Abstract
This study examines associations between Australia’s regulatory ratings of quality in early childhood education and care (ECEC)—the National Quality Standard (NQS)—and two research-based quality rating scales. The analytic sample consisted of 257 ECEC services across three Australian states. Results indicated (1) modest positive associations between NQS ratings and scale scores; (2) some specificity between NQS quality areas (educational programs and practice; relationships with children) and one research scale—the Sustained Shared Thinking and Emotional Wellbeing (SSTEW) scale; (3) variability in quality scales scores within each NQS designation; and (4) mitigation of these associations when the time-gap between ratings exceeded 24 months. Findings suggest NQS and research scales tap some common core of quality, yet capture different aspects of quality, suggesting both could be used to raise standards of quality in Australian preschools, where the research scales potentiate raising quality to even higher levels than NQS.
Highlights
Evidence supports the importance of high-quality educational experiences in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings (e.g. OECD 2012)
While it is noted that quality is a complex term, the current study considers the Australian government’s national measure of quality—the National Quality Standard (NQS) assessment—which, amongst other important roles measures and monitors quality with a focus on the impact ECEC provision can have on children’s outcomes (ACECQA 2017a)
While it was not expected that the quality ratings scales would differ by state, preliminary analyses sought to establish this before exclusion of this factor from subsequent analysis (Table 2)
Summary
Evidence supports the importance of high-quality educational experiences in early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings (e.g. OECD 2012). Its benefits include the potential to promote children’s short- and long-term development, such as educational success (Melhuish et al 2015), the possibility of reducing inequalities linked to socio-economic status (Siraj and Mayo 2014), and the potential to foster economic growth in the longer term (Ho et al 2010) Despite such benefits being well recognised (Melhuish et al 2015; Pianta 2012; Sylva et al 2014; Taylor et al 2016), there continues to be debate around how highquality experiences can be ensured and maximised. A comprehensive discussion of the multiple perspectives of quality can be found elsewhere (Kingston 2017; Kingston and Melvin 2012; Mathers et al 2012; Moss and Dahlberg 2008)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
