive health services, and preventive measures to identify

possible learning and development difficulties before children start schooling are accessible to all.

The education system performance has to be seen in the context of other systems in society, for

example, health, environment, rule of law, governance, economy, and technology. It is not only that the

education system functions well in Finland, but that it is part of a well-functioning democratic welfare

state. Attempts to explain the success of the education system in Finland should be put in the wider

context and seen as part of the overall function of a democratic civil society.22

A multi-dimensional approach is needed. It is understandable that early childhood ministries and professionals

will defend the critical contribution that early childhood services can make to the lives of young children, to

equality of opportunity, and to education efficiency. But as ministries with responsibility for the well-being and

education of young children, they must also combat the illusion that ECEC can, in any general way, transform

the destinies of children from severely disadvantaged background without the contribution of supportive

economic and social policies. Ed Zigler, one of the founders of Head Start in the US, has asked: “Is there a

magic potion that will push poor children into the ranks of the middle class?” He answers without ambiguity in an

article entitled Forty years of believing in magic is enough!:

Only if the potion contains health care, childcare, good housing, sufficient income for every family, child

rearing environments free of drugs and violence, support for parents in all their roles, and equal

21 The former director general of the Centre for International Mobility and Cooperation at the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture.

22 From a poverty perspective, one may note that the rate of persons severely materially deprived in Finland is 2.8% compared to 8.1% on average in the EU-27 and over 30% in Bulgaria and Romania (Eurostat, ibid).

12

education for all students in school. Without these necessities, only magic will make that happen (Zigler,

2003: 12).

To neglect this basic reality condemns many children to lives of poverty, even if they have benefited from a good

early childhood programme. Another consequence of neglecting poverty is that its negative impact on education

goes unnoticed and untreated. For instance, Head Start can be an excellent programme, but its success and

credibility is undermined when year after year ever greater numbers of poor children arrive at its doors. The

recent UNICEF Innocenti Report Card10 estimates the child poverty rate in the USA lies somewhere between

the rates recorded in Bulgaria and Romania.23

How can early education ensure good socio-emotional and child

development outcomes in those circumstances? The effects of child poverty on primary and secondary

education are equally dire, leading to a whole series of failing schools and greatly inferior education opportunities

for ethnic children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

But Europe has no reason to feel self-satisfied! Average child poverty rates are over 25% in Europe (over one in

four children) and rising, particularly in South-East Europe and in the countries most touched by the Euro crisis.

Not only is the situation inequitable, but from a policy perspective it is highly inefficient: research shows clearly

the long term personal, social and economic costs from child poverty and exclusion are statistically very great.

Yet, Eurochild and EAPN analyses of the National Reform Programme (NRPs) and National Social Reports

(NSRs), submitted to the Commission by EU Member States, suggest that the political will to reduce child

poverty is lacking at the moment in the majority of EU Member States:

Eurochild regrets that there is very limited recognition in the NRPs that measures to tackle poverty and

social exclusion – and child poverty in particular – will also contribute to achieving other Europe 2020

headline targets… Particular attention should be given to targeting vulnerable groups of children such as

Roma children, children from a migrant background, children with disabilities, children living in or leaving

institutions etc.

In only a small number of countries’ NRPs/NSRs can some elements of a rights based approach to

tackling child poverty and social exclusion and to promoting child well-being be detected. In the vast

majority of NRPs and NSRs there is no emphasis on children’s rights.

Macroeconomic policy is focused on rapid deficit reduction, with austerity strategies in most

countries …prioritizing cuts to services, benefits and wages. These penalize the poor, generate new

poverty risks, and increase inequality…24

The impact of the economic and financial crisis on children is only very occasionally acknowledged and

very few NRPs or NSRs provide any evidence of taking measures to protect children from the worst

effects of austerity packages. The potential of the EU Structural Funds to support measures to combat

poverty and social exclusion of children is infrequently recognised. EAPN (2011, 2012)25

.

