PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA · Proceedings from PERMATA NEGARA ... in poverty can shape a child’s neuro-biology, leading directly to poorer outcomes in adulthood (Shonkoff &

CONTENT

Page

Proceedings from PERMATA NEGARA

Policy for Early Childhood and the Wealth of Nations 2

Professor Edward Melhuish

Quality Assurance in Early Childhood Care and Education 22

Prof. Emerita Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Dr. Sharifah Hapsah Syed Hasan Shahabudin

Engaging STEM Education in Early Years 24

Professor Dr. Ong Eng Tek

2

PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA

PLENARY:

POLICY FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS

PROFESSOR EDWARD MELHUISH

UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

We live in a rapidly changing world where the skills that children need to learn in order to have

good life chances are increasing and becoming more complex. However, there are great

differences in children’s health and development linked to their social origins. Many studies

give a consistent picture that adversity in early life leads to: poor adult mental and physical

health, adult mortality, anti-social and criminal behaviour, substance abuse and poor literacy

and academic achievement. Children from poor families are less likely to be successful in

school and are more likely to have poorer health and to engage in crime and other problem

behaviour later in life (Holzer, Schanzenbach, Duncan, & Ludwig, 2007). The stress from living

in poverty can shape a child’s neuro-biology, leading directly to poorer outcomes in adulthood

(Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Despite several decades of social, educational and public health

reform, the impact of social origins on child outcomes and well-being persists and is even

increasing. This produces an enormous waste of talents as the potential of children in

disadvantaged circumstances is never fully realized.

Additionally, there is an extra load on society’s resources as these individuals who mature into

disadvantaged youths and adults will show greater need for state resources throughout their

lives as their well-being is often compromised. Thus, there is both a moral dilemma - how to

reduce inequality and make peoples’ lives more fulfilled, - and a social and economic dilemma

in that a society with a high proportion of disadvantaged individuals, and poorer level of skills

throughout the population, is less able to adapt to a world demanding higher levels of

productivity to maintain living standards. These problems are exacerbated over time as

increasingly technologically advanced societies need more and newer skills from the

workforce. Hence there is an increasing need for more adaptable and technically skilled

populations. The aims of equality and future productivity merge in policy in realizing that

learning capabilities are primarily formed during the first years of childhood. Thus, improving

life chances in early childhood can serve both the goals of reducing inequality and raising the

productive capacity of a society.

3


Why should we focus on the early years? One reason is the accumulation of evidence that

indicates that the child’s experience in the early years has profound consequences for later

life. There are now many studies that present a consistent picture indicating that adversity in

early life, such as frequently accompanies child poverty, is linked to: poor adult mental and

physical health, adult mortality, anti-social and criminal behaviour, substance abuse and poor

literacy and academic achievement.

To quote two well-known social scientists

Esping-Anderson (2005)

“If the race is already halfway run even before children begin school, then we clearly need to

examine what happens in the earliest years.”

And the Nobel prize winning economist James Heckman (2004)

“Like it or not, the most important mental and behavioural patterns, once established, are

difficult to change once children enter school.”

In reviewing the evidence on ECEC, the research evidence for children 0-3 years is mixed

with some studies indicating benefits, some indicating negative effects and some studies

indicating no effects at all. The discrepant results for studies of childcare for children 0-3 years

probably reflects different effects for different populations, different ages, different types of

children as well as differing qualities of childcare for differing settings and differing populations.

When studies of ECEC for children over 3 years are considered the evidence of benefits for

children is clear and there are almost universal benefits for children associated with the various

forms of group-based ECEC attended by children from 3 years upwards. Also, the benefits

increase the greater the quality of the pre-school provision defined in terms of how well the

centres serve children’s developmental needs, (Melhuish et al., 2015)

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) in the UK

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) in the UK can be regarded as a mixed economy,

in that it is partly financed and organised by the central and local government, partly by private

individuals and organisations, and partly by voluntary organisations (e.g., community groups,

charities). ECEC in England includes a wide range of services. Formal provision includes day

nurseries, nursery schools, nursery classes, playgroups, children or family centres and

childminding. Informal provision includes grandparents, friends and neighbours, nannies or

other home carers. This list details the range of provision available:

4


Day nursery: centre-based provision for children under five years

Playgroup: usually part-time, for children between two and four years

Nursery class: class in primary school for 3-4-year-old, mostly part-time

Nursery school: separate pre-school for 3-year-olds to start of primary school.

Children’s Centre: multi-purpose facility for children and families, including ECEC 0-5 years

sometimes, and family support and possibly other services.

Childminding: family day care for all ages

Home carers: family, neighbour, friend; nannies

Reception class: first year of primary school, may take four-year-old

Childcare for school-children: out-of-school care; group or individual.

Essentially prior to 1998 there was no statutory obligation for the state to provide any early

childhood education or childcare for children under the statutory starting school age of 5 years.

However, there were a range of provision such as local authority day nurseries catering for ‘at

risk’ children, as well as in some nursery schools and nursery classes for 3 and 4-year old,

typically in more disadvantaged areas. These services were provided at the discretion of

individual local authorities and hence their availability was haphazard around the country.

