1 / 34

Supported by UNICEF, UNESCO, The World Bank, SERP, MHRD, MWCD, CARE India State Research Partners

Quality Variations in Early Childhood Education. Supported by UNICEF, UNESCO, The World Bank, SERP, MHRD, MWCD, CARE India State Research Partners NIPCCD Guwahati & Andhra Mahila Sabha Hyderabad. Overview of presentation. Background of the study.

farhani
Download Presentation

Supported by UNICEF, UNESCO, The World Bank, SERP, MHRD, MWCD, CARE India State Research Partners

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Quality Variations in Early Childhood Education Supported by UNICEF, UNESCO, The World Bank, SERP, MHRD, MWCD, CARE India State Research Partners NIPCCD Guwahati & Andhra MahilaSabha Hyderabad

  2. Overview of presentation

  3. Background of the study Part of a larger Longitudinal Study which is looking at: Trends in participation in ECE across public, private & NGO sectors. Quality variations in ECE across sector. Impact of quality variations on school readiness of children at age 5 years. Longer term impact of school readiness in terms of primary level outcomes –both cognitive and personal-social.

  4. Conceptual Framework

  5. Design of the study

  6. Sample

  7. Objective of phase 1 analysis To study variations in quality in ECE in terms of content and method used, as observed across public, private and NGO programs.

  8. Categories of ECE programmes studied • Selected Anganwadi centre (AWC): ECE Centers run under Government's Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS). Only centresfound functioning with children were included in sample, with at least 5 sampled children of required age participating. • Private preschool (PP): Preschool sections like nursery, LKG, UKG, run as part of private low cost primary schools. • Known practice centre (KPC): a low cost ECE program, other than AWC & Private school, which is ‘known’ as an innovative program and is available only on a small scale.

  9. What are we assessing as quality of program through ECEQAS ? • Infrastructure & Materials: • Physical infrastructure • Learning and play materials • Class composition • Program Quality: • Meal time & Self help skills • Language & Reasoning Experiences • Creative activities • Fine &Gross motor skills • Social development • Teacher disposition Scores converted out of 10 for every domain

  10. Quality variations among ECE programs Preliminary findings based on pre-test data

  11. Distribution of Centers, by types • Steady Expansion of private preschools • ‘Underage’ children attending government primary school; may not be registered

  12. Infrastructure, materials & classroom composition

  13. Physical Infrastructure Private Preschools give priority to clean and good building & infrastructure Toilets & clean drinking water No toilets in 83% AWC & 77% KPC whereas in 78% PP toilets are in use Clean covered drinking water available in 59% AWC & KPC whereas it is in 83% PP Classroom space & cleanliness Enough space for conducting activities in 51% AWC, 59% KPC & in only 37% PP 46% AWC were littered or had unclean seating arrangement; whereas 72% PP & 77% KPC had clean classrooms

  14. Availability of play & learning aids Known ECE practices were better equipped with learning & play materials, specifically indoor manipulative material Availability of outdoor equipment Overall 50% centres have space but limited or no equipment for outdoor play Availability of indoor material & its use Some indoor material present in 24% PP, 64% AWC & 77% KPC Material used in classroom by all children in only 4% PP, 24% AWC & 55% KPC

  15. Class composition Categories comparable on domain of class composition Availability of teacher >90% times teacher found present in class across categories Age wise composition of class In 6% AWC, 32% KPC & 43% PP Student teacher ratio More than 40:1 in 33% PP classrooms whereas 68% KPC & 20% AWC had 25:1 ratio

  16. Content of programme

  17. Language development experiences Known practice centres provide most opportunities & private school least. AWC score better due to focus on song & rhymes Listening opportunities for children No opportunity except instructions in 32% AWC & PP Specific listening activities planned in 96% KPCs Opportunities to speak & social interaction Children encouraged to talk & interact in 59% KPC & 43% AWC; children not allowed to speak, except when asked a question in 80 percent PPs! Activities for development of speaking skills No planned activity in more than 45% AWC & PP; in 86% KPC activities are planned 11% across categories of ECE centres had children who did not understand teacher’s language

