Early Childhood Education: A Comparative Study of Finland and the UK - Research Paper Example

Early Childhood Education: A Comparative Study of Finland and the UK By Table of Contents Introduction 3 The UK’sEarly Childhood Education Programmes and Policies 4 Finland’s Early Childhood Education Programmes and Policies 7 Early Childhood Education and Care in Finland and the UK: A Comparative Analysis 11 Introduction Early childhood education refers to diverse programmes aimed at the care, development and education of children from birth to the age of 8 (Bowman, 1993). The programmes occur at the child’s home, in public and private pre-schools, and in childcare facilities. These programmes may differ in terms of size, age, culture, teacher/adult training, and teaching/care styles, with different outcomes for children (Bowman, 1993). Early childhood education programmes are informed by theories that make assumptions about the way that children develop and how best to help children construct knowledge (Edwards, 2003). The two most dominant theories informing current early childhood education research and practices, are Jean Piaget’s cognitive constructivist perspective and L.S. Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective (Edwards, 2003). Piaget’s cognitive constructivist theory proposes that knowledge cannot be handed to individuals. Instead individuals must construct knowledge on their own, by reference to their own experiences (Derry, 1996). Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective informs that learning occurs as a social process: first through social interactions and secondly through individual internalization (Kozulin, 2003). A vast majority of early childhood education programmes can be linked in one way or another to either or both Piaget and Vygotsky’s theories of early childhood learning and development (Ailwood, 2003). This research is a comparative study of early childhood education in Finland and the UK. In comparing the early childhood education programmes in Finland and the UK, this research study identifies theoretical influences originating out of Piaget and Vygotsky’s perspectives and compares policies, programmes and outcomes. By taking this approach directions for effective early childhood education programmes and research can be identified. Finland is selected to compare with early childhood education in the UK because a recent report by the Organization for Economic Development (OECD) reveals that the quality of Finland’s early childhood education outcomes are above the OECD’s average. The quality constructs are reflected in demonstrating a sound understanding of how children develop, being able to help children develop in terms of their own views, curiosity, sharing ideas, be comfortable, develop leadership skills, solve problems, become articulate and educators’ ability to develop effective lesson plans/curriculum (Taguma, Litjens, and Makowiecki, 2012). Research on successful early childhood programmes with a view to directing effective research and policy reforms is important because research has consistently shown that early childhood education significantly influences future educational and social outcomes (Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling, and Miller-Johnson, 2002; Barnett, 1995; Currie, 2001). In comparing early childhood education in Finland and the UK, this research is divided into three main parts. The first part of this research study provides an analysis of the UK’s early childhood programmes and policies. The second part of this study analyses Finland’s early childhood programmes and policies. The final part of this study conducts a comparative analysis of both programmes. The UK’s Early Childhood Education Programmes and Policies Early childhood education in the UK has been of increasing concern to policy makers with a view to improving the quality of care and education. The primary focus has been improvement via engaging families and communities. Policy makers have proceeded on the belief that cooperation between the early childhood educators and caretakers and families and communities will improve both parenting and learning quality. It is also believed that quality early childhood education and care will go a long way toward compensating for negative home influences (Taguma, Litjens, and Makowiecki, 2012A). Until the implementation of the Education Reform Act 1988, the government’s role in education was limited with educators and administrators maintaining a high level of autonomy (Kwon, 2002). The 1988 Act changed this dynamic with the government implementing a national curriculum which lessened educators’ control (Kwon, 2002). While the national curriculum was directed toward school aged children, it impacted programmes for children in early childhood education and care (Kwon, 2002). In 1996, the government introduced Nursery Education: Desirable Outcomes for Children’s Learning on Entering Compulsory Education which was directed toward early childhood education. In 1999, the Desirable Outcomes for Children’s Learning (1996) programme was replaced by the Early Learning Goals (Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage, 2000). The Early Learning Goals identified what children should accomplish between the ages of 3 and 5 with age 5 representing the child’s entry into primary school. The Early Learning Goals identified 6 goals for children in early childhood education (Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage, 2000). The goals are: 1. Developing the child personally, socially and emotionally. 2. Helping the child develop language, literacy and communication skills. 3. Help the child develop mathematic skills. 4. Help the child develop an understanding and knowledge of the world. 5. Help in the physical development of the child. 