THEMATIC REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ...THEMATIC REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND...

Research centre for early childhood & primary educationKatholieke Universiteit Leuven

THEMATIC REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE

POLICY

Background report Flanders (Belgium)

Prof. Dr. Ferre LaeversRuth JanssensJan Laurijssen


Colofon

Preface

Preface

THEMATIC REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE POLICY


II

Introduction

This report covers the area of Early Childhood Education in the Flemish Community, which represents morethan 6 million people on a total of 10 million for Belgium as a whole.

We focus on previsions for children between 0 and 6 years of age, taking entrance in (formal) primary educa-tion as the point of transition to another area. As a general orientation we can mention that a clear distinctioncan be made between the domain of care (for children below 3) and the domain of education (in fact pre-school)where most children enrol when they are 2,5 or 3.

The structure given by the comprehensive but well-balanced questionnaire of the OESO-secretariat, was respec-ted as much as possible. As a consequence, the same themes are addressed several sections, each time howe-ver looking at them from another angle.

This work, covering so many area’s couldn’t be done without the help of many. We wish to acknowledge thepersons interviewed in the stage of data collection and the members of the steering group for their most valu-able feedback.

Last, but not least, we want to express our appreciation to Wilfried Boomgaert from the Department ofEducation, for the supportive and efficient way he co-ordinated this stage of the OESO-project.

F. LaeversR. JanssensJ. Laurijssen


Introduction


III

OECD Thematic Review ECECSteering Committee Flanders (Belgium)

PRESIDENT OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE:

Mr. G. Monard, Secretary-General, Education Department, Ministry of Flanders

MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE:

Mr. G. Janssens, Director-General, Elementary Education Administration, Education Department

Mrs. S. Van Craeymeersch, National Co-ordinator, Head of Division, Elementary Schools Division, Education Department

Mrs. V. Adriaens,Assistant to the Director, Elementary Schools Division, Education Department

Mrs. M. Scheys,Head of Division, Policy-oriented Coordination Division, Education Department

Mrs. G. De Ruytter,Scientific Advisor, Policy-oriented Coordination Division, Education Department

Mrs. M. Wouters,Advisor, Department of Educational Development, Education Department

Mr. J. Casaert,Head of Division, General Welfare Policy Division, Welfare, Public Health and Culture Department

Mrs. B. Buysse,Scientific Advisor, Child and Family Institution.


IV

Steering Committee


5

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IIISteering committee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IVTable of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VList of boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VIIIList of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .VIII

1. DEFINITIONS, CONTEXTS AND CURRENT PROVISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Introduction: The Flemish context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Historical roots of care and education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2Common understandings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Main political, economic, social and demographic changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3National/regional child or family policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Current objectives and purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Target groups and age spans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Forms of ECEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Responsibilities for ECEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Other official bodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Other actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

2. POLICY CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.1. QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Conceptualisation of quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Objectives and assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

2.2. ACCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Extent of choice for parents and influence by policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Supply and demand for different forms of ECEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Strategies in relation to facilitation of access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15Access for children with special educational needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

TABLE OF CONTENTS


V

Table of Contents

3. POLICY APPROACHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.1. REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Source of regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Inspection of regulations and facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18Information sharing on the standards attained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Promotion of quality by other non-government subsidised actors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Relation of regulatory policy in ECEC to regulatory policy for other social services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

3.2. STAFFING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Staff roles in ECEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Profiles of workers in ECEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21Preparation for management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Working with children with SEN & diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22In-service training of EC workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Career prospects in ECEC work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Gender issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Payment for training, basic or in-service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Statute & wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Rates of staff turnover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Professional and public status of ECEC workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Roles of trade unions or other professional associations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25Relations between care sector and education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

3.3. PROGRAMME CONTENT AND IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Main philosophies and goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Common curricular/pedagogical approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27Innovative strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Co-operation between mainstream and “Buitengewoon” onderwijs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Issues of diversity and multicultural education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Policies and practices to ease transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

3.4. FAMILY ENGAGEMENT AND SUPPORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Roles of parents and families in ECEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Information available to parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Expectation of parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Support from public and private employers and facilitating policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Parent education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Support for parents and families with children with SEN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33Support of community-organised initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

3.5. FUNDING AND FINANCING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Costs of providing ECEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Tax benefits to help parents pay for ECEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36Balance between universal and targeted public funding of programmes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37


VI

Table of Contents

4. EVALUATION AND RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Mechanisms for policy and programme evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Bodies that promote data collection evaluation in ECEC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Indicators related to ECEC and to child well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39Information routinely collected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Research data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

5. CONCLUDING COMMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

The most significant changes in ECEC policy and examples of innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41The national and/or international significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42Areas of weakness in current policy and practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42Areas of strength in current policy and practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44Questions or issues meriting further investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46APPENDIX A – Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46APPENDIX B – Research projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49APPENDIX C – Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

THEMATIC REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE POLICYTHEMATIC REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE POLICY

VII

Table of Contents

List of boxes

Box 1: “Ontwikkelingsdoelen” for pre-school education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Box 2: Policy approaches towards quality improvement in care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10Box 3: Policy approaches towards quality improvement in education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Box 4: The impact of zorgverbreding [special needs provision] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Box 5: “Onderwijsvoorrangsbeleid” in Flanders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30Box 6: Measures tot reconcile work and family responsiblities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

List of tablesTab. 1: Degree of unemployment by sex and age in % [1997].

Source: NIS, SEB, Eurostat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Tab. 2: Overview of ECEC facilities, the level of coverage of the facilities

and their hours of operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Tab. 3: Number of care facilities, number of places in care and

number of enrolled in 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Tab. 4: Children aged between 3 months and 3 years: use of child-minding

(Region of Flanders). Source: Child and Family – Survey on the use of child-minding facilities for children aged under 3 [1997] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Tab. 5: Percentage of users of child-minding. (Source: Panel Study of Belgian Households – year of observation 1997. Processed on behalf of Child and Family) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Tab. 6: Number of pupils in pre-school education in 1997-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Tab. 7: Number of “kleuterscholen” (mainstream and special education)

in the three educational networks in 1997-1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Tab. 8: Budget in-service training 1999-2000 (in million BF)

(Departement Onderwijs, 1998b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23Tab. 9: Annual and monthly wages according to statute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24Tab. 10: Subsidies by “Kind & Gezin” in 1997(in million BF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35Tab. 11: Cost per child per network for special and normal elementary

education in BEF. Source: Vlaams Onderwijs in Cijfers 1996-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36


VIII

List of boxes / list of tables

is influenced by three factors: births, deaths andmigration. The number of births increased slightly in1997, the number of deaths on the contrary, decre-ased. The natural growth is bigger than the migrationbalance in contrast with previous years.

FAMILYMarriage is less popular than ever. For the first timein years the number of marriages is lower than30.000. The rate of divorces amounts almost to14.000. On January first 1998, there were2.353.864 private households in Flanders. Almostsix out of ten households consist of maximum twopersons.

EMPLOYMENTBetween 1995 and 1997 the degree of unemploy-ment decreased for men as well as for women. Only5,3% of the professional active population has noemployment. Youth unemployment is above theaverage unemployment degree. Tab. 1 shows a com-parison in the degree of unemployment betweenFlanders and Belgium.

Tab. 1: Degree of unemployment by sex and age in % [1997].Source: NIS, SEB, Eurostat.

THEMATIC REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE POLICYTHEMATIC REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE POLICY

1

Introduction: The Flemish context

FLANDERS: PARTNER IN A FEDERAL STATEBelgium has rapidly changed since its independencein 1830. Via four sets of institutional reforms, thestate of Belgium has evolved into a federal structure.The decision-making power in Belgium is no longerexclusively in the hands of the Federal Governmentand the Federal Parliament. Now, several partnersexercise their competences independently in diffe-rent fields. The redistribution followed two broadlines. The first line concerns linguistics and culture.Belgium is situated at the junction between Latin(French) and Germanic languages (Dutch andGerman). Thus Belgium is divided in three Commu-nities (the Flemish, French and German-speakingcommunity). The second line of reform is inspired bymore economic concerns, expressed by regions thatwanted to have more autonomous power. This gaverise to the founding of three regions (Flemish,Brussels Capital and Walloon Region). NormallyBelgium would have seven governments and sevenparliaments. However, There are only six of each:the Flemings opted for joining the Parliament andGovernment of the Region and the FlemishCommunity. The country is further divided into 10provinces and 589 communes.

