Submission for: by pFxUz5


									Submission for the:

National Quality Framework for
Early Childhood Education and
To:                           Productivity Agenda Working Group
                              (National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education
                              and Care)
                              c/- Early childhood Quality and Care Group
                              Department of Education, Employment and Workplace

Date:                         19 September 2008

From:                         Ku-ring-gai Council’s
                              Children’s Services Officers

Name                      Title                               Ku-ring-gai Council Service

Paula Harns               Early Childhood Education           Thomas Carlyle Children’s Centre -
                          Teacher in 2-3 years children’s     long day care centre
Neary So                  Director of long day care centre    Thomas Carlyle Children’s Centre -
                                                              long day care centre
Margaret Wong             Community Development               Community Services - Community
                          Officer: Children’s Services        Development Officer Project
Angela Booth              Family Day Care Co-ordinator        Ku-ring-gai Family Day Care Scheme

Chris Soo                 Child Development Officer           Ku-ring-gai Family Day Care Scheme

Denise Cottrell-          Child Development Officer           Ku-ring-gai Family Day Care Scheme
Kami Dibden               Leisure Co-ordinator                Ku-ring-gai School Holiday Program

Contact Person:               Margaret Wong
Organisation:                 Ku-ring-gai Council, Children’s Services
Address:                      Locked Bag 1056, Pymble NSW 2073
Phone:                        *****
Email:                        *****

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                  1
This submission has been submitted by Ku-ring-gai Council’s children’s services
officers. The council officers listed on the title page are involved in a variety of
services including long day care (LDC), family day care (FDC) and out of school
hours care (OSHC) services and community development.

Ku-ring-gai Council operates one 53-place long day care centre, one family day care
scheme for 121 children and three vacation care centres (with a capacity for 160
children per day).

Ku-ring-gai Council’s children’s services centres strive to provide high quality
children’s services to the community and advocate for high quality children’s for all

The views expressed in this submission are those of the children’s services staff listed.

General Comments:
                   Include the needs of out of school hours services (OSHC) and 5-14
                    year old children into the body of the proposed National Quality
                    Framework (NQF).
                   Children in the middle years 9 (5-14 years) are school attending
                    children who and may be users or formal children’s services, so their
                    considerations must be represented in the proposed future standards,
                    regulations and learning curriculum.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                    2
NQF - Strong Quality Standards

                What do you consider to be key drivers of quality that should be
                 included in the standards? Do you agree with those listed in section 5.2
                 of this paper (i.e. Leadership and management, Relationships between
                 staff and children, Family and community partnerships, Differentiated
                 play-based curriculum, Physical environment, Staffing requirements
                 and arrangements)? Can you suggest others?
          LDC views
                Concurrence with listed key drivers of quality.
                Must include staff: child ratios, group size and staff qualifications.
                Must include direct links to the NEYLF for relevant children’s services
                Clarification required for the term “Differentiated play-based
                Not in favour of a play-based curriculum that involves formal testing
                 of children. A play-based curriculum needs to utilise learning
                 outcomes for children.
          OSHC views
                Relationships between staff and children considered the key driver for
                Programming for OSHC needs to be represented in the key driver for
          FDC proposed key drivers are:
                   Forming positive partnerships with parents.
                   Building secure attachments between the early learning professional
                    and child.
                   Learning through a play based curriculum reflecting real-life situations
                    in a safe and supportive environment.
                   Offering continuous engagement with one early learning professional
                    throughout each day.
                   Accommodating siblings, similar and mixed ages in small groups
                    where children interact and learn from each other.
                   Offering opportunities for the development of language, literacy and
                    numeracy through real-life experiences.

          How should the increased focus on early childhood education and care and
          outcomes for children be reflected in the new standards?
                This focus is not new, this focus has always been incorporated into the
                 current NCAC Accreditation processes.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                   3
               NQF - Strong Quality Standards

                New national standards should be incorporated in a similar way the
                 current Quality Assurance system incorporates play into its standards.
                Focus should be on both education and care aspects, not just the
                 educational side.
                Early childhood education outcomes should not be reflected in
                 standards for OSHC.
                OSHC services do not need a curriculum or NEYLF to be part of their
                An education curriculum for 5-12 years children is not required for
                 OSHC because children have had their formal primary school time to
                 acquire educational standards. OSHC has a recreation and leisure
                 focus, not an educational focus, therefore educational outcomes are not
                 relevant to OSHC services.
                The current NCAC OSHC accreditation guidelines are adequate to
                 plan for OSHC activities.
                FDC – Religious, cultural, moral values and choice of staff in FDC
                 services should be included in the FDC standards.