23 Measuring Child Poverty: New league tables of child poverty in the world’s rich countries, Innocenti Report Card 10, 2012.

24 Eurochild's analysis of the National Reform Programmes, Eurochild, July 2011, July 2012.

25 An EU Worth Defending (2012); Deliver Inclusive Growth – Put the heart back in Europe! (2011); European Anti-poverty Network.

13

5. QUALITY IN ECEC SYSTEMS

Cross-country research suggests that if European societies are to ensure the early development and education

of young children, two conditions are necessary: first, as explained above, they must ensure “the right of every

child to an adequate standard of living for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral, and social development”

(Art. 27 of the UN CRC). A second condition is that the services available are of high quality. A ‘bums on seats’

policy is entirely insufficient, that is, a policy that is content to enrol children in services without first ensuring that

these services are fit for purpose.

An important issue is: who defines quality for the children of a country? Traditionally, governments and

administrations have done so, at least at the macro, national policy level. Today, research suggests that

participation and ownership in defining quality leads to greater consensus about goals and more effective

programming. If this is correct, there is a need to involve other main stakeholders: university research, local

governments, specialised NGOs, professionals, parents and children.26

Defining quality should be seen as an

important democratic issue, a dynamic and participative process aimed at supporting the needs of families and

children in particular contexts. Participation in the education debate should not be considered as an interference

or luxury but rather as a democratic opportunity and a means of mobilising the support of parents for education.

The same applies – although it may be more difficult to achieve – in the case of very isolated and deprived

communities.

The discussion of educational goals and quality should be, therefore, a continuing process, involving regular and

calm review, it being understood that no final statement of quality can be achieved. Even well-researched quality

instruments such as ECERS27

or the ISSA Principles of Quality Pedagogy (ISSA; 2010) need periodic revision to

ensure that they respond to the best interests of children at a particular time and in a particular place. The same

caution note has been expressed by the Child Care Network: objectives for services need to be constantly open

to review and development.

Without such discussion, there is a danger of narrowing down the concept of quality to standards or to

predefined learning goals (CoRe Report, EC, 2011). Such an approach to learning neglects “more social and

relational aspects of ECEC as well as the meaning-making of children and parents themselves” (Dahlberg et al.,

1999, 2007).

COMMON PERSPECTIVES ON QUALITY ACROSS EUROPE

A close reading of recent European research suggests that many European countries currently share common

perspectives – at least in principle – on both system and pedagogical quality. There are also many promising

policy initiatives and practices already in use in favour of children at risk, some backed by research, such as, the

A Good Start programme in Central and Eastern Europe managed by the Roma Education Fund.

SYSTEM QUALITY

Adequate public regulation and financing that ensures equal opportunity for all children and the highest

standards possible (countries are limited in different ways by their social and economic contexts).

More attention should be given by central governments to supporting effective local government and community

services when competence is devolved and the services are delivered at this level. To a large extent, this means

more effective transfers of funds toward local authorities and the training of administrators in management and

diversity issues.

26 The participation of young children is often indirect. Observations by professionals and researchers of the responses of children to an early childhood programme is one of the surest means of assessing whether that programme is appropriate or not.

27 Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, www.ersi.info/ecers.html.

14

Proper environmental and care conditions that meet the needs of young children according to their age,

family and community background, and individual need, e.g. protection, health and nutritional requirements,

special need, or additional learning needs arising primarily from socio-economic, cultural and/or linguistic factors.

Consideration should also be given not only to developing early education in centres but to give equal attention

to families and the pre-natal to 3 years age group. Yet, comparative EU data show that in the countries with high

levels of child poverty, government expenditure on maternal and infant health, on social protection, child and

family policies remains proportionally well below the EU average (see table 4).