Some of these services were the hangover of policies started and then rescinded during or

shortly after the Second World War. Outside the public sector, some children used private

fee-paying nursery schools and classes, and many attended voluntary sector playgroups,

which often kept fees low by using volunteers. Full-time paid day-care was also available from

the private sector. Voluntary and private provision was regulated according to the criteria

within the 1989 Children act and from 2005 by the Office for Standards in Education, Children's

Services and Skills (Ofsted).

From the late 1980’s ECEC started to re-emerge occasionally as a topic on the government

policy agenda. State involvement in ECEC has gradually gathered momentum over recent

decades.

The 1989 Children Act set out the basic regulations for the registration and regulation of all

early childhood education and care (ECEC) settings. This formulation of the ECEC regulations

within this Act had been influenced by a government-funded longitudinal study undertaken in

the 1980’s, the London Day Care Project, which had shown how the quality of care in ECEC

and home settings was related to children’s developmental outcomes, particularly language

development (Melhuish, Lloyd, Martin, & Mooney, 1990).

5


The Foundation Stage, which was a national curriculum covering ages 3-5 years was

introduced in 2000. In 2008, this was expanded as the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS)

covering 0-6 years. In the last year of EYFS, the reception year in primary school, children are

rated by teachers on the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile (EYFSP), which is an

assessment involving scales for 13 areas of development. The procedure for the EYFSP is

detailed in a 90-page handbook. It has been assumed that the EYFS and the EYFSP would

be delivered uniformly across the country, although pre-school staff are often not certified in

early childhood studies. The EYFS and EYFSP were revised in 2012.

The government stated its aim to upgrade the ECEC workforce in the Children’s Workforce

Strategy (HM government, 2005), and some improvement in the level of qualifications of the

ECEC workforce occurred. An ECEC Providers survey (Brind et al., 2011) shows that by 2010,

for the educationally-oriented sector for 3-5 years, about 40% of staff had a level 6 qualification

or higher, i.e., graduate teachers, and about 40% were at level 3 or below, i.e., assistants.

Whereas in the childcare sector, up to 8% had a level 6 qualification, and about 50% had a

level 3 qualification, with the remainder having level 2 or less. Early Years Professionals

started to appear in the workforce, but were under 4% in 2010. Around 25% of heads of full-

time services had a level 6 qualification (i.e. graduates), with 9% of supervisors and 2% of

other workers. In summary, the workforce is still not well-qualified, even though some

improvements have occurred, and a limiting factor has been the increased pay that increased

qualifications would require.

This process of ECEC reform has led to increasing public expenditure on ECEC. This can be

illustrated by taking public expenditure on childcare and early educational services for children

from 3 years of age to the start of school from the bi-annual OECD Social Expenditure data

collection and the annual UOE (UNESCO/OECD/Eurostat) data collection on education

(OECD, 2014). However, it only covers expenditure on pre-primary education (ISCED-0) not

on childcare for the under 3s. In order to get a better comparison of childcare support,

indicators were adjusted for cross-national differences in the compulsory age of entry into

primary school.

Using data from 2009, of the European countries, which include the top seven spends (% of

GDP) in the OECD, only Denmark (2%), Iceland (1.6%), Sweden (1.5%), France (1.2%),

Norway (1.2%) spend more than the UK (1.1%), which is equal to Finland (1.1%). Hence the

UK is substantially above the average for European and OECD countries in terms of the

%GDP spent on ECEC. In addition, since 2009, which is the year upon which these country

comparisons are made, there has been substantial increases in the UK ECEC spend, e.g.,

the extension of a free part-time ECEC place to 2-year-olds in the most deprived 40% of

6


families in 2013/2014, and by 2017 the 15 hours/week free ECEC place will be increased to

30 hours/week where a parent works 16+ hours/week.

EPPE (EPPSE) project (www.ioe.ac.uk/research/153.html)

A large-scale longitudinal study had a strong influence on UK government policy. This was

the Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE, later EPPSE) project (Sylva et al,

2004; 2010; 2014; Melhuish et al., 2008).

The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project was originally authorised by

the conservative government in 1996 to provide evidence relevant to the pilot voucher scheme

for nursery places for 3-4-year-old that had been originally authorised in 1994. After the 1997

general election, the new Labour government killed the voucher scheme, but took an interest

in the EPPE project as ECEC was a central policy interest of the new government, and they

increased the EPPE funding. The longitudinal study started in 1997 and has followed over

3000 children from age 3 years, with retrospective data back to birth. As the children went into

primary school the project became the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education (EPPE)

project, and as the children moved into secondary school it became the Effective Pre-school,

Primary and Secondary Education (EPPSE) project until its end when children were 18 years

old. Hence, in its entirety, it constitutes a birth to 18 years’ longitudinal study. Hereafter, we

will refer to it by its latest acronym, EPPSE. It has focused particularly on the effect of different

kinds and quality of group-based ECEC provision, age of starting, and hours of attendance.

