SJIEC Response to the National Quality Framework Discussion Paper

www.socialjusticeinearlychildhood.org [email protected]

1

Social Justice In Early Childhood submission on the:

National quality standards and ratings framework

Licensing and regulatory arrangements

Implementation of a national system

Social Justice In Early Childhood is a not for profit, politically active organisation working

for social justice issues pertaining to the lives of children. Its members consist of early

childhood teachers and educators, consultants, academics, researchers, managers, community

people, and those generally interested in the rights of children. The group is Sydney based

and has both national and international members.

National Quality Standard and Ratings Framework

1. Governments are proposing to implement consistent minimum standards of care across Australia. Do you agree with this approach? Why or why not?

• We agree with a national approach to regulatory reform on two conditions:

i. Where state and territory governments’ existing minimums exceed proposed

national standards, that these existing standards are maintained using

Grandfather clauses. We oppose any drop in state/territory standards for the

purpose of national consistency. Any decrease in state/territory standards

would be contrary to the aspirational intent of COAG’s early childhood

reforms. Indeed, COAG’s reform agenda provides an ideal opportunity to

increase standards nationally in order to optimize children’s experiences in

early childhood settings.

ii. given the meeting of condition (i), that three sets of nationally consistent

standards be respectively established for long day care/ preschools, family day

care, and out of hours school care. The varying purposes of these settings

render specific standards.

• Our support for optimal nationally consistent and setting specific standards stems

from our belief that such standards will :

o Support children’s right to optimal education and care;

o Reduce the current regulatory burden on early childhood educators produced

by duplicating state and federal requirements;

o Raise the national profile of the early childhood teaching profession; and

o Create a pathway toward pay parity for early childhood teachers with other

teaching professions.


2

2. For each care type, which of the options set out in Chapter 5.3 do you believe would best achieve a good balance between meeting the government’s objective of enhancing learning and development outcomes for children, and affordability for parents, and why?

General comments:

• We agree that all staff working with children should be required to have a minimum

Certificate III qualification by the end of 2013. The full qualification must be obtained

prior to employment after 2013.

• We see this initiative as a first step toward all staff working with children (excepting

university qualified early childhood teachers) having a minimum diploma

qualification with a view toward all staff in long day care/preschool requiring a

university qualification. The purpose for this is that all children in long day care and

preschool are entitled to the pedagogical expertise of qualified early childhood

teachers.

Centre based services (LDC & preschool):

• Ratios: Option 4 is our preference with an earlier phasing in of 1:3 ratios for babies by

2014 and a ratio of 1:8 for children aged 36 months and over no later than the end of

2013.

• Qualifications: The proposed minimum qualification standards are not consistent with

the aspirational intent of the Government’s early childhood development strategy. The

proposed minimum qualification requirements are significantly worse than the current

minimum standards now required in NSW. Given that NSW caters for the most

children of all states and territories, we feel that this step back would be regressive.

An aspirational approach would see the Government committed, at the very least, to

matching the minimum requirements set out by NSW, and looking to improve upon

them nationally. Therefore, we propose that all services irrespective of the number of

places they are licensed for be required to employ at least two four year university

qualified early childhood teacher (ECT) full time (i.e. children attending a centre

licensed for less than 40 places have access to two ECTs full time). Furthermore, the

licensee of a centre based or mobile children’s service must ensure that the following

number of teaching staff members (ECTs) are in attendance at the premises of the

service while the service is being provided:

o 2 if the centre is licensed for less than 40 children

o 3, if the centre is licensed for 40 or more but less than 60 children

o 4, if the centre is licensed for 60 or more but less than 80 children

o 5, if the centre is licensed for 80 or more children

• We believe that the proposal of regulating for 0.5 of a qualified staff member is

undesirable, adds additional complication, and is impractical. We cannot see how a

0.5 position would be implemented (at the very least industrially) to ensure every

child on every day has access to that qualified staff member.

Family Day Care:

• Option 2 is our preference for both ratios and qualifications.