Table 4: Public spending on social systems in percentage of GDP

Percentage of GDP EU-27 Macedonia Romania Serbia

Public health spending 7.5 % 7.1 % 4.8 % 6.5 %

Social protection expenditure 26.2 % 17.0 % 12.8 % 18.1 %

Family and child benefits 2.1 % 1.0 % 1.2 % 0.45 %

Public education expenditure 5.0 % 3.8 % 4.25 % 4.5 %

Annual per pupil expenditure in €s €6251 m. €1438 - €1000 est.

Early childhood education and care 0.5 % 0.33 % 0.77 % 0.43 %

Sources: EUROSTAT, 2011: the year of reference for public health is 2006, (updated 2008); for social protection 2007;

for education, 2007; National Report researchers, 2011.

Governance quality, including proper structuring of systems (e.g. moving toward unitary systems),

supplementary funding for services catering for children in poverty, and appropriate curricula for the children of

the age group in line with the legitimate concerns of society at a particular moment. It is clear, for example, that

in a divided society, learning to live together is a legitimate goal which can be treated and practised at a level

that young children understand.

In most European countries, public early childhood services for children from disadvantaged backgrounds are

free, but many families will also need assistance with food, adequate clothing, materials and the opportunity for

children to participate in out-of-centre leisure and cultural activities. The provision of necessary funding should

also include adequate investment in buildings, learning environments (outdoors as well as indoors) and

pedagogical materials. Too many services for children from disadvantaged backgrounds take place in

dilapidated, unhealthy buildings with little attention given to enriching the learning environment. Research shows

consistently the importance of environmental items for the health, motor development and learning of children

(see the IEA longitudinal pre-primary study, 2003). The UNDP/FRA (2012) survey on the living conditions of

Roma families shows that many Roma children live in unhealthy, overcrowded conditions, have never owned a

book, a personal toy or other cultural accessory. Early childhood centres must compensate for social and cultural

deprivation if young children are to be included by other children and enter with pleasure the world of education.

The quality of the work force, in terms of recruitment, education, qualifications and status within society.

According to CoRe (ibid) having a workforce of highly qualified, reflective professionals “may be one of the best

indicators of quality”.

An important point is to engage in intensive training of staff working with diversity. An excellent overview

(backed by strong research) of appropriate training for educators responsible for young children can be found in

ISSA’s Principles of quality pedagogy (ibid).28

28 They are based in a child-centred approach, taking families and communities into account, covering the basics of teaching practice (planning, assessment, teaching strategies, managing the classroom and the learning environment) and provide educators with ongoing professional development. In addition – a feature that greatly assists when catering for children at-risk and their families, particularly in societies where there is deep-seated prejudice against excluded groups – the approach emphasizes inclusion, diversity, anti-bias training and modeling the values of democracy.

15

This includes the provision of supplementary early language programmes, both to support the development of

mother tongue language and to introduce children to the majority language, on which integration into society and

employment will eventually depend. Whatever the context, early childhood centres and schools remain the

essential institution in which major elements of a country’s culture, language, aesthetic standards, values and

practices are learned by children, without necessarily giving up their family culture. Language programmes –

when they are present – usually begin in pre-primary settings (3-6 years) and may include the deployment of

bridging or specialist staff. Language development initiatives are critical for children from disadvantaged

backgrounds as the well-known research by Hart &Risley illustrates below.

Fig. 3. Language and vocabulary growth in the first 3 years

Affluent, well-educated

parents

Middle-class literate

parents

Low-income, non-

reading families

1200

600

012 16 20 24 26 32 36

Words used

Age- in months

Source: B.Hart & T. Risley. Meaningful Differences in Everyday Experiences of Young American Children, 1995

7

Social Background

Source: B. Hart & T. Risley. Meaningful Differences in Everyday Experiences of Young American Children, 1995

PEDAGOGICAL QUALITY

Improving the quality and variety of pedagogical processes to match Malaguzzi’s concept of the ‘rich’

child, that is, of young children rich in their humanity, breath of interests (‘the hundred languages’), and

potential, if only they are supported to identify and develop their talents;

