Strategic Thinking in Early Childhood Education in New Zealand: Seminar

1. Strategic Thinking in ECE in New Zealand: Seminar, Wellington, 27rd July 2011Giving ALL Children a Chance to Achieve: evidence from researchEffective Pre-School, Primary and Secondary Education Project (EPPSE 3-16)A Longitudinal Study Funded by the UK Department for Education 1997-2014 Professor Iram Siraj-Blatchford Institute of Education, University of London

2. This presentation • Intro to the EPPE/EPPSE study • Evidence from EPPE/REPEY, EPPNI and MEEIFP • Exploring quality • The short, medium and long term impact of pre-school

3. The EPPE/EPPSE Design • The overall research design of EPPSE 3-14 Project as an example of ‘educational effectiveness’ research using valued added methods. • EPPSE combines both quantitative and qualitative research methods.

4. Aims of research on educational effectiveness • To compare the progress of children from a wide range of social and cultural backgrounds who have differing pre-school experiences. • To separate out the effects of pre-school experience from the effects of primary school. • To establish whether some pre-school centres are more effective than others in promoting children’s development. • To discover the characteristics of pre-school education in those centres found to be most effective. • To investigate the differences in the progress of groups of children, e.g. children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

5. Design of EPPSE : 6 Local Authorities, 141 pre-schools, 3,000 children Pre-school Provision (3+ yrs) 25 nursery classes 590 children KS 1 862 sch KS2 1,128 sch KS3 739 sch KS4 700+ sch 34 playgroups 610 children 31 private day nurseries 520 children 20 nursery schools 520 children 24 local authority day care nurseries 430 children 7 integrated centres 190 children home 310 children

6. Sources of data, so far • Child assessment (social/behaviour & cognitive) at 3, 4+, 6, 7, 10 ,11 & 14 years (first 16 outcomes in 2009) • Family background at 3, 6 and 11 & 14 • Interviews/questionnaires with staff • ‘Quality’ rating scales in pre-school • Case studies of effective pre-school settings • Pedagogical observations in primary school • School and classroom climate questionnaires • Children’s views of school at age 7, 10 & 14 • Teachers’ views on school processes and practice in Yr 5 & Yr 9

7. Different influences on child outcomes Child Factors Cognitive outcomes: English & maths Social/Behavioural: Self Regulation Likes to work things out for self Pro-social Considerate of others feelings Hyperactivity Restless, cannot stay still for long Anti-social Has been in trouble with the law Family Factors Home-Learning- Environment Primary School Pre-School

8. Drawing on evidence from projects:EPPE/REPEY 3-7 (England)EPPNI 3-5 (Northern Ireland)MEEIFP 3-6 (Wales) Some Key Issues • Quality of provision formal v informal (care and education) • Transitions – especially Summer born children • Ratios • Training • Literacy and interactions • Appropriate curriculum and assessments

9. Early Years and outcomes • If children come from disadvantaged backgrounds and are ‘at risk’ of social problems, then high quality pre-school/early years will make an important contribution to improving their social development. • Children with no pre-school experience (the ‘home’ group) had poorer intellectual attainment, sociability and concentration when they started school, even after taking account of home background. • More terms in pre-school (after the age of 2 years) is related to better cognitive and social progress (dose effect). • Children who attend pre-school settings part-time develop as well as those children attending full-time

10. Effectiveness • Integrated settings and nursery schools tend to do better on cognitive outcomes even after taking account of children’s backgrounds. • Integrated settings (which have fully integrated education with care) nursery schools and nursery classes are better at fostering children’s social development • Settings with higher quality provision decreased children’s anti-social/ worried behaviour. .

11. Quality • Settings in the state educational sector have children who make (comparatively) more progress than those in the private/voluntary sector. • In the EPPE sample, nursery schools and centres that integrated education and care tended to be rated highest on quality, (e.g. ECERS and Caregiver Interaction Scale). • Good quality and better cognitive outcomes for children are associated with higher quality as defined by the ECERS R and E In the most effective settings, staff had • Better knowledge of the curriculum and child development • Engaged more in ‘sustained shared thinking’ with children • Supported children in talking through and resolving conflict • Adults had warm, responsive relationships with children. • Set clear educational goals. • Have recognised early years qualifications. • Trained teachers are amongst the staff. • Parents are supported in involvement in children’s learning.

12. Complex value-added model: the effect of pre-school’s quality on children’s cognitive progress * When change of centre is not in model # verging on statistical significance

13. Complex value-added model: the effect of pre-school’s quality on children’s social-behavioural development

14. Home learning before 3 years What parents and carers do is most important and makes a real difference to development. Activities for parents which help children’s development include: • reading to children; • teaching children songs and nursery rhymes; • playing with letters and numbers; • painting and drawing; • taking children to libraries; • (for social outcomes) creating regular opportunities for play with friends.