POPULATIONBelgium is relatively small: it has a surface of 30.518square kilometres. 44,3 % of the surface belongs tothe Flemish Region, 55,2 % to the Walloon Regionand 0,5% to the Brussels Region). Belgium has aboutten million inhabitants. According to the OfficialJournal of July 15th 1999, 954.460 people lived inthe Brussels Capital Region, 5.926.838 in theFlemish Region and 3.332.454 Belgians lived in theWalloon Region. The German-speaking Communityhas 70.472 inhabitants (this number is included inthe population of the Walloon Region). Populationdensity in Flanders amounts to 437 inhabitants persquare kilometre. 49.3% of the populations are men,50.7 % are women. The evolution of the population

1. DEFINITIONS, CONTEXTS AND CURRENT PROVISION

Age range Flanders Belgium

Men 15-24 9,0 17,525-49 3,2 6,350-64 2,8 4,3

15-64 3,6 6,9

Women 15-24 14,1 25,825-49 7,0 10,450-64 4,6 4,5

15-64 7,6 11,3

Total 15-24 11,4 21,225-49 7,8 8,150-64 3,3 4,3

15-64 5,3 8,7

DEFINITIONS, CONTEXTS AND CURRENT PROVISION

POVERTYKind en Gezin (Child and Family) developed a pover-ty indicator that takes six components into account.If a family scores badly on three components, it isdefined as poor. In 1997 2.603 children in Flanderswere born in a poor family. That means 4% of allbirths and an increase in comparison with 1996.According to Cantillon (1998) less than 7% of thechildren live in deprived conditions.

RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ECECThe educational responsibilities are vested in thehands of the communities. Each Community has itsown education system. Within the Ministry of theFlemish Community, the Education Department isresponsible for nearly all aspects of the educationpolicy. The Flemish Minister of Education heads thedepartment. The federal authorities are only respon-sible for the pensions of staff members of educatio-nal institutions, for laying down compulsory schoolattendance and for determining the minimum requi-rements to obtain a diploma.

Responsibilities concerning care belong to Kind enGezin, an organisation under the supervision theFlemish Ministry of Welfare. Kind en Gezin operateson two levels. At the central organisational level poli-cy is prepared, executed and co-ordinated. The pro-vincial level is in charge of the operational tasks.

The Minster of Education and the Minister of Welfareare primarily involved in the field of ECEC. Otherministers hold responsibilities concerning educationand care but their involvement is relatively small. TheFlemish Ministry of Labour, for instance, is involvedthrough the VDAB (i.e. Flemish Employment andVocational Training Agency). This service contributesto the in-service training of people wanting to workin the out-of-school care and the Flemish Minister foryouth is responsible for most initiatives in youthwork, an issue that is not being discussed in thisreport.

Historical roots of care and education

Flanders has a long tradition in ECEC provision. Theroots of education and care can be found in thebeginning of the 19th century when the industrialdevelopment was at full force. Because women andolder children were part of the workforce, organisedcare and education for young children was necessa-ry.

■ CAREThe first registered “kinderbewaarplaats” dates from1845. The main aim in these institutions, developedin a sphere of charity, was the ‘keeping’ of childrenof working people. The ideal remained motherly careat home. In 1919 the “Nationaal Werk voor Kinder-welzijn” [National Work for the Well-being of theChild] was established as a co-ordinating service ofthe government to control that child care was beingprovided for the most needy under the workforce.

On the other hand, policy engagement in care forchildren from 0 to 3 has only become more impor-tant in the last decades. Before the fifties, the mainefforts were directed towards the physical well-beingof children. Recently more attention in this area isdirected towards a pedagogical approach and profes-sional development of staff (Janssen-Vos & Laevers,1996; Oberhuemer & Ulich, 1997).

■ EDUCATIONThe first school for infants dates from 1828. The in-fluence of Fröbel was apparent from the middle ofthe 19th century. The first Fröbel kindergarten wasestablished in 1857. A year later, training for “kleu-terleidsters” was set up. In 1880 the first ministerialdirectives were issued to regulate the operation of“kleuterscholen” and the first model curriculum in1890 drew its inspiration largely from the work ofFröbel. From 1880 on institutes for the education ofchildren between 3-6 years of age developed as partof the school system. Encouraged by the official poli-cy, “kleuteronderwijs” was shaped early and exten-ded quickly. Two factors facilitated this: (1) the highpopulation density made that in almost every villagethere were enough children to start a “kleuterschool”and (2) religious orders were very keen to expandeducation for young children and to start early withmoral and religious education.



2

At the end of the 19th century consensus was esta-blished about the need for pre-school education as atransition between home and primary school, withthe indication that a “kleuterschool” mustn’t be a realschool. As a consequence the training of “kleuter-leidsters” stayed separated and was installed at theend of the 19th century. In 1927 more official gui-delines for the training of “kleuterleidsters” were is-sued and the training was brought to three years. In1951 the ‘Werkplan voor opvoedende activiteiten”[Work Plan for Educational activities] was issued inwhich the influence of Montessori and Decroly – aBelgian pedagogue - becomes apparent as a generalframework for the regulation of the curriculum. Areview of this plan appeared in 1977, while a newversion will be issued very soon. The engagement ofthe policy for the education of children from 3 to 6years old has been substantial since the beginning.(Janssen-Vos & Laevers, 1996; Oberhuemer &Ulich, 1997).

Common understandings

The early childhood period is seen as an importantera in the development of a person. The attentiongiven by policy and press to the ‘UniversalDeclaration of the Rights of Children’, has increasedthe importance attached to the well-being of childrenand their position in society. Parents are seen as thefirst responsible for the upbringing of their children.At the same time, the state is expected to contributeto the well-being of children by providing or financingECEC and the guarding of quality (CBGS, 1996).Pre-school education is an acquired right of youngchildren and many efforts are being made to protectthe individual character of this provision in whichplayful learning is stressed (interviews; CBGS,1996).

While there was still a debate in the eighties on thepossible negative effects of early separation of child-ren of their home, care is now seen by a majority asan acceptable substitution for the care at home. Adecade ago, the view on women was ambiguous.Often the exercise of a profession by a women wasonly honourable on condition that she took care ofher children first (VBJK, 1996). Recently, moreattention is being given to the role of the father in theupbringing of children. In the media articles about




3

men choosing to stay at home and to take care ofchildren illustrate this trend. At the same time, moreand more women choose to work part-time.

Main political,economic,socialand demographic changes

ECEC policy has been influenced by the followingdevelopments:

• An increase of the number of women/mothersworking, especially in the category of womenbetween 25-49 years of age. In this age group theactivity degree was 64% in 1990. In the group ofwomen younger than 35 the activity degreemounts up to 75 to 80%.

• A decrease of the fertility figure because womenwait longer to get children and a decrease in thenumber of births.

• More attention, also by policy, for migrants and amulticultural society.

• An increase of families where both parents work,because of the increase of the activity degree ofmothers. 60% of the children under 12 has a mot-her in salaried employment. 90% has a father insalaried employment. Families get smaller. Theaverage size of a household was 2.64 persons in1991. This makes care more affordable for fami-lies.

• A growing awareness of the government and thepopulation of the problem of poverty. Belgium,and especially Flanders in comparison to the inter-national scene, is doing well in this area: less than7% children (in 1998) living in deprived conditions(Cantillon, 1999).

• Regulations concerning part-time work have beco-me more pliable. One third of Flemish childrenhas a mother who works part-time (Maes & VanMeensel, 1994; K&G, 1998a).