• As explained above, all family day carers should have obtained the full Certificate III

qualification before employment after 2013. We foresee many problems if the

requirement is only to be enrolled in study, as studies could be delayed, postponed or


3

cancelled which will then present operational viability problems that could be

prevented if the requirement was to have obtained the full qualification prior to

employment.

3. Do the proposed standards address different cultural and diversity requirements and considerations adequately? If not, do you have any suggestions for how the standard could be further improved?

• The proposed standards outlined in the RIS are broad in scope. More detail is required

in regards to how the standards would require centres to demonstrate a genuine

respect for diversity. We would welcome further opportunities to provide feedback

once more specific standards are drafted.

• The standards should require all staff to proactively address inequality as an integral

aspect of equitable practice. Such practice needs to go beyond attempts to merely

include CALD or ASTI children and families into a white middleclass system by

shifting the focus of practice from inclusion to dealing with inequality.

o The proposed standards need to explicitly promote children and early

childhood professionals’ knowledge of culture and diversity

o We propose the following premises as providing the platform from which

specific standards can be developed: Equity and diversity are central to the

success of children’s learning (Fleet, Patterson, & Robertson, 2006; Mac

Naughton, 2003; Mac Naughton & Williams, 2004; Robinson & Jones Diaz,

2006).

o Absent or minimal reference to inclusion and diversity perpetuates a white

middle class bias.

o Diversity and difference should be an integral, fluid part of the standards, not

an add-on.

o There needs to be an acknowledgment of the diversity of all people rather than

non- white, Anglo English speaking people (i.e. that white, Anglo English

speaking is not the ‘norm’ against which ‘diversity’ is judged. This problem

could be addressed by having preambles to establish the broad philosophical

and theoretical underpinning of the standards, and not to relegate diversity and

difference to add-on statements).

o The Labor Government’s social inclusion agenda should be reflected in all

policy proposals and implementations that affect children and early childhood

education in the standards

o All policies that pertain to social equity and inclusion should be reflected and

connect to policies that affect children and early childhood education

4. What would be the impacts of changes to FDC arrangements?

Our input in this submission has focused on long day care and preschool. We trust that

Family Day Care Australia will provide extensive advice to COAG on the implications for

FDC.


4

5. What would be the impacts of the proposed changes to staff qualifications on services, particularly small, or rural or remote services?

• The impacts would be dependent on ancillary government strategies e.g., incentives to

encourage and support staff already working in rural/remote centers to up-skill and/ or

attract qualified staff to rural areas. Such incentives could include rent subsidies and

financial assistance to enable staff to attend professional development at a distance

(travel cost, accommodation etc.).

• Without these ancillary strategies, the proposed standards may mean the closure of

some rural centres due to the unavailability of trained staff. We consider it important,

however, that standards, and therefore the quality of children’s early learning and care

experiences, not be compromised.

6. Do you think the proposed quality rating system would be an effective indicator of service quality?

• The proposed 5 step rating system has the potential to be a more effective indicator of

service quality than the current system of accreditation, which is a poor discriminator

of quality

• Our first priority is that all children have access to excellence in quality provision of

early childhood education and care. This puts into question a ‘quality rating system’

that has erased ‘improvement’ as the basis on which quality practice is

conceptualised.

o We suggest that the ‘quality improvement’ is reinstated as the core focus of

the proposed ‘quality rating system’, to ensure that service provision does not

stagnate at the ‘national quality standard’ level.

o To help the Government achieve this, we have provided workable solutions

for an alterative system that all centre-based services can enter into regardless

of level of quality, but will be supported to improve the quality of their service

over time.

o Our suggestion pertains to long day care and preschools, and accordingly

includes content regarding education, curriculum and pedagogy.

o Whilst this content cannot be transferred across or into FDC or OSHC, we

envisage that the structure and methodology could be implemented for both

service types in the context of three separate systems.

o We outline our suggestions for improvement of the Rating System in the next

section.

