Editorial

The concepts and quality frameworks used in ECEC throughout Europe are very different and likewise are the visions on research in this field. This issue of EECERJ exemplifies this diversity in research methods and concepts of ECEC. I appreciate that EECERJ gives a voice to this diversity. From my point of view, research in education is not a purpose in itself, but a tool to change and improve the pedagogical practice and the policy in ECEC. Both quantitative and qualitative research can and does provide important evidence to motivate practitioners and policymakers to improve the quality of the pedagogical practice; it is a matter of finding the right balance and the most appropriate (combination of) method(s). Since the start of the research centre VBJK/Innovation in the Early Years, my team and myself found inspiration in the emancipation movement led by charismatic figures such as Paolo Freire and Martin Luther King, who were asking the scientific world to set up research projects that strive for social change (Peeters 2012). Since the early 1990s, our research centre has profited from its unique position at the intersection between research, policy and practice, aiming at this social change on the level of policymaking and introducing new pedagogical practice to enhance and support this social change. One could imagine research, policy and practice as the vertices of a triangle. The relationship between the three is illustrated by each of the three sides: the interplay between research and practice, research and policy and policy and practice. It is important to take up an active role in making the efforts of the three ‘worlds apart’ visible and comprehensible to one another (Peeters and Peleman, in press). Scholars need to translate research results into meaningful and supportive recommendations for ECEC practices and policy workers by making inspiring practices visible via research, conferences and coaching trajectories. Both quantitative and qualitative research can play an important role to make research results visible to practitioners and policymakers. In some cases, it is important for policymakers and stakeholders to have reliable data coming from quantitative research, like in the article by Ruben Fukkink and his colleagues, in order to have evidence to adapt existing practice and programmes. This Dutch meta-analytical review study summarises the findings from 21 experimental comparisons, which study some 50,000 children in the period between 2000–2015. The disappointing results, with a total of 165 outcome measures, indicate that special early childhood education programmes in the Netherlands currently offer no added value for the development of young children compared with standard preschool and early years groups. This study makes apparent that the existing practice is not reaching the intended results. Therefore, the recommendations of this study are confronting, and policymakers and practitioners should reconsider their early childhood interventions with more attention for process quality.

The article by Rentzou about the reliability of four rating scales to evaluate quality is also relevant for policymakers. In many countries, policymakers are asking for an objective measurement of the quality of ECEC. Rentzou is advocating the use of multiple scales to measure quality, because quality is not a fixed objective standard, it is an ongoing process. This study treats the discussion between policymakers who prefer a static approach through objective measurement and the practitioners who are more in favour of a dynamic, developmental approach to quality improvement. In this case, the researcher is making valuable arguments to start a dialogue between policymakers and stakeholders.

Relevant for the policymakers who want objective measurement is also the article by two Italian scholars, Pastori and Pagani, from the University of Milano-Bicocca. Italy has no tradition in measurement of quality in ECEC, but the researchers were involved in the important European CARE study, and inside this research the CLASS instrument to measure process quality was used. Regarding the Italian article, it is not possible to assume that the assessment instruments are culture free. ‘The measurement instruments are children of the context where they were developed and migrating to other countries, they still unavoidably reflect pedagogical and organisational features of their native cultural cradle.’

These three studies are tackling quality measurement from different perspectives, and when rewritten in the language of policymakers and practitioners, those different perspectives on quality monitoring and evaluation can be used for the development of monitoring and evaluation tools in practice.

The goal of another Dutch study by Frans, Post, Huisman, Oenema-Mostert, Kreegstra, and Minnaert is also of great importance for policymakers. This research on early identification of children at risk for academic difficulties has examined the predictive validity for future scores and the score stability of two widely administered Dutch preschool tests. Specifically, the focus was on their suitability for identifying children that are at risk for poor math and language scores. The results of this study are of great importance for the discussion about the International Early Learning Study inside the OECD member states. The OECD is planning a cross-national assessment of early learning outcomes involving the testing of five-year-old children in participating countries. However, in certain countries there is a reluctance to use assessment instruments on five-year-olds, while some Anglo-Saxon countries are in favour of this approach. This research by Frans et al. shows that one should be careful in one’s interpretation of test scores and take into account that there might be a wide margin of error when it comes to the early identification of children. This Dutch research is also important for childhood educators: the amount of variability in early development makes it difficult to base decisions about the child’s educational trajectory on a single assessment outcome and may underpin the need for frequent assessments using multiple sources in the identification of children at risk for academic difficulties.

In her article ‘Involving parents in EC research as reliable assessors,’ Susan Krieg reports on the comparison between parent and teacher judgements of four-year-old children’s cognitive development. This comparison led to the conclusion that parent ratings of aspects of their four-year-old children’s cognitive development were reliable and relatively consistent when compared with those of teachers. This quantitative study reinforces results of a qualitative study (Van Laere 2017) that has proved that parents have reliable views on the quality of ECEC. Both studies have important consequences for practitioners, which implies that teachers have to invest in an ongoing dialogue with parents as equal partners instead of taking the position of expert.

This leads us to the article by Janina Vlasov about a comparison of parent-teacher cooperation in three different countries (USA, Finland and Russia), which points out that the actual opportunities for parents to affect the ECEC programmes is still limited. According to Vlasov, parents are now more demanding, and their expectations are higher than some decades ago. Sharing reciprocal information with parents and developing open communication strategies would increase the level of trust between parents and ECEC services. The researcher links global ideals to local contexts, because ideals are always actualised by the actors on the local levels, and the global models (laws) put pressure on professionals regardless of whether they have the opportunity to implement these models or not. It is remarkable that, according to the results of this study, the opportunities and the will of parents to influence their child’s programme seemed to have increased the most in the Russian context. The reason for this improvement is again the collaboration between stakeholders and policymakers as the significance of educational cooperation has been written into the New Standards for ECEC in Russia.

The Irish ethnographic study by Garrity and Canavan about trust responsiveness and communities of care uses a completely different research approach but points out the same value as the article by Vlasov: the role of trust, the responsive nature of relationships and the importance of open, honest communication with the families. This study has concrete implications for practice and also for the initial and continuous training in ECEC.

The Greek study by Kelesidou, Chatzikou, Tsiamagka, Koutra, Abakoumkin, and Tseliou about the role of parents’ educational level and type of ECEC service in parent satisfaction with ECEC puts forward valid arguments for taking into account what parents believe concerning quality issues. According to the Greek researchers, policymakers should strive to set up relevant provisions on the basis of a systematic review research on parents’ beliefs or on the basis of promoting dialogue with parents so that a jointly constructed notion of quality can be reached. The authors advise the policymakers further that the dissemination of scientifically based knowledge could provide a more sound basis when taking political decisions, particularly in Greece where, according to the authors, such decisions are largely based on political rather than on scientific criteria.

The study by Eleni Loizou, who describes herself as a researcher and teacher, makes a direct link between research and practice. She has developed a teacher guide to support teachers in their play practices. The teacher guide aims to give teachers a comprehensive, sophisticated understanding of play, grounded in research as well as practice. There is a particular strength in the way practice and research are linked in this study.

The article by Jen Jackson is a theoretical discussion of recent policy efforts to raise qualification levels in Australia. The author starts from a Bourdieuian perspective to examine the inequalities in ECEC and at the same time criticises Bourdieu: his theoretical approach is unlikely to lead to ‘recipes for action,’ because the French philosopher does not describe how to overcome those inequalities. Jackson therefore is broadening the Bourdieuian notion of capital to emotional capital. This is very important for valuing the work of lower-qualified workers who are mostly of lower SES than the teachers qualified to bachelor or master level. We know from recent European research that the emotional care of lower-qualified assistants is highly appreciated by parents and children (Peeters, Sharmahd, and Budginaité 2016). To conclude, this issue of EECERJ shows that it is possible in research to move away from a strict ‘what works’ approach towards an open outlook where the triangle of policy, practice and research is truly valued. This asks for a positive view towards change and a notion that there is a shared goal that connects research, policy and practice in the field of Early Childhood Education and Care: working towards universally available and accessible high-quality inclusive ECEC services that are beneficial for all children and their families.