The Impact of Socio-economic Status on Student Achievement and possible Intervention. Focus Australian education - Essay Example

Contents Contents 2 3 Introduction 4 Definition of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) 4 Background 5 Early Childhood Education and Care in the Australian Context 6 The true nature of Government involvement 15 Conclusion 18 The Impact of Socio-economic Status on Student Achievement and possible Intervention Measures: Focus on the Australian Education Sector Abstract The level of student success in today’s education context is determined by a wide range of factors. The main focus of this paper is on socio-economic status as a factor in student achievement, with a focus on the Early Childhood Education and Care sector in Australia. One may ask, why focus on early childhood education? It has been proven in numerous studies that the early years of any child’s life have a formative impact on their learning, development, future health as well as well-being. This forms the justification for this paper. It begins by exploring what exactly ECEC is in various contexts. It then goes on to give a background of the issue, highlighting various theories and schools of thought on the subject. Next, it discusses the Early Childhood Education and Care sector in the Australian context. In this section, the paper also highlights the different ECEC service types, particularly LDC, FDC, OSHC, IHC, preschool, Occasional care as well as the non-mainstream ECEC services. Next, it goes on to discuss the problems hindering the provision of quality ECEC services in Kenya. It then goes ahead to explain the role of Government in the provision of high quality education in general, and in ECEC sector in particular, with a focus on how Government intervention affects disadvantaged children. Then, the paper goes into highlighting the specific roles of the Australian as well as State and Territory governments in the ECEC sector, and how regulation can ensure the provision of high-quality ECEC services to all children, regardless of their family background. Introduction The level of student success in today’s education context is determined by a wide range of factors. This paper seeks to focus on the socio-economic status as a factor in student achievement, with a focus on the Early Childhood Education and Care sector in Australia. It is proven that the early years of any child’s life have a formative impact on their learning, development, future health as well as well-being. If the child is exposed to positive experiences in their formative years, it will also have positive outcomes in their future (Waldfogel, 2007). Research has revealed that, despite its importance, the level of quality of ECEC services may not be as high as it ought to be. This is mainly caused by disjointed policy approaches and information asymmetry among other factors. These issues have been discussed in more detail further into the paper. However, the government of any nation has a responsibility to ensure that the quality of ECEC services to all the state’s children, regardless of economic background, as the adequate provision of this has bearing on economic development through adequate workforce participation (Smart, Sanson, Baxter, Edwards and Hayes, 2008). Definition of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Waldfogel (2007) reveals that early childhood education can simply be defined as the process of administering formal teaching and care of children by people who are not part of their family, or is outside their respective home setting. Early childhood refers to the age before normal schooling, that is, between birth and five years of age. However, this definition varies between different nations: for example, the United States National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) defines early childhood as before the age of eight (Waldfogel, 2007). Background A child’s needs in the early years are very different from those of older children. This is because early childhood sees the greatest growth and development. The stages are such that the brain develops rapidly after which the child learns to walk and talk before their moral foundation and view of the world are established (Smart et al., 2008). These formative years are very important to the development of personality, social behavior and intelligence. Therefore, early childhood education must have its own unique practices to cater to these needs. This highlights on the general importance of early childhood education. It should be noted that the primary purpose of all early childhood education programmes should be to provide a high standard of care and nurturing due to the young age as well as unique physical and emotional needs of children. Both researchers, as well as, early childhood educators see the parent as an important part of the ECEC process, which takes many forms depending on the beliefs of the parents or educator. Another point is that a child’s sense of self, their self-awareness, is developed during these formative years. As a result, ECEC policies must emphasize links with the child’s family, culture and language (Smart et al., 2008). There is also need for the child to receive enough nurturing, nutrition, social interaction and stimulus; for example, early childhood often focuses on children learning through play (Harrison, 2008). It is necessary to take a look at the scenes found in Russian and Romanian orphanages to see how lack of social interaction and development of