• To ensure that families are aware of the five tiered ratings, the Accreditation

Certificate should indicate the centre’s achieved rating compared to each of the other

possible ratings. This information ought to be publicly available on the NCAC (or

equivalent) website.

• For LDC centres in NSW, the proposed staffing requirements in relation to staff

qualifications are lower (and thus cheaper) than those currently in operation in the

NSW Children’s Services Regulation. As such, they are likely to drive a deterioration


5

rather than improvement of this aspect of quality. We recommend that National

Quality standards regarding teacher qualifications be, at the minimum, as per current

NSW Children’s Services Regulation.

• It is not clear whether services rated as High Quality or Excellent (Innovative) will be

subject to the same regulatory accountability cycle as those rated as National Quality

Standard and Operating Requirements. Therefore, we recommend adopting a dual,

strengths-based pyramid approach to regulatory accountability, as per Braithwaite,

Makkai and Braithwaite (2007). For centres consistently operating at high quality or

rated as Excellent (Innovative) this means that they will be monitored as per a

strengths based approach. So, for example, rather than being subject to systematic

regulatory checks and sanctions as per other centres, these centres are trusted to

continue providing excellence in practice across all quality areas and thus are

monitored less regularly.

• There appear to be a lack of incentives and rewards built in to the proposed rating

system to encourage centres to aspire to High or Innovative quality ratings. We

recommend incorporating such incentives and rewards e.g., annual public awards that

acknowledge and promote innovation and excellence; invite practitioners from the

Excellent (Innovative) centres to participate in peak forums where they can inform

policy development and review.

• Moderation is an important and critical aspect in the Accreditation process. We

recommend the government continues to incorporate the Moderation component as a

vital aspect of the Accreditation system. Moderation ensures children’s centre data

sets are used to establish an overall picture of quality that a centre provides.

Moderation also involves an external expert with high early childhood qualifications

to assess the data sets, determine an Accreditation status and advise the children’s

centre about future improvement in quality. Without this aspect, data sets may be

underutilized, centres will not have the benefit of an external audit process, and the

integrity and accountability of the ‘Assessment’ process is seriously weakened.

7. Would the quality rating system help to drive continuous improvement in the ECEC sector? If not, do you have any suggestions for how the quality rating system could be further improved?

As previously outlined, while we support a five tiered rating system we are not confident that

the proposed rating system would drive continuous improvement. We outline below our

alternative model that will improve the proposed quality rating system, drive quality

improvement and ensure the provision of high quality.

Our proposed model provides a framework for the universal provision of high quality centres

engaged in continuous improvement. We would welcome the opportunity to be involved in

the further development of these ideas.

We stress that high quality can not be achieved without workforce initiatives to enhance

supply and retaining of qualified teachers. Once workforce initiatives address the problems


6

with pay parity and industrial conditions for educators in ECEC, centres will have the

capacity to achieve the high and innovative quality ratings outlined in our model.

The model (diagram provided on page 13) includes the following ratings:

• Unsatisfactory rating (these services are not accredited and do not receive CCB)

• Temporary pre-accreditation status (replacing ‘Operating requirements’ rating)

• Basic quality rating (replacing the ‘National Quality Standard’ rating)

• High quality rating

• Innovative quality rating for centres of excellence (replacing ‘Excellent’ rating)

The basic premises of our model are to:

• Raise the bar and expect that all children have access to a high quality centre (not just

a basic/national quality standard);

• Expect centres to engage in continuous improvement;

• Ensure that high quality is the norm, not the exception;

• Ensure that centres that do not show improvement as per the timelines in the model

will not be accredited.

The model ensures continuous improvement in the following ways:

• Centres begin on the ‘Temporary pre-accreditation status’ which requires compliance

with national standards. Centres have one year before they are expected to move on to

the next level of quality. If this is not achieved after one year (potentially with a

‘grace’ period), then the centre will not be accredited.

• After one year on the temporary rating, the centre is accredited and moves on to either

the ‘Basic Quality Rating’ or the ‘High Quality Rating’, depending on the validator’s

assessment.

