Reflecting on the implementation of Aistear in advance of an update to the curriculum framework

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a reflective, critical analysis of the original roll-out and implementation of Aistear, the curriculum framework for early childhood education in Ireland, in advance of a forthcoming update. This article considers the methods engaged to implement a national roll-out of Aistear from 2009 and the subsequent availability of training and supports to facilitate the effective implementation of the framework in the intervening period. Lessons to be learned from the original roll-out and theories of change management are discussed to inform the successful implementation of the forthcoming update. Limitations highlighted within the original implementation of Aistear include a fragmented approach to the initial roll-out and subsequent over-reliance on the benevolence of early childhood educators to actively seek out additional training and supports. The impact of the lack of a regulatory mandate to implement a specified early childhood education curriculum framework, such as Aistear, on curriculum implementation and quality monitoring is also addressed. The example of STEAM, as an area of contemporary pedagogical practice, is employed to highlight the importance of training within a coordinated, systematic implementation plan to underpin the equitable roll-out of the forthcoming Aistear update across the profession to support the provision of quality ECEC experiences for children.

KEYWORDS:

• Aistear evaluation
• early childhood education
• curriculum implementation
• training
• change management
• STEAM

Introduction and literature review

This paper presents a reflective, critical analysis of the original roll-out and implementation of Aistear, the curriculum framework for early childhood education in Ireland, in advance of a forthcoming update to the framework. As outlined in the literature review to inform the update of Aistear (French et al. 2023), although the themes and principles of Aistear remain very much relevant today, the forthcoming update is much needed given the significant changes which have occurred culturally, socially and economically in Ireland since 2009. Brennan and Forster (2022) describe the importance of regular assessment and evaluation of the framework in response to shifts in relevant policy pertaining to early childhood education and care [ECEC] in Ireland. However, although a small number of evaluative and reflective papers have been previously published on this topic, a literature search highlighted a significant dearth of academic literature and research pertaining to the implementation of Aistear.

To inform this paper, a narrative literature review was undertaken whereby the objective of the paper, to critically reflect upon the implementation of Aistear, informed the literature search. This approach supports a critical review of the most current literature, patterns and trends on a particular topic when aiming to address a particular position, argument, or thesis (Onwuegbuzie and Frels 2016). Furthermore, this approach to the literature review is useful when examining the evolution of a specific topic or issue over a period of time (Onwuegbuzie and Frels 2016), as is the case with this paper which endeavours to examine the rollout and implementation of Aistear from the point of first publication of the framework in 2009 to the present day. Additionally, using a narrative literature review in this way is maintained as useful to present ‘the history or development of a problem or its management’ (Green, Johnson, and Adams 2006, 103). For this literature review, the recently published Literature Review to Support the Updating of Aistear (French et al. 2023) and grey literature including Government of Ireland [GoI] regulations, review and strategy documents, reports published by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment [NCCA], Department of Education [DE], Pobal, the organisation responsible for management and oversight of government funding for ECEC, and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], provide the main basis for discussion.

In 2009, the NCCA published Aistear: the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework in Ireland. Aistear is applicable to the early childhood education and care of children from birth to six years old, therefore relevant to children from the very beginning of their lives, through to preschool age and, until 2023, Aistear further extended to the junior classes at primary school. The framework was launched subsequent to a lengthy collaborative process between the NCCA, government departments and other relevant stakeholders pertinent to the ECEC sector (Daly and Forster 2009). At the time of initial publication, Aistear was positively received by ECEC stakeholders in terms of the potential beneficial influence of the framework (French 2013). However, as further acknowledged by French (2013), an appropriate implementation plan, for the cohesive deployment of the framework across the ECEC sector, was identified as lacking and therefore a ‘weakness of its implementation’ (4), a rectifiable fragility which has continued to persist and remains ‘elusive though crucially needed’ (Woods, Mannion, and Garrity 2022, 676). In 2023, almost a decade and a half since the initial publication of Aistear, and with an updated version of the framework on the horizon, an appropriate implementation plan to systematically roll-out Aistear across the ECEC sector has not yet been published. In addition, an OECD review of ECEC quality in Ireland (OECD 2021) acknowledged a lack of sufficient educator training and resources to support the implementation of Aistear as an issue for ECEC in Ireland. The lack of a cohesive implementation plan to support the systematic deployment of Aistear nationally, means the subsequent ability to evaluate the quality of the application of Aistear in pedagogical practice across ECEC provision is compromised. Given that the NCCA is currently reviewing and updating the Aistear curriculum framework, and in light of the aforementioned OECD quality review (2021), it seems timely to consider the methods which have to date been utilised to support the implementation and evaluation of Aistear in its current form, prior to the publication and dissemination of an updated version.

The OECD (2021) describes the process of updating Aistear as ‘an opportunity to create new momentum for improving the ability of providers to self-evaluate and improve their curricular provision and pedagogical practices’ (91). The importance of grasping this opportunity to take stock and reflect on the previous implementation of Aistear, in advance of the pending update, should not be underestimated in terms of the potential to inform the provision of quality ECEC into the future.