Engaging in praxeological research: An emerging theme in recent EECERA29

conferences is to

encourage and train teachers to engage in praxeological research, that is, research on practice carried out

by practitioner teams who know the context well and have an immediate use for the results of their

research. Its purpose is to reveal underlying assumptions about pedagogical work and to generate new

theories of action that support children’s learning and development.30

Pedagogical (in-centre) initiatives

Again, much good practice exists (see, for example, NESSE, 2008, and the A Good Start evaluation by the

Roma Education Fund: http://www.romaeducationfund.hu/good-start-eu-roma-pilot) from which we select some

important lessons:

The relational environment is critical for young children: Where young children are concerned, a

supportive relational environment is critical. Progress in learning in a preschool setting is greatly

influenced by the quality of the child’s relationship with her teacher and peers. Inclusion in the early

childhood centre means engendering a sense of community and belonging. Without relational warmth

29 EECERA – the European Early Childhood Education Research Association.

30 Definition adapted from Bertram & Pascal, 2012.

16

and inclusion as a central value, much else that passes for quality in early childhood centres may

further alienate children, especially those from severely deprived backgrounds.

Reasonable child:staff ratios: By reasonable we mean ratios that do not prevent educators and child

assistants from undertaking the individual relational/educational work that very young children need, in

particular, young children at risk. The research on the question is clear: if teachers are required to

undertake individualised work with young children and be responsive to their socio-emotional and

learning needs, then child-staff ratios at this stage of education need to be kept as low as reasonably

possible (see Fig. 3 for Nordic Countries and Slovenia).

Ratio of pupils to teaching staff in early childhood education

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

Chart C2.3 Ratio of pupils to teaching staff in early childhood education (2010)

Countries are ranked in descending order of students to teaching staff ratios in early childhood education.

Source: OECD. China and Indonesia: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (World Education Indicators programme). Table C2.2. See Annex 3 for notes ( www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012).

Student to teaching staff ratio

Public and private institutions

Source, OECD EAG, 2012

Parent involvement: It greatly helps the well-being and development of young children when parents are

involved by teachers in the work of the centre. There is good reason to believe that rather than funding long-term

(3 years) parental leaves or domestic childcare payments (thus paying parents to keep their children out of

services), governments might better invest in encouraging schools to engage with parents and provide training to

teachers to do so effectively & encouraging more flexible working arrangements.

Give more attention to transitions, particularly for children at-risk. This entails giving attention to the

meaning of “continuity” for a child. According to work by the National Center for Early Development and Learning

(NCEDL, 2002), continuity for a child means primarily continuity of relationships and environments. Secondly,

liaison should be established between the early childhood centre and the primary school, not only to know what

is valued by the primary school but also to prepare the school for young children and their characteristic modes

of learning. Finally, many countries find it helpful to shape the late curriculum of the early centre so that it blends

well with primary school expectations. According to Eurydice (2009), “education programmes for very young

children (under 5) should work predominantly in a child-centred, developmental way, whereas programmes for

older children between 5 and 6 years may introduce academic subjects in a more planned, teacher-directed

curriculum without having negative social-emotional consequences.”

An underlying issue – and this affects education at all levels - is to have education systems and curricula that

are open and offer many choices, where children or adolescents are not judged or excluded but are supported

to learn and reach the goals they have set themselves. As pointed by a Roma health mediator cited in the RECI

Overview Report (2012),too often, the first year in primary school for children from severely disadvantaged

17

backgrounds is a failure, marked by either dropout or continuation in school as a low achiever, often consigned

to the bottom of the class or even into special education:

“Children start going to school, attend for a while, then becomes less and less successful and they start to feel

neglected, unwanted. They don’t have trainers, or the things that other kids have. Everyone avoids them.