• After receiving a ‘Basic Quality Rating’, centres have one year in which to achieve a

‘High Quality Rating’

• After receiving a ‘High Quality Rating’, centres have two years in which to achieve

an ‘Innovative Quality Rating’

• The ‘Innovative Quality Rating’ must be maintained from this point forward.

In the following section, we outline a new approach to centres participating in the ‘Service

Report’ or the ‘Self Study’. We follow this with an outline of what could potentially

constitute the ‘Innovative Quality Rating’ strand.

Replacing the Service Report or Self Study

• In addition to participating in the Accreditation process, children’s centres should be

required to keep a compulsory journal or e-journal.

• Children’s Centres with computer and internet access will be able to log-on to the

NCAC (or equivalent) website, enter a user-name and password, and submit quarterly

reflections on their ongoing improvement and progress plan (monthly reflections if

operating at the Innovative Quality Rating).

• Children’s Centres without internet access can type or write their quarterly reflections

and post to NCAC/national body.


7

• NCAC Assessors are provided with these reflections when undertaking a Spot-Visit or

Re-Assessment.

• Children’s centres are encouraged to ensure their quarterly reflections are a result of

input from all staff members.

• A minimum of four (4) journal entries per year is required, while additional entries

are encouraged.

• These reflections then should form the basis of the service report, or what was

previously known as the Self Study or Service Report.

• This encourages centres to write as they go, rather than write their Self Study/Service

Report just before they are due for Accreditation.

• It helps centres to pace their improvement, and makes reflective practice part of the

everyday.

• We envisage it will help the centre to become more efficient at being continually

critically reflective, and will actually decrease the 'reporting' burden closer to

Accreditation.

• This approach is far better suited to the concept of ongoing improvement.

• Children’s centres should also be required to engage with contemporary professional

literature to inform their planning, practice and evaluation.

• Evidence of the use of contemporary literature should be found in the children’s

centre documentation.

• Children’s centres should also show how contemporary literature has been used as

basis for discussion and planning in staff meetings.

Self nominating ‘quality’

• Although debated and discussed by many in the early childhood field, what

constitutes high quality practice is difficult to define (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 2007;

Moss, 2001; Moss & Petrie, 2002).

• So, by deliberately creating opportunities for centres who are operating in innovative

ways to ‘self nominate’ practices for ‘Assessment’, this makes possible recognition of

the work that many children’s services staff and professionals do that sits outside a

‘one size fits all’ Accreditation status.

• The Innovative Quality rating would be given to centres of excellence. This rating

involves children’s centres meeting compulsory aspects in combination with at least

three (3) optional aspects of innovation. These aspects are detailed below.

Innovative Quality Rating – Three compulsory aspects

• Journal: As previously noted, the journal or e-journal is a compulsory activity

submitted by post or online every month, and forms the basis of what has been known

as the Service Report or Self Study.

• Critical Friends: The second compulsory aspect involves children’s centres building

relationships with Critical Friends.

o This requires the children’s centre to establish links with universities, TAFE or

professionals from peak organisations, to engage their expertise to evaluate,

and/or give advice and support, and to listen and learn from the ideas and

concerns of early childhood educators at the centre, on a regular basis.


8

o The notion of ‘critical’ friend is vital to this aspect, where the centre and

critical friend engage in professional critical reflection around practice and

work towards goals for improvement in an ongoing fashion.

o Centres should be able to show evidence of communicating with their Critical

Friend/s on a bi-monthly basis.

o Documentation of involvement with Critical Friend/s can be incorporated into

the e-journal.

o Contemporary professional literature should be used to form the basis for

discussions and communication.

• Professional Development: The third and final compulsory component requires all

staff within the centre to participate in regular (minimum 3 times per year)

professional development (NOT training of a technical nature), at least one of which

is curriculum related.