Developments in educator training and initial qualification

Aistear was first published in its original form in 2009 and has remained unchanged for the last fourteen years. Along with significant cultural changes across Irish society, the ECEC landscape has also experienced enormous change in the intervening period across several significant areas. For instance, when Aistear was initially published in 2009, there were no regulatory requirements legislating for a minimum qualification level for ECEC educators. In 2016, these requirements were introduced in an update to legislation under the Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations 2016 requiring educators to hold, at minimum, an appropriate major award at Level 5 on the National Framework of Qualifications¹ [NFQ] (GoI 1988).

However, in the intervening years between the publication of Aistear in 2009 and the introduction of a requirement for educators to hold a Level 5 qualification in 2016, data from Pobal (2013; 2014; 2015; 2016) shows the number of those working directly with children in ECEC who held no relevant qualification increasing from 7.4% in 2012 to 11% in 2015 (Figure 1). Although the data also shows a small increase in educator qualification levels at Level 6 from 34.8% in 2012 to 38% in 2015, this perhaps correlates with a similar drop in the number of educators at Level 5 from 39.4% to 32% in the same period. Further notable is the percentage of educators holding a Level 8 degree qualification which increased year on year, from 6.3% in 2012 to 12% in 2015 (43; 79). Despite this, the majority of educators throughout the period held either a Level 5 or Level 6 qualification.

Figure 1. Qualification level of educators in ECEC 2012–2015. Source: (Pobal 2013; 2014; 2015; 2016).

Four years after Aistear was first introduced, French (2013) acknowledged the significant dearth of evidence available to show that Level 5 educators, who comprised the majority of the workforce at that time, were gaining appropriate exposure to Aistear during their training. Consequently, there remains a notable question mark in terms of the standard of the implementation of Aistear during those years. However, statistics do show that in the period post the introduction of legislation for minimum educator qualifications in 2016, qualification levels have continued to rise significantly at Level 7 and Level 8 with those at Level 5 and Level 6 falling steadily (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Qualification level of educators in ECEC 2016–2020. Source: (Pobal 2017; 2018; 2019; 2020; 2021).

A number of initiatives have impacted the upward trend in degree qualified educators, including the provision of increased capitation funding through the government funded ECCE scheme where the lead educator held a bachelor’s degree or higher (Department of Children and Youth Affairs [DCYA] 2020). Furthermore, an increased focus on quality ECEC provision, along with a desire for professional status and recognition for ECEC educators, were also factors which gave rise to an increased drive towards degree level qualifications. This is reflected in government policy under First 5: A Whole-of-Government Strategy for Babies, Young Children and their Families (DCYA 2019) which calls for a minimum 50% graduate led ECEC workforce by 2028 as part of the development of quality ECEC and this goal was echoed within the subsequently published workforce development plan for the sector. The workforce plan, entitled ‘Nurturing Skills’ (DCEDIY 2022b), outlined a range of proposed supports and incentives to enable educators to continue to pursue degree qualifications while also outlining proposed professional role titles and descriptors as part of the formation of ECEC career pathways.

This increase in degree qualified educators would indicate an increased level of academic knowledge of Aistear. However, until recently, it has continued to be difficult to ascertain the actual level of knowledge on the appropriate implementation of Aistear at all qualification levels. This issue was acknowledged by Urban, Robson, and Scacchi (2017) who highlighted concerns regarding core content knowledge of both Aistear and Síolta due to variations in course content across education providers. Although this issue was posited by Urban et al. as perhaps more relevant to courses at Level 5 and Level 6, the need for course content review across all qualifications was proposed due to the ‘need to better embed Aistear and Síolta in programmes at all levels’ (Urban, Robson, and Scacchi 2017, 44). This issue would subsequently be addressed by the development of a set of professional criteria for ECEC qualifications from Level 5 through to Level 8 degree programmes (Quality and Qualifications Ireland 2019 [QQI]; DES 2019) which will require that Aistear be increasingly embedded in initial educator qualifications. Nevertheless, it could be suggested that a question mark continues to remain over the implementation of Aistear during the intervening period up to 2019, due to the highlighted differences in course content across various education providers, and prior to the development of Professional Award Criteria for Initial Professional Education Degree Programmes (DES 2019). This issue is further compounded by the lack of an implementation plan for Aistear which would have informed course content developed by education providers in both further and higher education institutions from 2009.

The original implementation of Aistear has received ongoing criticism for the lack of an appropriate national plan to support the roll-out of the framework across the ECEC sector (French 2013; Mannion 2019; Woods, Mannion, and Garrity 2022). When Aistear was first introduced in 2009, instead of a systematic nationwide implementation plan to support ECEC educators, a rather more piecemeal approach was undertaken (French 2013; Mannion 2019). In place of a cohesive training plan to train all educators on Aistear, various online resources were instead provided by the NCCA, such as the Aistear Toolkit², now the Aistear Síolta Practice Guide³ [ASPG]. Although such resources are of high quality and very useful, their impact on ECEC quality is somewhat limited as they rely on the willingness of educators to engage with them and actively seek them out. It is important to acknowledge that devising and delivering an implementation plan for the roll out of Aistear is not within the remit of the NCCA. In fact, as highlighted by French (2013), it has been difficult to ascertain who exactly was responsible for the initial rollout of Aistear. French (2013) went on to suggest the lack of a regulatory mandate to implement Aistear as a contributory factor, especially when compared to the implementation of the mandated Primary Curriculum (NCCA 2023b).

