Understanding the Vital Years for Future Learning

Transcription

SOUTHEAST ASIAN MINISTERS OF EDUCATION ORGANIZATION
45th SEAMEO Council Conference
POLICY FORUM
FINAL REPORT
Convened by
Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization
at the Shangri-La’s Mactan Resort and Spa, Cebu, the Philippines
28 January 2010
Prepared and Published by the
Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization Secretariat
(SEAMEO Secretariat)
4th Floor, Mom Luang Pin Malakul Centenary Building
920 Sukhumbit Road, Bangkok 10100, Thaland
MC-45-PolicyForum/2010/60
CONTENTS
Page
PROCEEDINGS
I.
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………..
1
II.
KEY PRESENTATIONS…………………………………………... .............
2
III.
OPEN FORUM………………………………………………………………...
3
IV.
CONCLUSION………………………………………………….....................
9
V.
AGREEMENT/CONSENSUS………………………………………………..
10
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
List of Participants …………………………………………………
11
Appendix 2
Policy Forum Discussion Note…………...……...……………….
26
Appendix 3
Making Early Childhood Care & Education a National Priority
in the Philippines by Secretary Teresa Aquino-Oreta,
Chairman, Early Childhood Care and Development
Council………………………………………………………………
28
Understanding the Vital Pathways for Future Learning: an
analysis of New Zealand’s approach to early childhood
education by Claire McLachlan, PhD, Associate Professor,
Massey University College of Education………………………...
34
Appendix 4
PRESENTATIONS
45th SEAMEO Council Conference and
5th ASEAN Education Ministers Meeting
26 - 29 January 2010
Plenary Session 3: POLICY FORUM
28 January 2010, 0800-0945 hrs
Mactan Ballroom, Shangri-La’s Mactan Resort and Spa
Cebu, the Philippines
PROCEEDINGS
I.
INTRODUCTION
1
The Policy Forum was organized by the Department of Education, the
Philippines as one of the sessions of the 45th Southeast Asian Ministers of Education
Organization (SEAMEO) Council Conference from 0800 to 0945 hours on 28 January
2010 at the Shangri-la Hotel, Cebu, the Philippines.
2
The Policy Forum was attended by 156 participants representing the 11
SEAMEO Member Countries, three Associate Member Countries, one Affiliate
Member; observers including the ASEAN Secretariat, UNESCO Regional Bureau of
Education Bangkok, UNICEF East Asia Pacific Regional Office, UN Habitat, the
British Council; the SEAMEO Regional Centres and Network, and the SEAMEO
Secretariat.
The List of Participants is attached as Appendix 1.
3
The Policy Forum was themed “Understanding the Vital Years for Future
Learning” and aimed at engaging the SEAMEO education ministers in sharing
experiences on Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE). Moreover, the forum
was directed at increasing appreciation of the reality that all future learning
interventions will grow from the core of early childhood development.
4
HE Datu Dr Jesli A Lapus, President of the SEAMEO Council and Secretary of
Education, the Philippines welcomed the participants to the forum. He reiterated the
theme of the forum and requested Dr Clifford Meyers, Regional Advisor on Education
for the East Asia and Pacific Region, UNICEF, to facilitate the discussion.
5
Dr Clifford Meyers expressed appreciation to the Philippines for hosting the
policy forum and to SEAMEO INNOTECH for assisting in the organization of the
discussion.
6
He explained that the goal of the forum was not only to generate interesting
discussion, but also to obtain action points and commitments from the SEAMEO
Council Members.
The Discussion Note of the Policy Forum is attached as Appendix 2.
(1)
II.
KEY PRESENTATIONS
7
Dr Meyers explained the format of the forum and called on the speakers for
their presentations.
A. First Presentation
Making Early Childhood Care and Development a National Priority: The
Philippine Experience by Hon Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta, Chairperson,
Early Childhood Care and Development Council of the Philippines, the
Philippines
8
The presentation covered the evolution of programmes for the welfare of
children in the Philippines; as well as the legal, policy and governance frameworks
that are in place which serve as bases for transition plans from early care to early
learning.
9
Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta presented the experiences and the lessons
that the Government of the Philippines had learned in order to bring together all key
players at the national and local levels in ensuring that all Filipino kids from ages 0 to
6 will be given the opportunity to develop their fullest potentials. At present, ECCE
has finally become a national priority in the country.
10
Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta explained the stages of brain development in
the early years and highlighted the need to work together to unlock the powers of the
vital years from 0 to 6. She also presented the relevant studies which guided the
formulation of the legislation, policy and action programmes on ECCE in the
Philippines.
The full paper is attached as Appendix 3.
B. Second Presentation
Understanding the Vital Pathways for Future Learning: An Analysis of New
Zealand’s Approach to Early Childhood Education by Dr Claire McLachlan,
Associate Professor, Early Years Education, Massey University College of
Education New Zealand
11
The presentation examined the current model of early childhood education
adopted in New Zealand, how it emerged, and the policy decisions that enabled the
development of the current systems.
12
Dr Claire McLachlan gave emphasis on the importance of early childhood
curriculum, and teacher education and professional development of teachers and
facilitators of ECCE.
13
Dr Claire McLachlan raised the issues of quality and accountability in
education and shared the strategic plan of the Ministry of Education in New Zealand
that is aimed at increasing participation in quality early childhood services, improving
(2)
the quality of early childhood services, and promoting collaborative relationships. A
number of strategic initiatives were put in place to help to achieve these goals.
The full paper is attached as Appendix 4.
III.
OPEN FORUM
14
Dr Clifford Meyers invited the participants to give their comments and ask
questions. He read the guide questions that were sent to the participants prior to the
45th SEAMEO Council Conference. The questions were the following:
1. What is the vision for early childhood care and education in your country?
How is it linked or will be linked to the formal education system?
2. What are the key players or principal government bodies / agencies dealing
with pre-primary education and child care in your country? Are they the same
government bodies that address (1) standards and regulation? (2) policy? (3)
service delivery? and (4) provision of support services and funding?
3. If there are multiple government bodies/ agencies that deal with early
childhood care and education in your country, how would you describe the kind
of relationship between and/or among the ministries?
4. Please share some of the more innovative practices you are now implementing
in your country, particularly for home-based programs for early childhood care
and education?
5. What are the most urgent and pressing issues relating to provision of preprimary education in your country? How are they being addressed? Is there
scope for SEAMEO-wide cooperation to address these issues?
15
Tan Sri Dr Zulkurnain bin Haji Awang, Secretary General, Malaysia
expressed support to the significance of ECCE and shared experiences and efforts of
the Government of Malaysia and the Ministry of Education to support pre-school
education.
16
In 2010, the Ministry of Education has started the initiative that is aimed at
increasing pre-school enrolment for children aged 1-5 years old from 67% to 87%
within three years. This is one of the national Key Result Areas that is set to be
achieved by 2013.
17
Steps taken include the setting up of a special division called Early Childhood
and Pre-School Education Division that initiated the provision of compulsory minimum
curriculum for pre-school providers. The Ministry also ensures that the best teachers
are allocated to pre-school education.
18
Beginning 2010, the Ministry of Education will take over the responsibility of
ECCE in the country making it a component of the national education system.
(3)
19
Tan Sri Dr Zulkurnain bin Haji Awang also raised the issue of disparity
between children in the urban areas and those who are in the rural areas who remain
unreached; and highlighted the need for resources and the appropriate approach to
reach them.
20
Tan Sri Dr Zulkurnain bin Haji Awang also shared concern on teacher training
framework and the possibility of a joint review of the framework among SEAMEO
Member Countries.
21
H E Prof Dr Fasli Jalal, Vice Minister, Ministry of National Education,
Indonesia congratulated the Government of the Philippines for the innovation on
ECCE and for having set up the Early Childhood Care and Development Council of
the Philippines.
22
The Ministry of National Education of Indonesia is still in the campaign to fulfill
the universal basic education of 9 years in the country. Indonesia has 28 million
children aged 0-6, and 42 million children who need to be provided quality and
relevant education. Considering this, a concern was raised on whether resources
should be focused on the universalization of basic education of 9 years or ECCE.
Both are mandated by the Millennium Development Goals and Education For All
Goals.
23
Moreover, Indonesia requested clarification on the stand of UNESCO and
UNICEF on ECCE and inquired how the two organizations and other United Nations
agencies such as World Health Organization work together on the issue of ECCE at
the national, regional and global levels.
24
H E Prof Dr Fasli Jalal also shared some initiatives of Indonesia that are aimed
at expanding participation on ECCE including nursery, kindergarten and playgroup
programmes as well as the integration of religious-based activities into these
programmes. In relation to this, a concern was raised on the suitable minimum
competencies for these informal modes of delivery.
25
On the presentation of Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta, H E Prof Dr Fasli Jalal
clarified how the Early Childhood Care and Development Council of the Philippines
manage prioritization of activities against funding.
26
On the presentation of Dr Claire McLachlan, H E Prof Dr Fasli Jalal sought
some suggestions on how to empower the community to assist in the implementation
of ECCE programmes; and what is the minimum competency for service providers of
ECCE.
27
H E Prof Dr Nguyen Thien Nhan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister,
Ministry of Education and Training, Vietnam thanked the two speakers for the
useful information on ECCE.
28
H E Prof Dr Nguyen Thien Nhan informed that considering the socialistic
orientation in Vietnam, the Government had started taking care of children at very
early age. A division for ECCE was established in the country as early as 1975.
(4)
29
The Government of Vietnam spends 6% of its national education budget for
early childhood education. In 2010, the universalization of 9 years basic education
has been realized. After such an accomplishment, the Ministry of Education and
Training (MOET) decided to focus on ECCE. In 2009, MOET passed a law for the
universalization of education for kids aged 5. The full implementation is expected to
commence in 2015.
30
H E Prof Dr Nguyen Thien Nhan informed that after knowing from the Policy
Forum the importance of starting education at the age of 4, it would be necessary to
convince MOET to propose for the universalization of education at age 4 which could
commence in 2020.
31
Finally, H E Prof Dr Nguyen Thien Nhan shared that MOET is increasing the
budget for EECE from 6% to 9% in 2010. With the new learning during the Policy
Forum, he mentioned that it might be necessary to increase the budget for ECCE to
15%.
32
H E Mr Im Sethy, Minister, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport,
Cambodia expressed appreciation to the two presentations on ECCE and reiterated
the importance of making ECCE a national priority.
33
H E Mr Im Sethy informed that the education sector in Cambodia started from
scratch in 1979 after it lost 80% of its teachers and only 10% of facilities had been
preserved. With limited resources, the Ministry of Education collaborates with
different stakeholders and pays more attention on the priorities.
34
The Ministry of Education developed the country’s policy on education,
including Education For All, with 9 years of basic education starting from 6 year-old
children.
35
The Government of Cambodia also developed pre-school programme for
children aged 3, 4 and 5. The government encourages districts and schools to open
pre-school and set school readiness programme for children before entering grade 1.
36
Policy on ECCE is still under second level of discussion with different sectors
in Cambodia and would soon be made available.
37
H E Mr Im Sethy informed that policy on Early Childhood Care and
Development (ECCD) should be formulated to pay more attention to mothers before
and during pregnancy, as well as the health and development of children from birth.