          Given that preschool can be delivered across a range of settings, what is the
          best way of monitoring and reporting on preschool delivery for four year olds
          (that is, in the year before formal school)?
                Need to train sufficient numbers of 4-year-trained teachers to monitor
                 the new pre-school system.
                All different children’s services types have access and funds to employ
                 a 4-year-trained staff member to implement the 15 hours preschool
                Provide a funded federal strategy to permit all children’s services to
                 have access to 4-year-trained teachers.

          What are the considerations in applying an integrated set of standards across
          all service types, including family day care, outside school hours care,
          Indigenous services, etc? Possible considerations: health and safety, physical
          environment and staffing standards in different settings, integrating preschool
          and child care.
                Agree that the NQF will have a core set of broad principles which will
                 apply to all children’s services however specific sets of standards will
                 be created for the different types of children’s services.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                    4
NQF - Strong Quality Standards

                A separate set of National Standards will be created for the following
                 groupings of services:
          Group 1: a) Long Day Care, b) Pre-school and c) Occasional Care services
          Group 2: d) Family Day Care, e) Home Based Care and f) In-Home Care
          Group 3: g) Before School Care, h) After School Care and i) Vacation Care.

                It is crucial that national legislation and regulations cover and protect
                 the national quality standards to uphold high quality children’s
                 services. National standards should not be minimum standards as is the
                 case in the NSW Children’s Services Regulation 2004.
                Children of different ages have different needs eg. 0-2 years, 3-5 years,
                 5-9 years and 9-12 years children have very different needs and
                 national standards need to consider the age variances implications.
                Health standards for all services need to be consistent.
                   A minimum qualification recommended for FDC carers is a TAFE
                    Certificate III requirement.
                   Financial burdens for possible modifications to the FDC carers’ homes
                    are envisaged with a new NQF. Eg. Modifications may include child
                    sized toilets and hand basins, pool safety, signage and parking

          Would a core set of standards supplemented by service-specific standards
          overcome these barriers? For example, a modular approach which sets out a
          common core set of principles, supplemented by specific modules for each
          service type.
                See above. Agreement with the modular approach to one system.
                It is easier to assess the quality standards for different types of services
                 by grouping them to ‘like’ services.

          How could the standards take account of the age of children?
                Standards should be written to recommend staff consider the individual
                 needs of children which automatically would take account of the ages
                 of children and specific age based considerations. This is how the
                 current NCAC accreditation process is structured.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                    5
NQF - Strong Quality Standards

                A consideration which is critical for responding to children’s ages is
                 the need to improve staff-to-child ratios at children’s services centres.
                 A minimum provision of :
          1 staff: 3 children              0-2 years children group
          1 staff: 7 children              2-3 years children group
          1 staff: 10 children 3-6 years children group is recommended to provide
          high quality services.

                What are the potential impacts of the introduction of a new set of
                 quality standards on early childhood education and care services?
                 Possible considerations: workforce, financial viability, implementation
                 arrangements, service provision.
                What are the particular issues with changes to the ‘iron triangle’
                 structural indicators of quality: staff qualifications, child-to-staff ratios,
                 and group size? Possible considerations: workforce, training, relative
                 costs and benefits of each indicator.
                Difficult to change from an old system into a new one. Eg. If the new
                 system specifies 4-year-trained teachers are required then many types
                 of children’s services will be affected by this change.
               FDC impacts
                Loss of FDC carers.
                   Closing down of FDC schemes as we know it.
                   Financial struggles for surviving FDC schemes.
                   Implementation stages for FDC need to be clarified.
                   FDC carers will need to cope with the financial hardship associated
                    with being in self employment and a new set of FDC standards.
                   The 0-3 year old children would not be catered for in FDC as may
                    focus on 4 year olds.
               FDC Issues
                   Difficulty retraining existing staff to achieve formal qualifications.
                   Loss of income of carers associated with a new system.
                   If child ratios of FDC are reduced to below 1 staff:5 children ratio,
                    then FDC places would decline.
               General Issues
                A whole batch on new teachers will need to be trained to supply the
                 children’s services field.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                     6
NQF - Strong Quality Standards

                Increased teachers training places will need to occur at universities
                 and this needs to be accompanied by additional government funding to
                 supply the places.
                Many existing children’s services workers may leave the field rather
                 than undergo a university degree, resulting in a reduction of teaching
                Financial implication to the children’s services will affect staff salaries
                 costs, parent fees and services costs.
                Rural and remote communities may find added difficulty attracting
                 trained teachers to work in their region.
                Need to place a maximum on the group sizes. This limits the number
                 of children that can be grouped together and accommodate a playroom
                 Eg. a maximum group size of 15 is proposed for children 0-2 years, 16
                 for 2-3 years and 20 for 3-6 years. These group sizes will improve
                 services quality.