Moloney (2011), also highlights the potential impact of a non-statutory approach to ECEC policy and best practice which is over-reliant on the benevolence of educators to implement Aistear and Síolta, the National Quality Framework (DES 2017a), on the basis of goodwill. When considered in contrast to policy and best practices which are mandated by legislation, Moloney suggests a non-statutory approach, which overly relies on ‘the goodwill of the sector’ to implement the Aistear and Síolta frameworks, is problematic and risks that it ‘all looks good on paper, but it fails miserably in practice’ (23). Unfortunately, over a decade after Moloney’s (2011) commentary, this situation, overly dependent on educators to actively seek out training and supports to implement Aistear, remains unchanged.

This paper argues that, from 2009 to date, a passive approach has been taken to the roll out of Aistear and the provision of appropriate training resources for ECEC educators, a situation exacerbated by the initial lack of a national implementation plan and which must be appropriately addressed as the forthcoming update to the framework is developed and introduced.

Sparks of promise – a fragmented landscape of implementation supports

The provision of training on the implementation of Aistear has been acknowledged as somewhat piecemeal (French 2013; Mannion 2019). An OECD review (OECD 2021, 10) of quality across the ECEC sector in Ireland also describes the difficulty ECEC educators in Ireland experience when attempting to access ‘external guidance and support’ due to the current opportunities available to them being fragmented and somewhat ‘limited and patchy’. Such external guidance and supports are provided through nationally funded bodies including County Childcare Committees, Non-Voluntary Childcare Organisations and the Better Start Quality Development Service. These services are extremely valuable; however, instead of taking a proactive approach, they are more reactive in nature and usually address an ‘urgent need … identified through inspection’ (OECD 2021, 99). It could therefore be suggested that these services are providing an approach akin to shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. In other words, they are sought out after a quality issue has already arisen, as opposed to the proactive provision of training and supports conducive to quality from the outset of practice. The OECD (2021) suggests these supports should be more consistently available on a national basis and that methods to achieve this require further consideration and should be an area of priority as national policy is developed.

As policy related to the updated Aistear framework is developed, it would be more appropriate for mandatory training and supports to be proactively delivered to all educators across ECEC in Ireland, both in advance of and in tandem with, the introduction of the anticipated update to Aistear. Updating the curriculum framework, which is foundational to the pedagogical practice of all ECEC educators in Ireland, surely necessitates that all educators undergo mandatory training to support its implementation, as opposed to an opt-in model with access to training and supports provided retrospective to the publication of the updated framework. This would serve to address the inconsistent approach to supports described in the OECD report (2021) and help to ensure that educators are sufficiently and consistently supported to implement the updated framework appropriately right from the outset. Furthermore, this approach would stand in contrast with a continuation of over-reliance on the aforementioned benevolence of educators to seek training and supports to guide their implementation of Aistear in pedagogical practice.

Similarly, the need for such increased guidance and support has been highlighted in a recent Department of Education and Skills [DES] report on the early years education focussed inspection process (DES 2018a). This report cites that ECEC settings were experiencing challenges in their delivery of ‘curricular programmes’ and using ‘the principles and goals of Aistear’ (DES 2018a, 17). Furthermore, the report found, in the 867 ECEC settings which underwent the education focussed inspection process during the period reported, ‘many practitioners have not received basic training in Aistear and Síolta’ (DES 2018a, 24). Coupled with the OECD review (2021), and the most recent Pobal sector profile report showing increasing numbers of educators holding a Level 7 or Level 8 degree qualification (Figure 2), these findings further compound the need for a cohesive plan for the universal and systematic rollout of training on the forthcoming update to Aistear which will support educators to address these challenges and implement Aistear to the fullness of its potential.

A promising precedent does exist however, for the provision of appropriate training and supports to enable educators to fully implement Aistear, which could be drawn upon to support the rollout of the next iteration of the framework. The Aistear in Action [AIA] initiative was rolled out across seven ECEC settings between 2011 and 2013. This initiative was undertaken by the NCCA in collaborative partnership with Early Childhood Ireland [ECI], a national membership body for ECEC. Three main principles underpinned the initiative:

1. ‘A bottom-up approach’ – which aimed to support the educator’s capacity to implement Aistear to best suit the structure and culture of their own particular setting.

2. ‘A strengths-based approach’ – which aimed to build upon the individual strengths of the educators in each setting to develop their ability to facilitate the emergent interests of children.