attachment affect the development of a child (Da Silva and Wise, 2006). Harrison (2008) identified five developmental domains of children, easily referred to as the spice of life that is: i. Social – Refers to the ability to play with others, co-operate, share, form attachments and the ability to form lasting relationships with others. ii. Physical – Refers to the development of fine and gross motor skills. iii. Intellectual – refers to the process by which children are able to understand the world around them through learning. iv. Creative – Refers to the development of special abilities and talents, for example in music, art, writing, singing among others. v. Emotional – Refers to the development of self-awareness and self-confidence, as well as developing the capacity to cope with their feelings and understand them. Another important point in this discussion is Jean Piaget’s work on child psychology. It should be noted that during the 1920s, Piaget noted in his studies that social interaction caused children to progress in thinking from merely intuitive to more scientific and socially accepted ways. He also developed the Sensimotor Adaptive Model of Intellectual Development, where he described intelligence as having two interrelated parts: the content of the children’s thinking, and the process of intellectual activity. According to this theory, there are four stages of cognitive development (Smart et al., 2008): i. Sensorimotor stage – Occurs between birth and 2 years of age. Here, intelligence is revealed via motor activity with limited use of symbols and language alike. The child’s knowledge of the world is based on physical interaction and experience. ii. Preoperational stage: Occurs between the ages of 2-7 years, and is where intelligence is shown through increased use of symbols, developing memory and imagination, and developing language use. iii. Concrete operations stage iv. Formal operations stage Early Childhood Education and Care in the Australian Context The Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) sector in Australia provides various services for children right from birth up to 12 years of age. Models of service delivery differ from one state to another, as well as within their territories, but the main ECEC service types are as follows (Da Silva and Wise, 2006). They include long day care (LDC), family day care (FDC), outside school hours care, preschool, in home care (IHC) and occasional care. Long Day Care (LDC) services are known to provide either all day or part-time care for children from birth up to 6 years. They attend the centre on a regular basis. This care is provided in a structure or part of a structure which has been designed specifically for use as a child care centre. Typical working hours for such centres are from 7.00am to 6.00pm for 48 weeks per year (Da Silva and Wise, 2006). These centres are important as the allow parents to juggle their careers with proper care for their children. This is a centre-based kind of service in relation to Child Care Benefit. Family Day Care (FDC) can be described as services in receipt of Child Care Benefit where a professional care-giver provides flexible care on their own time in their own home for other people’s children as part of a coordinated network of home-based care schemes. This covers children between the ages of birth to 6 years old. However, it may also be provided for children of school-going age. Different levels of care including care for the whole day, part of the day or on a less regular or casual basis can be provided by FDC (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2006). Outside School Hours Care are best known as services which relate to Child Care Benefit provide care for primary school children aged between 5 to 12 years. It is important to note that this care is provided before and after school hours, and can also be provided during school holidays (i.e. vacation care) as well as on pupil free days. OSHC services usually operate out of primary school premises, with the services being located in community facilities, child care centers among other OSHC centers near the school. These services are provided by parent associations or non-profit organizations (Harrison, 2008). Preschool as a service can be referred to as kindergarten, pre-preparatory and reception depending on the type of jurisdiction (Smart et al., 2008). This service provides an early childhood education program that is delivered by a teacher regularly, but not necessarily on a Sessional basis. In Home Care (IHC) as a service is similar to FDC, but the difference is that it is provided in the home of the respective child. It is also important to note that IHC is funded by the Government. It is not a common form of ECEC as it is not widely available and is usually only provided where other forms of care are not viable. This is usually the case when it is difficult to care for the child outside the home, for example if the child is disabled and the home has been specially designed for them. It is important to note that IHC services are not covered within the scope of the National Quality Agenda. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006) reveals that occasional care is a form of care that is provided for children aged between the time of birth to five years. It is a centre-based child care service provided on an hourly or sessional basis for short periods or at irregular intervals. It is also noted that occasional care services are not covered within the scope of the National Quality Agenda. Non-mainstream services refer to the services that are provided mainly in rural or remote areas, or to indigenous communities. According to Smart et al. (2008) the types of non-mainstream services include the following: i. Mobile ECEC services ii. Multifunctional Aboriginal Children’s Services iii. Indigenous playgroups iv. Indigenous OSHC and enrichment programs v. Neighbourhood models of occasional care vi. Rural care services vii. Flexible/innovative services As noted above, the formative years of a child’s life have a great bearing on the child’s overall health, development, learning and wellbeing. A large number of children now spend time in ECEC centers all over Australia, thus, the quality of these interactions and experiences in critical. Also, it is important to provide a sustainable and high quality ECEC sector to provide families with adequate support and choice in how they balance their work and families. This is also important in the overall scheme of things as it contributes to achieving Australia economic goals (Harrison, 2008). The Problem of Quality of Education The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) is determined to achieve reforms in the areas of education and early childhood development in order to attain high levels of human capital outcomes for every Australian. According to the Regulation Impact Statement for Early Childhood Education and Care Quality Reforms, COAG Decision RIS (2009), in terms of ECEC, involves ensuring children are “born healthy and have access to the support, care and education throughout early childhood that will equip them for life and learning and that is delivered in a way that actively engages parents and meets their workforce participation needs.” (Waldfogel, 2007). The most important question at this stage relates to the reason why reforms are needed. The answer is simple. The current framework for regulating the quality of ECEC in Australia is fraught with weaknesses. Different States and Territories are governed by different regulations, and parents have inadequate information to make informed choices when using ECEC services. Thus, in order to ensure the wellbeing of children and families, there is a need to determine the most appropriate level of services, as well as improve the regulatory system to enable education providers focus on delivery of quality services. i. Educational Qualifications of Early Childhood Education and Care Providers: Many children participate in ECEC services, and so there is the need to ensure that they are provided with high quality care and early learning experiences so as to ensure the best possible results in relation to learning, behavior, health as well as emotional and mental wellbeing. The best results are produced when ECEC professionals develop positive nurturing relationships with the children in their care. They are able to be more influential if they have less children under their care. The qualifications these professionals possess are also an important aspect to consider: those with higher levels of education qualifications and training are well equipped to provide improved and entirely conducive learning environments (Pidget, 1972). It should be noted that high ECEC quality can improve the future potential for disadvantaged children: their attendance is largely associated with increased participation and retention in education, positive social behavior as well as higher educational achievement. ii. Disjointed Policy Framework Another issue to consider is that, in the Australian system, child care and ECEC programs have been developed separately and have different objectives; preschools are associated with education while child care has had a focus on meeting the needs of the parents. This distinction, however, fails to take into account that learning begins at birth as explained above. Thus, these should experience greater integration in order to support children’s learning throughout the formative years (Waldfogel, 2007). iii. Adequacy of Information Available to Parents to Enable Informed Decision-making: As mentioned earlier, parents face increasing difficulty in assessing the quality of services provided under ECEC. This is because, service quality indicators, such as the student-teacher ratio, may not be easily observable and so difficult to evaluate. Thus, parents need to have access to all information pertaining to the care of their children (Department of Community Services, 2008). This transparency will also provide an incentive for providers to give high quality services. Parents could also obtain this information by being aware of the different research into early childhood development. iv. Need for a Streamlined Regulatory Framework There is also the problem of a disjointed and complex regulatory framework for setting, monitoring and assessing quality in ECEC services. There is also the problem of overlap between jurisdiction, as well as inconsistencies in regulation requirements between jurisdictions. It is important to note that the Australian government and the State and Territory Governments serve different and overlapping regulatory roles in provision of ECEC services: for example, policies are often checked by both licensing (State and Territory) and accreditation (Government) agencies. This leads to increased administrative burden as well as lack of focus on quality standards (Harrison, 2008). This particular background helps to answer the question that relates to what quality of early childhood education and care is all about. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) explains that there are a number of indicators which drive the quality of ECEC. The various inter-related indicators include: i. The programs/curricula designed to support children’s learning and development ii. The quality of the interactions between the children and the ECEC providers iii. Qualifications of the ECEC providers iv. Relationship with family and community v. Health and safety requirements (among others) These requirements create the conditions necessary to achieve high quality ECEC standards. The OECD also notes that the overall quality of ECEC is the responsibility of government and can be enforced through proper legislation and regulations. Research into the quality of ECEC has unveiled several findings: i. That lower staff-to-child ratios are in close association with excellent results for children, and that the ratio is more significant for very young children as well as those from disadvantaged backgrounds. ii. That larger group size is associated with lower quality, and that this relation is not as significant as compared to indicators of quality. iii. That the most significant indicator of quality appears to be caregiver education, specialized qualifications and training. iv. That low staff turnover is associated with higher quality of ECEC as well as positive child outcomes. The Role of Government in Ensuring Quality of ECEC Practices As it has been noted above, the Government has a pivotal role to play in ensuring that high standards of quality are sustained in the provision of ECEC (Department of Community Services, 2008). This can be done through various policy measures, and concerted implementation of the same. There are various reasons why Government may intervene in the ECEC sector, including: i. To support the participation of the family workforce through ensuring the availability of affordable, quality ECEC services. ii. To address the gap in information (information asymmetries) to enable parents make well-informed choices on ECEC. iii. To maximize child development by improving the availability of high-quality ECEC services. iv. To minimize the risk of harm to children occurring within the context of ECEC services. v. To support disadvantaged children. The following is a detailed discussion of the above mentioned points. i. To support the participation of the family workforce through ensuring the availability of affordable, quality ECEC family workforce participation. By ensuring the availability of high quality and affordable ECEC services, government is also supporting family workforce participation while contributing to positive outcomes for children at the same time. Studies done in Australia on the effect of the quality of child care on the development outcomes found that greater child-focused practice by ECEC providers was associated with higher ratings for social interaction and overall competence (Harrison, 2008). ii. To bridge the information gap thus enabling parents make well informed choices regarding child-care. All parents should have access to relevant information that will help them make informed choices about which ECEC services are best for their children. Parents can obtain this information through a number of informal channels, such as recommendations from other parents, inspecting various facilities, meeting with ECEC staff or observing a session. However, this decision-making process can be hampered by limited access to information, or information asymmetry. Information asymmetry occurs in most economic transactions and relates to consumers not having all the information about the good or service they are buying, and having less information than the provider. In this context, parents may be purchasing services that are inappropriate for their child’s needs, pay higher than competitive prices for the service they purchase, or end up not receiving the quality of care they believe they have purchased (Department of Community Services, 2008). To the broader society, information asymmetry has larger costs, including the following: Restriction on competition – Information asymmetry may lead to parents not looking at the available alternatives as they believe they have chosen the best for their children. This has potential to affect the price of ECEC services. Issues of access and equity – Information asymmetry may cause some parents not to have access to services of high quality standards. Information asymmetry may impose costs on ECEC service providers, such as legal fees arising from litigation of these unscrupulous practices, and also undermine the reputation of the industry. Research has found that parents generally define quality in ECEC services in relation to the needs of the family as well as of the child; and also to the overall service, especially health, safety, communication, flexibility of the service as well as personal character of the staff (Da Silva and Wise, 2006). It should also be noted that parents view the benefits of child care n terms different than the experts, and so may be less willing to pay more. Government intervention in this can help assure parents. This aspect is a specific reform priority within the National Early Child Development Strategy. iii. To maximize child development. Studies show that key aspects of quality linked to positive outcomes for children include higher education standards of the ECEC provider, lower staff-to-children ratios and a positive relationship between the ECEC provider and