Transitions to a new system
          What transition arrangements do you consider appropriate for implementing
          the proposed changes? What timeframe might be required to fully implement
          all changes? What supports for the early childhood education and care sector
          do you think would assist these transition arrangements? Possible
          consideration: professional support program.
                Achievable transition time for staff to study for university degrees.
                Scholarships provided to staff already in the children’s services field.
                Realistic timeline for existing staff complete their degree.
                Relief funding to services to allow staff to be away from the centre due
                 to university commitments.
                Funded training for all children’s services sector to be informed of
                 processes of a new NQF system.
                FDC stated a minimal time of 2 years would allow current FDC carers
                 to reassess their individual circumstances to decide to continue or
                 cease their FDC service.
                   Need time for children’s services sector consultation, redrafting and
                    feedback and extensive support to understand and initiate
                    implementation the new NQF.
                Adequate time period for OSHC to adjust required.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                    7
NQF - Strong Quality Standards

                Gradual implementation time with staggered start times for different
                 children’s services.
                Require enough notice to services to finish off the old QA system
                 before learning a new system.
                Will loose many existing OSHC staffers who have always worked with
                 no qualifications.
                OSHC have just been acquainted with the NCAC accreditation system
                 in 2003 and will find it challenging to learn another new system.
                The new system needs to be a long term process and not change every
                 few years as this is too time consuming and draining of funds for
                 OSHC services.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                8
A Quality Rating System

                What do you think should be the objectives for a rating system? Do
                 you agree with the objectives listed in section 6.1.2 (Indicator of
                 service quality, Continuous improvement in the early childhood
                 education and care sector, Information for families and communities)?
                All proposed objectives are deemed acceptable.
                Objectives need to have realistic monitoring and assessment processes.
                Ratings should be given and measured amongst ‘like’ services only.
                 That means the rating will only compare LDC centres with other LDC
                 centres. The Rating System should not be comparing a FDC home to a
                 LDC centre or BSC service.
                The Rating System does not want to establish a scale of inferior
                 services amongst the different types of children’s services. FDC
                 services should not be viewed as inferior to LDCs. Each type of
                 children’s services should be seen as different with specific beneficial
                 characteristics for children.
                The Rating System should make allowances for services that are
                 poorly funded. Private services may have more funds than non-profit
                 services, as some Council services may be better funded than some
                 non-profit services.
                The Rating system is tied to the NQF standards.
                The Rating System’s development should involve extensive
                 consultation with the children’s services field to create a workable
                 rating scale.
A-E Rating
                Object to the A-E rating as it is too stigmatising for centres.
                Agree some type of rating system is necessary and suggest the
                 following categories of High Quality, Good Quality, Satisfactory and
                 Improvement Needed.
                In favour of the current NCAC Accreditation graphs which easily
                 show the performance of the centre in different assessment areas.
                Services with poorer ratings may need additional support from funded
                 training organisations to bring them to the required benchmark. These
                 services may also require additional funds to support their
                 improvement strategies.

          Which objective is the most important? For example, is informing parental
          choice of service the primary objective?
                Linkage of the rating of a service to access to Government funds,
                 whatever that funding may be eg. CCB, operational subsidies other

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                    9
               A Quality Rating System

                Promoting high quality children’s services is the primary objective.
                    Equal importance can be given to the proposed objectives. The parent
                    use of the rating system may disadvantage the usage of lower ranked

Design issues
          What principles do you think should underpin the design of the rating system?
                See above objectives points.

          How should services be rated against standards? What should the rating
          system look like in order to achieve its objectives? Possible considerations:
          measurement, attainment or other approaches, how the rating system will link
          to the standards, accreditation and licensing.
                Different types of services should be able to have different pathways to
                 attainment of their standards.
                Eg. Indigenous services may have different strategies to reach the
                 quality standards and that should be acceptable in the new NQF.
                Family Day Care schemes may have different pathways to reach a
                 quality standard than a Long Day Care centre and both should be
                A rating to a service will result from the assessment of the services in
                 the achieved quality standards.