However, the mandate on ECCD in Cambodia is not under the Ministry of Education.
It is a mandate of a different ministry and coordinated with various sectors.
38
Dr Clifford Meyers, Regional Advisor on Education, UNICEF East-Asia
Pacific Regional Office added that Cambodia conducts longitudinal research in an
attempt to show the importance of early year intervention on performance of children
in school.
(5)
39
Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta, Early Childhood Care and Development
Council of the Philippines, Philippines responded to Malaysia’s query on how to
reach children in rural and difficult-to-reach areas. Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta
explained that the Philippines is currently developing a programme called Homebased Learning whereby personnel of the villages in rural areas called Barangay
Nutrition Scholars or Barangay Health Workers are tapped to train parents on proper
parenting.
40
The approach requires clustering of 20 mothers where 3 to 5 of the mothers
serve as facilitators of learning. The second step requires the mothers to teach their
own children themselves.
41
At present, some non-governmental organizations are already implementing
the home-based learning approach. The proposal for the strategy to become a
national system is currently under review and awaiting legislation in the Philippines.
42
In response to Indonesia’s query on programme prioritization, Secretary
Teresa Aquino Oreta informed that the Early Childhood Care and Development
Council of the Philippines is composed of different social departments of the
government such as health, education, and social welfare. Each has its own
programmes concerning 0-6 years old. The Board of the Council decides on one
rational programme by integrating the best programmes of each department as well
as funds. Finally, the implementation is taken care of by respective departments with
the support of the local government executives.
43
Dr Claire McLachlan, Massey University College of Education, New
Zealand responded to the query of Indonesia on minimum competency for service
providers of ECCE and explained that in New Zealand, the minimum qualification is a
pathway within the teacher education programme where a student could do a sixmonth short course which is a preparatory for university study. Then, a student could
pursue a year-long programme called Certificate on ECCE which is often equivalent
to a first year of a degree programme. Oftentimes, students who finished the oneyear programme choose to work in ECCE centres first before going back to university
for two more years required for a bachelor degree in education or a diploma in
teaching.
44
Dr Claire McLachlan also mentioned that similar to the approach shared earlier
by the Philippines, New Zealand also implements a programme where parents are
taught strategies on how to interact with their children such as reading stories to their
children, playing games, and others. In addition to this, home-based care providers
to children are also common in New Zealand.
45
H E Datu Dr Jesli A Lapus, Secretary of Education of the Philippines and
President of the SEAMEO Council said that the major constraints in the
implementation of education programmes are lack of resources and the sheer
magnitude of constituency such as in the case of Indonesia and the Philippines.
46
He mentioned the need to reflect on what is rationally and theoretically good
and how prioritization should be done using management by exception while
(6)
recognizing constraints in capabilities and resources. As an example of this
approach, he shared a recent experience of the Philippines.
47
In the country, measurement in academic performance reflects health and
nutrition intervention on ECCE. The Department of Education took the lowest quartile
schools which represent the low performing elementary schools. The value is
equivalent to 2,000 schools out of 37,000 elementary schools in the country. For one
year, the Department of Education focused the intervention on those schools
particularly on health and nutrition aspect by ensuring that there were kindergarten
schools in all the 2,000 schools, increasing the number of teachers and textbooks,
reducing class size, and building more schools.
48
After a year, the Department of Education reviewed the measurements again
and found out that the number has gone down from 2,000 to only 300 schools which
proved the effectiveness of a focused intervention.
49
The Philippines also uses day-care centres where social workers serve as preschool teachers. This minimizes capital outlay in construction of classrooms because
existing day-care centers are being used to cater 5-year old children.
50
Mrs Tan Ching Yee, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Education,
Singapore concurred with the Philippines’ comment on prioritization and resource
allocation which was referred to as “management by exception”.
51
Mrs Tan Ching Yee mentioned that ECCE has three inter-connected issues,
namely: access, quality, and affordability. The issues are at two levels: 1) within the
sector where the three factors interact with each other and none of the three should
be sacrificed; and 2) across the sector where basic education and ECCE tend to
compete in terms of resource allocation.
52
Mrs Tan Ching Yee informed that Singapore has a relatively small problem in
terms of access with 2-3% children that remain unreached despite efforts to reach
them. Singapore exerts effort to reach this percentage in order to truly universalize
education in the country.
53
Since there is nearly universal access to ECCE in Singapore, the Ministry of
Education is tackling the equally important problems of quality and affordability.
54
The Ministry of Education works on further improving the quality of primary
education by investing in new school infrastructures, and more teachers. The
Ministry also invests in intervention programmes in literacy and in mathematics for the
pupils entering grade 1.
55
Most of the government education funds are focused on efforts to address the
most pressing problems and where outcomes will be the greatest.
56
Pacific Regional Office said that one of the most cost effective ways to improve and
ensure quality basic education is to invest in early years.
(7)
57
He said that UNICEF observes great progress made in access and in
increasing the number of children in primary schools. However, he said that large
percentage of those children drop out from school and do not complete their basic
education.
58
This problem of children leaving school early could be reduced and improved
through better investment in early years. It may seem a tough decision but there is a
need to invest in both basic education and ECCE. The return on investment is
greater when the investment is made earlier.
59
Dr Gwang-Jo Kim, Director, UNESCO Regional Bureau of Education
Bangkok informed that ECCE is a global mandate under the Education For All and
the Millennium Development Goals.
60
In terms of agenda on ECCE, Dr Gwang-Jo Kim said that UNESCO and
UNICEF are working very closely together to promote ECCE as much as possible.
Within the United Nations system, ECCE is considered as one initiative. UN
agencies work together at the global, regional and country levels to harmonize the
core messages on ECCE to the member states.
61
Dr Gwang-Jo Kim announced that UNESCO would be hosting for the first time
the World Conference on ECCE on 22 to 24 September 2010 in Moscow, Russian
Federation. He invited the Ministers to the conference.
62
H E Prof Dr Fasli Jalal, Vice Minister, Ministry of National Education,
Indonesia proposed that SEAMEO, UNESCO and the World Health Organization
collaborate in strategizing ways to facilitate, nurture and empower ECCE in SEAMEO
Countries.
63
Dr Vilma L Labrador, Undersecretary for Programs and Projects,
Department of Education, Philippines emphasized the importance of quality
component of education in critical years of the developmental stage of the child.
64
She said that there is a need to monitor the standard and procedure of teacher
training to ensure able and better qualified teachers.
65
Ms Sivika Mektavatchaikul, Deputy Permanent Secretary, Ministry of
Education, Thailand informed that under the second round of education reform in
Thailand, the Government provided stimulus package to fund ECCE staring from 3
years old. Ministries of social welfare and health implement projects on ECCE.
66
Ms Sivika Mektavatchaikul commended the Philippines’ experience on how the
departments of education, health and social welfare could work together in training
teachers, using day-care centres, and involving the parents in the initiatives.
67
H E Pehin Dato Haji Abdul Rahman bin Taib, Minister, Ministry of
Education, Brunei Darussalam said that taking into consideration the lessons and
experiences shared in the discussion, the SEAMEO countries have the necessary
experience on ECCE. He said that it is every country’s desire to put priority on
ECCE.
(8)
68
H E Pehin Dato Haji Abdul Rahman bin Taib suggested putting together the
best practices shared so that SEAMEO could come up with a collaborative project.
69
Pacific Regional Office referred to the recent hosting of Singapore of the Asia
Pacific Regional Network on Early Childhood that was launched in December 2009
and informed that a number of countries had discussion on ECCE policy review, and
ECCE governance and financing. He suggested the possibility of expanding the
initiative further through SEAMEO, UNESCO and UNICEF so that good practices
could be shared and documented.
IV.
CONCLUSION
70
Mr Ramon C Bacani, Undersecretary for Regional Operations,
Department of Education, Philippines said that the discussion indicated that there
is recognition of the importance of ECCE and that some SEAMEO countries have set
ECCE as a national priority.
71
Mr Ramon C Bacani said that the concerns that surfaced in the discussion are
significant. He cited the following common threads in the discussion:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
General recognition of the importance of ECCE
Governance issues relating to multiplicity of players
Issues on delivery of ECCE
Curriculum
Access
Teacher qualifications including that of the facilitators of learning
Financing/resource issues in the light of competing demands
Roles of private providers and local governments
Government regulations and the policy/regulatory frameworks, and others.
72
In view of the issues raised, Mr Ramon C Bacani proposed a SEAMEO
regional cooperation on policy research in ECCE. He said that the Philippines would
lead the initiative and would allocate an initial funding amounting to US$ 50,000.
73
Dato’ Dr Ahamad bin Sipon, Director, SEAMEO Secretariat suggested that
partners in the initiative could include SEAMEO, UNESCO, UNICEF and others.
73
H E Dr Jesli A Lapus, Secretary of Education, Department of Education,
Philippines, and President of SEAMEO Council brought the session to a close by
thanking all the speakers and the Council Members who shared their thoughts and
experiences on a very relevant subject. He noted that the policy forum had been a
lively and engaging session highlighting the knowledge and insights of the
participants on ECCE.
(9)
V.
AGREEMENT/CONSENSUS
74
Indonesia proposed that SEAMEO Regional Centres, the World Health
Organization, and UNESCO work together in strategizing ways to facilitate, nurture
and empower ECCE programmes in SEAMEO Member Countries.
75
Brunei Darussalam suggested compiling and documenting the experiences
and good practices of SEAMEO Member Countries in ECCE.
76
The Philippines volunteered to lead a regional cooperation on Policy
Research Project on ECCE. The Philippines will allocate an initial funding amounting
to US$ 50,000.
(10)
Appendix 1
List of Participants
SEAMEO MEMBER COUNTRIES:
Brunei Darussalam
1.
H E Pehin Dato Haji Abdul Rahman bin Taib
Minister
Ministry of Education
Old Airport Road, Berakas
Bandar Seri Begawan BB3510
Brunei Darussalam
Tel:
(673) 238 4111
Fax:
(673) 238 0050
E-mail:
[email protected]
2.
Datin Paduka Dayang Apsah binti Hj Abdul Majid
Permanent Secretary
Tel:
(673) 238 1133
Fax:
(673) 238 4019
E-mail:
[email protected]
3.
Mr Haji Suhaila bin Hj Abdul Karim
Deputy Permanent Secretary (Core Education)
E-mail:
[email protected]
4.
Dr Haji Junaidi bin Hj Abdul Rahman
Deputy Permanent Secretary (Higher Education)
E-mail: [email protected]
5.
Ms Kamaliah Abdul Rahman
Secretary to the National Education Council
E-mail:
[email protected]
6.
Mr Haji Abdul Aziz bin Hj Mohd Hassan
Deputy Director/Head of Strategic Management Unit
E-mail:
[email protected]
7.
Mr Abdul Khalid bin Hj Mahmood
Head, International Affairs and Public Relations Unit
E-mail:
[email protected]
8.
Mr Ibrahim bin Hj Abul Rahman
Senior Special Duties Officer (Secondary)
E-mail:
[email protected]
9.
Mr Adi Mulyamin bin Haji Muhammad
Education Officer
International Affairs and Public Relations Unit
E-mail:
[email protected]
(11)
Cambodia
Indonesia
10.
H E Dr Im Sethy
Minister
Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
80 Blvd Preah Norodom
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Tel:
(855-23) 217 253
Fax:
(855-23) 217 250
E-mail:
[email protected]
11.
H E Mr Koeu Nay Leang
Under Secretary of State
12.
Ms Hang Pheary
Official of Pedagogical Research Department
13.
Mr Om Sethy
Director of Information and ASEAN Affairs Department
E-mail:
[email protected]
14.
Mr Sim Bora
Deputy Chief of Minister Cabinet
15.
H E Prof Dr Fasli Jalal
Vice Minister
Ministry of National Education
A Building, 2nd Floor
Jalan Jenderal Sudirman
Senayan, Jakarta 10270, Indonesia
Tel:
(62-21) 573 3352
Fax:
(62-21) 574 6395
16.
Prof Dr Dodi Nandika
Secretary General
E-mail:
[email protected]
17.
Prof Dr Baedhowi Janwosumamo
Director General for Quality Improvement of Teachers and
Education Personnel
18.
Dr Bambang Indriyanto
Secretary of Directorate General of Basic and
Secondary Education Management
E-mail : [email protected]
19.
Dr Sumarna Surapranata
Director for Training and Development
20.
Ms Ira Hapsari
Education Attache
Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia in Manila
21.
Dra Veronica Enda Wulandari, MSc
Head of Multilateral and Regional Sub-Division
E-mail:
[email protected]
(12)
22.
H E Prof Dr Somkot Mangnomek
Minister
Vientiane, Lao PDR
23.
Mr Sengsomphone Viravouth
Director General
Department of Planning and Cooperation
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Lao PDR:
24.
Mr Kham-Inh Khitchadeth
Deputy Director-General
ASEAN Department
Malaysia
25.
Tan Sri Dr Zulkurnain bin Haji Awang
Secretary General
E-mail:
[email protected]
26.
Mr Mohd Zulkifli Mohammed
Under Secretary
E-mail:
[email protected]
27.
Dr Ng Soo Boon (Ms)
Assistant Director
Curriculum Development Division
E-mail:
[email protected]
28.
Ms Adibah Hanum Hussein
Assistant Secretary (SEAMEO and ASEAN Desk)
Policy and International Relations Division
29.
H.E. Brig Gen Aung Myo Min
Deputy Minister for Education
Bldg No.13, Nay Pyi Taw
Union of Myanmar
Tel:
(95-67) 407 404, 405
Fax:
(95-67) 407 403
E-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]
30.
Dr Myo Myint
Rector
Yangon University of Foreign Languages
119-131 University Avenue Road
Kamayut Township
Yangon, Myanmar
Tel:
(95-1) 513 193, 202
Fax:
(95-1) 513 194
E-mail:
[email protected]
Lao PDR
Myanmar
(13)
Philippines
Singapore
31.
H E Dr Datu Jesli A Lapus
Secretary of Education
Department of Education
2/F Rizal Building 1
DepEd Complex, Meralco Avenue
Pasig city, Metro Manila 1600
Philippines
Tel:
(63-2) 687 2922
Fax:
(63-2) 636 4876
E-mail:
[email protected]
32.
H E Mr Ramon C Bacani
Undersecretary for Regional Operation
33.
H E Vilma L Labrador
Undersecretary for Programs and Projects
34.
Mr Jesus Lorenzo R Mateo
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Development
35.
Mr Jonathan E Malaya
Assistant Secretary and Legislative Liaison Officer
36.
Dr Teresita G Inciong
Assistant Secretary for Programs and Projects
37.
Mr Leticia B Pichay
Assistant Secretary/Chief of Staff
38.
Mr Geronimo L Sy
Assistant Secretary/Senior Policy Adviser
39.
Mr Mari Paul C Soriano
Director III, Technical Service
40.
Mr Emilio Abelita III
Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs
41.
Dr Yolanda S Quijano
Director IV, Bureau of Elementary Education
42.
Dr Lolita M Andrada
Director IV, Bureau of Secondary Education
43.
Rev Bienvenido Nebres, SJ
President, Ateneo De Manila University
44.
Mr Roger B Masapol
OIC Division Chief, Planning and Programming Division
E-mail:
[email protected]
45.
Mrs Tan Ching Yee
Permanent Secretary (Education)
E-mail:
[email protected]
46.
Ms Evelyn Khoo
Director, Planning Division
E-mail:
[email protected]
(14)
Embassy of the
Republic of Singapore
in the Philippines
Thailand
Timor Leste
47.
Ms Leong May Fong
Assistant Director, International Relations
E-mail:
[email protected]
48.
Ms Loh Jia-Yi
Senior Officer, International Relations
E-mail:
[email protected]
49.
Ms Karen Lim
Senior Officer, International Relations
E-mail:
[email protected]
50.
H E Mr A Selverajah
Ambassador
51.
Mr Alexander Lim
First Secretary to Philippines
52.
Ms Sivika Mektavatchaikul
Deputy Permanent Secretary
53.
Mr Wimon Homying
Secretary to the Minister
54.
Ms Duriya Amatavivat
Expert, Bureau of International Cooperation
55.
Ms Kanittha Hanirattisai
Chief, Regional Cooperation Unit
Bureau of International Cooperation
56.
Ms Phimwarat Muangnil
Foreign Relations Official
57.
Ms Komutee Yamolanan
58.
Ms Woramon Navaroj
59.
Ms Nongsilinee Mosika
Chief, Unit of Public Relations
Office of the Minister of Education
60.
Ms Boosara Kanchanalai
Director, ASEAN Division 4
61.
H E Dr Paulo Assis Belo
Vice Minister of Education
Rua Vila-Verde
Dili, Timor Leste
62.
Ms Celia Gusmao
Chief of Staff of Vice Minister Office
(15)
Vietnam
Office of Government
Vietnam:
63.
Dr Apolinario Magno MBA
General Director
Tel:
(670) 730 4150
Fax:
(670) 332 2033
E-Mail: [email protected];
[email protected]
64.
H E Prof Dr Nguyen Thien Nhan
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
Ministry of Education and Training
49 Dai Co Viet St
Hanoi, Vietnam
Tel:
(84-4) 3869 2250
Fax:
(84-4) 3869 3243
65.
Mr Tran Ba Viet Dzung
Director General
International Cooperation Department
Tel:
(84-4) 3869 4883
Fax:
(84-4) 3869 3243
66.
Mr Phan Quang Dzung
Secretary to Minister
Deputy Chief of Office
67.
Mr Nguyen Hong Son
Deputy Director General
Professional Education Department
68.
Mr Nguyen Xuan Hai
Senior Officer
69.
Ms Phung Thi Hong Van
Officer
E-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]
70.
Ms Tran Thi Kim Thuan
Vietnam Institute for Educational Sciences
71.
Mr Tran Nguyen Toan
Director General
International Relations Department
E-mail:
[email protected]
(16)
72.
Mr Hoang Dai Nghia
Bodyguard to Deputy Prime Minister
73.
Mr Tu Luong
Correspondent
Electronic Media of Government
74.
Ms Ha Thi Ngoc Ha
Deputy Director General
ASEAN Department
E-mail:
[email protected]
Australia
75.
Mr Scott J Evans
Assistant Secretary
Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relation
DEEWR International Group
Loc 72 NB5
GPO Box 9880
Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Tel:
(61-2) 6121 6640
E-mail :
[email protected]
New Zealand
76.
Mr Mike Connolly
Counsellor (Education) for South East Asia
New Zealand High Commission
Level 21, Menara IMC
8 Jalan Sultan Ismail
50250 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel:
(60-3) 2072 5248
Fax:
(60-3) 2078-0387
E-mail:
[email protected]
Spain
77.
Mr Vicente Francisco Valverde
Counsellor of Education
Ministry of Education of Spain
Embassy of Spain in China
Sky Plaza Building, Rm 07B, 20th Floor
46 Dong Zhi Men Wai Da Jie, Dong Cheng District
100027 Beijing, People’s Republic of China
Tel:
(86-10) 8460 8286
Fax:
(86-10) 8460 8518
E-mail:
[email protected]
Ministry of Foreign
Affairs
Vietnam:
SEAMEO ASSOCIATE
MEMBERS :
(17)
SEAMEO AFFILIATE MEMBERS :
University of Tsukuba,
Japan
78.
Prof Dr Sato Mariko
University of Tsukuba
1-1-1 Tennou-dai, Tsukuba
Ibaraki, 305-8572 Japan
Tel:
(81-298) 53 7285
Fax:
(81-298) 53 7288
E-mail:
[email protected]
79.
Ms Kuranishi Miyuki
Deputy Director, International Affairs Division
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology
3-2-2 Kasumigaseki, Chiyoda-ku
Tokyo, Japan 100-8959
Tel :
(81-3) 6734 3404
Fax :
(81-3) 6734 3669
E-mail :
[email protected]
80.
Ms Sendai Fumiko
Office of the Director General for International Affairs
E-mail :
[email protected]
81.
H E Dato’ Misran Karmain
Deputy Secretary-General
ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community Department
70A, Jalan Sisingamangaraja
Jakarta 12110, Indonesia
Tel:
(62-21) 726 2991
Fax:
(62-21) 739 8234
E-mail:
[email protected]
82.
Ms Linda Lee
Assistant Director
E-mail :
[email protected]
83.
Mr Budidarmo P Kuntjoro-Jakti
Technical Officer – Education, Youth and Training Division
E-mail :
[email protected]
84.
Assoc Prof Dr Nantana Gajaseni
Executive Director
ASEAN University Network/Thailand
210, Jamjuree 1 Building
Chulalongkorn University, Phyathai
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
Tel:
(66-2) 215 3642
Fax:
(66-2) 216 8808
85.
Ms Naparat Phirawattanakul
Senior Programme Officer
E-mail:
[email protected]
OBSERVERS:
Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports,
Science and
Technology,
Japan
ASEAN Secretariat
ASEAN University
Network (AUN) /
Thailand
(18)
British Council
Philippines
86.
Ms Amanda Burrell
Director
British Council/Philippines
10th Floor, Taipan Place
F Ortigas Jr Road
Ortigas Centre
Pasig City 1605, Philippines
Tel:
(63-2) 914 1012
E-mail:
[email protected]
UN HABITAT
87.
Mr Kalyan Ray
UN HABITAT
Water Sanitation and Infrastructure Branch and
Senior Advisor to the Executive Director
BG 163, Sector II
Salt Lake City, Kolkata 700091, India
UNESCO Bangkok/
88.
Dr Gwang-Jo Kim
Director
UNESCO Bangkok
920 Sukhumvit Road
Bangkok 10110
Tel:
(66-2) 391 0977 #315
Fax:
(66-2) 391 0866
E-mail:
[email protected]
89.
Dr Clifford Meyers
Regional Advisor Education
UNICEF EAPRO
19 Phra Athit Rd
E-mail:
[email protected]
90.
Dr Bambang Purwantara
Centre Director
SEAMEO BIOTROP
Jl Raya Tajur Km 6
P O Box 116
Bogor, Indonesia
Tel:
(62-251) 832 3848
Fax:
(62-251) 332 6851
E-mail:
[email protected]
91.
Dr Irdika Mansur
Deputy Director (Resource Management &
Communication)
E-mail:
[email protected]
Asia and Pacific
Regional Bureau for
Education
UNICEF EAPRO
SEAMEO Centres:
SEAMEO BIOTROP
(SEAMEO Regional
Centre for Tropical
Biology)
(19)
SEAMEO INNOTECH
(SEAMEO Regional
Centre for Educational
Innovation and
Technology)
92.
Dr Erlinda C Pefianco
Centre Director
SEAMEO INNOTECH
Commonwealth Avenue
Diliman, Quezon City 1101
Philippines
Tel:
(63-2) 924 7681
Fax:
(63-2) 928 7650
E-mail:
[email protected]
93.
Mr Philip Purnell
Deputy Director for Programme
94.
Mr Benito E Benoza
Head, Business, Planning and Partenerships Office
E-mail :
[email protected]
95.
Mr Carolyn s Rodriguez
Head, Knowledge Management Office
E-mail :
[email protected]
96.
Dr Sharon B Chao
Head, Personnel Development and Management Office
E-mail :
[email protected]
97.
Ms Elizabeth T Tiongson
Finance Manager
E-mail :
[email protected]
98.
Ms Grace M Cuadro
Administrative Office
E-mail :
[email protected]
99.
Mr Jesse M Tuason
Information Officer
E-mail:
[email protected]
100. Ms Aury Anne Atienza-Santos
Information and Documentation Assistant
E-mail :
[email protected]
101. Ms Ma Victoria S Laguda
Executive Secretary
E-mail :
[email protected]
SEAMEO QITEP in
Language
(SEAMEO Regional
Centre for Quality
Improvement of Teacher
and Education Personnel
in Language)
102. Dr Muhammad Hatta
Acting Director
SEAMEO QITEP in Language
Jln Gardu, Srengseng Sawah
Jagakarsa, Jakarta 12640, Indonesia
Tel:
(62-21) 727 1034
Fax:
(62-21) 727 1032
103. Ms Evarinayanti
(20)
104. Ms Anna Dwi Kurniati
SEAMEO QITEP in
Mathematics
(SEAMEO Regional
Centre for Quality
in Mathematics)
105. Mr Herry Sukarman
Director, CDMTEP
Centre for Development & Empowerment of Mathematics
Teacher & Educational Personnel (CDMTEP)
SEAMEO QITEP in Mathematics
Jalan Kaliurang Km 6
Sambisari, Condongcatur, Depok, Sleman,
Yogyakarta 55281
Tel:
(62-274) 881 717
Fax:
(62-274) 885 752
E-mail: [email protected];
[email protected]
106. Mr Winarno
Head, Programme and Information Department of
CDMTEP
SEAMEO QITEP in
Science
(SEAMEO Regional
Centre for Quality
in Science)
107. Dr Sediono Abdullah
Acting Director
SEAMEO QITEP in Science
Jl Diponegoro 12
Bandung 40115
West Java, Indonesia
Tel:
(62-22) 423 1191
Fax:
(62-22) 420 7922
E-mail: [email protected];
[email protected]
108. Dr I Made Alit Mariana
Head, Division of Programme and Information
SEAMEO RECSAM
(SEAMEO Regional
Centre for Education in
Science and Mathematics)
109. Dr Azian T S Abdullah
Centre Director
SEAMEO RECSAM
Jalan Sultan Azlan Shah
11700 Gelugor
Penang, Malaysia
Tel:
(60-4) 658 3266 (DL), 658 2284
Fax:
(60-4) 657 2541
E-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]
110. Mr Hj Ahmad bin Ramli
Head of Division (Administration)
E-mail:
[email protected]
SEAMEO RELC
(SEAMEO Regional
Language Centre)
111. Mrs Tay Sor Har
Centre Director
SEAMEO RELC
30 Orange Grove Road
Singapore 258352
Tel:
(65) 6885 7810
Fax:
(65) 6734 2753
E-mail:
[email protected]; [email protected]
(21)
SEAMEO RETRAC
(SEAMEO Regional
Training Centre)
112. Dr Do Huy Thinh
Centre Director
SEAMEO RETRAC
35 Le Thanh Ton Street
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Tel:
(84-8) 824 5618 ext 110
Fax:
(84-8) 823 2175
E-mail:
[email protected]
113. Ms Nguyen Duc Bao Quynh
Manager, International Development Department
E-mail :
[email protected]
114. Mr Nguyen Tan Hung
Head of Accounting and Finance Department
E-mail:
[email protected]
115. Mr Nguyen Xuan Hai
SEAMEO RIHED
(SEAMEO Regional
Centre for Higher
Education and
Development)
116. Prof Dr Supachai Yavaprabhas
Centre Director
SEAMEO RIHED
5th fl, Commission on Higher Education Bldg
328 Sri Ayutthaya Road, Rajathevee
Tel:
(66-0) 2644 9856-63
Fax:
(66-0) 2644 5421
E-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]
117. Dr Chantavit Sujatanond
Special Advisor
E-mail:
[email protected]
118. Ms Thanthakorn Phuangsawat
Programme Officer
E-mail:
[email protected]
119. Ms Phunyanuch Pattanotai
Programme Officer
E-mail:
[email protected]
SEAMEO SEAMOLEC
(SEAMEO Regional
Open Learning Centre)
120. Dr Gatot Hari Priowirjanto
Centre Director
SEAMEO SEAMOLEC
Kompleks Universitas Terbuka
Jalan Cabe Raya, Pondok Cabe
Pamulang 15418 Tangerang, Indonesia