the children (Waldfogel, 2007). Another study, focusing on the effect of the quality of ECEC services to development outcomes, found that greater child-focused practices resulted in better social interactions as well as overall competence (Harrison, 2008). iv. To minimize risk of harm to children. Government has a responsibility to ensure that all services provided to children meet minimum community standards, regardless of family circumstances. Thus, Government does this by participating in the education sector, through provision of educational services as well as regulating the private providers. Waldfogel (2007) believes that a large part of this Government responsibility is ensuring that the minimum standards of quality are maintained. This is done through implementing policy or guidelines which will enable its intervention in cases of non-compliance. Government is expected to intervene when significant child-care concerns come up. It should be noted that this is difficult to establish in Australia as there is no available data showing complaints about unregulated services. v. To support the disadvantaged children. A child’s development is influenced by a number of factors in the child’s environment. However, for children in poverty, the risk of exposure to multiple adverse risk factors is higher and often results in a cycle of disadvantage. Research has identified a number of protective factors that may shield young children from the effects of a disadvantaged home, such as presence of a significant adult other than the parent in the child’s life, as well as professional intervention (Waldfogel, 2007). Additional research has provided information about the benefits of high-quality ECEC services combined with home visits. They also show the importance of government intervention and subsequent investment in the outcomes of disadvantaged children. This is because the returns from investing in disadvantaged children extend beyond the individual child, translating to socio-economic benefits for the community at large. Particularly, high-quality ECEC for disadvantaged children in the U.S has been revealed to lead to a wide range of desirable long-term results, such as increased participation and retention in education, positive social behavior, and attainment of higher education. Taking the example of the Perry Preschool Project, it was found that when disadvantaged children attended high quality ECEC programs, it leads to the following: Increased participation and retention in education. This included higher secondary school completion rates as well as better outcomes for girls. Positive social behavior in school as well as in later life. This included the prevention of chronic delinquency. Attainment of higher education. The true nature of Government involvement Currently, the Government has various roles and responsibilities of in the ECEC sector. It is important to first note that the Australian and the State and Territories governments play different roles in supporting the provision of ECEC services. The Australian Government has the following roles and responsibilities: i. Funding the National Childcare Accreditation Council (NCAC) to manage quality assurance systems for approved facilities belonging to ECEC. ii. Paying Child Care Benefit (CCB) to families using approved ECEC services. iii. Paying Child Care Rebate to eligible families using ECEC. iv. Funding organizations to provide information, support and training to approved ECEC providers. v. Providing capital to eligible providers. The roles and responsibilities of the State and Territory governments vary slightly but are widely consistent across jurisdictions. These roles and responsibilities include the following: i. Licensing of ECEC providers ii. Regulation of licensed and funded ECEC providers iii. Setting standards for ECEC providers iv. Funding eligible service ECEC providers v. Delivering some services (for example preschool services) directly vi. Providing information, support, training and development opportunities to ECEC providers vii. Providing curriculum and policy support and advice to ECEC providers viii. Providing training and development to management and staff in ECEC facilities ix. Carrying out dispute resolution as well as complaints management processes In general, there are three broad ways in which Government can be involved in the ECEC sector. These are as follows: i. Regulation ii. Financial assistance and subsidies iii. Direct provision Research has found that there are advantages to having publicly funded systems of ECEC, one of which is that they are of markedly higher quality (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2006). There is a wide range of regulatory approaches that the Government can pursue, ranging from a minimalist approach, for example self regulation; through to a highly regulated approach, for example government owning, operating and licensing services. However, Government regulations must be appropriate for the particular shortfall it is formulated to address. These regulations should also balance the needs of children, parents ECEC providers and the community at large, as well as reflect government policy objectives. The responsibility of regulating ECEC services is shared by the Australian, territory and state governments. The primary mechanism through which this is accomplished is through the Child Care Quality Assurance System, administered by the NCAC, as well as state and territory-based licensing and regulation of relevant minimum