Announcements

Call for proposal – Reladei

Quality in ECEC system

Quality in early childhood education and care (ECEC) is probably one of the most popular research topic in the last decades. Its prevalence is due to the interconnection among the process of evaluation, the improvement of ECEC services and practices and the elaboration of wide-ranging policies and strategies.

Building on seminal works (Zaslow et al., 2011), it has been established that certain variables are correlated with quality. Above all, structural, organizational, formative, and educational characteristics of ECEC are considered impactful on quality education (Slot, 2018; Siraj et Al., 2012). In the polysemic field of quality education in ECEC the most accredited distinction emphasizes the existence of two main dimension: 1) structural and 2) methodological (Layzer & Goodson, 2006; Pianta et Al., 2005). In both cases research tries to correlate elements of the educational service directly to learning or well-being of the children, or indirectly to conditions or phenomena leading to learning or well-being. In the latter hypothesis there is a need for a deepening about some misconceptions, since the lack of knowledge about causal correlation in early development and contradictions in the body of present knowledge are obstacles impeding accurate inferences (Lupi & D’Ugo, 2023). Structural quality has always been at the center of governmental regulation, even if all around the world governments used to establish guidelines for process quality too [e.g., in Italy it happens since Credaro drafted a law about instruction and curriculum at preschool and kindergarten, in which are provided philosophical statements about childhood, pedagogical believes to be shared by teachers, examples of activities, etc.  (Credaro, 1914)]. Albeit governments rule on structural quality more, they don’t miss focusing on curriculum and pedagogy, that are considered to be strong factors supporting process quality (Edwards, 2021), even if it is very controversial define narrowly aims and methods. Some authors have highlighted how the focus on process and structural dimensions of quality has prevented us from promoting a reflection on the impact that curriculum, that is to say a careful and conscious choice of what must be taught and learned, could have on quality (Kagan et Al., 2022).

However, since the seminal work of Moss, Dahlberg and Pence (1999), the 'quality' discourse has been deeply questioned in childhood educational research. According to Moss (2016, pp. 9-10), quality "is a language of evaluation inscribed with the values […] of universality, objectivity and stability,[…] certainty and closure". In particular, in name of a knowledge based on measurements and evidences (Dahlberg et al., 2013), it works as a "human technology" (Rose, 1999, p. 52)  that:

  • normalizes educational practices, comparing different situations, establishing which one works better and assuming the outcome of this selection as standard to observe (Moss, 2019);
  • homologates policies without any consideration for the context, transforming a particular local and culturally-specific discourse into a universal model (de Sousa Santos, 2004, p. 149);
  • regulates the government of ECEC services on the basis of the performance criteria derived from the new public management and the growth of the ‘audit society’ (Power, 1997);
  • develops a new representation of childhood as a lifetime in which it is necessary to invest educational, social, cultural and economical resources as soon as possible in order to receive a better return on investment In the future (Chello, 2021).

Against the quality discourse, educational research proposes the definition of other languages of evaluation more respectful of a value-based, relative, dynamic and democratic approach (Moss, 2014). In this direction, even more researches define quality in ECEC starting from a particular and local point of view, such as the one of children, parents, educators, etc.

In this sense, when we approach to quality in ECEC three different question arise about it: 1) What is it? How can we define it in order to have a clear vision of its nature and its characteristics; 2) How can we use it in educational settings for promoting a transformative and an emancipative growth? Its role, its potential and its limitations in everyday work of teachers and administrators; 3) How can we assess it? Its measurability and the impact of assessment tool in order to achieve quality.

  • It is quite easy to define quality if we lack any philosophical attitude: something good at reaching the purpose, or something best at reaching it; but a philosophical quest (Harvey e Green, 1993) highlighted that quality can be viewed (at least) as exception, as perfection, as fitness for purpose, as value for money, as a technology of normalization, as an hegemonic ideology and as transformative. We can easily verify that different behaviors and many issues go under and beyond the same quality label, quality being a word recurring in opposite or distant political discourses. Reviewing ECEC studies on quality we find out its nature is conceived like something less crucial than other aspects. Often if we wonder “What is quality in ECEC”? We have to tackle a vicious circle, since we define quality by declaring what quality services make, their activities, only postponing the solution of the problem, why some actions are quality actions? For this reason we would like to explore the following questions: learning, well-being, health, happiness, general abilities, life-skills, understandings, emotions, civil rights, motor development, hand dexterity, spatial intelligence, Logical-Mathematical Intelligence, language development, are related to quality? Who is the main target group of quality? Children, families, teachers, relations, or society? Does a teacher quality exist in ECEC (Pianta, La Paro & Hamre, 2008; Manning et al., 2019)? Do teacher and experts think at quality in the same way (Ulrich Hygum, 2023)? What social group is underrepresented in the definition of the nature of quality?
  • If it is difficult to define quality, it is somewhat ambiguous to understand how this idea can impact on strategies and practices of early childhood education and care services and schools. Is it a goal to be achieved or a tool to be used to achieve something else? Is it quality something different from a set of political aims and scopes? Is it a mere propaganda motto for commercial actors in the sector of ECEC (Carlbaum & Rönnberg, 2023)? Is it a neoliberal camouflage strategy in the wide transition from access and equality ECEC policies to supposed neutral standard policies, replacing public discourses for equality and access with those of quality (Casassus, 2002)? An injunction in disguise of what a nursery or a preschool has to be? Or somewhat useful to teachers and ECEC services? And if yes, to which extent?
  • One of the most discussed issues about quality in ECEC is evaluation and its accuracy. In educational studies we can measure a great amount of things, from aptitude to interests, from speed to solve problems to the ability to recognition or discrimination of single elements, from organization of ideas to the ability of reading maps and understand symbols, in different fields like literacy, physical activity, or science education, executive functions, pre-academic skills (Raikes, 2016). Our intention is to ponder if object of quality evaluation is measurable, with a special aim on scales role. Moreover does it have a psychometrical accuracy? The breadth of the samples are sufficient? Are quality scales measuring the same values as other reliable tools do (Grammatikopoulos et al., 2018)? In some case scales are cultural related (Garvis et al., 2019), how culture impact on assessment? When using a scale we measure at the same time static and dynamic variables (Rentzou, 2017), how they impact on evaluation?

 

---

 

We would be happy to receive individual or group contributions of four different types: qualitative research and case studies, quantitative research and experimental studies, theoretical and historical studies, reviews of literature.

We welcome papers from philosophers, historians of education and education scholars and we aim at a stimulating dialogue between different points of view.

 

Anonymous abstracts (400-600 words) should be emailed indifferently to: Andrea Lupi (Università di Urbino, andrea.lupi@uniurb.it), Rossella D’Ugo (Università di Urbino, rossella.dugo@uniurb.it), Fabrizio Chello (Università Suor Orsola Benincasa – Napoli, fabrizio.chello@unisob.na.it); by April 15, 2024. Decisions will be made by May 2.