Tel:
(62-21) 742 2184
Fax:
(62-21) 742 2276
E-mail:
[email protected]
121. Mr Renaldo Rhesky
PR/M Staff
E-mail:
[email protected]
(22)
SEAMEO SEARCA
(SEAMEO Regional
Centre for Graduate
Study and Research in
Agriculture)
122. Dr Gil C Saguiguit, Jr
Centre Director
SEAMEO SEARCA
College Los Baños
Laguna 4031, Philippines
Tel:
(63-49) 536 2365 - 67
Fax:
(63-49) 536 7097
E-mail:
[email protected]
123. Dr Francisco F Peñalba
Deputy Director – Administration
SEARCA GB Member :
124. Dr Luis Rey I Velasco
Chancellor, University of the Philippines, Los Banos
(UPLB) and Member of SEARCA Governing Board
SEAMEO SPAFA
(SEAMEO Regional
Centre for Archaeology
and Fine Arts)
125. Dr Pisit Charoenwongsa
Centre Director
SEAMEO SPAFA
81/1 Sri Ayutthaya Road
Samsen, Dusit
Tel:
(66-0) 2280 4022-9
Fax:
(66-0) 2208 4030
E-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]
126. Mr Kevin Charles Kettle
Project Development Officer
E-mail:
[email protected]
127. Mr Girard Philip E Bonotan
Documentation Officer
E-mail:
[email protected]
SEAMEO TROPMED
Central Office
(SEAMEO Regional
Tropical Medicine and
Public Health Network)
128. Prof Dr Pratap Singhasivanon
Secretary General/Coordinator
SEAMEO TROPMED Network
420/6 Rajvithi Road,
Tel:
(66-2) 354 9145 - 6
Fax:
(66-2) 354 9144
E-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]
129. Prof Dr Ma Sandra B Tempongko
Deputy Coordinator
E-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]
(23)
- TROPMED/Indonesia
(SEAMEO TROPMED
Regional Centre for
Community Nutrition)
130. Dr Ir Siti Muslimatun
Deputy Director for Resources Management and Marketing
SEAMEO TROPMED/Indonesia
Jl Salemba Raya No. 6
Jakarta 10430, Indonesia
Tel:
(62-21) 3193 0205
Fax:
(62-21) 391 3933
E-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]
131. Dr Bachtiar Alam
Director of Directorate of Research and
Community Service
University of Indonesia
DRPM Building 2nd Floor
Kampus UI Depok 16424, Indonesia
Tel:
(62-21) 727 0152
Fax:
(62-21) 788 49119
E-mail:
- TROPMED/Malaysia
(SEAMEO TROPMED
Regional Centre for
Microbiology,
Parasitology and
Entomology)
132. Dr Shahnaz Murad
Director
SEAMEO TROPMED/Malaysia
Institute for Medical Research
Jalan Pahang
50588 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel:
(60-3) 2616 2602
Fax:
(60-3) 2693 9335
E-mail:
[email protected]
- TROPMED/Philippines
(SEAMEO TROPMED
Regional Centre for
Public Health, Hospital
Administration,
Environmental and
Occupational Health)
133. Dr Nina Gloriani
Director
SEAMEO TROPMED/Philippines
College of Public Health
University of the Philippines Manila
625 Pedro Gil Street, Ermita
Manila, Philippines 1000
Tel:
(63-2) 524 2703
Fax:
(63-2) 521 1394
E-mail:
[email protected]
- TROPMED/Thailand
(SEAMEO TROPMED
Regional Centre for
Tropical Medicine,
Tropical Paediatrics)
134. Prof Sasithon Pukrittayakamee
Deputy Director
SEAMEO TROPMED/Thailand
Deputy Dean, International Relations and Networking
E-mail:
[email protected];
[email protected]
SEAMEO VOCTECH
(SEAMEO Regional
Centre for Vocational and
Technical Education)
135. Mr Alias Haji Abu Bakar
Centre Director
SEAMEO VOCTECH
Jalan Pasar Baharu Gadong
Gadong BE 1318, Brunei Darussalam
Tel:
(673) 244 7992, 244 7980
Fax:
(673) 244 7955
E-mail:
[email protected]
(24)
136. Dr Paryono
Deputy Director
E-mail:
[email protected]
SEAMEO Secretariat
137. Dato’ Dr Ahamad bin Sipon
Director
138. Mr Noorhaizamdin Abdullah
Deputy Director (Programme and Development)
139. Dr Tinsiri Siribodhi
Deputy Director (Administration & Communication)
140. Mr Duc Dac Nguyen
Programme Officer I (Development)
141. Dr Bunyamin Maftuh
Programme Officer II (Evaluation)
142. Ms Abigail Cuales Lanceta
Programme Officer III (Information)
143. Mr Shazril Helmi bin Samsudin
Programme Support Officer
144. Ms Natcha Kampiranond
Administration Manager
145. Mr Rawude Sukmongkol
Finance Manager
146. Ms Tiraporn Tangkoskul
Documentation and Resources Officer
147. Mr Thanit Promsalee
Information Technology Officer
148. Ms Piyapa Su-angavatin
External Relations Officer
149. Dr Razianna Abdul Rahman
Special Assistant Officer to SEAMEO Secretariat Director
(25)
Appendix 2
45th SEAMEO Council Conference
Cebu City, The Philippines
POLICY FORUM DISCUSSION NOTE
Among the SEAMEO Member States, there is a variety of policy and practices
adapted to make the most of the vital years from Age 0 to 6 years. Moreover, there
are different forms of governance over early childhood care and education. The policy
forum has the purpose of engaging the education ministers into sharing experiences
with each other and hopefully come to an appreciation that all future learning
interventions will grow from the core of early childhood development.
Two principal presentations are expected to lead off and focus reflection on
early childhood education:
Hon. Secretary Teresa Aquino Oreta, Chairperson of the Early Childhood Care and
Development Council of the Philippines
“Making Early Childhood Care and Development A National Priority: The
Philippine Experience” will cover the evolution of programmes for the
welfare of children enacted in the Philippines, and the legal, policy and
governance frameworks that are in place which serve as bases for
transition plans from early care to early learning.
Dr. Claire McLachlan, Associate Professor, Early Years Education, Massey
University College of Education, New Zealand
“Understanding the Vital pathways for Future Learning: An Analysis of New
Zealand’s Approach to Early Childhood Education” examines the current model of
early childhood education adopted in New Zealand and how it emerged and the
policy decisions that enabled the development of the current systems.
As a mechanism to focus reflection and sharing of ideas in a very important
aspect of education, the discussions leading off from the presentations are expected
to surface the current and future practices, approaches and strategies adopted and
the development of early learning services in the region. Some of the points of
discussion may cover the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Approaches and strategies of governance
Role of public-private partnerships in early learning provision
Mechanisms for quality assurance (regulation, accreditation of service providers,
competency standards of practitioners) and standard-setting frameworks
Integration and interfaces of early learning with the formal basic education cycle
Best practices in early learning provision
Future trends in early learning
Non-traditional and innovative delivery modalities
(26)
•
Financing models and resource provision by state/national bodies, local
governments, and communities
Individual country sharing may be guided by the following questions:
1. What is the vision for early childhood care and education in your country? How is (or
how will it be) it linked to the formal education system?
2. What are the key players or principal government bodies / agencies dealing with preprimary education and child care in your country? Are they the same government
bodies that address (1) standards and regulation? (2) policy? (3) service delivery? (4)
provision of support services and funding?
3. If there are multiple government bodies/agencies dealing with early childhood care and
education in your country how would you describe the kind of relationship between
and/or among the ministries?
4. Please share some of the more innovative practices you are now implementing in your
country particularly for home-based programs for early childhood care and education?
5. What are the most urgent and pressing issues relating to provision of pre-primary
education in your country? How are they being addressed? Is there scope for
SEAMEO-wide cooperation to address these issues?
(27)
Appendix 3
“MAKING EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE & EDUCATION A NATIONAL
PRIORITY IN THE PHILIPPINES”
Presented at the Policy Forum Session
of the 45th SEAMEO Council Conference
and 5th ASED Meeting
On 28 January 2010 in Mactan, Cebu
By Secretary Teresa Aquino-Oreta
Chairman, Early Childhood Care and Development Council
Secretary Jesli A. Lapus,
SEAMEO Council President and
Secretary of the Philippine Department of Education,
The Ministers of Education of all member states of SEAMEO,
Heads and members of delegations of associate and affiliate members,
Other Distinguished Guests,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
INTRODUCTION
Let me add my own words of congratulations to Sec. Jesli A. Lapus on his election as
president of the SEAMEO Council and present my greetings of the highest esteem to all
SEAMEO Council members.
I thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation at
the policy forum session of the conference on the theme “Understanding the Vital Years for
Future Learning.”
In my paper entitled “Making Early Childhood Care and Education A National Priority
in the Philippines” I shall talk about our experiences and the lessons we had learned in order
to bring together all key players at the national and local levels thus ensuring that all Filipino
kids from ages 0 to 6 will have every chance to develop their fullest potentials, no matter
where they are and what their circumstances in life may be.
Today early childhood care and development has finally become a national priority.
Still there are a thousand and more steps to take in what has been for us a long, long journey.
BRAIN DEVELOPMENT IN THE EARLY YEARS
Let me begin with references1 to some major research studies by eminent educators,
psychologists, scientists and medical doctors on brain development in the early years. Many
of these studies – both local and international -- have informed significant legislative and
executive actions that now assure a full range of health, nutrition, early education and social
services programs to promote the optimum growth and development of young children aged 0
to 6.
We find guidance from researchers who have proved beyond doubt that fifty percent
(50%) of a person’s ability to learn is developed in the first four years of life and another thirty
percent (30%) is developed by the 8th birthday. We realize that the vital years lay down the
1
The Learning Revolution by Gorden Dryden and Dr. Jeannette Vos
(28)
pathways on which all future learning is based and that everything else we learn in life will be
built on that base. We are concerned with reports that nearly every country spends well under
ten percent (10%) of its educational budget on the years where fifty percent (50%) of
development takes place.
The way the brain develops in the early years of a person is described as follows2:
By birth, most children have 100 million active brain cells, and these have made 50
trillion connections with other brain cells and other parts of the body.
In the first month of life as a baby’s senses reacts to his/her environment he/she
develops new “synaptic” connections at the phenomenal rate of up to 3 billion a second.
In the first six months a baby will babble using all the sounds in all the languages in
the world, but will then learn to talk only the sounds and words picked up from the
environment, particularly from parents. The brain will discard the ability to speak in
languages not heard.
By eight months a baby’s brain has about 1,000 trillion connections! After that the
number of connections begin to decline unless the child is exposed to stimulation through all
senses.
By age 10 years or so about half the connections have died off in the average child, but
that leaves him about 500 trillion that last through a lifetime.
All the studies underscore the importance of the first few years of life. We are told
“that doesn’t mean that the other years are unimportant, but … research shows that children
who have a slow start … are likely to experience problems right through childhood and into
adolescent.”
If we are to believe the experts and accept as true and correct the results of several
major research studies conducted over many years, we can only derive one logical conclusion.
Which is that we all need to work together to unlock the powers of the vital years from 0 to 6.
Waiting for our young children to come to school for grade one at the age of 6 may be too
late!
In the Philippines and possibly also in some other developing countries in Southeast
Asia one of every three pupils enrolled in grade 1 have had no previous experiences in early
childhood care and learning. This is why the Philippine Department of Education has been
reaching out to offer kindergarten classes to the 5 year-olds and supervising classes offered by
publicly-organized day care learning centers as well as fee-paying private schools including
madrasah pre-schools.
Studies also reveal that the unstimulated brain is a model with very few interacting
connections. On the other hand the stimulated brain will show a young brain rich in
connections from stimulating experiences. These statements may pertain only to some
developing countries in the region. But we know that among many poor and disadvantaged
2
Inside the Brain by Ronald Kotulak
(29)
families it is not uncommon for young children to have little or no opportunities for any form
of emotional, social or intellectual interaction and stimulation.
UNLOCKING THE VITAL YEARS