Innovative Quality Rating – Optional aspects

The following aspects are Optional Aspects of Innovation. The children’s centre will be

required to show evidence of at least three (3) of these aspects, in combination with the three

Compulsory Aspects, in order to be considered for the Innovative Quality Rating. These are

detailed below:

• Reconciliation with and learning from Indigenous Australians (mainstream/non-

Indigenous centres): Centres show the methods by which learning between indigenous

and non-Indigenous ideas about teaching and learning are being sought and

implemented in the daily living in a children’s centre

• Reconciliation with and learning from Indigenous Australians (Aboriginal Centres):

Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Centres should have the scope to identify and

practice teaching and learning that is culturally relevant and where possible be

mentoring the non indigenous community.

• Research participation: Where possible, the centre is able to prove participation in

research conducted by a recognised university, college or research institute that seeks

to investigate curriculum; quality; cultural practices; teacher research; or educator

research.

• Post Graduate Study/Research: At least one (1) staff member is involved in

postgraduate study or postgraduate research, and uses this expertise to inform practice

within the centre.

• Qualifications: 70% of staff have attained qualifications above and beyond regulatory

requirements and/or are not otherwise recognised by Australian regulatory

departments (e.g.: overseas qualifications in postgraduate certificate, Masters or PhD).

• Low turn over of staff: The centre is able to prove at least 80% of staff , including the

Centre director and excluding staff on maternity leave, have worked at the children’s

centre for at least 5 years. Centres demonstrate strategies to actively enhance staff

retention.


9

• Use of theories and theorists: The centre is able to show how staff use theories and

theorists to rationalise and question educational thinking and contribute to high

quality early and middle childhood education and care.

• Innovative leadership and management techniques: the centre clearly demonstrates

that innovation in leadership and management is reflected in a range of ways

including, but not limited to, strength based practice, evidence based leadership,

mentoring and coaching and democratic principles of leadership; and the centre

utilizes professional literature and contemporary theory to extend and reflect

approaches to leadership and management

• Community engagement: the centre engages and collaborates with internal

community stakeholders (i.e. parents and carers) and external stakeholders in the

community (e.g., local community groups and services) in ethics of practice

(Dahlberg & Moss, 2005). That is, in ways that clearly promote (i) children as citizens

with rights; (ii) early childhood teachers as professionals; and (iii) long day care and

preschool centres as communities, not services.

8. What criteria do you think should be used to rate a service as Excellent? How should the rating be assessed and by whom?

• We recommend replacing the “Excellent” label with “Innovative Quality Rating” as

outlined above.

Licensing and regulatory arrangements

9. Do you think integrating the existing regulatory arrangements will reduce costs for the industry and for governments? Do you think this approach will be sufficient to ensure ECEC provided is high-quality?

• This approach will reduce cost of administration for the sector and for governments.

• High quality necessitates substantial investment. Greater investment in some parts of

the sector/government may be needed to lift quality standards.

• The proposed approach will be limited in its capacity to ensure high quality ECEC if:

o Standards are watered down;

o One rating system is introduced for the three service types (LDC/preschool,

FDC & OOSH);

o Social justice and equity concerns are not addressed:

� We are concerned that the only theoretical perspective used to inform

the RIS is developmentalism (developmental psychology) and brain

research.

� A wealth of Australian research spanning more than two decades has

shown the limitations of only using developmental theories and/or


10

brain research to understand children and their learning (Burman,

1994; Campbell, 1999; Cannella, 1997; Mac Naughton, 1995, 1997,

2000, 2004, 2005; Robinson, 2002; Robinson & Jones Diaz, 2006;

Viruru, 2001; Youdell, 2006).

� The critiques by Australian and international scholars and teachers has

shown the benefits of drawing on a range of theoretical lenses,

particularly in relation to addressing social justice and equity issues

(Bruer, 1999; Mac Naughton, 2004).

� Internationally recognised research (Siraj-Blatchford, 2008) has shown

a relationship between teachers’ ability to address social justice and

equity issues in the curriculum and children’s learning success.

� Therefore, government policies must enable and support early

childhood educators to use a range of theoretical perspectives when

teaching in the early years.

� Until the system begins to enable a range of theoretical perspectives to

be used, there will be less chance that all children have high quality

experiences in early childhood settings.

Implementation

10. What do you consider to be the key advantages and disadvantages of the proposed reforms?

Advantages:

• Lower regulatory burden for early childhood professionals;

• A small step toward valuing children and childhood and quality early childhood

education and care;

• Professionalisation of the field of early childhood education.

Disadvantages:

• Despite the deeply financial nature of the consultation paper and the justification it

provides for increasing investments in the early years the proposal lacks tangible

financing of reforms that are sustainable and equitable;

• Risk of the existing standards being lowered for financial reasons rather than in the

interest of children;

• Lost opportunity to completely rethink the system in a way that recognizes the

expertise from the Australian early childhood context;

• The government understands ECEC as a ‘market’ in which it has certain roles and

responsibilities rather than taking ECEC up as its responsibility in regards to the

social good and as part of an important social policy initiative.


11

11. What do you consider to be the key challenges associated with the implementation of the proposed reforms?

• Prioritise the interests, rights and wellbeing of young children before those of

providers;

• The Government’s willingness to allocate funds;

• Resistance form the private sector to increased investment and reduced profit

margins;

• Lack of trained (four year trained teachers) and willing professionals, especially in

rural areas, due to pay disparity and low professional prestige;

• Three year trained teachers have limited opportunities to upgrade their training or

further develop their knowledge with an additional year at university rather than to

study in courses that were designed for pre-service teachers.

12. What factors may impact on the ability of ECEC services to implement the reforms?

• Government policy has led and continues to support a marketised approach to the

provision of ECEC. Studies (e.g. Cleveland & Krashinsky, 2003) have shown that

market forces can compromise the level of quality provided by both for-profit and

not-for-profit centres.

• To ensure high quality, policy needs to be underpinned by a commitment to children's

right to high quality ECEC, and standards and systems subsequently set to promote

and regulate such high quality.

• The RIS document appears to approach quality the other way around, with proposed

standards being determined by the interests of providers and working parents. We

believe that such an approach diminishes the interests and wellbeing of children and

risks compromises in quality standards.

13. What transition arrangements do you consider appropriate for implementing the proposed staff-to-child ratios and staff qualifications?

• Fund not-for-profit centers to implement immediately.

• Two-phase approach to bring in lower ratios first, followed by improving

qualifications

• Allowing three-year university trained teachers to act as four-year trained ones if

undertaking their studies for their fourth year.

• Introduction and long-term maintenance of a ‘rural ECEC teachers scheme’.

• Introduction and long-term maintenance of an internet based ECEC support system.

• Fund teachers’ salaries the same ways as school teachers’ salaries are funded by the

government.


12

14. What is the overall impact of the proposed changes on you and what would be your response?

• The proposed rating system poses great risks for existing excellent (innovative)

practice in terms of standards

• The omission of Australian early childhood expertise raises questions about the extent

to which cultural specificity can shape the system

• A hope that standards are raised, not lowered in any way, in order to make the

experiences of all children as best as possible – this includes financial commitment

from the government.

Additional points

• We strongly oppose an Integrated Quality Assurance System for children’s services.

We are concerned that an Integrated System will compromise the quality of all

children’s services, and we urge DEEWR to reassess the viability of integrating the

three separate systems. We do not believe DEEWR has provided any rationale as to

how this integration will lead to improved quality standards and practices.

• Situating ECEC as a workforce issue is not helpful since it further reinforces

understandings of ECEC as ‘mother-substitute’ services rather than professional

services.

• Pay and conditions for the early childhood workforce is an equity issue for the staff

and children.

• We recognise the Government’s goodwill and good intentions for developing better

policies for ECEC. We are concerned however, that the dominant motivation for

investing in ECEC is improving productivity and workforce participation. As such,

meeting the rights and interests of children in these policy reforms may be

compromised. A foregrounding of the rights of children in Government ECEC policy

would provide a solid foundation on which the Government and the ECEC sector

could work towards to ensuring high quality.

w

ww

.socia

ljusticein

earl

ychild

hood.o

rg

info

@socia

ljusticein

earlychild

hood.o

rg

13

Op

era

tin

g R

eq

uir

em

en

ts

Cen

tre

me

ets

na

tio

na

l sta

nd

ard

s

(such

as r

atio

s, q

ua

lific

atio

ns e

tc)

Ma

xim

um

1 y

ea

r

Ac

cre

dit

ati

on

con

ducte

d b

y V

alid

ato

r

Pre

-ac

cre

dit

ati

on

S

erv

ice

su

bm

its fin

al jo

urn

al/e

-jo

urn

al a

nd

com

pile

s to

constit

ute

S

erv

ice

Re

po

rt

Reg

istr

ati

on

S

erv

ice

reg

iste

rs w

ith N

atio

na

l Q

ua

lity O

rga

nis

atio

n/B

od

y

(e.g

. N

CA

C)

Ac

cre

dit

ati

on

De

cis

ion

D

ata

se

ts s

ubm

itte

d to

Na

tio

na

l b

od

y a

nd

a d

ecis

ion

is m

ade

by

mod

era

tor;

All

se

rvic

es m

ust m

ove

o

n to

ne

xt ra

tin

g le

ve

l w

ith

in

ma

xim

um

tim

e lim

it

Bas

ic Q

ua

lity

Ra

tin

g

Ma

xim

um

of 1

ye

ar

in le

ng

th –

m

ust p

rog

ress to

hig

h q

ua

lity

afte

r 1

ye

ar

Hig

h Q

ua

lity

Ra

tin

g

Ma

xim

um

of 2

ye

ars

in

len

gth

–

must p

rog

ress to

inn

ova

tive

ra

ting

afte

r 2

ye

ars

Inn

ova

tive

Qu

ality

Ra

tin

g

Op

tima

l ra

ting

(m

ust m

ee

t h

igh

Q

ua

lity r

atin

g p

lus in

dic

ato

rs fo

r In

no

vatio

n)

Un

sa

tis

fac

tory

Qu

ali

ty R

ati

ng

C

en

tre

is n

ot

Accre

dite

d a

nd

fu

nd

ing

is s

usp

en

ded

Ong

oin

g r

eq

uire

me

nts

fo

r In

no

vativ

e r

atin

g: Jo

urn

al o

r

e-jo

urn

al subm

itte

d m

on

thly

Me

nto

rin

g r

ela

tion

sh

ip

esta

blis

hed

with

allo

ca

ted

va

lida

tor:

ong

oin

g v

isita

tion

s a

nd

com

mu

nic

atio

n (

valid

ation

com

ple

ted

by a

noth

er

Valid

ato

r)

Reco

gn

ised

In

nova

ting

ra

ting

on

C

ert

ifica

te, p

lus fun

din

g b

en

efits

a

nd

3 y

ea

rs A

ccre

dita

tion

Reco

gn

ised

Hig

h Q

ua

lity r

atin

g

on

Ce

rtific

ate

, a

nd

2 y

ea

rs

Accre

dita

tion

Reco

gn

ised

Basic

Qua

lity r

atin

g

on

Ce

rtifi

ca

te a

nd

1 y

ea

rs

Accre

dita

tio

n

Ong

oin

g r

eq

uirem

en

ts fo

r H

igh

Q

ua

lity r

atin

g: Jou

rna

l or

e

-jo

urn

al s

ubm

itte

d q

ua

rte

rly

Ong

oin

g r

eq

uirem

en

ts fo

r B

asic

Q

ua

lity r

atin

g: Jou

rna

l or

e

-jo

urn

al subm

itte

d q

ua

rte

rly

Me

nto

rin

g r

ela

tion

sh

ip

esta

blis

hed

with

allo

ca

ted

va

lida

tor:

ong

oin

g v

isita

tion

s a

nd

com

mun

ica

tio

n (

valid

ation c

om

ple

ted

by a

noth

er

Va

lidato

r)