So the child doesn’t want to go anymore, simply refuses to go, so his parents transfer him to a special

school, where they also get benefits.“

TOWARDS A EUROPEAN QUALITY FRAMEWORK

Numerous quality frameworks and rating scales exist in the early childhood field, at both national and

international levels. For instance, the American ECERS-R rating scale, which measures process quality at

centre-level, is widely used in the English-speaking world.31

This rating scale is attractive to administrations as

some research has found that process quality is more predictive of child outcomes than structural indicators of

quality, such as staff to child ratio, group size, cost of care, and type of care (Whitebook, 1989).32

However, a longer and more robust current of research shows that when linked with neglectful family

backgrounds and poorly educated parents, severe poverty in early childhood is the single greatest barrier to

educational achievement (Coleman, 1996; Duncan et al. 1998; The Lancet, 2005, 2007, Heckman, 2008;

Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009, Marmot Review, 2010, Ladd, 2011). In addition, common sense and observation of

early childhood centres suggest that there is little likelihood of achieving process quality if there is poor financing

of services, if services do not welcome children from ethnic and immigrant backgrounds, if teachers are not

properly certified or if child:staff ratios are inappropriate for young children. In sum, whereas process quality is

important, its achievement depends to a great extent on other aspects of quality, such as structural and

organisational quality, the quality of governance at central and local levels, the quality of the learning

environment, teacher training and the like. For this reason, international organizations, which have worked in the

early childhood development field for many years, draw attention also to issues of child health and poverty,

financing, adequate governance, and support for teachers (UNICEF Report Card 8);33

to parent support, social

protection, and the alleviation of poverty (UNESCO, Holistic Early Childhood Development Index);34

to issues of

context, democracy, social inclusion and diversity (Bernard van Leer Foundation35

– see, for example, Moss, P.

2007 and Vandenbroeck, M. 2007). Process quality rating scales – especially when decontextualised - are quite

unable to take these aspects of quality into account. Most importantly, when thinking about a European quality

framework, one needs to respect the specific traditions, goals and contexts of early childhood programming in

the different European Member States.

Is it impossible therefore to envisage a common European framework for the field, whereby Member States

could compare and contrast services; provide guidance on child development; encourage the collection of

baseline data for policy reform and investment? Not without much consultation and research, as practised, for

example, in the OMC for Social Protection and Social Inclusion, whose work has been ongoing for years. In

2010, the Social Protection Committee proposed a Voluntary European Quality Framework aiming to develop a

common understanding concerning the quality of social services within the EU by identifying quality principles

that these services should fulfill. 36

This framework also proposes guidelines to develop, “at the appropriate level,

31.Process quality refers to the experience of children within the care environment including their interactions with others, materials, and activities (Phillipsen, Burchinal, Howes, & Cryer, 1997). The ECERS-R scale rates centres by examining 43 items organized into seven sub-scales: 1) Space and Furnishings, 2) Personal Care Routines, 3) Language and Reasoning, 4) Activities, 5) Interaction, 6) Program Structure and 7) Parents and Staff. For further information see: http://www.ersi.info/ecers.html.

32. A more robust current of research shows that family background – in particular, a family background of low education and severe poverty in early childhood – has a far stronger influence on child outcomes.

33 The Child Care Transition: A league table of ECEC in economically advanced countries; UNICEF Innocenti Report Card 8, 2010.

34http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/early-childhood/monitoring-and-evaluation/holistic-ecdindex/.

35 http://www.bernardvanleer.org.

36 A Voluntary European Quality Framework for Social Services, SPC/2010/10/8 final.

18

specific tools for the definition, measurement and evaluation of social services' quality. Thus, it will serve as a

reference for defining, assuring, evaluating and improving the quality of these services.”