■ CAREBecause of these changes attention is being paid (1)to the combination of work and family, (2) to theextension of provision to meet the growing demand,(3) to install quality provision for children outside theschool hours, (4) to the development of care forchildren of deprived families and (5) to the supportand training of immigrant women in care and the

development of a multicultural approach in “kinder-dagverblijven”.

■ EDUCATIONIn education the same topics arise: a concern to sup-port children from deprived homes and from immi-grant origin, multicultural education, initiatives tostop the drop out to special education and specialattention for the emotional development of children.

National/regional child or family policy

In 1984, “Kind & Gezin” was established by Decree(29/5/1984) as the Flemish continuation for the for-mer, Belgian “NWK”. The task of “Kind & Gezin” isto look after the life chances, the well-being and thehealth of the child and to support the parents withregard to the care for the child. In this the main tar-get group are children under 3. This task is transla-ted in three main assignments, namely “Preventievezorg” [preventive care] before, during and after thebirth of a child; the recognition, subsidising andsupervising of the different forms of “Kinderopvang”[care]; and the “Specifieke zorg” [particular care] forchildren who live in situations which cannot be con-sidered as regular (particular care and crisis care;child abuse and adoption).

“Kind & Gezin” is a Flemish public service, responsi-ble for the execution of the policy regarding children.“Kind & Gezin” can execute the governmental poli-cy independently (with an own juridical statute), alt-hough it operates under the supervision of thedepartment of social welfare, public health and cultu-re (c.q. the minister of social welfare, health andequal opportunities). It has closed a managementagreement with the Flemish Government, which con-sists of engagements for the services delivered by“Kind & Gezin” and the budget received for it fromthe government. (Janssen-Vos & Laevers, 1996;Welzijnszakboekje, 1998).

While the provision of care is well co-ordinated, otherinitiatives to support children and families are frag-mented between socio-political organisations on theone hand and different public services (“Kind &Gezin”, Department of Education, Department of Wel-fare, Public Health and Culture and the Ministry ofLabour and Employment) on the other. Only recently,the different departments make an effort to informone another in order to co-ordinate their policy.

Current objectives and purposes

■ CARECare is more than looking after the children. Takinginto account recent social tendencies (searching anequilibrium between individual development of well-being and the demands of the economic reality),“Kind & Gezin” puts two pillars at the centre: theinterest of the child and the support of the family.

In order to fulfil the emancipatory function of care forall children and all families who wish to make use ofit, “Kind & Gezin” aims to make regular care acces-sible for all children irrespective of their family situa-tion, their socio-economic living conditions, their eth-nic background and their individual problems. (Kind& Gezin, 1996)

■ EDUCATIONIn pre-school education the fundamental educationalobjectives are: • Basisvorming [basic education] as a cohesive enti-

ty;• in function of the total personality development of

the children;• with an optimal support of all children involved

[“zorgbreedte”]These objectives form the core. They are elaboratedin the “ontwikkelingsdoelen” [developmental objecti-ves] (see section II. A.), minimum goals a “kleuter-school” [pre-primary institution] has to strive for(Departement Onderwijs, 1995; 1996b).



4

Target groups and age spans

ECEC is divided in two areas: Care for children from0-3 and pre-school education for children from 2.5-6. Since 1997 the new area of “buitenschoolseopvang” – a provision for children from 2.5-12 out-side the school hours - is under the authority of “Kind& Gezin” as well.

■ CARECare is primarily meant for children and their wor-king parents1. Special attention is given to children ofparents with a low income and children of single-parent families. Care is organised for children from0-12, children from 0-3 form the main target group(Welzijnszakboekje, 1998), for the older children caredeals with catering for children outside school times.

■ EDUCATIONPre-primary education is open for all children.Education is a right for all. Compulsory school agebegins at 6 and ends at 18 years of age. On the firstof September of the year they will be 6, childrenenter primary school. So ECEC is meant for childrenfrom birth to compulsory school age, with the excep-tion of “buitenschoolse opvang” (this is a provisionfor children from 2.5-12, cfr. supra). As a result of anagreement between political parties, it is the inten-tion of the government to raise this age from 2 1/2to 3. Because of the vehement debate that followedthis announcement, the decision has been postponedto explore first the consequences of this measure.

Forms of ECEC

■ CAREIn care there are three categories of facilities:

1. Recognised and subsidised by “Kind & Gezin”(they have fulfilled the conditions for recognitionand are therefore subsidised): “kinderdagverblij-ven” [Child care centres] and “DOG’s” [recognisedcentres organising home based care]

2. Reported and under supervision, but not recog-nised and not subsidised (because of the certificateof supervision the parents are entitled to a taxdeduction for the Care for their children under 3)

3. Only reported (the policy has introduced this obli-gation to keep track of the evolution in the area).

Categories 2 and 3 organising care, are private.They comprise “Particuliere opvanginstellingen”(“POIs”) [private care centres] and “Particuliereopvanggezinnen” (“POGs”) [private home basedcare].

“Buitenschoolse opvang” can also be provided by thecentre-based and home-based arrangements and byschools. “IBO’s” [Initiatives for care of children outs-ide the school hours] are recognised by “Kind &Gezin”.

■ EDUCATIONWithin the educational system and as part of the ele-mentary school, pre-school is open for children from2 1/2 to 3 years of age.




5

Responsibilities for ECEC

As mentioned before there is a clear division betweenthe organisation of care and education in Flanders.The division runs along conceptual, political andadministrative lines and has a long tradition. Officialresponsibilities are at the level of the FlemishCommunity since the federalisation.

■ CARECare is the responsibility of “Kind & Gezin” whichfalls under the supervision of the minister of Welfare,Health and Equal Opportunities of the FlemishCommunity. “Kind & Gezin” operates on two levels.At the central organisational level policy is prepared,executed and co-ordinated. The provincial2 level is incharge of the operational tasks, e.g. decentralisedresponsibilities regarding the staff, support of theconcrete activities in the field. (Kind & Gezin, 1997d)

■ EDUCATIONEducation is the authority of the Ministry of theFlemish Community. Three matters however are stillat the federal (Belgian) level: (1) the determination ofthe beginning and ending of compulsory education,(2) the minimal conditions for the issuing of the diplo-mas and (3) the rules for the retirement of theteaching staff.

There’s an increasing trend towards giving moreautonomy to the “inrichtende machten” [schoolboards] and the schools. The “inrichtende macht” isresponsible for the establishment of the school, thedevelopment of the educational project, choice ofteaching materials, determination of the timetable,drafting of school regulations, the internal organisa-tional structure of the school and the management offinancial means. In practice the “directeur” takes onmany of these tasks (Janssen-Vos & Laevers, 1996).Almost all schools are united in one of the four “koe-pels” or umbrella organisations (cfr. Other actors).



6

Level of coverage by age Hours/length of operation

CARE Centre-based 0-3 years 10-12 hours a day“kinderdagverblijven” 0-3 months (exceptional) whole year open“Particuliere 3-36 months (7.5%)*opvanginstellingen” (“POIs”)

Home-based 0-3 years (14%) 10-12 hours a day“Diensten voor Whole yearopvanggezinnen” (“DOGs”)“Particuliere opvanggezinnen” (“POGs”)

“Initiatieven voor 2.5-12 years Before and after school,buitenschoolse opvang” Wednesday afternoons,(“IBOs”) holidays

PRE-SCHOOL Mainstream and 2.5-6 years Monday to FridayEDUCATION Special education 2.5 (85%) from 8.30 to 12.00

(“Buitengewoon onderwijs”) 3 (97.6%) from 13.30 to 15.304-5 (99%) (not on Wednesday

afternoon)From 1/9 until 31/8Average of 182 schooldays a year

* percentage of children of this age group visiting this type of facility

Tab. 2: Overview of ECEC facilities, the level of coverage of the facilities and their hours of operation.

Other official bodies

■ CAREWithin the Administration body ‘Family and SocialWelfare’ of the Department of Welfare, Public Healthand Culture, the Centre for Population and FamilyStudy (CBGS) operates. The centre has the task tofulfil scientific research relevant to policy in the fieldof population and family. (CBGS, 1996) The CBGSis also in charge of the scientific support of the“Gezins- en Welzijnsraad” (family and welfare board),an official advisory body of the Flemish government.