A giant first step we have taken in the Philippines is to recognize the various stages of
educational development that are put forward as taking place sequentially or in cycles. The
five (5) cycles of educational development being the following:
No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 -
The cycle for ages 0 to 6 is the foundation cycle.
The cycle for ages 6 to 12 is the elementary education cycle.
The cycle for ages 12 to 18 is the secondary education cycle.
The cycle for ages 18 to 24 is the higher education cycle.
The cycle for ages 24 and above is the continuing education cycle.
Many among us may note a resemblance to the sequence of educational development
often regarded as lifelong and lifewide learning.
It may be that in some of our countries the responsibility for the foundation cycle of
young children ages 0 to 6 is a sole responsibility of the ministry of education or shared with
other agencies or institutions. Realizing that children ages 6 to 12 who enter the 2nd cycle of
elementary education perform better because they had good experiences in the foundation
cycle it is imperative to examine varying roles and relationships.
In order to look into roles and relationships of various national and local government
agencies responsible for early childhood care and development the Philippines enacted in Year
2000 Republic Act No. 8980 which is “An Act Promulgating A Comprehensive Policy and
National System for Early Childhood Care and Development.”3 As then a Senator of the
Republic, I was the principal author. Republic Act 8980 unlocked for us the powers of the
vital years from ages 0 to 6
More recently the President of the Philippines issued Executive Order No. 778
“Transforming the Council for the Welfare of Children into the Early Childhood Care and
Development Council”4 where I now serve as Chairperson of the Governing Board. The
board members are department secretaries of the Philippine Departments (Ministries) of
Social Welfare and Development, Education, Health, the National Nutrition Council and the
Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines.
Through Republic Act 8980 and Executive Order 778 early childhood care and
development has finally become a national priority. An alliance was established that made
possible multi-sectoral and inter-agency collaboration at the national and local levels among
government agencies, service providers, families and communities, public and private sectors,
nongovernment organizations, professional associations and academic institutions.
A national strategy was adopted to raise awareness about the importance of early
childhood care and development, promote community development efforts to improve the
3
4
R.A. 8980 was enacted by into law by President Joseph Estrada in October 2000.
E.O. 778 was issued by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in January 2009.
(30)
quality of life for young children and families and educate parents and caregivers to deliver
services to children ages 0 to 6.
THE LONG JOURNEY
But our journey has been long. The Council for the Welfare of Children or CWC was
created in 1974 under the Office of the President by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 6035
known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code. It was declared a policy of the State that “the
Child is one of the most important assets of the nation. Every effort should be exerted to
promote his welfare and enhance his opportunities for a useful and happy life.” A “Child” as
used in the Code referred to persons below twenty-one (21) years of age except those
emancipated in accordance with law.
In 1981 through Executive Order No. 7086 the Office of the President was reorganized
and the Council for the Welfare of Children was transferred to the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD).
In 1987 through Executive Order No. 2337 the role and organizational structure of the
Council for the Welfare of Children were redefined and membership was expanded to enable
the Council to more effectively carry out its responsibilities under the law and to ensure the
assistance and cooperation of government agencies concerned with child and youth welfare
and development.
In 1990 Republic Act No. 69728 was enacted which is “An Act Establishing A Day
Care Center In Every Barangay, Instituting Therein A Total Development and Protection of
Children Program.”
Filipino children up to six (6) years of age were assured total
development and protection through day care centers.
In 1995 Executive Order No. 2759 was issued “Creating a Committee for the Special
Protection of Children From All Forms of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty, Exploitation,
Discrimination and Other Conditions Prejudicial To Their Development.” The Council for the
Welfare of Children was mandated to act as Committee Secretariat.
In 2000 Republic Act No. 898010 was enacted which is “An Act Promulgating A
Comprehensive Policy and a National System for Early Childhood Care and Development
(ECCD).” The Council for the Welfare of Children was transferred back to the Office of the
President and was mandated to also function as the National ECCD Coordinating Council.
In 2007 Executive Order No. 63011 was issued “Transferring the Council for the
Welfare of Children from the Office of the President to the Department of Social Welfare and
Development.” The Department of Social Welfare and Development was designated the focal
agency to oversee the operations of the CWC Secretariat and harmonize the effective and
5
Signed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos in December 1974
Signed by President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1981
7
Signed by President Corazon C. Aquino on July 22, 1987.
8
Signed by President Corazon C. Aquino on November 23, 1990.
9
Signed by President Fidel V. Ramos on September 14, 1995.
10
Signed by President Joseph E. Estrada in October 2000.
11
Signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on June 28, 2008.
6
(31)
efficient operationalization of its mandates specifically in monitoring the implementation and
enforcement of all laws for children.
Through the years since 1974 the functions of the Council for the Welfare of Children
have been expanded to include not only its original functions under Presidential Decree No.
603 and Executive Order No. 233 series of 1988 but also as the National ECCD Coordinating
Council Secretariat. In some ways focus on the welfare and benefits of young children ages 0
to 6 diminished.
In 2009 Executive Order No. 77812 was issued “Transforming the Council for the
Welfare of Children Into the Early Childhood Care and Development Council.” The ECCD
Council is now attached to the Office of the President and mandated “to support the
implementation of the full range of health, nutrition, early education and social services
programs that provide for the basic holistic needs of young children from birth to age six (6)
and to promote their optimum growth and development.”
There are key messages to learn from the Philippine experience.
One is the
importance of keeping a sharp focus on the early years of a child’s development from ages 0
to 6. Another is that alliances and networking must be encouraged among various stakeholders
and then ensuring that the involvement of key players remains a healthy and sustainable
undertaking. Finally there must be found a champion if possible from within the highest level
of government who will endorse and push forward an agenda for the 0 to 6 children.
THE NEXT STEPS
The many laws and executive orders promulgated through almost four decades since
the initial affirmative action for Filipino children began in 1974 are even now appropriate and
provide a solid ground for national policies and practices on early childhood care and
development. But many are challenges we face in implementing such laws and executive
orders. One such challenge is the lack of available information to inform decisions. Very
often available data are inaccurate, outdated, limited and too general to be of value.
Hence, one of the first programs approved by the Early Childhood Care and
Development Council as part of the agency’s work plan is a research program to establish a
database that will guide a more efficient and effective implementation of the national ECCD
policies. Some of the researches that are now being undertaken include national surveys on:
(1) the school readiness of 6 year-olds in grade one who have had no previous experiences in
early education (2) the current practices of early childhood care and education in the country
(3) a profile of day care workers in the country and (4) a profile of the country’s day care
centers. DACUM or “Developing a Curriculum” workshops are being conducted among
ECCD professionals and experts for the purpose of: (1) designing a learning framework for
early education programs and (2) defining the competencies required of a day care worker
and/or an ECCD teacher. Focused group discussions help validate emerging issues and
resolve valid concerns. One of SEAMEO’s regional centers – SEAMEO INNOTECH – has
been providing the Council technical assistance in the research work.
12
Signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on January 13, 2009.
(32)
CLOSING REMARKS
As I stated in my opening remarks we have just taken the first steps in a journey of a
thousand miles. We are glad to participate at this policy forum in the hope that we may learn
and be enriched by the conversation and discussions that will follow.
Thank you.
####
(33)
Appendix 4
Understanding the vital pathways for future learning: an analysis of New Zealand’s
approach to early childhood education
Claire McLachlan, Ph.D
Associate Professor, Early Years Education
Massey University College of Education
Private Bag 11 222
Palmerston North
NEW ZEALAND
Phone (64 6) 356 9099, Ext 8957
Email: [email protected]
Paper presented to the SEAMEO 2010 policy forum, Shangri-La Hotel, Cebu City,
Phillipines, 28 January 2010.
Abstract
New Zealand has an internationally unique approach to early childhood education, which
includes a bicultural early childhood curriculum, a robust infrastructure of organisation and
management overseen by the New Zealand Ministry of Education and a growing reputation
for innovation in early childhood teaching and learning. This paper examines how the current
model of early childhood education emerged, the policy decisions that enabled current
systems to be developed, the importance of the early childhood curriculum, teacher education
and professional development and recent developments during time of recession in New
Zealand. Some recommendations, based on the New Zealand experience are proposed.
Introduction
Like many countries, early childhood education as a formal construct is in New Zealand is
relatively recent, although there has been formal and informal provision for children younger
than school age for around 120 years. This paper will briefly explain how the New Zealand
conception of “early childhood education” developed and how it has been adopted by
government and formalised via regulatory and financial systems. The paper will conclude
with some speculation on the directions of the new National government, which came to
power in 2008, are taking, along with recommendations based on the lessons learned in New
Zealand.
A brief history of early childhood education in New Zealand
Early childhood education had its birth in New Zealand in 1889 in Dunedin, when the first
kindergarten was established to cater for the children of the poor who were left to play on the
street while their parents worked (Hughes, 1989). The initiative was based on Christian and
philanthropic motivations by middle class members of the Dunedin community. The first
child care centre was established by the Catholic Church in Wellington in 1908, again based
on Christian motivations of caring for children of the poor whose mothers were working
(Cook, 1985). For the first part of the 20th century, kindergartens developed across the
country, like they did in many Western nations, based on the philosophies of German
philosopher Friedrich Froebel and the notion of children learning through play in a natural
(34)
environment and involvement with educational materials, that he called “gifts” that
encouraged learning. Child care developed in a more ad hoc way with some established
centres and a great deal of “back yard” care or “baby farming”, where mothers took in other
people’s children during the day (Cook, 1985; May, 1997).
The first labour government in New Zealand in 1935 brought about sweeping changes in
education in all sectors; making secondary school compulsory for all children and also
promoting progressive notions of education, based on John Dewey’s theories, of young
children learning through active participation with real experiences such as blocks, carpentry,
dolls and water play. With the support of the Minister of Education, Peter Fraser and the
visionary Director General of Education, Clarence Beeby, Susan Isaacs was invited to New
Zealand in 1937 to talk about the psychoanalytic notions of child development trialled in
British nursery schools, such as the Malting House nursery, which were based on Freudian
theories of the “natural child” and the importance of children’s “free play” in building healthy
psychological development. With encouragement from government, the first nursery
playcentres (or playcentres, as they have come to be known) were established in New Zealand,
run by middle class parent cooperatives in various parts of the country (Stover, 2010).
Under the leadership of the Clarence Beeby, ideas for post-war education were circulated in a
publication in 1944 entitled Education for today and tomorrow (Mason, 1944, in Stover,
2010). This document posed challenging questions about ‘preschool education’, including the
need for all day nursery schools, collaboration between services and the need for teacher
education. The appointment of a first ever Supervisor of Pre-school services in 1946 signalled
a change in kindergarten practices, whereby teachers were encouraged to let children “be free”
by giving them choices, to minimise routines and to encourage “free play” (May, 1997).
Understandings of free play were published in a number of influential playcentre publications,
which were used by the kindergarten training colleges for helping student teachers to
understand how to promote “free play” (Stover, 2010). In her analysis of the history of the
role of play in early childhood in New Zealand, Stover (2010) argues that “free play” was in
its heyday across the diverse services for young children from the 1950s to 1980s, although
not always well understood or accepted by families or the wider education community, and
there were also other services with distinctly different philosophies emerging during this time.
In addition to the already established kindergartens, childcare centres and playcentres,
playgroups, Montessori preschools, Steiner kindergartens, Māori language total immersion
centres (Kohanga Reo), and more recently Pacific Island language nests emerged, creating a
diverse and complex early childhood sector. As Judith Loveridge and I have argued
elsewhere:
Early childhood education in New Zealand is the result of historical, cultural and political
factors, as well response to dominant and emerging theories of how children learn. It has
variously promoted social regulation, philanthropic concern for children, support for mothers,
equality for women, cultural assimilation and survival, and economic outcomes. Services
have emerged in response to these discourses and the sector has become diverse and complex
(Loveridge & McLachlan, 2009, p. 22).
Policy reform in the 1980’s
New Zealand faced its next major overhaul of education in the mid eighties, following the
election of the fourth Labour government, under the leadership of Prime Minister David
Lange. Labour took power in the face of a fiscal and financial crisis, which precipitated a
number of major reforms, including many to education. One of these was the decision to
(35)
move the governance of child care centres to the Department of Education (now called
Ministry of Education) from the Department of Social Welfare, where it had previously
resided, to join the kindergarten associations, which had traditionally resided in the
Department of Education, under the governance of the State Sector Act and with full funding
of kindergartens by the state. This decision was prompted by a number of serious complaints
about quality of childcare and prompted a reconceptualisation of how all early childhood
services should be funded and regulated (May, 1997). This reorganisation meant that both
child care and education were funded from Vote Education funds, and all issues to do with
children from birth became the responsibility of the newly formed Ministry of Education,
while the funding of family financial support and social welfare became the responsibility of
the Ministry of Social Development. This was a significant and important development,
providing the financial and regulatory framework that enabled establishment of an early
childhood sector in New Zealand.
Te One (2003) argued that the education system had been seriously challenged in the years
leading up to fourth Labour government: “The education system was considered over
centralised and unresponsive to community needs, and to have failed to deliver social and
educational equity; indeed the educational failure of Māori had become a “statistical artefact”
(Benton, 1990)” (p. 19). Te One further argues that the government undertook a bold social
experiment, based on a philosophy of individualism and the supremacy of the market, which
involved market driven provision of services, including education. The rationale was that
having children was a personal choice and educating them was a private responsibility and
hence education belonged in the private domain. Te One challenged the assumptions that
families were ready, willing and able to exercise choice and secondly that communities were
in a position to provide them with choice.
As part of this rationale, however, in 1988 the Government established a working group to
“provide a short restatement of the purpose, place, form and function of early childhood
education” (Department of Education, 1988, p. iv). The resulting Education to be more and
Before five: Early childhood care and education in New Zealand documents (Department of
Education, 1988 a & b) were the early childhood equivalent of the compulsory sectors’
Tomorrow’s schools document (Department of Education, 1988c) released at the same time.
One of the key elements of Before Five was that introduction of a contract with the
government called a “charter”, which was designed as a statement of objectives and practices,
drawn up in consultation with parents, in keeping with the national guidelines for early
childhood. In return, chartered early childhood services would receive funding for the centre
as a bulk grant.
Before five also gave equivalent status to primary and secondary education, and although
controversial, it was accepted by both community and privately owned early childhood
services (Te One, 2003), enabling a legitimate teaching career pathway for teachers.
Education to be more cites the outcomes of early childhood education as increased
educational achievement and reduced need for special education, increased likelihood of
employment, reduced delinquency and teenage pregnancy and an economic outcome of
paying for itself by saving the taxpayer $400 – 700 for every $100 spent on early childhood.
The rationale underpinning these documents was twofold: education was defined in economic
terms as having long term benefits for children, families; and the state’s economy. Education
was thus a “lever” for achieving state goals. The government had two goals: to equip New
Zealanders with 21st century skills; and to reduce systematic underachievement in education;
sometimes known by the catch phrase “raise achievement and reduce disparity” (Adams &
(36)
Bethell, 2005, p. 144). The second agenda, achieved through the introduction of a “charter” in
each sector, concerned increasing accountability and government control.
The end result of these reforms in the late eighties was the establishment of an identifiable
sector, known as “early childhood education”, which was unified at a policy level, rather than
in any commonality of philosophy or practice. That unification was to come about through
the 1990’s and beyond through the development of an early childhood curriculum, which it
has been argued came about as a result of a series of residential courses run at Lopdell House
in Auckland on the implementation of policy initiatives in this new identified sector of early
childhood education (Te One, 2003).
Curriculum development in the 1990’s
The intervention by the state into early childhood education in the late 1980’s led to a
succession of new statutory requirements, and a plethora of policy and guiding documents,
including the following:
• a national curriculum for early childhood education, Te Whāriki (Ministry of
Education, 1996);
• Quality in Action (Ministry of Education, 1998);
• the Education (Early Childhood Centre) Regulations (1998);
• Quality Journey (Ministry of Education, 1999);
• a Strategic Plan for early childhood, Pathways to the future (Ministry of Education,
2002);
• Kei tua o te pae: Early childhood exemplars (2004);
• Self review guidelines for early childhood education (Ministry of Education, 2007);
• Foundations for discovery (Ministry of Education, 2007);
• Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations (2008); and
•
Licensing Criteria for Early Childhood Education (2008).
The curriculum itself was developed by two academics, Helen May and Margaret Carr, now
respectively professors of education at Otago and Waikato universities, in consultation with members
of the Te Kohanga Reo Trust (representing indigenous people) and representatives of the various early
childhood sector groups from around the country. It was distributed in draft form for trial in 1993 and
significantly revised and distributed in its final version in 1996. It has been in use ever since, but has
not been evaluated, unlike the National Curriculum which was distributed in 1993, evaluated twice by
a representative of the Australian and British Councils for Educational Research and a significantly
revised version was released in 2007. Of significance is that the new national curriculum document
has been aligned to Te Whāriki to some extent. The curriculum includes the following aspirational
statement:
This curriculum is founded on the following aspirations for children: to grow up as competent and
confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body, and spirit, secure in their sense of
belonging and in the knowledge that they make a valued contribution to society (Ministry of
Education, 1996, p. 9)
The curriculum is designed for children from birth to school entry, which typically is at the age of five
(most children start school on their 5th birthday), but children do not legally have to attend school until
they are six years of age. Early childhood education is not compulsory in New Zealand, but it is highly
recommended and over 90% of four year olds have some form of early childhood education, as I will
discuss further later.
(37)
The term curriculum is defined as the “sum total of the experiences, activities, and events, whether
direct or indirect, which occur within an environment designed to foster children’s learning and
development” (Ministry of Education, 1996, p. 10). The curriculum is bicultural and includes a section
written in Māori for the use of kohanga reo centres (Māori language immersion centres). The
curriculum integrates care and education. The term “whāriki” means woven mat in Māori and implies
that curriculum will be woven from the principles, strands and goals of the curriculum, along with the
different structures and philosophies of the early childhood services. The curriculum has four broad
principles:
1. Empowerment – the early childhood curriculum empowers the child to learn and grow.
2. Holistic development – the early childhood curriculum reflects the holistic way children learn
and grow.
3. Family and community – the wider world of family and community is an integral part of the
early childhood curriculum.
4. Relationships – children learn through responsive and reciprocal relationships with people,
places and things.
In addition, it has four major strands, with an accompanying set of goals:
1. Well-being – the health and well being of the child are protected and nurtured.
2. Belonging – children and their families feel a sense of belonging.
3. Contribution – opportunities for learning are equitable, and each child’s contribution is
valued.
4. Communication – the languages and symbols of their own and other cultures are promoted
and protected.
Currently, all licensed early childhood centres (those that have met Ministry of Education licensing
criteria) are required to demonstrate that they are enacting a curriculum within their service, although
use of Te Whāriki is implicit within licensing requirements, rather than an explicit requirement. Each
centre is reviewed on a three yearly cycle by the Education Review Office, the evaluation arm of the
national education system, using a set of Evaluation Indicators designed for early childhood education
(ERO, 2004). The resulting reviews are public documents, which parents can access as they making
decisions about use of an early childhood service. The reviews provide an overview of the strengths
and weaknesses of each centre, rather than an analysis of children or their achievement. The review
cycle is shortened if there are any issues or concerns identified at the three year review. Ongoing and
unresolved issues result in loss of license and closure of centres. In addition, the Ministry of Education
can respond to complaints about services and can review whether services are meeting licensing
requirements between ERO reviews.
When you examine curricula from around the world, there is great diversity in what is
presented – some are specific, some quite general. According to Scott (2008) a curriculum
can be organised specifically to include four dimensions:
1. Aims, goals, objectives or outcome statements – what do we want this
curriculum to achieve, what would we expect to be the outcomes as a result of
participating in the implementation of that curriculum?
2. Content, domains, or subject matter – what will we include or exclude from our
curriculum?
3. Methods or procedures – what teaching methods or approaches will we use to
achieve our aims to achieve these goals or outcomes?
4. Evaluation and assessment – how will we know when we have achieved them?
But what governments or society at large wants for its youngest citizens will vary depending
upon the community. Bernstein (1996) argues that there are essentially two models of
(38)
curriculum: either performance or competence in orientation; and performance models of
curriculum are the most dominant around the world. The performance model has it its origin
in the behavioural objectives movement. “It is a model that clearly emphasises marked
subject boundaries, traditional forms of knowledge, explicit realisation and recognition rules
for pedagogic practice and the designation and establishment of strong boundaries between
different types of students (Scott, 2008, p. 4). Implicit in this model is the sense that explicit
criteria would save teachers and students from muddle and confusion. In contrast, the
competence model suggests that learners have some control over the selection, pacing and
sequencing of the curriculum. Competence models have been more common in early
childhood education. New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum, Te Whāriki (Ministry of
Education, 1996) is a good example of this sort of curriculum and it is essentially learner
centred in orientation, rather than teacher directed and is based on sociocultural theories of
teaching and learning, which are based on the child actively constructing knowledge through
activity and through play and through interaction with sensitive teachers and other children
(For a more detailed analysis of Te Whāriki, see McLachlan, Fleer and Edwards, 2010).
However, the dominance of competence models of curriculum in early childhood education is
changing with the advent of some countries’ curriculum policies, such as the Foundation Stage
curriculum in the UK (Aubrey, 2004), which is more tightly aligned to the national school
curriculum and are subject specific.
There is evidence from international longitudinal studies that children who have early
childhood experiences that are learner centred, based on a competence model have better long
term outcomes for children in terms of school achievement, behaviour, social competence,
employment, avoidance of teenage delinquency and pregnancy. Much of our current
understandings of the outcomes of quality early childhood curriculum is based on the
outcomes of longitudinal studies of children in early childhood settings. Most of these studies
(e.g. Abecedarian Project, 1999; Osborne & Millbank, 1987; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1999;
McCain & Mustard, 1999) demonstrate clear links between the quality of an early childhood
programme and children’s later educational achievement. They also demonstrate long term
social outcomes, as well as short term cognitive gains (Golbeck, 2001). Barnett, Jung, Jarosz,
Thomas, Hornbeck, Stechuk and Burns (2008) argue that further research is needed on the
effectiveness of one model of curriculum design over another because there have been few
studies which used random assignment to groups, and non experimental studies have often
confounded curriculum differences with other programme characteristics or the characteristics
of the children attending the programme. However, they argue there are some studies which
show that direct instruction models produce larger gains on achievement in subject content
knowledge over the first couple of years, but these gains do not persist over time. There is
also some evidence that curriculum effects differ according to child characteristics,
specifically gender and ability at programme entry, but this is not found in all studies. Finally,
curricula produce differences in social and emotional outcomes, which may be more persistent
that the cognitive outcomes. In particular, direct instruction models have been found to
produce worse social and emotional outcomes for children than learner centred models of
curriculum, with implications for behavioural difficulties. Although there is little formal
evaluation of the outcomes of New Zealand’s early childhood education, there is some
evidence from New Zealand longitudinal studies that children who have attended early
childhood centres are more likely to make successful transitions to school and to achieve
academically at school, as well as developing social competence (Tagoilelagi-Leota,
McNaughton, MacDonald & Ferry, 2005; Wylie, Hodgen, Hipkins, & Vaughan, 2009).
(39)
It has been argued that many educators initially lacked the professional and theoretical
knowledge to effectively implement New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum (Cullen,
1996; Nuttall, 2003). To this end, the Ministry of Education funded extensive professional
development for early childhood teachers on Te Whāriki and more recently Kei tua o te pae,
the assessment exemplars designed to guide teachers on how to assess using Te Whāriki.
Typically, this professional development was offered by a facilitator who worked with
individual centres, rather than as workshops on specific topics, although these were offered by
some professional development providers too. In addition, the Ministry assisted in the
development of specific teacher education programmes to support Māori and Pasifika children
and funded a large number of scholarships for students to study teacher education.
In addition, the Ministry funded 16 Centre of Innovation projects, which examined aspects of
implementing the curriculum, as well as the Foundations for Discovery project, which was
aimed at investigating the use of ICT in early childhood centres. Some funding was also
directed at evaluation of early childhood centres, using the Quality Journey document, which
promoted the use of self review methods of evaluation. Difficulties in implementing self
review in most centres led to a revisiting of the Quality Journey document, resulting in a
revised set of guidelines for centres for using self review. Despite the inherent difficulties in
implementing (McLachlan-Smith, 2001; Nuttall, 2003; McLachlan, Carvalho, Kumar & de
Lautour, 2006) and evaluating (Cullen, 2003) Te Whāriki, the early childhood sector has
currently managed to hold onto its right to have a different curriculum to the National
Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 1993), despite increasing pressure for a closer articulation
(evidenced by the revised National curriculum, Ministry of Education, 2007).
Issues of quality and accountability in the millennium
In 2002, the Ministry of Education completed a consultation process with the sector, which led
to the publication of a strategic plan for early childhood for the 2002 – 2012 period, entitled
Pathways to the future. The Strategic Plan (Ministry of Education, 2002) included the
following goals:
•
•
•
Increase participation in quality early childhood services;
Improve quality of early childhood services; and
Promote collaborative relationships.
A number of strategic initiatives were put in place to help to achieve these goals, which
included scholarships for early childhood staff to pursue an early childhood teaching
qualification, Māori and Pasifika teacher education qualifications, increased funding to centres
for higher numbers of qualified staff, funding to support teachers to gain teacher registration,
and a plethora of documents and professional development, as discussed above. It should be
noted that a primary teaching qualification is not a recognised qualification for early
childhood teaching; so many primary trained staff had to retrain under this strategic plan.
The strategic plan included a regulatory change so that by 2005 all “persons responsible” in a
licensed early childhood centre needed to hold a benchmark three year teaching qualification
(i.e. Diploma of Teaching (ECE), B.Ed (ECE) or equivalent) and by 2012 all staff in licensed
early childhood centres needed a teaching qualification; the reason given that there is a strong
correlation between quality and teacher qualifications. Many services were seriously affected
by these changes. As at 1 July 2009, 64.0% (11,780) of teaching staff at teacher-led services
were qualified. This was an increase of 14.3% (1,475) from July 2008; of the remainder of
(40)
staff, 53.2% (3,523) who were not qualified were in study for a qualification that leads to
teacher registration with the New Zealand Teachers Council. Finding qualified staff has been
a serious issue for many areas, leading the Ministry to offering financial incentives to teachers
for transferring to hard to staff areas. According to recent Ministry of Education statistics, as
at 1 July 2009:
• The number of early childhood education services has increased by 14.6% (454) since
2005, to 4,890 services. This includes 525 more licensed services and 71 less licenceexempt groups.
• There were 4,123 licensed services.
• There were 767 licence-exempt ECE groups, one less than at 1 July 2008.
• There has been a steady decline in the number of kōhanga reo services since 1 July
2005.
• There were 180,910 enrolments in licensed early childhood education services, an
increase of 10.0% (16,389) since 2005.
In 2007, the previous Labour Government introduced 20 hours of “free ECE” for three and
four year olds as part of delivering the first goal of participation. The Ministry’s argument
about why this is necessary was as follows:
20 hours a week Free ECE has been made available to encourage intensive participation in
quality ECE. Children don't benefit from quality ECE if their participation is not intensive
enough to create positive education outcomes. New Zealand has high ECE participation rates but
children attend for relatively few hours per week, at around 14-17 hours per week for 3 and 4
year olds. That means a lot of children are attending for 9 hours or fewer per week (Ministry of
Education, 2007)
The offer therefore aimed to ensure that parents help the government to achieve its strategic
and economic vision. What is implicit, however, is that parents and parent-led services are not
seen as providing adequate experiences for young children. More recently, the newly elected
National Government extended the provision of the 20 free hours to parent led and community
led services such as playcentre and kohanga reo; a move applauded by parents struggling
under recession, but further underlining the perceived importance of early childhood to the
current government, who in the same week slashed funding for teachers’ professional
development and cancelled Centre of Innovation and Foundations for Discovery research
projects.
As part of the plan to increase quality, a change to the licensing requirements (Ministry of
Education, 2006) was introduced. This consultation document argued that early childhood
has a “changing landscape” and the proposed regulations provided an “integrated regulatory
framework” for all ECE services (Ministry of Education, 2006, p. 4). It had been proposed
that the new licensing criteria include a gazetted curriculum, which at the time would have
been Te Whāriki, but this was not undertaken in the final version of the licensing criteria
released in 2008. In this document, the following statement about curriculum is made, in
which it implies that Te Whāriki will be used, but falls short of demanding it. It can be
speculated that the diversity of early childhood services made this lack of standardisation
necessary, as many of the language immersion programmes, in particular, use a variety of
other curriculum documents in addition to Te Whāriki. The curriculum statement from the
new licensing criteria is as follows (Ministry of Education, 2008):
(1) The curriculum standard: general is the standard that requires every licensed service provider to
whom this regulation applies to —(a) plan, implement, and evaluate a curriculum that is designed to
(41)
enhance children’s learning and development through the provision of learning experiences, and that
is consistent with any curriculum framework prescribed by the Minister that applies to the service.
A change of government and a change of direction – 2009 and beyond
The change of government in 2008 led to a changed set of government priorities and to a
degree of fear and trepidation on the part of the sector as to what the future might hold. The
new National government took power in the face of world wide economic recession and an
unexpected enormous deficit left by the previous government. The Briefing to the incoming
Minister of Education (2008) discusses the following policy choices and challenges for
education:
• Improving access to early childhood education;
• Enhancing the performance of the school system;
• Delivering high-quality Māori language education;
• Balancing quality and participation in tertiary education;
• Improving engagement, participation and learning for children with special education
needs; and
• Making better use of available resources.