Early Results from EPPSE

When children were 3-4 years old their cognitive, language and socio-emotional development

was influenced by demographic factors, such as social class and parent education, as

frequently found previously. However, a variable called the Home Learning Environment

(HLE), derived from parental report of activities in the home, showed a greater association

with all measured aspects of development than the demographic factors. This finding was

summarised as “What parents do is more important than who parents are” (Melhuish et al.,

2001). This reflects the early finding that the HLE had an equal or more powerful effect upon

child development than parents’ education or social class. The HLE was a measure of

learning opportunities provided in the home and its derivation is fully described in Melhuish,

Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, Taggart, & Phan, (2008) and it continued to show powerful

effects upon educational and social outcomes as children became older (e.g., Melhuish et al.,

2008; Sammons et al., 2015).

7


When children entered primary school, the EPPSE study (Sammons et al., 2002, 2003) found

that:

• Two to three years of high-quality early years education can provide up to eight months of

developmental advantage in literacy-related outcomes compared to children who enter school

with no pre-school experience, with similar effects on other cognitive and social outcomes.

• While high-quality ECEC experience provided a boost, the greatest predictor of success was

the home learning environment, i.e., the learning opportunities provided at home had the

largest effect on child outcomes.

• The quality of ECEC is correlated with staff qualifications, and higher quality was related to

better outcomes for children.

These findings had several effects upon policy. The first was that the government decided to

provide a free part-time ECEC place for every child from their third birthday, until the start of

school, which came into effect in 2004. Secondly several government officials and politicians

were struck by the power of the effects of the HLE and emphasis on improving the HLE

influenced several subsequent decisions on early years’ provision, including a pilot

programme to improve the early years HLE; including the importance of HLE in subsequent

ECEC staff training programmes; and using the HLE as an outcome of interest in subsequent

programmes. Thirdly the importance of the quality of ECEC and the role of staff training in

developing quality was recognised.

Another finding from the EPPSE project was that a type of ECEC provision called integrated

centres was having particularly beneficial effects upon children at the start of school. The

centres integrated childcare, early education and often family support and sometimes other

family services and they were to become called children’s centres.

Later EPPSE Results

As children in the EPPSE study moved through the school system there was a need to

consider the effects of schooling itself as well as the effects of child, parent, home, area and

pre-school experience variables, which had been used in the earlier reports. Therefore, a

measure of the effectiveness of schools was devised from National assessment data for all

children in England. For some schools’ children, did better than expected, - effective schools

and for some schools’ children did worse than expected - ineffective schools. A continuous

measure of academic effectiveness was derived for all primary and secondary schools in

England. An analytic model represented by the following diagram (Fig. 1) was used to plan

8


analyses to understand influences on child outcomes.

Figure 1: Modelling Child outcomes

In such analyses the effects associated with a predictor variable, e.g., pre-school quality, could

be estimated after allowing for the effects of all other variables in the model. Using this

approach successive stages of the EPPSE project showed the continuing long-term effects of

experience in the pre-school period including ECEC experience and the early years HLE, as

well as the effects of demographic factors and school effectiveness. When children are 11

years old in England every child takes a national Key Stage 2 assessment. These assessment

data were used to analyse the effects of a range of variables upon children’s educational and

social development. The following graph (Fig.2) shows the relative size of effects (in standard

deviation units) of a range of variables with strong effects upon children’s achievement in

literacy and numeracy, as measured by National Assessments, at age 11 (Melhuish, 2011;

Sammons, et al., 2008).

9


Fig.2 Effects upon children’s literacy and numeracy at age 11 years.

Mother’s education (effect size (ES) = 0.70+ for literacy and numeracy), and the Home

Learning Environment (measured at age 3-4) (ES= 0.68 literacy; 0.42 numeracy) are the

strongest influences upon children’s attainment. However, preschool quality and primary

school effectiveness are also important influences and are very similar in their importance and

account for about half as much variance as home factors. Note that the effects of going to a

high-quality pre-school compared with no pre-school are similar in size to the effects of going

to a high effective versus a low effective primary school, yet a child on average had been in

the pre-school centre for 18 months, but had been at primary school for six years. While the

effects displayed are for attainment in literacy and numeracy, there are also substantial similar

effects upon children’s social development.

A similar strategy was repeated to analyse the effects of potential predictors upon academic

or social development at subsequent stages of the EPPSE project at age 14, 16 and 18 years

10


(Sammons et al., 2014a, b; 2015) The results for literacy and numeracy at age 16, derived

from the national GCSE assessments that children take at age 16, are shown in Fig. 3 below.

Fig. 3 Effects upon children’s literacy and numeracy at age 16 years.

As at age 11, mother’s education is still exerting the strongest effect upon literacy and

numeracy, albeit somewhat reduced in size from earlier. Secondary school effectiveness has

become a strong effect revealing the enormous diversity in effectiveness amongst secondary

schools in England. The huge diversity amongst secondary schools makes the choice (or

assignment) of secondary school a critical factor for many children’s chances of academic

success. Also, it is apparent that going to a high-quality pre-school compared to no pre-school

is still having an effect upon child outcomes eleven years after leaving the pre-school.

Additionally, the effects of the early years (3-4 years old) HLE is still powerful, many years

after it was measured. The HLE was measured in later years also and while these later HLE

measures did exert some effects it was the early years HLE (measured at age 3 years) that

exerted the most consistently powerful effects across the age range of the EPPSE study up

to age 18 years.