■ EDUCATIONIn education the ‘Vlaamse Onderwijsraad’ (VlOR) [theFlemish Education Council] was established by decreeof 31/7/1990. The “VlOR” has a general compe-tence for study, concerted action, and consultation,on its own initiative or at the request of the Ministerof Education, with regard to all educational mattersfor which the Flemish Community is responsible.More in particular, the Minister of Education has toseek, prior to the discussion in the FlemishParliament, the professional advice of the “VlOR” onall preliminary draft decrees on educational matters(with the exception of the Education Budget) and onpolicy reports and papers addressed to the FlemishParliament. The General Council of the “VlOR” iscomposed of representatives of the organising bodiesof education, staff, parents, socio-economic organi-sations, educational experts from the universities andthe educational administration. The General Councilis authorised to advise in matters concerning the glo-bal educational policy. For subjects regarding theeducational levels, there are specific councils anddepartments3 (Eurybase; Janssen-Vos & Laevers,1996).

The “Inspectie Basisonderwijs” [inspectorate for ele-mentary education] audits schools. Its assignment isdescribed under section III.

The “Dienst voor Onderwijsontwikkeling” (DVO)[Department of Educational Development (DED)] is aunit within the Department of Education, created bijDecree of 17/7/1999. The DED is responsible forthe development of “ontwikkelingsdoelen” [the offi-cial minimal developmental objectives for the pre-school area], “eindtermen” [the final objectives forthe primary level] and “basiscompetenties” [basiccompetencies for teacher education]. Other tasks

are: the development of instruments to audit schools,development of the educational structure (on macro-level) and support and advice to the administrationand government concerning educational issues.”(Text of the Government of Flanders. Act on Inspec-tion and Guidance Services. April 13, 1999).

Co-ordination of policy between the several educa-tional bodies is very strong while the collaborationbetween the different ministerial departments (i.e. thedepartment responsible for care and the one respon-sible for education) is rather poor4.

Other actors

■ CAREImportant actors in the field of care are “VCOK” and“VBJK”. The Flemish Committee for the Raising ofthe Young Child (“VCOK”) is a training centre whichoffers courses for every one involved in the care ofchildren between 0-12. Annually “VCOK” organisesmore than 1.200 hours of courses. Closely related to“VCOK” is “VBJK”, Resource and Training Centrefor Childcare (financed by “Kind & Gezin). “VBJK”develops materials (books, video productions, …)concerning different aspects of care, edits a periodi-cal for all care staff members (Kido), gives advice oncare policy and provides in-service training onrequest.

■ EDUCATIONA particular characteristic for Flanders is the com-partmentalisation or polarisation of the educationalfield. The organisation of education is divided amongthree “onderwijsnetten”:

1. “(Officieel) “Gemeenschapsonderwijs” [OfficialCommunity education], covering 13 % of thepupils.

2. “Officieel Gesubsidieerd Onderwijs”: “Gemeen-telijk en Provinciaal Onderwijs” [Official subsidisededucation: network of municipal and provincialschools], covering 18 % of the pupils.

3. “Vrij Gesubsidieerd Onderwijs” [Private subsidi-sed education] of which most schools are Catholic– covering 68 % of the pupils.

The institutions of the different “onderwijsnetten” areunited in umbrella organisations, which represent the




7

schools towards the general policy. Within theseorganisations, “Pedagogische Begeleidingsdiensten”[pedagogical support services] and “Navormings-centra” [in-service training centres] operate to impro-ve educational quality.

Other agents in the field are the teacher training insti-tutions and the university departments of education.Associated to these departments are two centres ofsupport. Linked to the University of Gent, is the‘Steunpunt ICO’ (orientated to ‘intercultural educa-tion’). The ‘Steunpunt NT2’ is attached to theLeuven University and focuses on second languagelearning for immigrant children.

Another influential actor is the Research Centre forEarly Childhood and Primary Education at theLeuven University which is involved in severalresearch and in-service training projects and is linkedto the foundation that supports the innovation pro-ject “ErvaringsGericht Onderwijs” [ExperientialEducation].



8

2. POLICY CONCERNS

The instrument developed for the inspectorateexpresses a lot of this philosophy (see further). It alsointegrates recent insights concerning the structuraland cultural dimensions of the school organisations,which is seen as a crucial condition for the quality oflearning. In recent years the department of educationhas taken steps to concretise the notion op ‘Qualityof education’ by formulating “ontwikkelingsdoelen”[developmental objectives]. The “ontwikkelingsdoe-len” were formulated by the “DVO” with co-opera-tion of persons out of the educational field, teachers,heads of schools and external experts, and approvedby the Flemish Parliament, upon the recommenda-tion of the “VLOR”. They were discussed in a broadsocial forum.

‘Ontwikkelingsdoelen’ are minimum objectivesregarding the knowledge, insights, skills, and atti-tudes, which are considered desirable and attaina-ble for the majority of pupils in pre-school.“Ontwikkelingsdoelen” have to be striven for, notreached. Since 1 September 1999, all schools have toprovide their pupils activities related to the “ont-wikkelingsdoelen”. Primary education has to lookat the “ontwikkelingsdoelen” as points of referencefor the beginning of its education, rather than asrealised objectives.6

Box 1. “Ontwikkelingsdoelen” for pre-school education

It is expected that schools can take the responsibilityfor the implementation of these objectives and oftheir educational quality (Departement Onderwijs,1996b). The freedom of schools to shape their owneducational project is felt as a fundamental right.7


POLICY CONCERNS


9

2. 1 QUALITY

Conceptualisation of quality

■ CAREWhile the care sector has a strong medical tradition,the last decade the accent is shifting to the pedago-gical quality. At the moment, new criteria for qualityare being developed. They will be implemented assoon as possible as a result of the implementation ofthe ‘Quality decree’ (1/1/1997).

The main aim of this decree is to oblige all recognisedwelfare facilities to work on “kwaliteit van zorg” (quali-ty of care) and “kwaliteitszorg” (quality care). “Qualityof care” deals with the way service is supplied. Servicehas to be focused on the user, be efficient, effective,continuous and social. “Quality care” regards themanagement mechanisms which are used to reach astable and sufficient quality of care. By means of thesemechanisms, the facilities have to prove that they areshaping the desired quality level structurally and sys-tematically and that its realisation is not coincidental.The care sector has to fill in these terms ‘quality ofcare’ and ‘quality care’ and has to translate the decreein a new legislation specific to zare.

The new legislation has to be completed by the endof 1999 and not later than 1/1/2003 the minimalquality requirements and the quality care will becomethe recognition standard.5

■ EDUCATIONThe notion of quality is very much attached to theideal of an educational system that helps all childrento develop their potential in a harmonious way. Thismeans: with a lot of attention to the non-academicaspects such as the emotional and social develop-ment. Since 1994 a particular concern is evident toimprove quality by innovations that help schools tocater in a more comprehensive way for the specificdevelopmental needs of children who (risk to) dropout.

Objectives and assessment

■ CARE“Kind & Gezin” looks at the pedagogical qualityreached and the preconditions to achieve this.Therefore rating scales8 have been developed and stillare being developed: the ‘Rating scale for the peda-gogical environment in “kinderdagverblijven”’ [daycare centres] and the ‘Quality instrument for “POI’s”[private care centres].

The rating scales focus on the pedagogic interaction(flexibility, individualisation, stimulation, structuring,stimulating the child’s independence, giving the childfreedom of movement and safety) and on the peda-gogic framework conditions (childminding skills, co-operation with the parents, teamwork, meetings,staff training and pedagogic observation)9 (Kind &Gezin, 1994; 1997b)

Other policy approaches towards quality improve-ment are:

• The possibility to employ a part-time psycholo-gist or pedagogue in the staffing of “kinderdag-verblijven” (since 1983); the recruitment stan-dard however, is high (one part-time per 46child places) so that in practice there aren’tmany psychologist or pedagogues employed inthe sector.

