Aspiring to quality—culturally constructed

Abstract

The concept of as used in industry and construction, was first applied to education and the social services in the 1980s. Since then the question of how to define and describe quality in early childhood services has been a matter for debate, both in New Zealand and internationally. Recently I spent time in Norway and Japan, observing very different early childhood contexts from our own. While each country promotes its practices as quality, the cultural contexts that shape our understandings of children, development, goals, and philosophies differ considerably--and so, as a result, do our early childhood settings. In this article (1) I discuss definitions of drawing on examples from Norway and Japan to demonstrate the differences in our understanding of this concept as it applies to early childhood education. Definitions of quality The concept of quality has often been taken to mean something that is real, measurable, knowable, and assessable; in other words, out there to be discovered. For example, the work on quality in early childhood education (ECE) has often looked at the structural features of services, such as organisation, resources, and environments. In the mid 1990s Harry McGurk (1995) defined quality in terms of structures and processes. Structures were those things that are the easiest to measure: physical space, equipment, staff qualifications and conditions of employment, health and safety, staff-child ratios, and so on. Indeed, there appears to be general international agreement over these as determinants of quality. Quality processes, however, are harder to describe, but refer to children's actual experiences in their early childhood settings: for example, their interactions with staff; a curriculum that is appropriately linked to their interests, exploration, and culture; relationships between staff; staff morale; and relationships between staff and parents. There are many different opinions on the impact these factors have on quality (Ceglowski, 2004; Clifford, 1995; Moss & Pence, 1994; Smith, 1996; Textor, 1998). Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence (1999) sum up this position when they state: We recognize that the discourse of quality might be particularly useful for certain highly technical issues, perhaps, for example, food hygiene or building standards to ensure the physical safety of young children in early childhood institutions ... a comprehensive and reliable system of information on subjects as the supply and use of places, the costs of running institutions and the gender, ethnicity, training and other details of the workforce are necessary conditions for a system of well organized and well resourced early childhood institutions. (p. 119) Since the mid 1990s the New Zealand Government has been attempting to support both structural and process quality indicators through initiatives and incentives such as the 1996 Quality Funding Rate, Quality in Action (Ministry of Education, 1998), The Quality Journey (Ministry of Education, 1999), and most recently Pathways to the Future (Ministry of Education, 2002). The Education (ECE) Regulations 1998 and Revised Statement of Desirable Objectives and Practices (DOPs) for Chartered Early Childhood Services (Ministry of Education, 1996) provide a legislative platform for agreed standards for ECE provisions. It is agreed that these structural features do improve what is happening for children (Clifford, 1995, Early Childhood Education Project, 1996). In New Zealand, as well as understanding the usefulness of these structures and systems in promoting we now also officially recognise their interrelationships in Pathways to the Future. Nga Huarahi Arataki. A 10 year Strategic Plan for Early Childhood Education (Ministry of Education, 2002): Children only benefit from participation in quality ECE services. That quality is achieved through a number of interacting factors. …