The Framework includes overarching quality principles for service provision (availability, accessibility,

affordability, person-centredness, comprehensiveness, continuity, and outcome orientation), as well as specific

principles on different dimensions of service provision: the relationships between service providers and (i) users;

(ii) public authorities and other stakeholders, and (iii) human and physical capital. In connection with this work,

the EC has also commissioned a mapping study which has a specific chapter looking at quality tools and

frameworks in ECEC services.37

The authors of the study will have much good work to review. Several decades

ago, a significant contribution to ECEC research was made by the European Childcare Network, in particular in

its 1996 report: Quality targets in services for young children. The report was in response to policy objectives set

by the 1992 Council Recommendation on child care,38

namely, affordability, access (urban and rural areas and

for children with special needs), combining safe and secure care with a pedagogical approach, close and

responsive relations between services and parents and local communities, and diversity and flexibility of

services. The Quality targets proposed a series of measures needed to achieve these objectives: a national

policy framework for service provision; coordination of responsibility for services; a curricular framework;

appropriate staffing and staff conditions (curricular and pay); appropriate physical environments; infrastructure

for planning, monitoring, support, training, research and development; adequate financing of services and

infrastructure. The result was a set of 40 inter-dependent targets for publicly funded services for young children

with a deadline for achievement in 2006. Six years past the deadline, modest progress has been made in some

areas but for most part, the targets have since been forgotten or shelved.

More recently, the European Commission has recommenced work on early childhood matters. It sponsored

some significant research in the latter part of the last decade, such as Competence Requirements in Early

Childhood Education (CoRe) and published in 2011, a Commission Communication (prepared by EACEA): Early

Childhood Education and Care: Providing all our children with the best start for the world of tomorrow. It

proposes areas for policy cooperation among Member States and offers the support of the Commission to:

Promote the identification and exchange of good policies and practices through the Open Method of

Coordination on Education and Training with Member States (ET2020);

Support the development of innovative approaches by developing transnational projects and networks

under the Lifelong Learning Programme;

Provide support for research into these areas under the 7th Framework Programme on Research and

Development;

Encourage Member States to invest in these areas through the Structural Funds, in particular through

support for the training of staff and for the development of accessible infrastructure.

In the meantime, Eurochild continues its focus on what it considers to be two necessary conditions for improving

the quality of ECEC services, viz. reducing child poverty and exclusion in Europe (the great barriers to education

achievement) and advocacy for agreed values concerning children. In particular, it sees the UN Convention on

the Rights of the Child, ratified by all EU Member States, as a possible framework for ECEC quality and the

holistic development of young children. Among other important principles, the UN Convention proposes that:

All children and adults have the right to evolve and to develop in a context where there is equity and respect

for diversity. Children, parents and educators have the right to good quality in early childhood education

services, free from any form of - overt and covert, individual and structural – discrimination due to their race,

colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability,

birth or other status (Art. 2);

Every child has the right to an adequate standard of living for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral,

and social development (Art. 27);

37.Study on Social Services of General Interest, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, October 2011.

38. http://legislationline.org/documents/action/popup/id/8653.

19

The best interest of child should be a primary consideration in all matters affecting children (Art. 3);

States have the responsibility to support parents to fulfill their child-rearing tasks… and the need for States

to supply whenever necessary, childcare facilities. (Art. 18 and 27);

Education should be directed to the development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical

abilities to their fullest potential. It must be guided by respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms,

respect for the child’s parents, culture, identity, language and values, and prepare the child for a responsible

life in a free society, with respect for the natural environment. (Art. 28 and 29);

Every child has the right to rest and leisure, to engage in play, recreation and cultural activities, and the

need to prepare a smooth transition into school (Art. 31);

States Parties should recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent

life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child's active participation in

the community (Art. 23).

An excellent application of the above principles to the early childhood field can be found in General Comment 7

of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.39

The principles announced there by the Committee have been

further developed by two specialised European organisations – DECET (Diversity in Early Childhood Education

and Training) and ISSA (the International Step by Step Association). The practices that these organisations

propose for engaging disadvantaged children and families in ECEC services are framed by concerns regarding:

ECEC quality (understood as contextualised and value laden), citizenship (expressed by civic engagement

within local communities) and social inclusion (understood as a co-constructed process that involves children,

families and practitioners in democratic decision-making). A list of the practices that they propose can be found

in Diversity and Social Inclusion: Exploring Competences for Professional Practice in Early Childhood Education

and Care (http://www.decet.org/fileadmin/decet-media/publications/Diversity-and-Social-Inclusion.pdf). It may be

noted that these organisations speak about principles not standards and that they follow up on their principles

through providing professional development opportunities to educators and teachers.

DISCUSSION POINTS

1. Taking into account the absence of EU competence in ECEC, how can the European Commission

(further) support the development of ECEC in Europe?

2. Should the European Commission have an expanded role in the monitoring and evaluation of ECEC

systems at Member State level?

3. How can the European Commission encourage Member States to invest in ECEC in the current crisis

context?

4. Is there a common understanding on the added value of a European Quality Framework?

5. What should be the overall aims & principles of a European Quality framework?

6. One possible approach to a European Quality Framework is the 40 Quality Targets that were

developed by the Child Care Network. Are they a departure point for developing the European Quality

Framework? What could be other approaches?

7. What mechanisms could be put in place to measure progress? How to ensure the benefits of

monitoring and benchmarking (measuring progress) outweigh the risks (figures that do not translate

improvements in practice and better outcomes for children)?

39. http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/AdvanceVersions/GeneralComment7Rev1.pdf.

20

8. How to build upon different existing indicators that are important factors in children’s outcomes (e.g.

maternal and infant health, the family environment, social protection…)? Should they be considered in

a ECEC quality framework?

9. What place has the Convention on the Rights of the Child – and General Comment No. 7 - in deciding

goals and and developing frameworks for assessing early childhood policies?

21

6. CONCLUSIONS

This paper has highlighted the need to improve quality in ECEC services across European countries. We have

underlined three essential policy strands that we believe are essential if young children, and in particular those

from vulnerable backgrounds, are to have some measure of equality of opportunity, viz.

Mainstreaming children’s rights as the foundation for all policy affecting young children. The UN Convention

on the Rights of the Child was created to protect children, vulnerable to poverty, neglect or exclusion, and to

ensure their full participation in society and its institutions. They, above all other children, have the right to

comprehensive early childhood services of high quality.

Creating and implementing a range of multi-dimensional measures to combat child poverty. Continuing

severe deprivation in the early childhood period can destroy the health and development of young children

and undermine the work of educators and teachers in the early years;

Developing high quality ECEC services that respond to the natural learning strategies of young children and

provide them with a strong start on their life and education journeys.

At the moment, we have many challenges in Europe in the early childhood field: a dominant economic model

that, for the moment at least, cuts back on public investment in young children and reduces the basic social

safety net that the poorest families need, a growing number of children in poverty with more and more parents

out of work, a lack of convergence about how to organise effective and affordable services for all children;

challenges of inclusion and discrimination, with wide differences across countries in terms of human rights

awareness, social solidarity and attitudes to diversity, ineffectual discourses on quality without agreement on

definitions, educator training, child:staff ratios or other structural requirements of quality, insufficient attention to

Europe-wide research on childhood and to the evaluation of national early childhood systems.

The current policy challenge with respect to quality in ECEC in Europe has been synthesised as being able to

“arrive at a satisfactory and culturally relevant definition of “quality” and ways to monitor it” (NESSE, 2009:32).

Further elaborated, with particular attention to needs of minority groups in Europe, Leseman describes the

challenge as follows: (re)build (current) systems of ECEC to meet crucial design features “to provide quality

ECEC services for all children that are “integrated and attractive and affordable to all families regardless of social

class or minority status”, yet sensitive to differing educational needs” (Eurydice, 2009:39, cited in NESSE report,

2009:30).

At the same time, Europe has enormous strengths: economic models, particularly in the Nordic countries, that

are based on equity for citizens, with particular attention to the right of young children to development and

correspondingly, high access to and high quality in public early childhood services; a close relationship with the

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and, in many countries, the political will to implement it and ensure

equity for children in poverty; a European Union, which, if still relatively weak on implementation and

enforcement, continues to provide leadership in early childhood policy, not least in the development of policies in

favour of Roma and other excluded groups; energetic NGOs and civil society associations that work hard for

children and persevere in calling the attention of governments and the public to growing inequality and the

impact of child poverty on present and future generations. In sum, Europe has a strong base from which to

advance and ensure that all its children should have a level of care and education to provide them with well-

being today and the knowledge to confront the challenges of tomorrow.

22

23

REFERENCES

Belgian Presidency (2010), 4th European Platform for Roma Inclusion: "Preventing Social Exclusion Through

Europe 2020: Early Childhood Development and the Inclusion of Roma Families",

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/fourth_romaplatform_meeting_report_en.pdf

Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction.In R. Brown (Ed.), Papers in the Sociology

of Education (pp. 71-112). London: Tavistock.

Coleman, James S. et al. (1966) Equality of Educational Opportunity, Report OE-38001 Washington, DC: US

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education.

EAPN (2011) Deliver Inclusive Growth – Put the heart back in Europe! EAPN analysis of the 2011 National

Reform Programmes, Europe 2020

EAPN (2012) Analysis of the 2012 National Reform Programmes (NRPs) and National Social Reports (NSRs)

EU Committee of the Regions Opinion, ECOS-V-022, 94, plenary session, February 2012

EU Social Protection Committee (2012) Advisory Report to the European Commission on Tackling And

Preventing Child Poverty, Promoting Child Well-Being, Brussels, 27 June 2012

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=758&langId=fr&moreDocuments=yes.

Eurochild (2012) Analysis of the 2011 National Reform Programmes (NRPs) from a Child Poverty And Well-

Being Perspective, Brussels, Author

European Commission Childcare Network.(1996). Quality targets in services for young children. Brussels,

Belgium: European Commission Equal Opportunities Unit.

Harlen, W., and Malcolm, H. (1999), Setting and Streaming: A Research Review, The Scottish Council for

Research in Education, SCRE Publication

Heckman, J. J. (2008), Role of Income and Family Influence on Child Outcomes. Annals of the New York

Academy of Sciences, 1136: 307–323. doi: 10.1196/annals.1425.031

IEA Preprimary Longitudinal Study - Weikart, D.P., Olmsted, P.P., & Montie, J. (Eds.). (2003). A world of

preschool experience: Observations in 15 countries. The IEA Preprimary Project Phase 2. Ypsilanti, MI:

High/Scope Press.

ISSA (2010) Competent Educators of the 21st century; principles of quality pedagogy, Budapest, Author

Ladd, Helen, F. (2011) “Education and Poverty: Confronting the Evidence” in Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management.

Lancet, The, (2005), Volume 365, Issue 9478, 25 June 2005, Child survival: countdown to 2015.

Lancet, The, (2007), Volume 369, Issue 9555, 6 January 2007 Early childhood development: the global

challenge.

Marmot Review (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives, London, Author

NESSE (2008), Education and Migration: strategies for integrating migrant children in European schools and

societies, Brussels, Author http://www.nesse.fr/nesse/activities/reports

OECD, Doing better for children (2009), Paris, Author

OECD (2010) Economic Policy Reforms: Going for Growth, Paris, Author

Slavin, R. (1990), Achievement Effects of Ability Grouping in Secondary Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis,

in Review of Educational Research, (Fall): 471-499.

World Bank (2010), Factsheet - Roma inclusion in Central and Eastern Europe: Policy Note focusing on

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Romania, and Serbia presented at the International Steering Committee of the

Decade of Roma inclusion.

24

World Bank (2010) Investing in Young Children, Washington, Author

Vandenbroeck, M. (2007), Deculturalising social inclusion and re-culturalising outcomes in promoting social

inclusion and respect for diversity in the early year, The Hague, Bernard van Leer Foundation.