Building on this, the government released the following priorities in its Vote Education budget
for 2009:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Extension of 20 free hours to playcentre and kohanga reo.
Reduce truancy.
Support for schools with disruptive children.
Funding for top performing teachers.
Professional development to raise Māori achievement.
Funding to increase literarcy and numeracy standards.
Voluntary bonding for low decile, hard to staff and isolated schools ($3500 per year).
In the budget the government also cancelled all funding to the early childhood Centres of
Innovation research projects and Foundations for Discovery ICT projects, as well as signalling
that professional development contracts for Te Whāriki and Kei tua o te pae: assessment
exemplars would run out at the end of 2009 and would not be renewed. The government
signalled that future professional development would be aligned with government priorities
and would commence in July 2010. In addition, in the 2009 budget the need for all early
childhood staff to be qualified by 2012 was rescinded, as was the requirement for 80% of staff
to be qualified by 2010. 80% is the new target for 2012. A proposed change in adult: child
ratios were also rescinded, leaving ratios at previously gazetted levels. No doubt there will be
more cuts in the next budget. My speculation is that it will further rescind the promises of the
2002 strategic plan for early childhood.
Having been recently involved with a Ministry of Education task force on the professional
development to achieve government priorities in early childhood, I know that these are closely
aligned to lifting literacy and numeracy achievement and to increasing participation,
supporting language and culture, care of infants and toddlers, and achievement of children
who are ‘at risk’. Clearly the days of professional development being available to the whole
sector at no cost is at an end and in times of diminished resources the government is targeting
resources at children and communities who are perceived will benefit the most. It is unlikely
that the government’s moves will be welcomed by the sector, but they are consistent with the
(42)
practices of other governments internationally who target funding at children of the poor, on
the basis of economic analysis.
Conclusion
This paper has attempted to pull together the predominant themes in the development of the
early childhood sector in New Zealand over the last 120 years, with a stronger emphasis on
the policy reforms from the mid 1980’s onwards. There is little doubt that early childhood
education has become an accepted part of raising children in the same time period, in which
there have been commensurate changes in family structures and employment patterns of
women. Early childhood education has traditionally fared better in New Zealand under a
more socially oriented Labour Government, as the brief history illustrates and most significant
changes have occurred under governments who understand the benefits of supporting children
and their families. However, although the current government is clearly reducing its financial
support of early childhood, it is still operating within an economic analysis of the benefits of
early childhood education to achieving outcomes for the state. Hopefully we can be assured
that funding will not ever be completely removed, but is unlikely to be increased only on the
basis of the evidence of science on the importance of early experiences in brain development,
language and cognition, however compelling that evidence might be.
Finally, what has been achieved through the major changes in the sector over the last 35 years
is a sector that is inclusive in spite of its differences in structures and philosophies. The
curriculum document and its assessment techniques, as well as the requirements for teacher
training in the strategic plan have had a unifying effect and have helped to develop a strong,
professional and cohesive early childhood network in New Zealand.
There are some conclusions that can be drawn about why New Zealand early childhood
education system has been so successful, which may provide insights for this meeting, and
these are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Coordination of all issues concerning care and education of children under the
governance of the Ministry of Education;
A robust regulatory and evaluation framework and substantial funding of fully licensed
centres;
A coherent policy framework for early childhood education and a strategic plan for a
ten year period;
A requirement for specific early childhood teacher education of three years duration;
A national early childhood curriculum, which was developed through intensive
consultation with members of different types of early childhood services;
A research programme, aimed at shedding light on implementation of the curriculum;
Evaluation of strategic plan achievements at regular intervals;
A set of resources developed to support teaching practice and assessment; and
Ongoing programmes of professional development.
Things which New Zealand could have improved that might also be included are a stronger
relationship with the other ministries that support children and their families (Social
Development and Health) and a commitment to longitudinal research on the outcomes and
benefits of the curriculum. I wish you all well in your endeavours to support the young
children of South East Asia.
(43)
References
Abecedarian Project. (1999). (www.fpg.unc.edu).
Adams, P. & Bethell, K. (2005). Shifting conceptions of education and educational
institutions. In P. Adams, K. Vossler & C. Scrivens (eds.), Teachers’ work in Aotearoa
New Zealand (pp. 132-148). Southbank, Vic., Australia: Thomson Dunmore Press.
Aubrey, C. (2004). Implementing the foundation stage in reception classes. British
Educational Research Journal, 30 (5), 633-656.
Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Yarosz, D.J., Thomas, J., Hornbeck, A., Stechuk, R. & Burns, S.
(2008). Educational effects of the Tools of the Mind curriculum: A randomized trial.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 299-313.
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: Theory, research, critique.
London: Taylor & Francis.
Cook, H.M. (1985). Mind that child: Childcare as a social and political issue in New
Zealand. Wellington, NZ: Blackberry Press.
Cullen, J. (1996). The challenge of Te Whariki for future development in early childhood
education. Delta, 48 (1), 113-25.
Cullen, J. (2003). The challenge of Te Whāriki: Catalyst for change? In J. Nuttall (Ed.),
Weaving Te Whāriki; Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in
practice (pp. 269-296). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Department of Education. (1988a). Education to be more. Wellington: Government Print.
Department of Education. (1988b). Before five: Early childhood care and education in New
Zealand. Wellington: Government.
Department of Education. (1988c). Tomorrow’s schools: The reform of education
administration in New Zealand. Wellington: Government Printer.
Education Review Office. (2004). Evaluation indicators for education reviews in early
childhood services. Wellington: ERO.
Golbeck, S.L. (2001). Instructional models for early childhood: In search of a childregulated/teacher-guided pedagogy. In S.L. Golbeck (ed.), Psychological perspectives
in early childhood education (pp. 3-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hughes, B. (1989). Flags and building blocks, formality and fun: One hundred years of free
kindergarten in New Zealand. Wellington: New Zealand Free Kindergarten Union.
Loveridge, J. & McLachlan, C. (2009). Accountability and compliance versus diversity and
democracy in early childhood education. In A. St. George, S. Brown and J. O’Neill
(eds.), Facing the big questions in teaching: Purpose, power and learning (pp. 22-31).
South Melbourne, Vic., Australia: Cengage Learning.
May, H. (1997). The discovery of early childhood. Wellington, NZ: NZCER & Bridget
Williams Books.
McCain, M. & Mustard, J.F. (1999). Early years study: reversing the real brain drain. Final
report to the Government of Ontario, Canada (www.childsec.gov.on.ca).
McLachlan, C.J., Carvalho, L., Kumar, K. & de Lautour, N. (2006). Emergent literacy in
early childhood settings in New Zealand. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31 (2),
31-41.
McLachlan, C., Fleer, M. & Edwards, S. (2010, in press). Early childhood curriculum:
Planning, assessment and implementation. Melbourne, Vic., Australia: Cambridge
University Press.
McLachlan-Smith, C.J. (2001, December). The Quality Journey: preliminary analyses of
implementation in 72 early childhood centres. Paper presented at the New Zealand
Association for Research in Education Conference, Christchurch College of Education.
(44)
Ministry of Education. (1993). The New Zealand curriculum framework. Wellington:
Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whaariki: Early Childhood Curriculum. Wellington:
Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1998). Quality in action. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1999). The Quality Journey. Wellington, NZ: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2002). Pathways to the future: Nga Huarahi Aratiki. A ten year
strategic plan for early childhood education. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2004/2005). Kei tua o te pae. Assessment for learning: Early
childhood exemplars. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2005). Foundations for Discovery. Can be retrieved from the
Ministry website:
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=10417&indexid=
10058&indexparentid=10945
Ministry of Education. (2006). Draft criteria for the licensing or certification of early
childhood services. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Ministry of Education. (2007). Free early childhood education: Summary reports on uptake.
Retrieved from
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.cfm?layout=document&documentid=11253&indexid=
11139&indexparentid=10946 on 22 August 2007.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2007). Self review guidelines for early childhood education.
Retrieved from
http://www.lead.ece.govt.nz/LeadHome/ManagementInformation/GoverningAndManagi
ng/SelfReviewGuidelinesForEarlyChildhoodEducation.aspx on 18 January 2010.
Ministry of Education. (2008). 2008 Licensing criteria for early childhood education and care
centres. Retrieved from
http://www.lead.ece.govt.nz/ServiceTypes/CentreBasedECEServices.aspx on 18 January
2010.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Briefing paper to the incoming Minister of Education.
Retrieved from
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/theMinistry/PolicyAndStrategy/BriefingToIncomingMiniste
r.aspx on 18 January 2010.
New Zealand Government. (1998). Education (Early childhood centre) regulations.
Wellington: Government Printer.
New Zealand Government. (2008). Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations 2008.
Retrieved from
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0204/latest/DLM1412501.html on
18 January 2010.
Nuttall, J. (2003). Exploring the role of the teacher within Te Whāriki: Some possibilities and
contstraints. In J. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te Whāriki; Aotearoa New Zealand’s early
childhood curriculum document in practice (pp. 161-186). Wellington: New Zealand
Council for Educational Research.
Osborne, A.F. & Millbank, J.E. (1987). The effects of early education. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Schweinhart, L.J. & Weikart, D.P. (1999). The advantages of High/Scope: helping children
lead successful lives. Educational Leadership, 57 (1), 76-78.
Scott, D. (2008). Critical essays on major curriculum theorists. London: Routledge.
Stover, S. (2010). Play’s progress? Locating play in the educationalisation of early childhood
in Aotearoa New Zealand. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, AUT University, Auckland.
(45)
Tagoilelagi-Leota, F., McNaughton, S., MacDonald, S. & Ferry, S. (2005). Bilingual and
biliteracy development over the transition to school. International Journal of Bilingual
Education and Bilingualism, 8 (5), 455- 479.
Te One, S. (2003). The context for Te Whāriki: Contemporary issues of influence. In J.
Nuttall (ed.), Weaving Te Whariki: Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum
document in theory and practice (pp. 17-50). Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Council for
Educational Research.
Wylie, C., Hodgen, E., Hipkins, R. & Vaughn, K. (2009). Competent Learners on the Edge
of Adulthood: A summary of key findings from the Competent Learners @ 16 project.
Wellington: NZCER.
(46)

Understanding the Vital Years for Future Learning

Transcription

Similar documents

Early Childhood Inte..

to Veiw Javier Buelna Vision Statement and Bio

Building Lifetime Memories - Cross View Lutheran Church

THE MUTILATED FRAGILITY OF CHILDHOOD Diario de Yucatán

1 Education and Global Challenges

Allinson Jonathan Se..

Salahuddin Kasem Khan, President, Bangladesh Employers

Our Mission - St. Baldrick`s Foundation

reach pdf - Delaware Stars

the young adult ministry