• The creation of a statutory framework and thedevelopment of a Quality Charter for “Buiten-schoolse opvang”(24/6/1997)10.

• The supply of training support of the staff.• Information & prevention campaigns for the pri-

vate facilities (“POIs” and “POGs”) regardingitems that have been found not to meet qualityrequirements, …

(VBJK, 1996; 1998; Welzijnszakboekje, 1998)

There’s no extensive research yet on the impact ofthese policy approaches. The first judgement of anumber of facilities with the rating scales showsgenerally a substantial pedagogic quality (not onegroup scores under the minimum concerning theobserved quality).

Box 2. Policy approaches towards quality improvement in care

■ EDUCATIONSince 1991, quality is assessed during a “school-doorlichting” (cfr. p. 17), where before individualteachers or subjects were inspected. Depending onthe number of pupils the inspection team consists oftwo to six members, who visit the school for onewhole week. They look at the general functioning ofthe school, taking into account the minimum curricu-la (see below) and the execution of the regulations.The compliance with the legal prescriptions is veri-fied. These prescriptions concern infrastructure,hygiene, working with an approved curriculum.

Inspection begins with the collection of contextual(financial, demographic, structural and material, juri-dical, administrative and teaching data) and inputdata (data about children, teachers, the “directeur”)to map the individual identity of the school. Then,the team of inspectors examine the current schoolsituation using interviews, observations, and analysisof documents.

The “schooldoorlichting” is guided by an instrumentdeveloped by the “DVO” and the inspectorate. Thisinstrument has as frame of analysis the CIPO-model:Context-Input-Process-Output. (Departement Onder-wijs, 1996b; 1998a)

Attention is given to several dimensions of educa-tional practice, such as the efficient use of time, ver-tical and horizontal coherence in the content, anadapted physical environment, clarity in expectationsand feedback, alertness with regard to children withemotional and learning difficulties… A central con-cern is the emotional well-being and involvement ofchildren, in the perspective of which inspectorsobserve the opportunity for children to be active, tomake choices and take initiative, to be challenged bycontents that meet their interests, to develop a per-sonal taste and opinion. At the same time characte-ristics of the school as an organisation are explored,such as the quality of the leadership, communicationand collegiality, professional development and a col-lective sense of efficacy.11

After the visit the inspection team writes a synthesisreport with a summary, a critical evaluation and anumber of conclusions. The report is intended forpolicy and the “inrichtende macht” of the school.Furthermore it is sent to the “directeur”, who has todiscuss it with the staff.


POLICY CONCERNS

10

Other policy approaches towards quality improve-ment are:

• The establishment of the ‘Pedagogische Begelei-dingsdiensten”, attached to the school net-works12: they contribute to the educational quali-ty and provide external support for the schools,for the purpose of realising the pedagogical pro-jects specific to an organising body.

• The stimulation of in-service training. This areahas been reorganised since 1996. An importantpart of the budget is set free to allocate meansdirectly to schools, who are free to buy the trai-ning they need. It is expected that this form ofdecentralisation stimulates schools to takeresponsibility and that it will have a positiveimpact on the quality of training on offer.

• The extra subsidies for the “Onderwijsvoor-rangsbeleid” and for “Zorgverbreding” whichrepresent a huge investment. (cfr infra: Inno-vative strategies; Issues of diversity and multi-cultural education)

• The introduction of self-evaluation of the schoolsas part of the new inspection system and thenew schemes for external support. It is the ulti-mate aim of the “schooldoorlichting” that afterthe audit schools consult about how to developinto autonomous, self-conscious and qualitativeschools via a systematic self-evaluation.

• The possibility to employ a psychologist orpedagogue/remedial teacher in schools for “bui-tengewoon onderwijs”, since 1/9/1997. But as thetotal allocated teacher hours was not adapted,many schools don’t have the available hours totake in this expertise.

The impact of several of these measures is beingresearched in several projects.

Box 3. Policy approaches towards quality improvement in edu-cation


POLICY CONCERNS


11

2. 2 ACCESS

■ CAREIn the care area access is not a statutory entitlement.Care is primarily meant for children of workingparents. Special attention is going to children ofparents with a low income and children of single-parent families. In order to reach the target group -mainly: the children from 0 to 3 -, the principle of‘multi-stage access’ is used. The parental contributiondepends also on their income and is determined on asliding scale13. For deprived families and migrantsother extra efforts are made to lower the threshold tocare facilities. For instance there is the intention tostimulate initiatives in a number of districts of largecities which fill in care in a broader concept of sup-port with regard to the families and the social integ-ration at district level.

■ EDUCATIONAccess to pre-school is a statutory entitlement for allchildren from 2,5 to 6 years of age. For childrenyounger than three, enrolment in a school is only pos-sible on five moments over a school year. When achild has special educational needs, it has the right to“Buitengewoon onderwijs””. Enrolment in a schoolfor “Buitengewoon onderwijs” however, requires areport that specifies the type of education that corres-ponds to the disability and needs of the child. A multi-disciplinary examination (medical, social, psychologi-cal and educational) is conducted by the “Psycho Me-disch Sociaal centrum”14 in order to come to the rightoption for that child. However because of the consti-tutional liberty of education parents can’t be obligedto send their child to “Buitengewoon onderwijs”.

Extent of choice for parents and influence by policy

■ CAREIn this area there are not many possibilities for choi-ce. There is the choice between care in a centre-based environment or care in a home-based environ-ment. There’s the choice between subsidised or pri-vate facilities. For most parents the choice is deter-mined in the first place by the distance between careand home (Maes & Van Meensel, 1994).

For low-income families, efforts are made to makecare more accessible, but in these families the choiceto stay home to take care of the own children oftenprevails. But also low-income families where theparents rest on the labour market, don’t make use ofsubsidised care because the extra costs still demand atoo great financial effort. Therefore the most of themopt to leave their children with family or friends.

As a consequence of the deeply rooted principle thatparents are responsible for the upbringing of theirchildren, “Kind & Gezin” acts neutrally and will notfavour one model or (type of) setting. Tax deductionfor care (see section III.E.) in facilities under supervi-sion and in the subsidised facilities will still leave a lotof options open, as far as these settings still representa wide variety of practices.

■ EDUCATIONAccess to pre-school education is free in the financedand subsidised schools. No registration fee has to bepaid and the materials necessary for education areprovided. Schools however, can ask parents formoney for extra activities and expenses can tightentheir school choice (HIVA, 1989). Because schoolsbelonging to the sector of Community schools offercheap meals at noon, low-income parents tend tochoose for them.

In education, free choice of parents is encouraged, itis determined in the Constitution. Parents have theright to choose freely between official and privateeducation. To make this choice possible Communityschools have to be accessible within a certain distan-ce of any parent wanting that type of ‘neutral’ edu-cation.

Supply of and demand for different forms of ECEC

■ CARE54,4% of all children between 3 months and 3 yearsof age were regularly (this means at least once aweek) entrusted to family, to a home- or centre-basedarrangement. 3,4% occasionally use child-mindingfacilities and 42,2% of children in this age group arenever going to these facilities. (Kind en Gezin, 1997)Care for children between 1 and 3 months happensexceptional. When looking at the proportion of child-ren in Care in relation to the total population of child-ren under three, 266 places per 1000 children under3 are available in the subsidised facilities and the faci-lities under supervision. The table shows how theyare spread over the forms of care (Source: Kind &Gezin, 1998a).


POLICY CONCERNS

12

Number of care Number of places Number of enrolled* facilities in 1997 in care in 1997 children in 1997

Kinderdagverblijven 310 12.945 28.763DOG’s 207 26.572 59.345Recognised and subsidised by 517 39.517 88.108“Kind & Gezin”

POI’s 572 8.298 19.514POG’s 1771 7.643 12.252Under supervision of 2343 15.941 31.766“Kind & Gezin”

“IBO’s” recognised 88by “Kind & Gezin”

Total 119.874

*each child attending at least one day is considered to be enrolled

Tab. 3: Number of care facilities, number of places in care and number of enrolled in 1997

In 1997 39.517 places were available in the subsidi-sed facilities. The capacity of the facilities undersupervision of “Kind & Gezin” comes to about16.000 places.