11


The evidence from the EPPSE study was supported by a parallel study using similar methods

in Northern Ireland. The Effective Pre-school Provision in Northern Ireland (EPPNI) project

(Melhuish, Quinn, Hanna, Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford, Sammons, & Taggart, 2006; Melhuish,

Quinn, Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2010; 2012) was a longitudinal study of

child development up to 11 years. It investigated the effects of different kinds of preschool

provision, and related experience in preschool to child development. In EPPNI, 683 children

were randomly selected from 80 preschools, and 151 children were recruited without

preschool experience. Progress was then followed up to age 11. Preschool experience was

related to age 11 performance in English and mathematics. High-quality preschools show

consistent effects that are reflected not only in improved attainment in English and

mathematics but also in improved progress in mathematics over primary school. Children who

attended high-quality preschools were 2.4 times more likely in English, and 3.4 times more

likely in mathematics, to attain high grades than children without preschool experience.

Throughout the study high quality ECEC experience was found to have benefits for

educational and social development, as found in the EPPSE results.

Conclusions from EPPSE

1. From age 2 all children will benefit from pre-school education.

2. The quality of preschool matters.

3. The duration of preschool, i.e. number of months, also matters.

4. Part-time preschool has equal benefit to full-time.

5. For medium and high quality preschool the benefits last into adulthood.

6. High quality preschool can partly protect a child from the consequences of attending

low effective school.

Other International evidence

Several studies documents how the benefits of ECEC for long-term educational,

occupational and social outcomes for disadvantaged children persist into adulthood (Barnett,

1992, Reynolds, et al., 2011). Such programmes are cost-effective in that the savings

outweigh any costs (Heckman, 2006). The benefits in adulthood can include those relating to

incomes, status, health and crime. They can extend to subsequent generations too, for

instance, through their impact as parents on their children’s education. General population

studies find benefits for school readiness (Gormley, Phillips, & Gayer, 2008; Magnuson,

Meyers, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2004) are greater if pre-school started between 2 and 3 years of

age (Loeb, et al., 2007).

12


A meta-analysis of 125 early childhood education studies in the USA (Camilli, Vargas, Ryan,

& Barnett, 2010) found that early childhood education was associated with substantial effects

for both cognitive and socio-emotional outcomes. Pre-school programmes appear to have

more impact if they have an emphasis on educational experiences directly delivered to the

child. The effects associated with ECEC provision are long-term. Studies have associated

attending a pre-school with increased qualifications, employment, and earnings up to age 33

(Goodman, & Sianesi, 2005). In France, pre-school (école maternelle) is a universal, free

education programme with access from age 3. During the 1960s and 1970s, large-scale

expansion led to the proportion of 3-year-olds enrolled increasing from 35% to 90%, and of 4-

year-olds from 60% to 100%. State-collected data reveals sizeable and persistent effects, with

pre-school helping children to succeed in school and obtain higher wages in the labour market.

Pre-school also reduced socio-economic inequalities, as children from less advantaged

backgrounds benefitted more than the more advantaged (Dumas & LeFranc, 2010). Likewise,

in Switzerland, pre-school expansion was associated with improved inter-generational

educational mobility. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds benefited most (Bauer, &

Riphahn, 2009). In Norway, differential implementation of pre-schools by municipalities

revealed that pre-school was associated with strong benefits for later educational and labour

market outcomes (Havnes, & Mogstad, 2009).

Similar evidence exists outside the developed world. Pre-school has been shown to boost

primary school achievement in Bangladesh (Aboud, 2006), with similar results being reported

for ten other countries (Montie, Xiang, & Schweinhart, 2006). Examination of pre-school

expansion in Uruguay and Argentina has also revealed clear benefits in terms of improved

educational attainment (Berlinski, Galiani, & Manacorda, 2008; Berlinski, Galiani, & Gertler,

2009).

The benefits associated with high quality ECEC are wide-ranging, covering cognitive,

educational and social development. This is because different aspects of a child’s

development are inter-related so that development in one area helps development in another.

What makes ECEC effective?

The EPPSE study was able to identify the most effective ECEC centres that produced the

most developmental benefit for children. Qualitative case studies of the most effective and

average centres investigated what processes were associated with those that were

particularly effective. In these case studies (Siraj-Blatchford, Sylva, Taggart, Sammons,

Melhuish, & Elliot, 2003) the researchers did not know which ECEC centres had been

identified as effective or ineffective, so their observations were not biased. These case studies

identified 5 areas that were particularly important for effectiveness in ECEC centres.

13


1. Quality of adult-child verbal interaction.

2. Staff knowledge and understanding of the curriculum.

3. Staff knowledge of how children learn.

4. Adult skills in helping children resolve conflicts.

5. Helping parents to support children’s learning at home.

Also in the observations of adult-child interaction in effective ECEC centres a particular kind

of interaction called sustained shared thinking was observed. It was not observed in

ineffective centres. The term ‘sustained shared thinking’ was first coined by Siraj-Blatchford,

et al., (2003) arising from the qualitative analysis of data. Sustained shared thinking involved

an adult interacting with two (or more) children in a process of solving a problem or creating

something. The adult would structure the situation and provide limited input but enough to

facilitate the child’s problem-solving or creative activities, so that the child could arrive at a

desired goal. Being able to engage in sustained shared thinking with a child was recognized

as a key skill of the staff in early childhood settings who were effective in supporting children’s

socio-emotional and cognitive outcomes. The skills of practitioners in terms of how they

interact with children and support their learning and development are central to high quality

provision.