  18. Opportunities for cognitive development Private preschools & AWC focus on formal education & rote memorization! Concept formation No opportunity/activity in 87% PP & 66% AWC; whereas 72% KPC provide materials & conduct activities Development of Cognitive skills No activities for dev of high order skills in 93% PP & 77% AWC; observed in 59% KPC Formal education & rote memorization common in 88% PP, 73% AWC & 32% KPC

  19. Fine & gross skills Known practices provide most opportunities for motor development; but focus is on fine motor skills Outdoor activities Conducted in 15% AWC, 18% PP & 23% KPC Activities for fine motor development No opportunities in 95% PP & 77% AWC but in 45% KPC given priority

  20. Creative activities Known practice provide better opportunities for creative activities Art/craft activities No art/craft activities in 68% AWC & 80% PP; activities conducted in 68% KPC In PP 80% of time children told exactly what to draw!

  21. Social Development ‘Known practice’ provide a better environment for social development in children Opportunity to learn to share & help No activity in ½ of AWC & PP but in 32% KPC specific activity conducted Free play No free play in 64% AWC & 75% PP; whereas in 68% KPC free play a major component

  22. Meal time & self help skills Categories of ECE comparable on this domain with private preschools leading Sanitation Children in 76% PP, 68% KPC & 51% AWC habitual to washing hands Personal grooming 75% teachers at PP give priority; but 45% AWW & KPC teachers do not pay attention

  23. Proportionate time on Task in ECE

  24. Relationships between quality, infrastructure & learning aids Physical infrastructure important, but not significant for quality of ECE program; availability of learning & play aids significantly associated

  25. Teacher Factors

  26. Teacher’s disposition No significant variation observed across categories of ECE centres Sensitivity & awareness towards gender 96% of KPC, 74% AWC & 57% PP teachers gender sensitive Quality of teacher-child interaction Teachers in 68% PP, 58% AWC & 32% instruct children & limited their participation

  27. Teacher’s perceptions on ECE • Almost all teachers think ECE important for young children Reasons given • Get Habituated for primary school, Foundation for grade 1 • Over all development • Learn good habits, become smart & confident. • Learn Songs, stories, rhymes • Development of social skills & mingle with others

  28. Parent’s Perceptions • Parents send their children to ECE centres to prepare them for formal school & learn the required skills for class 1

  29. Parent’s Perceptions • Scope of improvement in learning possible in every category • Learning a concern for all parents • AWC lack physical facilities & need improvement according to parents • Quality & attendance of teacher a concern among AWC parents • Food not provided for in KPC parents: advocate for provision for mid meals

  30. Emerging Models of ECE provisions

  31. Implications • Highs and Lows!!: Most children attending ECE programmes; but not getting developmentally appropriate curriculum. Focus on rote memorization. • Private preschools expanding: considered as the place ‘where learning & teaching happens’ by community; but actually lack in terms of quality & content!! Need for community education to determine parental choice and influence quality of private preschools. • ‘Known practices’ emerge as better practices due to planning, supervision & on site support for teachers; tips for the system. • Physical infrastructure, though important component for attracting parents, is not as significant as learning & play aids in determining quality.

  32. Implications • Known practices also lack in certain domains, e.g. mealtime & self help skills; outdoor play; need to emphasize holistic curriculum. • Outdoor space available but no play equipment for gross motor skills. • Teacher training does not emerge as significant factor. Possibly a reflection of the duration, quality and content of training .eg AW training. • Need to plan more comprehensively for content and quality in terms of training, materials , space and teacher.

  33. Further Analysis: The Way Ahead …… • After post test: • Estimation of immediate impact of quality of ECE of one year duration (ECEQAS Scores) on School readiness scores of 5 year old children . • Identification of ‘quality elements’ that have proportionately more significant impact. • Understand the household determinants of school readiness. • Estimate contribution of teachers’ characteristics to the quality of ECE content and method. • After annual follow up at primary stage: • Assess the extent to which impact of school readiness levels is sustained on primary level outcomes. • What is the immediate impact at entry to formal school and how far is it sustained along the primary stage in terms of primary level outcomes?

More Related