POLICY CONCERNS


13

Type of child minding 1995 1997

Grandparents 40.1 38.0Family member 3.3 2.3Third parties outside family, at home 1.4 1.5Third parties outside family, outside the home 2.3 1.7Child-minding family affiliated to a service (subsidised by Child and Family) 20.7 21.9Day nursery (subsidised by Child and Family) 15.8 15.3Private child-minding family registered with or supervised by Child and Family 10.0 12.0Private child-minding centre registered with or supervised by Child and Family 4.0 5.1Child-care and family support centre 0.1 0.3Out-of-school care 1.8 1.5Other 0.5 0.4

Total 100.0 100.0

Tab. 4: Children aged between 3 months and 3 years: use of child-minding (Region of Flanders). Source: Child and Family –Survey on the use of child-minding facilities for children aged under 3 [1997]

In the area the “buitenschoolse opvang” almost 50% of children visiting pre-school and 29% of children atten-ding primary school are taken care of by others than their parents during the week. Grandparents are the mostimportant caretakers.

Type of child minding Children attending Children attending nursery school primary school

Grandparents 55.2 68.3Child-minder 0.0 1.8Organised child-minding 18.1 16.2Grandparents and member of household/family 8.4 4.1Grandparents and child-minder 0.0 1.3Grandparents and organised child-minding 14.7 1.4Organised child-minding and child-minder 2.4 4.5Grandparents, member of household/family andOrganised child-minding 1.3 2.4

Total 100.0 100.0Percentage of users of child-minding facilities 38.8 30.2

Tab. 5: Percentage of users of child-minding. (Source: Panel Study of Belgian Households – year of observation 1997. Processedon behalf of Child and Family)

Care is to a great extent provided by grandparentsand other family members. Grandparents provide38% of the Care, other family members 2,3%.37,5% of the children in Care make use of subsidisedCare facilities: 21,9% are cared for in an “opvang-gezin” linked to a “DOG” and 15,3% make use of a“ kinderdagverblijf”.15

A summary of care facilities ‘only reported’ to “Kind& Gezin” is difficult to make, because these facilitiesdon’t always report the suspension of their care acti-vities. In 1992 there were 661 “POGs” and 110“POIs” under the category of ‘only reported’.

■ EDUCATION20% of the school population in full-time educationis in a nursery school. 32,3% is in primary educationand 35,3% is in secondary education. Higher educa-tion accounts for 12,4% of the school population.The table shows the distribution of the population ofyoung children in relation to the types of pre-school(mainstream or special education) and the education-al networks (Departement Onderwijs, 1998b).


POLICY CONCERNS

14

Tab. 6: Number of pupils in pre-school education in 1997-1998

Tab. 7: Number of “kleuterscholen” (mainstream and special education) in the three educational networks in 1997-1998

Gemeenschaps- Vrij Officieel Total onderwijs gesubsidieerd gesubsidieerd

onderwijs onderwijs[Community [Private Subsidised [Official SubsidisedEducation] Education] Education]

Gewoon [mainstream] 31.986 164.137 49.581 245.704Buitengewoon 456 1.233 122 1.811[special education]

Total 32.442 165.370 49.703 (13.1%) (66.8%) (20.1%) 247.515

Gemeenschaps- Vrij Officieel Total onderwijs gesubsidieerd gesubsidieerd

onderwijs onderwijs[Community [Private Subsidised [Official SubsidisedEducation] Education] Education]

Gewoon [mainstream] 329 1.329 435 2.093Buitengewoon 23 55 8 86[special education]

Total 352 1.384 443 2.179 (16.2%) (63.5%) (20.3%)

Access for children with special educational needs

■ CAREThe integration of children with a handicap is stimu-lated and a special subsidy is given to “kinderdagver-blijven” and “DOGs” in order to meet to a greaterextent the special needs of a child with a handicap.New guidelines are being developed to facilitate aswell as improve this integrated special needs care.

■ EDUCATIONIn the Flemish community education for children witha handicap is separate from mainstream education.The Law on “Buitengewoon onderwijs”” of6/7/1970 as well as the Decree on “Basisonderwijs”of 25/2/1997 defines “Buitengewoon onderwijs”as a type of education that provides teaching, edu-cation, care, and therapy suited to the capacity ofthe pupils of whom the development of the totalpersonality is not or insufficiently assured by themainstream education, temporarily or permanent-ly. The main objective is the integration of the childin normal family and social life, as far as possible. Toattain this goal a very individual approach is used.For each child an ‘intervention plan’ is set up. Thisplan (with attention to individual goals, methods, …)forms the daily guide for the teacher. All individualplans have to fit in a ‘group work plan’ for the peda-gogical entity. The ‘group work plans’ are attuned ina ‘school work plan’, which is an outline of the con-tent and organisation of teaching. Work in littlegroups is striven for as plenty as possible with thereinan individual approach. The teacher-pupil ratio the-refore has to be low. In 1998 it was 5.7 for“Buitengewoon Basisonderwijs”.

The “ontwikkelingsdoelen” are implemented in“Buitengewoon onderwijs”” in a somewhat differentway, because of the individual approach towards thechildren. The schools select from an established listof “ontwikkelingsdoelen”, those that are feasible infunction of the specific situation of the pupil. Theschools have to strive for the selected objectives.(Janssen-Vos & Laevers, 1996). Over the last deca-de, however, awareness of the importance of inte-gration and of inclusive education is growing andsteps are taken in that perspective (see section III.C.Innovative strategies).


POLICY CONCERNS


15

Strategies in relation to facilitation of access

■ CAREThe determination of the parental contributions on asliding scale is one of the general means to facilitateaccess for all children. On top of this special atten-tion is given to disadvantaged families and areasthrough extra subsidies.

■ EDUCATIONIn general pre-school is accessible to all children. Inpractice children from families with very low incomeare facing difficulties to pay the extra costs linkedwith the school, such as clothing, purchase of mate-rial (satchel…), subscription to a magazine, contribu-tions for excursions etc., which can go up to a year-ly figure of 100 Euro. In many cases schools andteachers try to help financially, but this doesn’t takeaway the psychological implications of poverty. Thisrepresents one of the main points of attention in theprojects “Zorgverbreding” en “Onderwijsvoorrangs-beleid”. It is important to note that Belgium has oneof the lowest rates of poverty in world-wide surveys.


16

3. POLICY APPROACHES

On top or the statutory allocation of means, schoolscan acquire additional subsidies through the tempor-ary projects “Onderwijsvoorrangsbeleid” and“Zorgverbreding”. These projects target immigrants,children from low SES families (low-income and sing-le-parent families). The areas in which schools haveto take initiatives, are settled by decree and ministe-rial circulars. To assure maximum efficiency in theuse of these means, the assignment of these subsidiesis on a temporary base and conditional. But againschools have to work out own strategies while theycompose their action plans for approval.

Source of regulations

■ CAREIn care, regulations are policy-driven and driven bythe possible supply dependent on the budgetarymeans. Recently however the participation of thefield has been more apparent e.g. in the open strate-gy used to compose and implement the QualityDecree.

■ EDUCATIONIn education, all regulations are partly policy-drivenand partly demand-driven. In the realisation of thedecree on “Basisonderwijs” the representativegroups of the “inrichtende machten”, the represen-tative employer’s organisations and of parents asso-ciations were consulted amply. This resulted in a glo-bal agreement.


POLICY APPROACHES


17

3. 1 REGULATIONS

Regulations

In comparing the extent in which the content ofECEC is regulated we can say that ‘education’ ismore regulated than ‘care’. This has grown histori-cally because of the greater importance and valueattached to education. The last decade, howevermore attention is directed towards the pedagogicalquality of care.

■ CAREA link can be made between the degree of regulationand the three categories of care facilities. Most regu-lations concern the category of recognised and subsi-dised facilities. These have to implement the QualityDecree, which will be an additional condition for thesubsidised facilities.