3. ‘A partnership approach’ – which highlighted stakeholder partnership within the initiative between educators, children, parents, ECI and the NCCA.(NCCA 2013, 7)

A total of twenty-four educators, across the seven settings, took part in the AIA initiative and benefitted from various support measures to improve their implementation of Aistear within pedagogical practice. Experts from ECI and the NCCA made monthly visits to each setting to guide both self – and group-reflection which would serve to guide future practice and enhance the learning experiences of children. The educators also engaged in peer support and community of practice style meetings each month to explore their implementation of Aistear. Findings from the AIA initiative, published in a 2013 report, highlighted the beneficial impact on quality learning experiences for children which resulted from the robust AIA programme, allowing an implementation of Aistear much closer to its potential (NCCA 2013). Notably, in the conclusion of the AIA initiative report, we again find in writing a call for a ‘co-ordinated implementation plan’ (NCCA 2013, 24). Despite findings from the report (2013) recognising the substantial positive impact which the mentoring and training received by the educators had on the quality of ECEC experiences for children, the initiative concluded in 2013. A lack of funding was a contributing factor to the cessation of the AIA initiative. No government funding was available for valuable non-contact hours required for curriculum planning and development and the report (2013) describes the difficulties this posed as all twenty-four educators who took part did so during such unpaid non-contact time.

The conclusion of AIA was unfortunate, as despite the gains developed during the initiative, research conducted two years later by the DES, found educators continued to recognise a substantial knowledge gap pertaining to their ability to implement Aistear in practice (DES 2016). Findings from a survey, carried out as part of this DES research, indicated that 42% of respondents with a Further Education [FE] qualification, felt they lacked adequate ‘knowledge of Aistear and how to use it’, therefore highlighting ‘significant deficits’ in educator knowledge on the utilisation of Aistear (DES 2016, 27). Furthermore, 44% of respondents who held a Higher Education [HE] qualification, such as an undergraduate degree, reported that they similarly identified themselves as possessing inadequate knowledge pertaining to the implementation of Aistear (DES 2016, 33). The findings further stated this significant knowledge gap was ‘of particular concern’ given the important role which Aistear plays in the ‘delivery of high quality education to children in pre-school’ (DES 2016, 37).

Although it was unfortunate to see such deficits enduring in 2015, after the initial success of the AIA initiative, the DES report (2016) did lead to another promising spark of good practice on the fragmented landscape of Aistear’s implementation. In fact, as a direct response to the findings of the DES report (2016), the National Síolta Aistear Initiative⁴ [NSAI] was established in 2016. This initiative, which remains active, provides continuing professional development [CPD] training and mentoring for ECEC educators to support their ability to implement Aistear and Síolta. The initiative is a collaboration between the DE, DCEDIY and NCCA. Nationally, there are two development officers, a resource development group and a number of mentors supporting the implementation of the NSAI. The initiative provides access to:

• The Síolta Quality Assurance Programme to enhance quality ECEC provision in line with the Síolta Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education.

• Introductory and awareness workshops on the Aistear and Síolta frameworks.

• Workshops on Aistear and Play.

A 2018 review of the effectiveness of the NSAI model was undertaken by the DES, and while the initiative received some positive feedback, there were also significant issues. The positive feedback came primarily from educators who had engaged in the programme and included finding the training helpful and gaining an increased understanding of Aistear. In fact, of the fifteen respondents who took part in the review, all cited they would recommend the initiative to their colleagues (DES 2018b). Despite this positive participant feedback, numerous issues in the effectiveness of the NSAI were also identified in the review process including:

• Issues in the cost-effectiveness of the initiative.

• Inconsistencies in accessibility of the initiative related to geographic location.

• Inadequate coverage on a national basis as some counties were shown to have an inactive mentor, part-time mentor or no mentor.

• Lack of ‘supervision and support to evaluate mentor capacity, knowledge and skills’ (DES 2018b, 53).(DES 2018b)

These issues identified by the DES (2018a) are significant and are further compounded by two additional facts: the NSAI has not been rolled-out universally at national level, and the training is not mandatory.

Frustrating as it has been to see the same concerns raised over the implementation of Aistear for more than a decade, with only occasional initiatives demonstrating promise for the framework to reach its full potential, the past year has seen increased government funding which has ignited some hopeful sparks of promise. Published by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs in 2019, First 5: A Whole-of-Government Strategy for Babies, Young Children and their Families 2019–2028 outlined an increased commitment of approximately one billion euro in state funding to ECEC by 2028. An expert group was engaged in 2019 to provide recommendations for the funding model which were subsequently published in a 2021 report entitled ‘Partnership for the Public Good: A New Funding Model for Early Learning and School-Age Childcare’.⁵ In 2022, the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth [DCEDIY], (formerly the DCYA), announced the new funding model for the ECEC sector entitled ‘Core Funding’ (DCEDIY 2022a). This funding is in addition to that received by services to run the two year government funded Early Childhood Care and Education [ECCE] programme and is intended to contribute towards improvements such as affordability, quality, inclusion and sustainability. Under the rules of the Core Funding model participating ECEC settings must commit to the development and implementation of a quality action plan [QAP] to drive forward quality provision (DCEDIY 2022b). Engagement with NSAI training was cited as one of a number of options which settings could select to engage with as part of their QAP. Although it is promising to see a structure emerge to help direct service providers towards the NSAI, unfortunately the QAP stops short of making NSAI training mandatory. Engaging with the NSAI remains voluntary and continues to rely on the goodwill and impetus of educators to seek out and engage with the programme, rather than being systematically rolled out on an equitable basis across the sector. In other words, this recent development, while a promising step forward, still falls short of addressing the concerns outlined by Moloney (2011) and French (2013), and therefore may further compound the inadequacies of a fragmented approach. Future government plans for the sector do include, as part of the development of a CPD system, a national rollout of the NSAI by 2028 (DCEDIY 2022b). However, at the time of writing, no indication has been given as to whether engaging in the NSAI rollout will become mandatory or if it will remain reliant on educator goodwill to seek-out and engage with the initiative.