Sustained Shared Thinking and Emotional Well-being (SSTEW) scale

It had become apparent through the experience of the EPPSE and other studies that the

established measures of quality of early years’ provision, as used in many previous studies,

were useful in many respects but that they missed out on aspects of staff-child interaction that

were likely to be important for the child’s longer-term development. Hence it was decided to

develop new scales that could fill this gap. The findings from the EPPSE case studies of

effective centres were used as the starting point in the development of a new observational

measure of quality in ECEC centres. This instrument was called the Sustained Shared

Thinking and Emotional Well-being (SSTEW) scale (Siraj, Kingston & Melhuish, 2015), and

although originally designed for 2-5 year olds it has been found to be particularly relevant for

provision for children 2-6 years old. Engaging in sustained shared thinking (SST), which

includes the successful support of a child’s thinking and learning, undoubtedly requires a

highly skilled and knowledgeable practitioner. A practitioner who is skilled in assessing,

monitoring and supporting children’s socio-emotional, linguistic, and cognitive development

and who also ensures that the child feels safe, comfortable, interested and stimulated, as

these are necessary conditions for the child to be ready to learn (Melhuish, 2004) and to be in

a position to think deeply. Also, the EPPSE study had found that a child’s self-regulation

abilities at the start of school were very predictive of later educational and social development

(Melhuish, Sylva, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, Taggart, & Phan, 2007), and these self-

14


regulation abilities appeared to mediate the effects of high quality ECEC experience as well

as the HLE. Hence the SSTEW scale included activities likely to foster the child’s self-

regulation abilities.

The developmental domains within SSTEW include social and emotional development as well

as cognitive and language development and give rise to the following five sub-scales:

Building trust, confidence, and independence and

Social and emotional well-being.

Supporting and extending language and communication

Supporting learning and critical thinking, and

Assessing learning and language.

While there are important differences in development between children aged 2–6 years, the

SSTEW scale focuses on common practices that will support and nurture children within this

age range when suitably adapted to the individuals involved.

Further Policy Influence

The early EPPSE evidence, which has been repeatedly reinforced by international evidence

(Melhuish et al., 2015) influenced the universal provision of a free part-time ECEC place for

children from their third birthday, and this has affected the lives of millions of children. It also

influenced the establishment of children’s centres. As EPPSE evidence accumulated further

policy influence occurred (Taggart et al., 2008). The Early Child Matters from 2003, and the

Ten Year Childcare Strategy in 2004 and 2009, contain references to EPPSE evidence that

clearly influenced the proposals in these documents. Amongst the government policies

influenced by EPPSE was the government’s efforts to increase the qualification levels of

ECEC staff as EPPSE had shown that quality of provision was related to staff qualifications

(Sylva et al., 2004).

Following the election of a new government in 2010, which had a cost-cutting agenda, the

EPPSE evidence was crucial in the decision to maintain spending for the early years. Thus

in 2012 this government not only kept existing ECEC provision but extended the free part-time

ECEC place down to two-year-old for children in the 40% most disadvantaged families,

following the EPPSE evidence that high quality ECEC from age two years was beneficial. This

policy started in 2013.

Conclusions and lessons learned

A country’s future depends on how it treats children. It is almost always cheaper, more

effective, and more sustainable to prevent problems rather than to try and cure them later.

15


The most effective approach to ECEC is high-quality universal services, with additional

individual focused support for those who need it, in a “progressive universalism” approach.

A child’s development is strongly influenced by patterns of interactional experience.

Interactions drive development. For the 0-3 age group, interactions where adults respond

appropriately to the behaviour and communications of the child are a particularly important

aspect of the quality of care, and this is related to children’s language, social and emotional

development. As children get older interactional experience will continue to drive

development. Hence effective practice is largely based on relationships – between parent and

child, practitioner and parent, practitioner and child, parent and parent, because relationships

are based on interactions. This is why lack of stability in childcare is so disruptive to quality of

care, because relationships require stability. Good quality of care is impossible without stability

of care. If we support these relationships, we will help our children to grow up well. That is the

foundation of prosperity and a high quality of life for all.

In most OECD countries, there is a broad range of options that parents can choose from to

cater for their childcare needs. It seems that parents prefer flexibility of care options, and often

combine various childcare instruments. The use of particular care arrangements often

depends on a child’s age, labour market opportunities and the cultural and social norms

relating to the role of women and childcare provision. Some parents prefer full-time care

whereas for others part-time provision is sufficient. Part-time work when children are young

can help with being economically active and managing childcare responsibilities. Also, full-

time participation in formal childcare is not prerequisite for high female labour force

participation. It is clear that one model of childcare will not suit all parents and that countries

cannot be overly prescriptive regarding particular types of childcare. It is essential that policies

cater to the preferences of parents and the needs of children. At the same time, it is important

that policies reflect best knowledge about child development and promote options that help all

children achieve their full potential.