■ EDUCATIONIn education there’s also a trend towards bringing theregulations spread over different laws together inorder to simplify and make legislation more transpa-rant. The central legislation concerning pre-schooleducation is resumed in the decree on “Basisonder-wijs” of 25/2/199716. At the same time there is anobvious evolution towards deregulation. Now, lawsgive the general framework, instead of describing infull extent how things have to be done.

One of the boundaries set by regulations concernsthe number of ‘lestijden’ (teaching time) made avai-lable (according to the number of children enrolled inthe school). This determines the number of teammembers. Starting from this, schools are free togroup children in whatever way. Schools have thefreedom to develop their own curriculum but theyhave to submit a program describing the content ofteaching for approval to the minister of education.These programs are mostly developed by the umbrel-la organisations of the schools17.

Inspection of regulations and facilities■ CAREIn the area of care, the term ‘inspection’ was chan-ged for ‘quality control’. Its objective is to exercisesupervision concerning the application of decreesand laws; to exercise supervision on hygiene, safety,food, to guard the quality of the facilities, with theposition of the child in relation to its surroundings asstarting point; and to promote quality in general.

At this moment, inspection is in a transitional phasebecause of the implementation of the Quality decree.In the new strategy the inspectors visit the facilities18.After the inspection visit a letter is sent to the facili-ty, that notifies the positive and negative conclusionsof the visit along with suggestions for quality impro-vement. This happens in a dynamic perspective andmustn’t be necessarily seen as a sanction. Next tothis general visit there are also visits as a result of acomplaint, to control the conditions for recognitionor prolongation of the recognition, or to re-evaluatethe pedagogic preconditions. The objective is to fol-low up the facilities once in a year (Kind & Gezin,1997a).

The inspections are carried out by qualified socialworkers. They have had in-service training on the useof the quality scales. The teams are supported by apsychologist or a pedagogue.

Sanctions for the different facilities can be: withdra-wal of the recognition, withdrawal of the certificate ofsupervision, refusal of the first certificate of supervi-sion or refusal of the prolongation of a certificate ofsupervision. In 1997 the certificate of supervisionwas not prolonged for one “POI” and 2 “POGs”. Fortwo “POIs” and 5 “POGs” the certificate was withd-rawn. 10 first certificates for “POIs” were refusedand for “POGs” 24 were refused (Kind & Gezin,1998a).

■ EDUCATIONInspections in pre-school are carried out for the gre-atest extent during the “schooldoorlichting” [schoolaudit] (see section II.A). Other visits are possible, forinstance to inspect the compliance with the regula-tions of the temporary projects “Onderwijsvoor-rangsbeleid” and “Zorgverbreding” (see sectionIII.C.).

The aim of the Inspectorate is to perform a schoolinvestigation once every six years in every school.This goal hasn’t been reached yet because of the tho-roughness of the “schooldoorlichting” and becausesome vacancies couldn’t be filled in.

The Inspectorate for the “Basisonderwijs” consists offormer “Basisonderwijs” teachers, who have taughtfor at least 10 years and who have proved to know“Basisonderwijs” sufficiently in an exam19. In 1996,the entry requirements for inspectors were broade-ned to include also candidates with a degree of hig-her education or university.

New inspectors get training. The purpose is that theyacquire the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessaryto fulfil their task in a decent and responsible manner.They also have to fulfil a practical training which lastsa year. All inspectors also get in-service training.

In mainstream and special education, there are 84inspectors and 6 inspectors-coordinator - one perprovince and one for the whole of special education- for about 2.600 elementary schools (with about4.500 school locations).

Inspectors can’t sanction schools directly. The aim isto support the schools in maintaining or establishingqualitative education. However inspectors can giveadvice to the minister of Education who can takemeasures. The Inspectorate uses three categories inits judgements: ‘positive judgement’; ‘negative jud-gement that can become positive’ (if serious short-comings are assessed, the school gets 300 days toremedy these shortcomings, after which a new inves-tigation takes place); and ‘negative judgement’ (inthis case a second investigation by another teamtakes place). When a negative judgement is made forthe second time the Inspectorate advises the ministerto withdraw the subsidies of the next year for thatschool.The sanction, withdrawal of the recognition of theschool or part of the school is rarely given. In the schoolyear 1996-1997, 2% of the investigatedschools got a negative advice (6 schools).(Departement Onderwijs, 1998a)


POLICY APPROACHES

18

Information sharing on the standards attained

In Flanders ‘publicity of administrative documents’(‘openbaarheid van bestuursdocumenten’) applies.This means that every person or legal body has thepossibility to consult almost every administrativedocument of the administration of the FlemishCommunity freely. Also the institutions whichdepend on the Flemish Community fall under thisrule. The request for consultation can only be rejec-ted if it concerns: (1) incomplete documents or unfi-nished files; (2) internal statements; (3) an unreason-able request or a too broad formulation. An ombuds-man inspects the correct application of this regula-tion (Welzijnszakboekje, 1998).

■ CAREAs a consequence of this rule every one is entitled toknow if a care facility is recognised or under supervi-sion. The ‘score’ of a facility on the rating scalehowever, is not given to the public. Only parents cancome to know if a facility meets the basic qualityrequirements. When a certificate of supervision iswithdrawn, parents and the local authority are infor-med.

■ EDUCATIONIn education, the ‘publicity of administrative docu-ments’ has opened a debate about who has access tothe reports of the ‘schooldoorlichting’ and how theyare to be made accessible, because this is not clarifiedin the decree. Arrangements concerning the publici-ty of reports of “schooldoorlichting” have recentlybeen made. Interested individuals can ask theInspector-general a report. Reports can not be usedfor commercial ends or publication.

Promotion of quality by other non-goverment subsidised actors

■ CAREThe inspections by “Kind & Gezin” are done startingfrom the child’s position or the interest of the child.This happened partly under the influence of the‘Universal Declaration on the Rights of Children’.

The MEQ (Milestones towards Quality throughEquality)-network, a co-operation between 6 transna-tional care organisations gave a serious impulse tochildcare training and the sector. This network strivesfor the improvement of the quality of care through anequal opportunities policy for women and immi-grants on the labour market. They try to realise thisthrough the development of training material andspecific guiding strategies for long-term unemployedimmigrant women. (NOW, 1998b). Kind & Gezinsubsidises this initiative.

The ‘Bond van Grote en Jonge Gezinnen’ (BGJB,Association of Large and Young Families) is an orga-nisation that looks after the interests of families withyoung children. The association follows up all topicsthat involve children and their families, undertakesinvestigations and formulates its point of view onrelevant topics.

■ EDUCATIONAn important source of influence in the definitionand implementation of quality has been one of thelargest unions for teachers in elementary education,the ‘Christen Onderwijzers Verbond’. Since manydecades their impact is evident through their journalfor teachers and a wide offer of in-service trainingprogrammes. They also were very active advocatesfor the improvement of the status of pre-schoolteachers and influenced policy in a great deal whenmatters related to this were on the agenda.

A second actor influencing the standards for quality,is the foundation “Centrum voor ErvaringsGerichtOnderwijs” [Centre for experiential education]. It wasset up in 1979 starting from a research unit atLeuven University. Its widespread becomes clear inthe broad circulation of its periodical (E.G.O-Echo),the distribution of publications, the place of it in thetraining institutes for “kleuterleidsters”, the many in-service training activities (exceeding 1.700 hrs peryear), and the growing international attention for it.One of its contributions is linked to the promotion ofthe process variables well-being and involvement asmain quality criteria which influenced to a greatextent the conceptualisation of the projects“Zorgverbreding” and the instrument developed forthe inspectorate.


POLICY APPROACHES


19

Relation of regulatory policy in ECEC to regulatory policy for other social services

The care sector has part in the “Gezins- enWelzijnsraad” (family and welfare board). This is arecent participation and consultation medium. It ismeant to give the government and the welfare sectorthe possibility to assume responsibility together forthe developments in policy regarding family and wel-fare. The aim is to co-ordinate policy and to avoidtensions and overlap.