Me

nto

rin

g r

ela

tio

nsh

ip

esta

blis

hed

with

allo

ca

ted

va

lida

tor:

ong

oin

g v

isita

tio

ns a

nd

com

mun

ica

tion

(valid

ation

co

mple

ted

by

anoth

er

Valid

ato

r)

New

se

rvic

es

E

va

lua

tio

n s

upp

ort

vis

it

Se

rvic

e e

va

lua

tes p

ractic

e a

ga

inst qu

alit

y s

tand

ard

s

and

ide

ntif

ies a

reas fo

r im

pro

vem

en

t, p

lans a

nd

a

ctio

ns r

eq

uire

d a

nd

su

bm

its w

ith jo

urn

al o

r e

-jo

urn

al

So

cia

l J

us

tice

In

Ea

rly C

hil

dh

oo

d

Pro

po

sed

Qu

ality

Ra

tin

g a

nd

Im

pro

ve

me

nt

Sys

tem

A

ugust 2009


14

References

Braithwaite, J., Makkai, T., & Braithwaite, V. (2007). Regulating aged care: Ritualism and

the new pyramid. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bruer, J. T. (1999). In search of...Brain-based education. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(9), 648-657.

Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing developmental psychology. London: Routledge.

Campbell, S. (1999). Making the political pedagogical in early childhood. Australian Journal

of Early Childhood, 24(4), 21-26.

Cannella, G. S. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and

revolution. New York: Peter Lang.

Cleveland, G., & Krashinsky, M. (2003). Financing ECEC services in OECD countries.

Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Council of Australian Governments. (2009). Regulation impact statement for early childhood

education and care quality reforms. Canberra: Australian Government.

Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2007). Beyond quality in early childhood education and

care (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Fleet, A., Patterson, C., & Robertson, J. (Eds.). (2006). Insights: Behind early childhood

pedagogical documentation. Castle Hill: Pademelon Press.

Mac Naughton, G. (1995). A post structuralist analysis of learning in early childhood

settings. In M. Fleer (Ed.), DAPcentrism: Challenging Developmentally Appropriate

Practice (pp. 35-54). Watson, ACT: AECA.

Mac Naughton, G. (1997). Feminist praxis and the gaze in the early childhood curriculum.

Gender and Education, 9(3), 317-326.

Mac Naughton, G. (2000). Rethinking gender in early childhood education. Sydney: Allen

and Unwin.

Mac Naughton, G. (2003). Shaping early childhood: Learners, curriculum and contexts.

England: Open University Press.

Mac Naughton, G. (2004). The politics of logic in early childhood research: A case of the

brain, hard facts, trees and rhizomes. The Australian Educational Researcher, 31(3),

87-104.

Mac Naughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in early childhood studies. Applying

poststructuralist ideas. London: Routledge.


15

Mac Naughton, G., & Williams, G. (2004). Teaching young children: Choices in theory and

practice. England: Open University Press.

Moss, P. (2001, 13-15 June). Beyond childhood education and care. Paper presented at the

Early Childhood Education and Care Conference, Stockholm.

Moss, P., & Petrie, P. (2002). From children's services to children's spaces : Public policy,

children and childhood. London: RoutledgeFarmer.

Robinson, K. (2002). Making the invisible visible: Gay and lesbian issues in early childhood

education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(3), 415-434.

Robinson, K., & Jones Diaz, C. (2006). Diversity and difference in early childhood

education. Issues for theory and practice. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2008). Findings of the EPPE study. Paper presented at the C&K

Preschooling Professionals, Brisbane.

Viruru, R. (2001). Colonized through language: The case of early childhood education.

Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 2(1), 31-47.

Youdell, D. (2006). Diversity, inequality, and a post-structural politics for education.

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27(1), 33-42.

SJIEC Response to the National Quality Framework Discussion Paper

Documents

Transcript of SJIEC Response to the National Quality Framework Discussion Paper