To meet the needs of parents, governments should support a range of different childcare

options, and provide opportunities for women to enter and remain in the labour market if they

wish. It is the responsibility of public policy to make sure that choice is available for parents

and that mothers, are not excluded from the labour market or forced to work part-time due to

the lack of childcare provision. It is crucial that equal working conditions and opportunities for

professional development and career progression are provided for parents across sectors and

occupations. This would ensure that those who are temporarily out of the labour market (for

instance on childcare leave) or working part-time (voluntarily or involuntarily) are not

disadvantaged compared to full-time workers without childcare responsibilities. As parents

16


prefer flexibility in reconciliation, the state should ensure that all parents are provided with

suitable childcare provision and supported in their labour force participation.

Considering the discussed challenges, a number of key conclusions and lessons learned

emerged from this Peer Review:

Good-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) are part of the

infrastructure for a successful society. So is good parenting. The first 3 years are

crucially important to development, particularly language development. Children with

good language development do better later on in terms of literacy and most educational

outcomes. Across the OECD in 2009, 15-year-olds who had attended pre-school were,

on average, a year ahead of those who had not. Research also points to fewer

behavioural problems and less delinquency, crime and drug use among those who

attended pre-school, as well as higher earnings and lower welfare dependency. So

investment in ECEC can reduce other costs to government.

Disadvantaged children benefit greatly from high-quality ECEC.

Family policy, gender equality and the employment of women are

interconnected policy areas.

Greater integration between education and care in early childhood can yield

benefits. Split models may produce less continuity during children’s lives. They may

also lead to lower-quality services for the younger children, due to lower staff

qualifications, the lack of a curriculum and higher staff turnover.

Adequate public investment in ECEC can help to avoid a trade-off between

quality and quantity.

Supply-led ECEC provision tends to be more expensive than demand-led, but it

also tends to deliver more uniform quality. Under a demand-led approach, capacity

can be rapidly increased, but quality is a problem. As private suppliers are involved,

strong regulation, standard-setting, monitoring and inspection are needed. There is no

evidence from continental Europe that increased commercial competition in ECEC

automatically produces higher quality. Indeed, a for-profit approach can lead to lower

investment in quality.

Where there is a shortage of ECEC capacity, a decision may be taken to give priority

to quantity over quality. But once capacity has been created, quality needs to be

ensured. In 2014, the European Commission proposed a framework for quality, with

provisions on access, professionally trained staff, child-staff ratios, curriculum,

monitoring and inspection.

Cooperation among all the ECEC stakeholders is essential, and especially the full

involvement and empowerment of the parents.

17


Also, enhancing the quality of childcare will affect language, social and emotional

development. As these aspects of development, particularly language development, are the

foundation for later educational and social development, then there are longer-term

consequences for development. Such impacts may well affect longer-term goals through

improving children’s outcomes including reducing early school-leaving and improving access

to higher education, which in turn may lead to overall poverty reduction, and enhanced social

inclusion, resulting from improved employment amongst the population.

References

Aboud, F. E. (2006). Evaluation of an early childhood pre-school in rural Bangladesh,

Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 46–60.

Barnett, W. S. (1992). Benefits of compensatory preschool education, Journal of Human

Resources, 27(2), 279–312.

Bauer, P. C., & Riphahn, R. T. (2009). Age at school entry and intergenerational educational

mobility. Economics Letters, 103, 87–90.

Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., & Manacorda, M. (2008). Giving children a better start: Pre-school

attendance and school age profiles. J. Pub. Econ., 92, 1416.

Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., & Gertler, P. (2009). The effect of pre-primary education on primary

school performance. J. Pub. Econ., 93, 219

Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early

education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112,

579–620.

Dumas, A., & Lefranc, A. (2010). Early schooling and later outcomes: Evidence from pre-

school extension in France, Thema Working Paper n°2010-07, Université de Cergy Pontoise:

France. http://thema.u-cergy.fr/IMG/documents/2010-07.pdf

Esping-Andersen, G. (2004). Untying the Gordian Knot of Social Inheritance. Research in

Social Stratification and Mobility, 21, 115–139.

Goodman, A., & Sianesi, B. (2005). Early education and children’s outcomes: How long do

the impacts last? Fiscal Studies, 26, 513–548.

http://thema.u-cergy.fr/IMG/documents/2010-07.pdf

18


Gormley, W., Phillips, D., & Gayer, T. (2008). Preschool programmes can boost school

readiness. Science, 320, 1723–1724.

Havnes, T., & Mogstad, M. (2009). No Child Left Behind: Universal Child care and Children’s

Long-Run Outcomes, Discussion Papers No. 582, Statistics Norway: Oslo.

www.ssb.no/publikasjoner/pdf/dp582.pdf.

Heckman, J. & Wax, A. (2004). ‘Home Alone’, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 23, p. A14.

Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged

children. Science, 312, 1900–1902.

Holzer, H., Schanzenbach, D., Duncan, G., & Ludwig, J. (2007). The Economic Costs of

Poverty in the United States: subsequent effects of children growing up poor. Institute for

Research on Poverty Discussion Paper no. 1327-07.

www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp132707.pdf

Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B., & Rumberger, R.W. (2007). How much is too

much? The influence of pre-school centers on children’s social and cognitive development.

Economics of Education Review, 26, 52–66.