          What kind of information should the rating system provide to parents and
          others in the sector? Possible considerations: grades of quality at each level
          e.g. A—E, incentives for continuous improvement.
                See above objectives points.
                Incentives. High quality centres when assessed should give pay
                 increases to staff as staff have worked cooperatively to attain high
                 quality status. This occurs in Canada.
                Parents want to know if the centre is safe for the children.

          What potential risks are there in introducing a rating system? How could
          potential negative implications be minimised?
                See above objectives points.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                   10
A Quality Rating System

          Who should carry out the rating process and why?
                Peer assessors should carry out the rating process.
                Peer assessors need to be qualified, trained and experienced in the type
                 of services they are assessing and only conduct assessments on their
                 expertise area. For example FDC experienced assessors rate FDC
                 services, not OSHC or other services they are not knowledgeable in.
                The assessor will need to be highly trained individuals who have
                 substantial experience in the field.

          Should the rating system include all services in the early childhood education
          and care sector e.g. long day care, preschool, family day care, outside school
          hours care, Indigenous services, etc? What are the implications of bringing all
          service types under one rating system?
                See above objectives points.

          What are the potential impacts on early childhood education and care
          services? Possible considerations: workforce, financial viability,
          implementation arrangements, service provision.
Transitions to a new system
                What transition arrangements do you consider appropriate for
                 implementing the proposed changes? What supports for the early
                 childhood education and care sector do you think would assist these
                What timeframes are required to allow services to make the transition
                 to a new rating system?

                   Costs to implement rating system.
                More work for children’s services staff.
                Need more staff and training to achieve ratings pass.
                Worker fatigue to satisfy new rating system.
                Staff leaving the children’s services field due to increased

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                               11
A Quality Rating System

                Need a ‘grace period’ between the old system and new system,
                 otherwise services will be caught between systems.
                Appropriate training and funding supports required for workers.
                Funding and education of existing workers to achieve expectations of
                 the new ratings system.
                Funding to up skill work force to a qualified standard for all children’s
                 services workers. A TAFE Certificate III is proposed as a minimum
                 qualified standard for all children’s services workers in the future.
                Funding of children’s services to be removed from funding parents and
                 returned to funding services based on the service’s quality rating.
                 Hence the highest ratings will attract more funding than lower ranked
                 services. Eg. higher funding is dispensed to services with lower staff to
                 child ratios, lower group sizes and high numbers of qualified staff.
                   Rating timeframes linked realistic timelines for new standards,
                    curriculum, qualified staff and other improvement tasks to occur.
                    Dependent on other process.

          What transition arrangements do you consider appropriate for implementing
          the proposed changes? What supports for the early childhood education and
          care sector do you think would assist these transitions?
                Developers of the new system should organise funded training to allow
                 all workers to be trained to the new formats.
                Personnel similar to the NCAC child care advisors should have a role
                 to support services learn and implement the new system.
                Adequate funding should accompany this training so workers have the
                 funds to be released from their service.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                12
Streamlined and /or integrated licensing and accreditation
Streamlining or integration
                What are the current issues or problems with the existing regulation,
                 licensing and quality assurance system?
                What changes to the structure of the quality assurance system would
                 you suggest to increase consistency, effectiveness and efficiency
                 across service types and/or jurisdictions? How might these changes
                 affect you or your service? Possible considerations: administration,
                 governance and delivery arrangements, reducing administrative
Transitions to a new system
                What would be issues for you in moving to a streamlined or integrated
                 system? What supports for the early childhood education and care
                 sector do you think would assist these transitions? How much time
                 should be allowed for the sector to make the transition to the new
                 system? Possible considerations: implementation arrangements, service

Current Issues
         Duplication. Twice the amount of work is required with two separate systems
          of licensing and quality accreditation.
         Burdensome and time consuming workload to children’s services staff to
          successfully adhere to both licensing and accreditation requirements.
         Services are failing in both systems on petty requirements and assessors in
          both systems can be inconsistent in their assessment decisions.
         Tasks required are not evidence based for the benefit of children but seem to
          be aimed at better financial outcomes for private management.
         Costly exercise in terms of staff wages, staff time, worker fatigue and worker
          retention in undergoing both processes.
         Lack of consistency nation wide to different licensing processes or lack of
          licensing processes for some states.
Changes Proposed
         Have one integrated national quality system for all children’s services with
          different modules for specific types of children’s services. Eg. OSHC services
          fall under the broad principle of a NQF however OSHC’s set of standards are
          specifically written to accommodate the experiences of OSHC services.

         The NQF would include areas currently in the NCAC accreditation and state
          licensing requirements rolled into one system.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                 13
Streamlined and /or integrated licensing and accreditation
         One national body would write the NQF standards and legislation. A different
          national body would be responsible for monitoring the standards though
          assessment visits.

         Experienced and qualified assessor to the different types of children’s services
          will need to carry out assessments.

         One visit by an assessor will look at quality and regulatory requirements in
          one process.

         Consistency of decisions in assessment visits requested.


                Additional financial and training support to all services required.
                National legislation and regulations would need to be implemented so
                 that a NQF could be implemented standardised rules for operation for
                 each type of children’s services throughout the country.
                Provide support mechanisms to assist services in a new system
                 including facts sheets, publications, training and in-person support
                 officers. The in-person support to services would be predominantly
                 aimed at services failing or struggling in the standards of the new
                Reasonable timetable developed for the transition period to allow
                 learning, understand and implementation of the new NQF system.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                 14

                How could the status and recognition of the early childhood education
                 and child care workforce be raised?
                What could be done to address limited advancement options and career
                What possible approaches could be used to improve retention
                What strategies could be adopted to increase the numbers of
                 Indigenous child care workers and teachers?
                What is the likely impact of any suggestions on the price of and
                 demand for services?
                What possible approaches could be used to address shortages of early
                 childhood teachers in regional and remote areas, long day care services
                 and community preschools?

Status and Recognition
                Require increased pay to school teachers.
                Require increased pay to all children’s services staff in all types of
                 children’s services.
                Need to improve staff : child ratios for all types of children’s services.
                Need to up skill the qualifications of children’s services staff in all
                 types of services.
                “Iron –Triangle” factors all have to be improved in a new NQF.
                The public needs to be educated about the importance of children’s
                 services in order to value its status.
                Raise people’s views on education and its benefits to children.
                Government pay for the retraining of current children’s services staff.
                Create more career pathways for children’s service workers.
                Administration and paperwork is excessive and needs to be reduced.
                Both care and education needs to be focussed on, not just education.
                Teachers require more preparation time for programming.
                Decrease the staff to child ratios.
                More funding to services for administration tasks.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                   15

                   Provision of funded additional teacher support for teachers in isolated
                    areas. Support may include network of teaching colleagues, extra funds
                    and support to remote areas to achieve high quality services.
                   Tie funding to high quality children’s services, primary schools and
                    high schools.
                   Scholarships offered by government and universities for additional
                    children’s services teachers.

National Curriculum Required
                   To ensure that a quality early childhood service has consistency in the
                    primary and high school years, it makes sense to provide a national
                    learning framework for all children from birth to Year 12 (18 years). If
                    there is a national curriculum or learning framework, then outcomes
                    for children may be more consistent and high quality programs and
                    outcomes can be transferred to formal school systems.

Qualifications Comments from OSHC
                Realistically it is very hard to employ qualified staff to work in OSHC
                 services because OSHC workers may only work approximately 25
                 hours per week in B&ASC and the current hours and low salary does
                 not attract qualified workers.
                Recommend 1:15 trained staff ratio for trained OSHC coordinator.
                Recommend TAFE Certificate IV OSHC qualification as minimum
                 qualifications for OSHC coordinator.
                Recommend OSHC workers are students studying teaching or
                 children’s services.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                   16
National Early Years Learning Framework

Purpose of framework
                What philosophy would you want an Australian framework to use?
                 (eg. would it focus on ages and stages of development; a socio cultural
                 approach; or domains of learning eg physical, social, emotional and
                What form or format should the Early Years Learning Framework take
                 that would be most useful to you in guiding your programming for
                 young children?
                How prescriptive do you think the Early Years Learning Framework
                 needs to be? Do you have a preference for the actual length of the
                What type of supporting documents/resources would be most valuable
                 for parents and others working with young children (e.g. family day
                 carers, playgroups)? Do you have any views on the format and size of
                 such documents?
                Do you see any issues with the implementation of the Early Years
                 Learning Framework in all education and care settings from July 2009?
                 What suggestions would you offer to overcome these issues?