The hitherto approach must be addressed in advance of the next iteration of Aistear to defragment the current offering and provide training which is ‘consistently accessible and of good quality’ for ECEC educators nationally (OECD 2021, 99). A proactive, systematic approach to the rollout of the forthcoming update to Aistear would be more beneficial to quality and ensure that all children in ECEC settings in Ireland gain equitable access to quality provision. Perhaps a legislative approach, specifically mandating for the implementation of Aistear within legislation, would contribute to the acceleration of a resolution to the fragmented approach to the provision of training and supports.

Regulatory requirements

ECEC in Ireland is underpinned by numerous pieces of legislation which must be adhered to in order to remain compliant. Central to ECEC legislative compliance is the Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations 2016 (GoI 1988), which informs of the regulatory requirements to maintain statutory compliance. However, a direct reference to Aistear, or indeed any specific curriculum framework for ECEC, is currently absent within the legislation. Instead, Regulation 19 of the legislation refers to requirements for ensuring the health, welfare and development of children in ECEC by utilising an unnamed and unspecified ‘appropriate programme’, therefore failing to directly legislate for the implementation, or the evaluation of Aistear as a distinct ECEC curriculum framework. In a previous paper discussing the implementation of the original rollout of Aistear, French (2013) acknowledged the numerous beneficial elements of the framework itself, while also highlighting the lack of an implementation plan as already proving to be an issue. French suggested a correlation between the weak implementation of Aistear and the lack of a regulatory mandate (2013). A rationale for the dearth of legislative specificity of Aistear, as an evidence-based framework for ECEC, must be explored in the Irish context (Woods, Mannion, and Garrity 2022). In preparation for the successful implementation of the forthcoming update, it is perhaps more timely than ever before to consider this issue and the potential for a regulatory mandate to scaffold the successful and equitable implementation of Aistear. Perhaps if Aistear was directly mandated within Irish legislation, as with the Primary Curriculum, a cohesive implementation plan for the roll-out and evaluation of Aistear, supported by appropriate training for all educators, may be forthcoming. Notably, ECEC settings in receipt of government funding for the delivery of the ECCE programme⁶ are contractually obliged to offer a pedagogical programme in adherence with the principles which underpin both Aistear and Síolta (DE 2022). However, this is a funding contract requirement, as opposed to a mandated requirement underpinned by legislation. According to statistics provided by Tusla⁷, the Child and Family Agency with responsibility for the registration of ECEC services, there are currently approximately 4,300 registered services in Ireland. Of this number, 4,022 services are registered to deliver the ECCE programme (Pobal 2021) and therefore obliged under the funding contract terms to adhere to the principles of Aistear. A small percentage, 6.5% or 278, of Tusla registered ECEC services, are not in receipt of ECCE funding and therefore not subject to the aforementioned contractual obligations. It is important to acknowledge that all 4,300 registered services are required under legislation to provide an ‘appropriate programme’ which supports the ‘learning, development and wellbeing of each child’ (Tusla 2018, 28), however Aistear is not specifically stipulated by name.

In terms of monitoring and oversight of ECEC quality in the Irish context, Tusla holds responsibility for inspecting regulatory compliance while the Department of Education [DE] undertakes early years education focussed inspections [EYEI] of ECEC services in receipt of government funding. The EYEI guide for education focussed inspections states it is a ‘model of inspection … based on a quality framework and informed by the principles of Aistear: the Early Childhood Curriculum Framework, and Síolta: the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education’ (DE 2022, 8), thus highlighting the alignment between pedagogical practice and quality standards. Although the terminology used within the EYEI process guide mirrors the language of Aistear, it appears to stop short of an inspection process which explicitly requires Aistear, as the national curriculum framework, to be fundamentally embedded in ECEC. Given the acknowledged impact of pedagogical practice on quality (DE 2022), it would seem remiss of the DE inspection process not to embed Aistear more robustly as opposed to being merely ‘informed by’ the framework. It could be argued that if the implementation of Aistear was specifically mandated within relevant legislation, this would necessitate a revision of the EYEI guidelines to provide for the evaluation of Aistear more explicitly during the inspection process. As a result, this would also support the argument for a systematic rollout of a cohesive national training plan, accompanied by ongoing support on the full implementation of the framework right across the sector.

The potential benefit of a curriculum framework mandated under legislation

In Ireland the Primary Curriculum is mandated under the Education Act 1988 (GoI 1988) and as such must be implemented by all primary school settings. As previously discussed, this is not the case with Aistear, notwithstanding agreements under ECCE funding, which are contractual as opposed to legislative. However, a precedent in the Irish context exists which would suggest that, when a mandated approach is taken, appropriate training and supports follow and this is evident in the approach taken by government with Primary level education as the GoI fund a service called Oide (formerly the Professional Development Service for Teachers [PDST]) which provides free training for primary and secondary teachers in Ireland on a variety of areas, including curriculum implementation.

Although the majority of European countries may not currently mandate for an ECEC curriculum within legislation, this does not mean that a mandated approach should not be considered in the Irish context. On an international footing, a precedent for a legislative approach already exists, with Finland and England being examples of two countries where the national curriculum for ECEC is directly specified as a regulatory requirement which is mandated under legislation. In the Finnish context, legislation under the Act on Early Childhood Education and Care⁸ directs the ECEC curriculum and forms the basis of curriculum implementation, compliance and quality provision. Similarly in England, the Early Years Foundation Stage [EYFS] (Department for Education [DfE] 2023), is a statutory framework and is driven by legislation under chapter 2 of the Childcare Act 2006 which directly specifies the EYFS framework by name under Article 39 (2) (Child Care Act 2006). Both contexts stand in contrast to the legislation in Ireland which does not mandate specifically for the implementation of Aistear by name and instead refers simply to ‘an appropriate programme’ (Ireland, Child Care Act 1991 (Early Years Services) Regulations 2016). OECD Starting Strong IV data (2015), reporting on both structural and process quality in ECEC, cites the lack of a mandatory curriculum as a factor which can make monitoring the effectiveness of ECEC curriculum implementation difficult within a jurisdiction. The OECD (2015) also describes monitoring curriculum implementation as posing a challenge to monitoring ECEC quality. Therefore, it could be suggested that specifically legislating for Aistear, by name, as a mandated curriculum framework would have positive implications for ECEC quality in Ireland.

First 5, a Whole-of-Government Strategy for Babies, Young Children and their Families suggests, as part of Goal D of the strategy which focusses on developing the effectiveness of the ECEC system, that the GoI may consider making ‘adherence to the frameworks (Aistear and Síolta) a statutory requirement’ in the future (DCYA 2016, 157). However, at the time of writing, no concrete plan or timeframe for such legislative change was identified. It could be suggested the implementation of Aistear in pedagogical practice cannot currently be appropriately evaluated due to the absence of a regulatory mandate to implement Aistear, in addition to an inspection process which cannot therefore appropriately evaluate the full implementation of a non-statutory framework and that these factors may have impeded the development and rollout of a systematic national Aistear implementation plan.

Updating Aistear

Aistear is currently in the process of being updated to reflect the significant changes in Irish culture, policy and legislation along with developments in national and international research which have occurred in the intervening period since the framework was first published in 2009. The update to Aistear is important given the significant impact which it has on ECEC provision in Ireland and to ensure that, as a curriculum framework going forward, it is ‘informed by recent and relevant research’, a principal component of curricula (French et al. 2023, 5). In 2021, the OECD described the forthcoming update to Aistear as a positive development to the ECEC sector in Ireland while also reinforcing the need for the framework to be ‘accompanied by a well-resourced programme of advice, training and support’ (OECD 2021, 19). The NCCA commissioned a literature review of relevant research, published since the initial introduction of Aistear, to inform the next iteration of the framework which was undertaken by a team of researchers at Dublin City University [DCU] (French et al. 2023). The literature review (French et al. 2023) acknowledged the significant changes which have occurred in Irish society, culture, ECEC provision and the broader educational landscape, all of which require reflection in the updated curriculum framework. Numerous areas of contemporary practice and research related to ECEC pedagogy were included in the literature review (French et al. 2023), including child rights, children's agency and education for sustainability.

To highlight the importance of mandatory training on the implementation of the updated version of Aistear for all ECEC educators, the following section of this paper will employ the example of Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts and Maths [STEAM]. STEAM was also addressed as an emerging area of contemporary pedagogical practice relevant to ECEC in the literature review (2023).

The example of STEAM in Aistear

Engaging young children in STEAM concepts is vital to support them to develop skills and dispositions which are relevant to them as twenty-first century learners and citizens (DeJarnette 2018). Such twenty-first century skills include attributes and dispositions such as the ability to problem solve, think critically, collaborate, persist, be creative and curious, in addition to digital literacy skills required to navigate and thrive in an ever increasingly digitalised world (OECD 2023). In 2022, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation [UNESCO] World Conference undertook commitments which would ensure that ECEC pedagogy would support children to develop twenty-first century skills (UNESCO 2022). The incorporation of STEAM in pedagogical practice has been cited as a key enabler to support this:

STEAM education has transformative potential for learners, in their pursuit of knowledge, skills and dispositions and for their essential participation and engagement as global citizens of the twenty-first Century (Leavy et al. 2022, 142).

International literature and research also underpin a recommendation to incorporate concepts of STEAM into contemporary ECEC pedagogical practice (DeJarnette 2018; Paniagua and Istance 2018; Bagiati et al. 2010). Furthermore, Irish educational policy acknowledges the importance of facilitating children’s engagement in STEAM during the ECEC stage of their education, as described in the STEM Education: Policy Statement 2017–2026 (DES 2017a). Pillar 2 of this policy statement describes the requirement for additional training and CPD opportunities to enable ECEC educators to appropriately facilitate STEAM within their pedagogical practice:

Teachers and early years practitioners require STEM subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, appropriate skills and confidence. Enhanced preparation, development and support, through high-quality training, Initial Teacher Education, induction and ongoing professional learning is required (DES 2017b, 16).

However, at present, ECEC educators are not being provided with sufficient training to appropriately facilitate STEAM experiences for young children (DeJarnette 2018), an issue which is also acknowledged by the DES in the Irish context (DES 2020). The position of the ECEC educator as a facilitator of STEAM pedagogy is shown to be dependent upon their knowledge and ability to incorporate STEAM effectively (Jamil, Linder, and Stegelin 2018). For ECEC educators to integrate a new element, such as STEAM, within the Aistear curriculum framework in a relevant and meaningful way, it is vital appropriate training, not only on the elements of STEAM but also on the integration of STEAM within the Aistear framework is provided to them. Educators need to attain an understanding of how to integrate a transdisciplinary approach to STEAM across the ECEC environment which is facilitated through the modality of play (Hunter-Doniger 2021) and is reflective of the principles and themes of Aistear. However, a lack of educator knowledge on how to implement this in practice has already been highlighted (DeJarnette 2018; Spyropoulou et al. 2020) in advance of the planned update to Aistear.

If more specific guidance is included within the forthcoming update to Aistear on the integration of contemporary themes, such as STEAM in ECEC pedagogical practice, and a lack of educator knowledge to facilitate STEAM has already been nationally and internationally recognised (DES 2020; DeJarnette 2018), then the need for a national and mandatory implementation and training plan for Aistear seems imperative. Although CPD to expand educator knowledge of STEAM concepts are also necessary (DES 2017a), training on the incorporation of such contemporary themes into the updated Aistear curriculum framework is further required. This can only be achieved through the systematic roll-out of appropriately planned and delivered training on the implementation of Aistear to all ECEC educators, prior to a transition from Aistear, in its original form, to an updated version reflective of cultural change and advancements in areas of contemporary practice.

Initial educator training and qualification programmes will require that Aistear is increasingly embedded, as per the recent update of professional criteria for ECEC qualifications from Level 5 through to Level 8 degree programmes (QQI 2019), and this will likely have a positive impact on the implementation of Aistear going forward. However, considering educators already qualified are previously reported as experiencing difficulties implementing elements of Aistear (DES 2018a) the provision of training on the update to Aistear is still necessary. Furthermore, a passive, fragmented, piece-meal or opt-in training offering, as provided to date, will be insufficient and an impeding factor in the equitable provision of the highest quality ECEC to children in Ireland.

Models of change management

The introduction of an update to Aistear will undoubtedly introduce a period of change across ECEC in Ireland as educators adjust to, and become familiar with, the updated framework. Periods of reflection, change and subsequent evaluation are vital to move forward, innovate and continuously pursue quality. However, implementing change must incorporate an appropriate change management process to develop and implement the change successfully (Akingbola, Rogers, and Baluch 2019) and inform a systematic approach to successfully adopting the change and bringing the organisation from the current to future state (Gill 2002). Change management is defined as ‘the process of continually renewing an organisation’s direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever changing needs of external and internal customers’ (Moran and Brightman 2000). According to Kotter (2012) a model for introducing organisational change must include planning, implementation and subsequent evaluation. Therefore, to inform the successful implementation of the forthcoming updated Aistear framework, we must learn from previous experience and use this information to inform how the next iteration of Aistear will be rolled out and implemented. The introduction of a significant change can be negatively impacted when accompanied by insufficient resources and a lack of required training and knowledge for successful implementation of new practices (Gill 2002). Given the dearth of training which accompanied the implementation of the original Aistear framework, as discussed in this paper, it would seem of utmost importance that this issue be appropriately addressed this time around.

Kurt Lewin’s model for change management provides an approach for effective and strategic change management. Lewin developed a 3-step model for implementing organisational change which involves unfreezing, changing and refreezing (Lewin 1947). It is during the second ‘changing’ step of Lewin’s model that the provision of appropriate training to coincide with the introduction of change is key.

Step 1: unfreeze

The ‘unfreezing’ phase (Lewin 1947) involves preparatory work, including strategic analysis of the need for change, and appropriate communication of the proposed change among stakeholders. This helps to decrease resistance to change and achieve stakeholder buy-in. Research undertaken to inform the rationale for updating Aistear, as described in the Literature Review to Inform the Updating of Aistear (French et al. 2023), along with consultations across the ECEC sector and associated stakeholders, carried out by the NCCA during Phase 1 of the Updating Aistear process, formed part of the unfreezing step. During this step educators and stakeholders also became aware that an updated version of Aistear would be forthcoming and the rationale for the proposed update.

Step 2: change

The ‘change’ phase is integral to achievement of the final goal as it is during this phase that new ways of working are introduced (Senior, Swailes, and Carnall 2020). Phase 2 of the Updating Aistear process aligns with some actions expected under Step 2 of Lewin’s change management model (1947) including an introduction to the proposed changes to Aistear as outlined in the publication of a draft updated framework document (NCCA 2023a). However, under the second step of Lewin’s model, the provision of appropriate training and supports on changed practices are vital to the successful implementation of the change process. Therefore, it is at this step in the change management process that the delivery of educator training to implement proposed changes to the Aistear framework is critical to inform the emergence of the updated framework in pedagogical practice. Training is required to provide educators with adequate insight into the proposed changes and to provide them with the necessary skills to implement the changed or updated approach. The OECD Starting Strong IV report (2015) also reinforces the need for pro-active training provision as a quality measure to support educators to implement an ECEC curriculum effectively.

Step 3: refreeze

When the change has been appropriately rolled out through a process of research and planning (Step 1: Freeze) and implemented with necessary training supports (Step 2: Change), the final step is for the new and updated approach to become increasingly familiar to stakeholders and subsequently embedded. In other words, at this stage the updated Aistear framework is in place and is being implemented across ECEC by all educators. Lewin’s approach (1947) refers to this stage as ‘refreezing’ as the new way of working is locked into place across an organisation (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Lewin’s 3-step change model (Lewin 1947).

Lewin’s model is only one of numerous approaches to change management. Other prominent models exist, including Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model (Kotter 2012) and Prosci’s Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, Reinforcement [ADKAR] Change Model (Hiatt 2006) (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Prosci’s ADKAR change model.

Significantly, each of these change management models posit the importance of disseminating appropriate training and knowledge as part of implementing and embedding successful change. Therefore, it seems imperative for successful change management of the transition from the current version of Aistear to the updated version, across ECEC practice, that universal and mandatory educator training is provided to educators as part of a strategic national implementation plan.

Conclusion

Given the ongoing lack of a national implementation plan to appropriately and equitably deploy Aistear in its original format across the ECEC sector since its initial publication in 2009 (French 2013; Mannion 2019; Woods, Mannion, and Garrity 2022), coupled with DES findings highlighting educator difficulties utilising elements of the current framework (DES 2018a), it would seem of utmost importance this be appropriately addressed as part of any review and update to Aistear going forward. Initiatives such as the AIA, NSAI and ASPG have been developed to address the previously identified gaps in educator skills and knowledge pertaining to the implementation of elements of Aistear in pedagogical practice (DES 2018a). However, as the AIA ceased in 2013 and required educators to engage with the programme unremunerated, and as educator engagement in the NSAI and ASPG is voluntary and self-initiated, these initiatives alone are insufficient. Although further research is recommended, data suggests a link between a mandatory curriculum framework, required by legislation, with an increased ability to monitor curriculum implementation and that ability to monitor curriculum implementation is a factor which impacts monitoring of ECEC quality (OECD 2015). As Aistear is not specified and named as the mandated curriculum framework for ECEC within Irish legislation (GoI 2016), this may have negatively impacted the publication and delivery of a national strategic implementation plan for Aistear, including appropriate educator training and supports. Various popular models for change management maintain the importance of appropriate training and knowledge as part of implementing successful change, providing further rationale for an argument that all educators should receive training on the implementation of the forthcoming update to Aistear. Unless mandatory, universal training is nationally and systematically rolled out, across the entire ECEC sector in advance of a transition from the current to the updated framework, then the equitable amelioration of educator knowledge and skill to implement the framework to the fullness of its potential, and therefore in the best interests of children and quality ECEC provision, will continue to be fragmented and risk being negatively affected.

Declaration of interest statement

The author declares that they have no competing financial or personal interests that could have influenced their work on this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Dundalk Institute of Technology: [Grant Number ]; Higher Education Authority Technological Universities Transformation Fund: [Grant Number ].

Notes on contributors

Paula Walshe

Paula Walshe is an assistant lecturer and PhD candidate researching Science, Technology, Engineering, the Arts and Maths (STEAM) in early childhood education at Dundalk Institute of Technology. Paula is a published author and has extensive knowledge and experience of quality, pedagogical practice and leadership in early childhood education.

Notes

1 https://www.qqi.ie/what-we-do/the-qualifications-system/national-framework-of-qualifications

2 www.ncca.ie/Aisteartoolkit

3 www.aistearsiolta.ie

4 https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/c09af4-national-siolta-aistear-initiative/

5 https://first5fundingmodel.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Funding-Model-FINAL-REPORT-2.pdf

6 https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/2459ee-early-childhood-care-and-education-programme-ecce/

7 https://www.tusla.ie/services/preschool-services/parents-guardians/register-of-early-years-services/

8 https://okm.fi/en/early-childhood-education-and-care-services