Magnuson, K., Meyers, M., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2004), Inequality in preschool

education and school readiness. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 115–157.

Melhuish, E. C. (2004). Child Benefits: The importance of investing in quality childcare.

London: Daycare Trust.

Melhuish E. C. (2011). Preschool matters. Science, 333, 299-300.

Melhuish, E.C., Lloyd, E., Martin, S. and Mooney, A. (1990) Type of childcare at 18 months: II

Relations with cognitive and language development. Journal of Child Psychology and

Psychiatry, 31, 861-870.

Melhuish, E. C., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2001). The

Effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project, Technical Paper 7: Social/behavioural

and cognitive development at 3-4 years in relation to family background. London: Institute of

Education/DfES.

Melhuish, E., Quinn, L., Hanna, K., Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sammons, P. & Taggart, B.

(2006) The Effective Pre-school Provision in Northern Ireland Project, Summary Report.

Belfast, N.I.: Stranmillis University Press. Available at

http://www.ssb.no/publikasjoner/pdf/dp582.pdf

http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp132707.pdf

19


http://www.deni.gov.uk/researchreport41.pdf

Melhuish, E.C., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Phan, M. (2007).

In EPPE (3-11) Team (Eds.) Promoting Equality in the Early Years: Report to The Equalities

Review. London: Cabinet Office. http://www.equalitiesreview.org.uk

Melhuish, E.C., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Phan, M. & Malin, A.

(2008). Preschool influences on mathematics achievement. Science, 321, 1161-1162.

Melhuish, E., Quinn, L., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., and Taggart, B. (2010).

Pre-school Experience and Key Stage 2 performance in English and Mathematics. Belfast:

Dept. for Education, Northern Ireland. Available at:

www.deni.gov.uk/no_52_2010.pdf

Melhuish, E., Quinn, L., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2012).

Preschool affects longer term literacy and numeracy: results from a general population

longitudinal study in Northern Ireland. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An

International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, 24, 234-250.

Melhuish, E., Ereky-Stevens, K., Petrogiannis, K., Ariescu, A., Penderi, E., Rentzou, K.,

Tawell, A., Slot, P., Broekhuizen, M., & Leseman, P. (2015). A review of research on the

effects of early childhood Education and Care (ECEC) upon child development. CARE project;

Curriculum Quality Analysis and Impact Review of European Early Childhood

Education and Care (ECEC). Available at http://ecec-care.org/resources/publications/

Montie, J. E., Xiang, Z., & Schweinhart, L. J. (2006), Preschool experience in 10 countries:

cognitive and language performance at age 7. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 313–

331.

Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S., Arteaga, I. A., & White, B. A. B. (2011), School-based

early childhood education and age-28 wellbeing: Effects by timing, dosage and subgroups,

Science, 9 June 2011, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203618.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Elliot, K. (2002).

The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project, Technical Paper 8a: Measuring the

impact on children’s cognitive development over the pre-school years. London: Institute of

Education/DfES.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B & Elliot, K. (2003).

The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education Project, Technical Paper 8b: Measuring the

http://www.deni.gov.uk/researchreport41.pdf

http://www.equalitiesreview.org.uk/

http://www.deni.gov.uk/no_52_2010.pdf

20


impact on children’s social behavioural development over the pre-school years. London:

Institute of Education/DfES.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., and Hunt, S. (2008).

Influences on Children’s Attainment and Progress in Key Stage 2: Cognitive outcomes in Year

6. London: DCSF

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj, I., Taggart, B., Toth, K., & Smees. (2014a).

Influences on students' GCSE attainment and progress at age 16: Effective pre-school,

primary and secondary education project (EPPSE). DfE Research Report RR352. DfE:

London.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj, I., Taggart, B., Smees, R., & Toth, K. (2014b).

Influences on students' social-behavioural development at age 16: Effective pre-school,

primary and secondary education project (EPPSE). DfE Research Report RR351. DfE:

London.

Sammons, P., Toth, K., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj, I., & Taggart, B. L. (2015). Pre-school

and early home learning effects on A-level outcomes: Effective Pre-school, Primary &

Secondary Education Project (EPPSE). Research Report DFE-RR472A. London: DfE.

Available at

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/472867/RR47

2A_Pre-school_and_early_home_learning_effects_on_A_level_outcomes.pdf

Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D. (Eds.) (2000). From Neurons to Neighbourhoods: The Science of

Early Childhood Development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Taggart, B. Sammons, P., Melhuish, E, & Elliot, K. (2003). The

Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project, Technical Paper 10: Intensive

Case Studies of Practice across the Foundation Stage. London: DfEE / Institute of Education,

University of London.

Siraj, I., Kingston, D., & Melhuish, E. (2015). Assessing Quality in early Childhood Education

and Care: Sustained shared thinking and emotional well-being (SSTEW) for 2-5-year-olds

provision. London: Trentham Books.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). Effective Pre-

school Provision. London: Institute of Education.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/472867/RR472A_Pre-school_and_early_home_learning_effects_on_A_level_outcomes.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/472867/RR472A_Pre-school_and_early_home_learning_effects_on_A_level_outcomes.pdf

21


Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B., (Eds) (2010). Early

Childhood Matters: Evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education Project.

London: Routledge.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj, I., Taggart, B., Smees, R., Toth, K., Welcomme,

W. & Hollingworth, K. (2014). Students' educational and developmental outcomes at age 16:

Effective pre-school, primary and secondary education (EPPSE). DfE Research Report

RR354. DfE: London.

Taggart, B., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., & Sammons, P. (2008). Influencing

Policy and practice through research on early childhood education. International Journal of

Early Childhood Education, 14, 7-21.

22


SYMPOSIA:

QUALITY ASSURANCE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE

PROF. EMERITA TAN SRI DR. SHARIFAH HAPSAH SYED HASAN SHAHABUDIN

SENIOR CONSULTANT ON PERMATA, PRIME MINISTER’S DEPARTMENT

FORMER VICE-CHANCELLOR OF UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA AND

CEO OF THE MALAYSIAN QUALIFICATIONS AGENCY

The Permata Negara curriculum has been adopted as the national curriculum for early

childhood education and care (ECEC) through an amendment to the Child Care Centre

Regulations (2012). Since then Child Care Centres known as TASKA, which are registered

under the Child Care Centres Act (1984) have been implementing this national curriculum. To

ensure that good practices in the curriculum are implemented an internationally benchmarked

quality assurance system called Permata Q has been instituted by the Permata Council.

The objective of Permata Q is to inspire confidence in stakeholders that a TASKA is

implementing the Permata curriculum according to the quality standards that have been

established and that the TASKA is sustainable and is continually enhancing standards.

Results of the quality assurance findings are used to improve the training programme and

continuing professional development of TASKA teachers.

The TASKA is evaluated on the six areas that are identified as important in the implementation

of the curriculum. These include: (a) Routine practices and child care (b) Learning and

Assessing children (c) Care and assessing babies (d) Physical Safety and Learning

Resources (e) Human resource and ((f) Management

The evaluation is conducted by two trained assessors who are appointed by the Permata Q

Committee. The observe a strict code of ethics of confidentiality, professionalism, honesty,

fairness and integrity in following the established principles, procedures and rules of quality

assurance in the spirit of collegiality, respect and non-intrusiveness. The aim is to help improve

and not to judge or discipline. They make recommendations to the Permata Q committee

based on evidence gathered over two days.

The TASKA on the other hand is also expected to follow the same code of ethics especially in

disclosing information and facilitating the visit of the evaluators.

23


The Permata Q assessment is voluntary and begins with an on-line self-assessment by the

TASKA. Those that achieve the minimum score that has been set are invited to participate in

the external evaluation by the two assessors. Those not reaching the minimum score are

advised to take remedial steps to improve the quality and to submit a report before an external

evaluation is conducted.

A Permata Q Manual has been prepared to guide both evaluators and TASKA operators in a

robust and transparent manner. It consists of the guidelines on standards, evaluation

instruments, the rules of conduct, procedures for evaluation and score sheet, report writing

and decision-making by the Permata Q committee.

The Permata Q Committee deliberates on the report of the evaluators and awards a Certificate

if a TASKA has satisfied the requirements of certification.

Quality Assurance is a very crucial part of the cycle of quality enhancement. The Government,

parents, employers and public at large have invested in ECEC and it is through QA that the

trust and confidence are maintained. Regulatory authorities, people who are managing

Permata and owners and managers of child care centers must not violate the trust that has

been entrusted. A Permata Q system that demonstrates integrity will inspire a greater positive

cycle of trust, respect and confidence.

As Alan Cohen, author of inspirational books said” “You are in integrity when the life you are

living on the outside matches who you are on the inside.” The late Chinua Achebe, Nigerian

novelist and literary titan of African studies at Brown university said” “One of the truest tests

of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novelist

24


WORKSHOP:

ENGAGING STEM EDUCATION IN EARLY YEARS

PROF. EMERITA DATO’ DR. AMINAH AYOB

PROF. DR. ONG ENG TEK

ASSOC. PROF. DR. NASIR MD IBRAHIM

DR. MAZLINI ADNAN

UNIVERSITI PENDIDIKAN SULTAN IDRIS, MALAYSIA

While many teachers and educators know, what STEM is, they are unable to put their

knowledge into coherent classroom practice. This workshop aims to showcase the up-scaling

of current play-based pedagogy of the early childhood education to that of the research-based

and research-validated STEM Pedagogy, namely the Project-Based Inquiry Learning (PIL).

Through the generous research grant by the PERMATA Division of the Prime Minister’s

Department, PIL was conceptualised and its pedagogical efficacy in promoting STEM among

early childhood gems aged 3 to 4+ has been empirically supported. This workshop will provide

not only the hands-on experience for participants to “walk through” the four phases of Project-

Based Inquiry Learning -- Inquiry, Exploration, Invention/Investigation, and Reflection -- using

one of the developed STEM Modules, it will also empower them the ability to interweave

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics in the planning and actual classroom

practice in their endeavour to promote and integrate STEM.

Documents

PROCEEDINGS FROM PERMATA NEGARA · Proceedings from PERMATA NEGARA ... in poverty can shape a child’s neuro-biology, leading directly to poorer outcomes in adulthood (Shonkoff &