standards. These systems are discussed below: i. Quality assurance According to Department of Community Services (2008) the NCAC-administered Australian Government Child Care Quality Assurance System is designed to ensure children enjoy positive learning, social and development experience within the context of ECEC. In order to be eligible for approval, ECEC providers must register and actively take part in the quality assurance systems. Waldfogel (2007) reveals that ECEC services participating in the quality assurance exercise are required to go through a five-step process that comprises of the following: Registration – involves being registered with the NCAC, as well as going through the relevant quality assurance exercise for approval for CCB purposes. Evaluation – the provider must complete a self-study report in order to closely monitor continuous improvement. In this case, quality of practice is evaluated by the respective service. Validation – involves completing validation surveys by the management, staff and families. It also includes a validation visit by a NCAC-accredited validator. Moderation – a moderator reviews the collected information and aims to identify comprehensive patterns of quality care within the service, to enable it be rated against the relevant quality principles. Accreditation – involves an accreditation decision based on the ratings of the quality profile. A service must get a rating of satisfactory or higher in all quality areas in order to be accredited. ii. Licensing and registration Minimum standards and regulations set by the state and territory governments cover the following aspects: Staff requirements Equipment and facility requirements Health and safety requirements Operational requirements. Typical examples of such requirements are curricula and programs for children Administrative requirements These standards are most easily effected and monitored through licensing and regulation. Licensing of the range of ECEC services varies throughout different jurisdictions (Waldfogel, 2007). Thus, to achieve a level of national consistency, state and territory governments have developed the National Standards for LDC (1994), OSCH (1995) and FDC (1995). These national standards were designed with the intention to include them as minimum standards when regulations for each sector were developed. They also provide a basis of standards to be applied in jurisdictions where services are not regulated (Waldfogel, 2007). Conclusion It is evident how the education of an individual is closely associated to quite a number of factors including his/her income, well being and life chances. This therefore highlights on the significance to understand the factors which affect an individual’s performance. It is for this reason that several countries around the world have put forward initiatives that will address such issues. As discussed in the paper the major factors which relate to the performance of a student include family, peer and school factors. The success of a student in relation to his or her performance is greatly dependent on the manner in which the student carries him or herself within an educational setting. It is for this reason that performance is affected by the type of school, race, sex, size of the school, relationships between students and teachers, the neighborhood and extra-curricular activities among other factors. It should also necessary to note that family factors such as parental participation, the family size and socio-economic factors play very vital roles in relation to the performance of a student in school. In addition, the role of peers should not be ignored. A true account is that peer pressure can influence a student’s thinking in either positive or negative way. It follows that a positive influence will result into good and improved performances. On the other hand, a negative influence will definitely result into undesired or rather poor performances exhibited by the student in question. It is evident how peers have influenced each other in to unwanted risky behaviour no wonder peer groups have always been regarded as vital agents of socialization. On the brighter side, peer groups can also influence good behaviour. Good behaviour is closely associated with good performance. It is therefore the duty of relevant authorities including parents, guardians or responsible family members to monitor the company of a student. Parents and guardians alike should be attentive and supportive in relation to proper parenting practices. It is through these measures that the parents will be able to notice wrong behaviour and thus poor performance before it is too late. References. Da Silva, L. and Wise, S., (2006). Parent Perspectives On Childcare Quality Among A Culturally. New York: Mc-Graw Hill. Department of Community Services (2008). What determines quality in child care? Research to Practice Note. Department of Community Services. (2008). Review of the Children’s Services Regulations 2004. Harrison L. (2008). Does Child Care Quality Matter? Detroit: Duncker & Humblot. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2006). Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD Publishing. Pidget, J. (1972). The Principles of Genetic Epistemology. NewYork: Basic Books. Smart D., Sanson A., Baxter J., Edwards B. and Hayes A. (2008). Home-to-school transitions for financially disadvantaged children. Smith Family. Waldfogel, J., 2007. Parental Work Arrangements and Child Development. In: Canadian Public Policy, 33 (2). Read More