15. Training: Relationship between Quality and Manager Qualification: EPPE evidence

16. EPPE -ECERS-R and Manager Qualifications

17. Best Practice in the Foundation Phase (achieved by 10% of the pilots, all maintained) • The best settings in terms of implementing the FP appear to have the following common characteristics: • More detailed, focused planning. • Lead practitioners with good leadership and management skills and the ability to allocate effective roles for other adults whilst planning together for children’s learning • Guided and supported play activities with higher levels of adult-child interaction that support children’s thinking. • Clear and dynamic vision and leadership from setting heads who have a good grasp of effective early years practice and are able to communicate this effectively to FP staff. 4th December, 2006

18. Best Practice in the Foundation Phase • The best settings did not slavishly adhere to the FP guidance but took it seriously and built the FP into existing good practice. • A move away from over-formal practice in the basics towards a more experiential, child centred and adult guided, play based practice. • The leadership of the setting has a culture of investing in staff development. • Some well trained and qualified staff who have a good understanding of child development and pedagogy and who actively support other staff in working with children. 4th December, 2006

19. Effective Pedagogy • Sustained shared thinking: • An episode in which two or more individuals “work together” in an intellectual way to solve a problem, clarify a concept, evaluate activities, extend a narrative etc. Both parties must contribute to the thinking and it must develop and extend. • Open-ended questions • Playful learning

20. Percentage of high cognitive challenge activities within each initiation category in each setting type percentage

21. Proportion of adult cognitive pedagogical interactions in settings varying in effectiveness

22. Time spent by children in different social groupings across settings of varying effectiveness

24. Reducing Inequality Investing in good quality EYFS provision is an effective means of achieving targets concerning social exclusion and breaking cycles of disadvantage, butmore is only better if the quality is right.

25. Playful learning for children is based on the following ideas: • Building on and extending the child’s interests • The child is usually active physically, socially and intellectually • The learning is exploratory without necessarily fixed outcomes in mind • Playful learning motivates children to try more challenging learning • Children use, apply and extend their knowledge, skills and understanding through active exploration • In social contexts children develop their capacities for cooperation and collaboration and can often explore complex ideas

26. Supporting playful learning involves the use of a suite of strategies including: • Creating well resourced environments with rich materials • Being involved and interacting with children as they play and explore • Maintaining a purposeful focus on the child’s learning and development • Modelling expressive language and consciously extending children’s vocabulary • Constructively engaging with children to scaffold and extend learning • Using sustained shared thinking strategies to build on child-initiated activity to extend knowledge, skills and understanding

27. The short , medium and long term impact of pre-school

28. Short Term impact- Aged 5 (entry to school)Reading

29. Short term impact – Aged 5 (entry to school) Social-behavioural

30. Main findings from the ECERS- R & E • Scores on the total ECERS-R were positively related to children’s progress in Cooperation/conformity • Scores on the ‘social interaction’ sub-scale were related to the development of independence and peer sociability • Total scores on the ECERS-E were significantly related to progress in children’s - Pre-reading(Phonological awareness, letter recognition) - Non-verbal reasoning - Number skills • Sub-scale scores were related to- - independence and concentration

32. Impact of quality as measured by the Caregivers Interaction Scale on cognitive and social behaviour outcomes

33. Medium Term Impact – Aged 7 (end of KS 1 ) - Reading and Writing READING at key stage 1, social class and pre-school experience WRITING at key stage 1, social class and pre-school experience

34. The contribution of social class and pre-school to mathematics attainment (age 7) MATHEMATICS at key stage 1, social class and pre-school experience

35. The impact of Pre-school Quality (ECERS-E: Educational aspects) on English and Maths Pre-school quality is associated with Key Stage 2 performance in both English and Mathematics. Also medium or high quality pre-school is associated with significantly enhanced attainment compared to no pre-school or low quality pre-school, and the effects are comparable in size to the effects of gender and FSM.

36. The Combined Impact of Pre-School Quality and Primary School Effectiveness (Value add) - Mathematics Reference Group: No Pre-School and Very low / low Primary School Effectiveness

37. Long Term impact – Aged 10 Pre-school Quality and Self Regulation • Self regulation is highest in children who have attended medium or high quality pre-schools

38. The impact of Pre-school Quality(ECER-R: Social/Care aspects) on Hyperactivity and Pro-social Behaviour Hyperactivity Pro-social • Children who attend high quality pre-school display higher pro-social behaviour and lower levels of hyperactive behaviour • Home children show significantly reduced levels of positive social behaviour relative to children who attended pre-school regardless of quality, however, they also show reduced levels of Hyperactivity

39. The impact of Pre-school Quality (ECERS-R: Social/Care aspects & ECERS-E: Educational aspect) on Self-regulation and Pro-social behaviour Children who attended medium and high quality pre-schools had higher levels of ‘Self-regulation’ in Year 6 than others. ‘Home’ children were rated by teachers as having less ‘‘Pro-social’’ behaviour relative to children who had attended pre-school, although the difference is most marked for those who attended high quality.

40. For further Information about EPPSE project visit for free downloads the www.ioe.ac.uk/projects/eppeor Tel 00 44 (0)20 7612 6219 Brenda Taggart Research Co-ordinator (b.taggart@ioe.ac.uk)or the DfE website at: http://www.dfe.gov.uk/research/ Principal Investigators: Professor Kathy Sylva, University of Oxford Professor Edward Melhuish, Birkbeck, University of London Professor Pam Sammons, University of Nottingham Professor IramSiraj-Blatchford, Institute of Education, University of London Brenda Taggart , Institute of Education, University of London Analyses Team at the Institute of Education, University of London: Dr. Stephen Hunt, Dr. Helena Jeličić, Kati Toth, Diana Dragichi, Rebecca Smees and Wesley Welcomme, Dr Aziza Mayo, Donna-Lynn Shepherd