The struggle against poverty is ranking very high inthe policy of the Flemish government -although thefigures of poverty in Belgium are not high in compa-rison to the other European countries.20 An expres-sion of this concern is the establishment of the‘Vlaams Intersectorieel Comité tegen Armoede –VICA’ [Flemish Inter-sector Committee againstPoverty] in 1991. The committee is a forum for con-sultation and co-operation between the Flemish dif-ferent ministerial departments and participants insociety. Poverty is a problem that manifests itself indiverse domains of society. Only an integral appro-ach can offer a solution.


POLICY APPROACHES

20

3. 2 STAFFING

Staff roles in ECEC

■ CAREThe “kinderverzorgster” is the professional for the“kinderdagverblijf” [day-care centre]. Before 1995,training consisted of two years within a specific cur-riculum in the vocational stream of secondary educa-tion. Since 1995 the training consists of a 2-years –starting at 16 - vocational course in secondary edu-cation, which lays the basis for a variety of caringprofessions. After these 2 years a specialisation yearfor care can be followed (also at secondary educa-tional level). This specialisation year is made obliga-tory to work in a “kinderdagverblijf”, where beforeone could enter after the two-year childcare training.This obligation hasn’t been translated yet in a salaryincrease.

The “kinderdagverblijf” can replace “kinderverzorg-sters” by “kleuterleidsters” [pre-school teachers].However this possibility can only be used for half ofthe minimum number of “kinderverzorgsters. Thisform of replacement is rather rare (less the 5%). Anurse has the task to support and guide the “kinder-verzorgsters” and to observe the children. Her trai-ning is a three-year course in an institute for highereducation.

Executive functions in a “kinderdagverblijf” or“DOG” can be filled in by a social worker or a socialnurse. They can be replaced half-time by a psycholo-gist or pedagogue for a “kinderdagverblijf”. The firsttwo professions are at the level of higher educationand take three years. Psychologists and pedagoguesare educated at university in a 5-year course.

To work in a “opvanggezin” [home-based child care]there are no diploma requirements. A starting courseis not required for persons starting a home-basedarrangement but can be asked by services for home-based arrangement. This starting course has to beorganised by a “DOG” and can vary substantiallyaccording to the organising “DOG”. The startingcourse can take the form of a few talks, a four dayscourse etc.

According to legislation, workers in “buitenschoolseopvang” have to have an appropriate qualification. Ateaching diploma, a certificate of training recognisedby “Kind & Gezin” and also expertise acquiredthrough experience are eligible for this position. Inthe specialisation year for childcare, a module “bui-tenschoolse opvang” can be chosen. A starting cour-se for workers in “IBOs” was set up by the “VDAB”(the Flemish government service for the promotionof employment) for long-term unemployed, semi-and unskilled workers.

For executives and workers in a “POI”, there are nodiploma requirements, but in order to develop aqualitative care, training and education are encoura-ged.Centres for retail trade education organise a 2 years(2 x 4 hours a week ) management training“Beheerder POI” [manager of a “POI”] at post-secondary level. This training is not compulsory, buthands out a recognised diploma ‘training for head ofa company, for the profession of manager of a“POI”’.

■ EDUCATIONThe teachers in pre-school are “kleuterleidsters”.21

They have completed three years of (non-academic)higher education and are trained to work with child-ren from 2,5 to 6 years of age. In autonomous pre-school institutions the “directeur” is usually also a“kleuterleidster”. However pre-schools often form abasisschool together with a primary school and thenfall under the supervision of the “directeur” of theelementary school, who, in most cases but not neces-sarily, is a primary teacher and thus trained to workwith children of 6 to 12 years of age.

In “Buitengewoon onderwijs”, the staff can also con-sist of paramedical staff (“kinderverzorgster”, nurse,physiotherapist, speech therapist), social staff, medi-cal staff and psychologists and remedial teachers.The first two categories have a diploma of three-years non-university higher education, with an excep-tion for the “kinderverzorgster”. The supervisingmedical doctor in “Buitengewoon onderwijs” follo-wed a seven-years training at university level and psy-chologists or pedagogues have had a five-year uni-versity education.


POLICY APPROACHES


21

Profiles of workers in ECEC

It is obvious that the profiles of “kinderverzorgsters”and of “kleuterleidsters” are quite different and thatthe structuring of the EC workforce and its training,reflect the structure of ECEC provision.

■ CARENotwithstanding the efforts to change this, theimpact of the medical profession on the profile andtraining of child nurses is still perceivable. Althoughthe latest reform of the training was a step forward,the language used to describe the objectives of theyear of specialisation, still bears the mark of themedical model. The impact of social sciences, exper-tise in child rearing and developmental psychology isstill limited.

■ EDUCATIONIn pre-school, staff members are seen as schoolte-achers. As a matter of fact, pre-school is part of theschool system and the adults working there areteachers who had a lot of psychological, pedagogicaland instructional expertise in their training. Althoughpre-school education has a specific character, it is stillseen by a lot of parents as the preparation phase forprimary education, especially when children get five.

■ CARE & EDUCATIONLooking at the evolutions in the profile of workers inthe field of care and of education there seems a tend-ency, from the part of the government, to make thetraining more general, at least for a part. For instan-ce, before 1995 the “kinderverzorgster” trainingbegan already at age 16, where now the specific trai-ning for “kinderverzorgster” begins at 18. In educa-tion, with the decree on teacher training(16/4/1996) institutions are forced to establish acertain degree of ‘communality’ in the training ofpre-school-, primary- and secondary teachers for thefirst grade. The filling-in of this communality howeveris left to the institutes. No efforts however are madeto promote greater coherency in the training of pro-fessionals in care and education. These are two com-pletely separate systems, reflecting different levels ofexpertise and training.

Preparation for management

■ CAREExecutives of a “kinderdagverblijf” or a “D.O.G.”,are not specifically trained for EC work. Therefore itis seen as desirable for them to follow in-service trai-ning to better acquaint with child care matters.

■ EDUCATION“Directeurs” of pre-schools or elementary schoolsare themselves experienced teachers. There are noofficial requirements in terms of training to take onmanagement tasks and the task of supportingteachers; tasks that get more and more demanding.In practice the “inrichtende machten” require thatteachers get a so-called ‘Diploma van hogere peda-gogische studieën’ (see ‘Career prospects’). To sup-port the “directeurs”, in-service training is an impor-tant means22.

Working with children with SEN & diversity

■ CAREGrowing attention is paid in the training of “kinder-verzorgsters” to children with SEN and also to diver-sity. In the specialisation year for “kinderverzorg-ster”, the students have to complete a basic moduleand next to this, they can choose between fourmodules. Two of these modules concern childrenwith special needs. The first focuses on children withbehavioural difficulties, emotional disturbed childrenor children with a handicap. The second concerns‘intercultural work’ and aims to make care accessiblefor immigrant parents.

■ EDUCATIONDuring their 3-years education, “kleuterleidsters”have to gain experience in diverse schools with diffe-rent target groups and different teaching methods. Apart of their practical training has to be done in“Buitengewoon onderwijs””.

A lot of importance though is attached to in-servicetraining. For teachers who are already teaching in“Buitengewoon onderwijs”, a special in-service trai-ning programme is organised. It’s a part-time trai-ning which takes two years. The certificate of the

course is not obliged to work in “Buitengewoononderwijs””, but in practice certain organising bodiesexpect their teachers to follow the course. The staffin “Buitengewoon onderwijs” who followed this cour-se, are financially rewarded for this additional effort(Janssen-Vos & Laevers, 1996).

From the part of policy, indications for more atten-tion to children with SEN is expressed in the initiati-ve of the VlOR (the section for Elementary education)to elaborate the concept of ‘inclusive education’ asone of the guiding principles for the future of educa-tion in Flanders. The abolition of the divisionbetween special and mainstream education is one ofthe elements of this stand.

In the context of the temporary project on“Zorgverbreding” special attention is given to child-ren who - in principle - belong to mainstream educa-tion but demand special attention and preventivemea

THEMATIC REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ...THEMATIC REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND...

Documents

Transcript of THEMATIC REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ...THEMATIC REVIEW OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND...