Early childhood provision, practice and quality: the ambiguity of the meaning of quality

The discourse around quality and what is meant by it have been the subject by many researchers from different fields such as health, sociology, psychology and education. Multiple definitions have been proposed testifying the complexity and multifaceted nature of the meaning of quality. These discussions have been the subject of research for many years in early childhood provision and practice (e.g. Blanden, Hansen, and McNally 2017; Cottle and Alexander 2012; Hussain and Juma 2006; Sylva et al. 2004; Sylva et al. 2010; Sylva et al. 2020). Such research outputs have raised concerns for quality to be important in the present debate within early childhood provision and practice, with concepts appearing such as quality assurance, quality control, quality time, quality supervision, quality workforce (e.g. Howard et al. 2018) concluding that it is difficult to define quality easily: ‘definitions of quality vary that to some extent reflect different perceptions of the individuals and society … there is no single definition of quality’ (Harvey and Green 1993, 28).

How is quality identified?

There have been attempts to identify ‘universal’ standards of quality and to understand the meaning (s) of quality in early childhood provision by classifying quality according to the functions and the structures of its aims (e.g. Bonetti and Brown 2018; Early et al. 2007; Melhuish and Gardiner 2019; Slot et al. 2015; Sylva et al. 1999a, 1999b). Collectively, they suggest two broad dimensions:

1. Structural quality that relates to everyday leadership and management elements of the early childhood provision (e.g. child-adult ratios, staff qualifications, group size staff stability, working conditions, health and safety);

2. Process quality that relates to pedagogy, such as curriculum, practice, the experiences of the child and child-adult interactions.

These two dimensions are interrelated and what happens at the structural level can impact to procedure level and vice-versa. They can also provide guidance for policy makers. For example, a recent report from the Department of Education in England by Siraj et al. (2018) found that these dimensions are used to measure and asses quality. However, it is argued that although these studies have good intent, most are funded by governments to implement universal standards so quality can be measured, but in many cases ignore the social ecologies of early childhood provision and practice.

Beyond dimensional approaches: the case for social ecology of early childhood provision

In my earlier work (e.g. Palaiologou et al. 2022; Palaiologou and Male 2019) I have argued that early childhood provision has its peculiarities, with complexities at conceptual as well as practical level. In many countries the provision is patchy under the umbrella of either care or education – a situation which creates a tension between care and education in early childhood and ‘positions early childhood professional practice in contrast to the managerial and technocratic language that dominates the discourse on early childhood education and care’ (Urban 2014, 128) impacting on quality.

Attempts to universalise elements of quality can lead to disempowerment of the professionals instead of what Chalke suggests:

It is important to seek to capture and promote aspects of a ground-upwards professionalism such as: the pedagogical approach that allows recognition of work with the child, as well as with their parent and carers; the recognition of the mindful requirements of an ethic of care; and the importance of reflexivity for professional practice. (Chalke 2013, 219).

Research of what constitutes quality should focus on the social ecologies of the early childhood communities that include the staff, the parents and children as well as the local community without ignoring the wider community and the impact of policies at local and national level. If we approach early childhood as a social ecology then instead of quality being seen under the lenses of structural and process elements, we can open potentialities to deal with the energy of the early childhood community (families, staff, children and the community around it). In that sense, quality needs to be understood as being situated within the community that the early childhood provision serves, whilst taking account of the ecological problems. Discussions about quality cannot be limited to only two dimensions, but also need to take account of local and national elements such as the economic, ethnic, cultural and spiritual aspects.

Introduction to articles in this issue of International Journal of Early Years Education

The 16 articles in this issue serve to highlight the debates and diversity of views around the meaning of quality in early childhood provision and practice.

Several of the articles attend to issues from educator’s perspectives. In ‘Toddler teacher job strain, resources, and classroom quality’, Henry, Hatfield and Chandler examine how early childhood teachers’ physical and psychological job dissatisfaction/job strain and the resources available in the classroom impact on quality. Lemos, Gomes and Barros consider issues around healthy diet in their article ‘Promoting a healthy diet in preschool children: a qualitative study about early childhood educators’ perspectives’, highlighting the important role of educators in children’s development of healthy diet habits. Two articles in this issue focus on the effective integration of technology in early childhood practice. ‘Domesticated Smartphones in Early Childhood Education and Care settings. Blurring the lines between pedagogical and administrative use’, by Sørenssen and Bergschöld looks at how smartphones can move beyond administrative tools and become pedagogical tools as well, while Cowan and Flewitt’s article ‘Moving from paper-based to digital documentation in Early Childhood Education: democratic potentials and challenges’ makes the case that the use of digital documentation is not without its challenges and further examination is needed to understand how these tools can become democratic and inclusive.

Another set of articles explores the issue of quality in different countries. An article by O’Regan, Halpenny and Hayes – ‘“It all depends … ” A Real Life Learning model informing childminding pedagogy in Ireland’ – explores the challenges of childminding and addresses the issue of how a sustainable regulatory support system plays an important role on quality provision. Drawing on research in China, an article by Vong, Vong, Liu and Cheng addresses ‘An exploratory study on normative cohesiveness of high quality preschool teacher education in urban north-western China’, emphasising the importance of in-service training of teachers.

The challenges of striving for quality in early childhood education and care environments are the focus of articles from Bulgaria, Tanzania, Australia, Ethiopia and Portugal. The study by Trifonova and Peneva that aims to ‘Exploring the quality of early childhood education and care environment in Bulgarian kindergartens’ suggests the need for multi-methods approach to evaluate quality. Meanwhile, the article from Tanzania by Basil focuses on the quality of classroom interactions ‘Early grade lesson preparation in Tanzania: teachers’ focus and perceived benefits’. The article from Australia by Deery, Murray, Levickis, Pahe and Elek asks ‘What are the research priorities of Australian early childhood professionals?’ and uses a Delphi-style survey showing the impact of COVID-19 in the sector and raising the need to prioritise early childhood education. The study from Ethiopia by Sewagegn, Bitew, Fenta and Dessie in ‘The status of early childhood care and education in northwest Ethiopia: an investigation from quality perspective’ showed the poor infrastructure, lack of qualified teachers and differences in the quality between private and government preschools, concluding that for quality early childhood provision investment is needed. In their article ‘Parental decision-making for a baby room in daycare centres: conceptions, motivations and influential factors’, Tadeu and Lopes examine the room and day care centres in the Portuguese context and show the role of parental involvement as a key factor for quality provision.

Other articles explore key aspects of practice. In ‘Early Numeracy Assessment In French preschool: structural analysis and links with children’s characteristics’, Thomas, Tazouti, Hoareau, Luxembourger, Hubert and Jarlegan examine how to assess numeracy in French early childhood provision, showing the differences in numeracy development depend on socioeconomic status. Mart, with his study on ‘Math in daily plans: is it possible to conduct in the outdoors by preschool teachers?’, emphasises the role of outdoor learning environments in mathematical learning. In their article ‘Retelling as a means of story structure and story content understanding’, Vretudaki, Tafa and Manolitsis look into story retelling practices and how they help children in relation to comprehension.

Two further articles consider what quality of provision means from policy level and educator training perspectives. Lytje, Dyregrov, Bergstrømb, Fjærestad and Fisher-Hoyrem compare the bereavement policies of two countries on a key topic ‘Same origin, different implementations: a document analysis of Norwegian and Danish bereavement response plans’ for which early childhood provision is not always prepared. Additionally, Lumsden and Musgrave propose ‘“Early childhood studies is more than a degree; it is an experience”: undergraduate students’ motivations, professional aspirations and attributes’ arguing for graduate competencies in early childhood degrees.

In conclusion

Examining studies on quality in early childhood provision and practice (e.g. Bartolo et al. 2021; Bonetti and Brown 2018; Melhuish and Gardiner 2019; Sylva et al. 2020; Ulferts, Wolf, and Andres 2019), it can be argued that quality is a debatable construct that is situated, culturally and content specific and meaningful only to the ecologies of the early childhood communities and the particular standards and /or purposes to the specific needs, values and vision of each community at the time. Thus, discussions about quality should move beyond just being about the everyday practicalities and seek universal standards of quality, to instead being about ‘what serves best’ the ecology of the early childhood provision and shapes the pedagogy.