6. Help the child to develop creativity (Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage, 2000). The Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage was introduced in 2000 by the Department for Employment (DfEE) and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). The 2000 Curriculum is intended to ensure that the needs of all children are met so that they achieve appropriate social and academic skills and are prepared for the next stage in education. The government also introduced a programme for inspecting pre-schools by the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) (Kwon, 2002). All pre-schools subject to public funding are inspected to ensure quality. Inspections are intended to determine whether or not pre-schools are operating in a way that is consistent with the Early Learning Goals. For instance children aged 4 are evaluated to determine whether or not they are learning to write and recognize letters (Kwon, 2002). The early learning goals were restated and expanded on in the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) which was introduced in 2012 by the Department for Education (Early Years Foundation Stage Profile: Handbook, 2014). EYFS requires that administrators, educators and carers identify each child’s learning style, needs and potential and plan accordingly. It is also important to help children become independent through fostering a positive relationship which is reflected in responding to the needs of the child as well as the child’s interest and feelings. The relationship should also be supportive and should stimulate the child. Education at this stage should be fun so learning should be accomplished through play and children should be encouraged to be risk-takers and exploratory. Learning should be active and encourage both creativity and critical thinking skills (Early Years Foundation Stage Profile: Handbook, 2014). In the UK, 28% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is spent on welfare services with 3.6% for families, 0.7% on preschool and 0.4% on childcare services (Naumann, McLean, Koslowski, Tisdall, and Lloyd, 2013). In England, the government’s involvement in early childcare is primarily aimed at establishing standards and goals. Government funding is at 6%, while private funding is 46%, school funding is 6%, the voluntary sector contributes 39% and other sources contribute 4% (Grun, 2008). In other words, parents are primarily responsible for funding early childhood education and care for their pre-school children. Local authorities will step in to help families with limited funding place their children in early childhood education and care programmes (Grun, 2008). While the early childhood education and care facilities in the UK may not be readily available to all children because of socio-economic status, the UK has a recognized quality standard. In this regard, the UK’s early childhood education and care services are ‘accredited’ and ‘subsidized’ for at least 80 percent of all 4 year old children (Burger, 2010: 155). Moreover 80% of staff in early childhood education and care are trained (Burger, 2010). This is a consistent trend throughout most of the European Union and by comparison, the quality of childhood education in the US is not up to European standards as the US expenditure on childhood education and care and family benefits lags behind that of Europe (Burger, 2010; Isaacs, 2009). Finland’s Early Childhood Education Programmes and Policies Finland’s Nordic welfare policies is predicated on the belief that the state is responsible for the care and support of its citizens. Along those lines, childhood education and care is available to all children between 1 and 6 free of charge (Heinamaki, 2008). Under the law of Finland, compulsory education begins at age 7 and children are entitled to childcare services in the interim between birth and the start of school. Therefore, Finland provides choices for parents who can either enrol their children in early childhood education and care facilities or they may take care of the children themselves. If parents decide to care for their children themselves, they will receive financial assistance commensurate with their income and needs. These services are available until the child is 6 and for the 6th year the child may attend pre-school facilities which are available free. Child care services are available to low income families for free (European Parliament, 2013). With home care allowances, Finland’s children follow a routine in which the children remain at home for a while before going on to child care services and then pre-school. Practically, all children in Finland follow this trajectory to school. This is consistent with the country’s education policy. Finland’s education policy is calculated to ‘support the development of learner’s thinking skills, work, and interaction skills, crafts and expressive skills, participation and skills to influence, as well as self-knowledge and responsibility’ (European Parliament, 2013:11, Para. 1.1.2.). This goal applies to all education in Finland with early childhood education setting the stage for the acquisition of these skills. The pre-school facilities available to children are intended to prepare children for compulsory school at age 7 (European Parliament, 2013). Finland’s early childhood education is based on an EDUCARE programme which connects education to care together with treating childhood learning as ‘the foundation for pedagogical action’ (Maatta and Uusiautti, 2013: 4). Very little pressure is placed on educators during early childhood education programmes. The early childhood curriculum emphasizes the significance of cultivating a child’s ‘physical, cognitive, social and emotional development’ and the ‘preschool year’ is ‘aimed at preparing children for reading and mathematics through age-appropriate preparatory activities instead of out-right teaching’ (Maata and Uusiautti, 2013: 5). Kalliala and Tahkokallio (2003) argue that the Finnish EDUCARE programme for early childhood education and care necessarily involves a degree of conflict because it combines care with education. This is reflected by the fact that early childhood education and care as a part of Finland’s welfare services falls under the country’s Social Affairs ministry (Kalliala and Tahkokallio, 2003). Starting in 2010, childhood education and care was transferred to the Ministry of Education (Gislason and Eydal, 2011). However, the curriculum is the responsibility of the National Board of Education in relation to pre-school. The conflict between care and education carries over to the childcare facilities where child care staff consists of a mixture of professionals including ‘kindergarten teachers, social educators and practical nurses’ (Kalliala and Tahkokallio, 2003: 94). Training is not always suited to the goals of the early childhood education and care. Many of the professionals staffing the childcare centres find that they have to ‘deny’ their ‘background’ so that a ‘kindergarten teacher has to deny her teacher identity, a social educator er identity as a social worker and a practical nurse her caring identity’ (Kalliala and Tahkokallio, 2003: 94). This is an undesirable outcome where the goal is quality service. Ideally, quality service is accomplished where the best capabilities of a multi-professional team are put to use for maximizing outcomes and service (Kalliala and Tahkokallio, 2003). Gislason and Eydal (2011) explain that although child play is emphasized in official government documents on childhood education and care or the EDUCARE programme, play only consist of between one and two hours out of an 8-10 hour day. In addition, early childhood staff members usually divide play time out daily so that it is conducted ‘between planned activities such as eating and sleeping’ (Gislason and Eydal, 2011: 72). What is observed is ‘structured and formal learning’ as a part of the child care facilities daily programmes (Gislason and Eydal, 2011). This is because the entire education system is regarded as a seamless progression. As such, each phase must be seen as a continuation of a previous part of the education cycle. Therefore, child care systems must enable the child to ‘transition’ from child care to kindergarten and from there to primary school (Gislason and Eydal, 2011:72). EDUCARE has been criticised on the grounds that early childhood care and education must be treated as separate and apart from actual school. Care, should be combined with education, ‘upbringing’ and the emphasis should be ‘working on the whole child, broad developmental goals, interactivity with peers and educators and quality of life’ and there should be ‘a balance between culturally valued tops of learning and supporting the child’s meaning-making, acquired through relationships and experience of the world’ (Gislason and Eydal, 2011:72). Nordic countries, including Finland spend an average of 0.38% of the GDP on kindergarten and preschool facilities (Gislason and Eydal, 2011). These programmes are available for children from age 3 to the school age. Among the Nordic countries, Finland and Norway spends even less than other Nordic countries. The differences in Nordic countries’ spending and the remainder of Europe is that Nordic countries are more concerned with funding education and care for younger children. European countries prefer to focus on older children which represents a larger population of students than the early childhood population (Gislason and Eydal, 2011). The reason for the Nordic focus on younger children is the policy reforms aimed at encouraging women to join the workforce (Gislason and Eydal, 2011). Finland’s EDUCARE model focuses on high quality education in early childhood education and care. EDUCARE is therefore partly responsible for Finland’s high literacy outcomes. Moreover, despite the sparse play hours in child care and preschool and kindergarten, the play programmes are also described as ‘high quality’ (Hall, Larson, and Marsh, 2003: 330). In addition, the early childhood education and care settings are described as ‘aesthetic’ and the ratio of staff to child is ‘excellent’ (Hall, et al., 2003: 330). Early Childhood Education and Care in Finland and the UK: A Comparative Analysis Early childhood education and care has become increasingly important with an increase in mothers returning to work or joining the workforce within a year of giving birth (Belsky, 2001). Ideally, a child’s development is healthier if the child remains at home with a parent until reaching school age or at the earliest pre-school age. Studies have shown that children of working mothers tend to be more aggressive and develop early behavioural problems (Belsky, 2001). Therefore the quality of childhood education and care is important. Quality childhood education and care differs in the UK and Finland. From the UK perspective quality childhood education is achieved through early education policy goals that can be tied to Piaget’s cognitive constructivist perspective and Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective. This is evidenced by the goals of the EYFS. In general, the UK focuses on making learning fun and giving priority to the child’s learning needs and style. In Finland, Vygotsky’s sociocultural perspective appears to be part of EDUCARE as children are socialized early through the freely available childcare and pre-school and kindergarten facilities. However, this socialization is divided between play time and formal instructions and appears to be lacking in the fun style that the UK uses. Quality child education and care from the perspective of Finland involves quality care and education with a view to continuing on to primary school and building on the information and skills acquired in child care. Quality childhood education and care also means that all children have access to the same quality care and education. In this regard, Finland’s early childhood education and care is available to all children in Finland. In order to accomplish this, Finland’s early childhood education and care facilities are largely funded by the government. In the UK, early childhood education and care facilities receive minimal funding from the government compared to Finland. This means that private funding entitles operators to charge fees and demand payment for services. As a result, parents in the UK who cannot afford a specific early childhood education and care facility have to choose another facility that is either paid for by the local authority or meets the financial needs of the parents. There is no guarantee that the local authority will be able to find a place for children whose parents cannot afford to pay the fees for early childhood education and care. Unlike in Finland, access to quality childhood education and care is not guaranteed in the UK. In the UK, quality childhood education and care also means that staff members are trained to meet the goals of EYFS. In Finland, quality childhood education and care means maintaining a multi-professional staff that are required to adapt to an environment which is outside of their training. This may reduce the quality of the early childhood education and care. However, it can be argued that Finland compensates for this shortcoming by ensuring that the staff-student ratio is quite high. Finland, like the UK emphasises that learning should be fun. However, fun from the perspective of Finland, fun in the early childhood education and care is fun play times. In the UK, fun in the early childhood education and care means making learning and teaching fun. Moreover, while the UK is focusing on child development, Finland is focused on the continuity of the child’s education. While the UK conducts assessment on early childhood learners, there is no evidence in the literature that Finland assesses its early childhood learners. References Ailwood, J. (2003). ‘Governing early childhood education through play.’ Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Vol. 4(3): 286-299. Barnett, W.S. (Winter 1995). ‘Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes.’ The Future of Children, Vol. 5(3): 25-50. Belsky, J. (2001). ‘Emmanuel Miller: Developmental risks still associated with early child care.’ Journal of Child Psychol. Psychiat. Vol. 42(7): 845-859. Bowman, B. (1993). ‘Early childhood education.’ Review of Research in Education, Vol. 19: 101-134. Burger, K. (2010). ‘How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development?: An international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds.’ Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 25: 140-165. Campbell, F.A.; Ramey, C.T.; Pungello, E.; Sparling, J. and Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). ‘Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian project.’ Applied Development Science, Vol. 6(1): 42-57. Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. (2000). QCA and Dfee, 1-130. http://www.smartteachers.co.uk/upload/documents_32.pdf [26th February 2015]. Currie, J. (Spring 2001). ‘Early childhood education programs.’ The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15(2): 213-238. Derry, S.J. (1996). ‘Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate.’ Educational Psychologist, Vol. 31(3-4): 163-174. Edwards, S. (2003). ‘New directions: Charting the paths for the role of sociocultural theory in early childhood education and curriculum.’ Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Vol. 4(3): 251-266. European Parliament. (2013). ‘Quality in early childhood education and care.’ Directorate-General for Internal Policies, 1-124. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/495867/IPOL-CULT_ET%282013%29495867%28ANN01%29_EN.pdf [26 February 2015]. Gislason, I.V. and Eydal, G.B. (2011). Parental leave, childcare and gender equality in the Nordic countries. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Grun, R. (December 2008). ‘Financing early childhood development: A look at international evidence and its lessons.’ A note for the Department of Education of Khanty-Mansiysk, Russian Federation Document of the World Bank, 1-18. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCY/Resources/395766-1242934660432/Financing_ECD.pdf [26th February 2015]. Hall, N.; Larson, J. and Marsh, J. (2011). Handbook of early childhood literacy. London: SAGE Publications, Ltd. Heinamaki, L. (2008). ‘Early childhood education in Finland.’ Liberal Institute, Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung fur die Frieheit, 1-16. http://www.fnf.org.ph/downloadables/Childhood%20Education%20in%20Finland.pdf [26th February 2015]. Isaacs, J.B. (November 2009). ‘A comparative perspective on public spending on children,’ Brookings Centre on Children and Families, 1-19. Kalliala, M. and Tahkokallio, L. (2003). ‘The adult role in Finnish early childhood education and care.’ In Laevers, F. and Heylen, L. (Eds.) Involvement of children and teacher style: Insights from an international study on experiential education. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 93-110. Kozulin, A. (2003). ‘Psychological tools and mediated learning.’ In Kozulin, A. (Ed.) Vgotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Ch. 1. Kwon, Y-I. (2002). ‘Changing curriculum for early childhood education in England.’ ECRP Early Childhood Research & Practice, Vol. 4(2). http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n2/kwon.html [26th February 2015]. Maata, K. and Uusiautti, S. (2013). Early child care and education in Finland. Oxon: Routledge. Naumann, I.; McLean, C.; Koslowski, A.; Tisdall, K. and Lloyd, E. (March 2013). ‘Early childhood education and care provision: International review of policy delivery and funding.’ Centre for Research on Families and Relationships: The University of Edinburgh, 1-164. http://www.nls.uk/scotgov/2013/9781782564164.pdf [26th February 2015]. Nursery Education:Desirable Outcomes for Children’s Learning on Entering Compulsory Education (1996). School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the Department for Education and Employment, 1-19. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED433091.pdf [26th February 2015]. Taguma, M.; Litjens, I. and Makowiecki, K. (2012). ‘Quality matters in early childhood education and care: Finland.’ OECD, 1-118. http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/49985030.pdf [24th February 2015]. Taguma, M.; Litjens, I. and Makowiecki, K. (2012A). ‘Quality matters in early childhood education and care: United Kingdom (England).’ OECD, 1-106. http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/50165861.pdf [26th February 2015]. Read More