                   Take out the ages and stages and keep the framework as play based.
                    This eliminates the need for checklists and expected outcomes for
                    children as all children may not develop according to age category
                    expectations. For example special needs children may not achieve in
                    age based outcomes. Great individual differences between children
                    make ages and stages unhelpful.
                FDC promotes the socio-cultural approach as a prominent focus for the
                   The NSW Curriculum Framework for Children’s Services is a good
                    guide for NEYLF as there are broad learning outcomes stated.
                   A non prescriptive, short document is appreciated from the field
                   Based on research and practice knowledge.
                   Be inclusive of children with additional needs.
                   Are outcomes, not content based.
                   Should not be an existing primary school curriculum, simplified to
                    accommodate the 0-5 years group.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                  17
National Early Years Learning Framework

Purpose of framework
                   The NEYLF should be tied to all levels of schooling so that the early
                    childhood experience is seamless transferring to formal school. A
                    consistency flowing onto other layers of the educational system is
                    recommended. Hence the goal of a national curriculum needs to be
                    seriously revisited by the state and federal governments.
                   A curriculum for children’s services including LDC, pre-schools,
                    occasional care services, and home and family based care is useful
                    however OSHC services do not need to be included in the curriculum
                    framework because they are not an education based service.
                   OSHC services need to be excluded from any future NEYLF.
                   Should be written for 4 year trained teachers.
                   Should be accessible for TAFE Certificate III trained children’s
                    services staff.
                   Bilingual formats of documents also required for carers from culturally
                    and linguistically diverse backgrounds.
                    A National Schooling Curriculum needs to be established.
                Training of children’s services staff to understand and use new
                Staggered implementation for learning curriculum proposed.
                Realistic timeframes to implement new curriculum.
                Strong advertising campaign to inform parents of this new framework

Research Findings
                Is the analysis of the trends in the literature accurate and
                 comprehensive? Are there any other issues in the research relevant to
                 the development of the framework?
                Do you support a focus on language and communication development,
                 social development and play-based learning in the framework?
                How would you define the roles of the educator and the child in the
                 learning process in the framework

                Include Secure Attachments and Children’s right to retain their first
                 language in the research.
                LDC staff view the relationships between the children’s services
                 workers and the children as the most important focus area to promote
                 quality services to children.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                    18
National Early Years Learning Framework

                FDC believe the focus should be on natural environment, holistic
                 learning, meaningful partnerships and bet/professional practice.
          Role of educator
                Strengthen the relationships between children and children, children
                 and staff, children and parents.
                   Provide positive attitudes towards learning.
                Promotion of independent learning.

Foundations for Framework
                What would you want included in the framework’s vision for early
                 learning and children?
                Would you support the values and rights proposed to underpin the
                What other values or rights would you want included and why?
                Focus on 0-8 years is valuable.
                Children are capable and competent learners and will benefit from high
                 quality children’s services.
                Rights of child to natural outdoor playing environments valued.
                Rights of child to retain first language valued.

Building a Framework
                   How should the curriculum framework provide guidance and strategies
                    to meet the various learning and development needs of children
                    including those with special needs, English as a second language,
                    and/or challenging behaviours?
                   Is it appropriate for children’s leaning to be assessed? If yes, how
                    should children’s learning and development outcomes be assessed?
                   How would you ensure the curriculum framework is appropriate for all
                    educators, regardless of qualifications?
                   What kind of professional development will need to be provided in
                    order to support educators in using an Early Years Learning
                   Current NCAC accreditation systems consider the socio-economic
                    context of children and communities in their accreditation standards.
                    This may be useful for the new curriculum.

d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                    19
National Early Years Learning Framework

                   Provide best practice experiences for children, especially children with
                    additional needs.

               Assessment of Children
                   Children should not be tested and scored in the NEYLF.
                   Individual children can be documented and recorded yet scoring the
                    results in early childhood is not seen as a helpful teaching mechanism.
                   Broad learning outcomes are more useful in assessing children in
                    children’s services in the 0-5 years age group.
                   Assessment processes should not be burdensome and take staff time
                    away from the children.

               Professional Development
                   Extensive training required for all children’s services is necessary if a
                    national children’s services curriculum is implemented.
                   Funded training provided free to all children’s services workers is
                   Accessible information needs to be in plain English and other
                    languages so the curriculum can be interpreted by all children’s
                    services staff, qualified and untrained.


d618bcc5-89cb-4c98-86df-c6afb049dfd6.rtf                                                    20

To top