1 / 25

Imperfect but useful ways to measure quality: research findings using the ECERS-R, ECERS-E and the CIS

Imperfect but useful ways to measure quality: research findings using the ECERS-R, ECERS-E and the CIS. University of East London 9 February 2009. Kathy Sylva Department of Education, University of Oxford. The Child Care Quality Team at Oxford.

brie
Télécharger la présentation

Imperfect but useful ways to measure quality: research findings using the ECERS-R, ECERS-E and the CIS

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. Imperfect but useful ways to measure quality: research findings using the ECERS-R, ECERS-E and the CIS University of East London 9 February 2009 Kathy Sylva Department of Education, University of Oxford

  2. The Child Care Quality Team at Oxford Rose Birkinshaw Department of Psychology, University of Bath Natalia Kucirkova Department of Psychology, University of Bath Faye Linskey Department of Education, University of Oxford Sandra Mathers Department of Education, University of Oxford Fiona Roberts Department of Education, University of Oxford Kathy Sylva Department of Education, University of Oxford

  3. 1. What is quality? Who decides? • Qualitative judgments by ‘expert’ inspectors/advisors • Views of stakeholders, e.g., parents, children and young people • Quantitative evidence on ‘effectiveness’, e.g., national assessment data at school on classroom level • Descriptive research instruments, e.g., ECERS rating scale

  4. ECERS-R Based on observation 7 sub-scales: Space and furnishings Personal care routines Language reasoning Activities Interaction Programme structure Parents and staff Harms, Clifford & Cryer (1998) ECERS-E Based on observation 4 sub-scales: Literacy Mathematics Science and environment Diversity Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart (2003) Two Early Childhood Environment Rating Scales

  5. Example ECERS-R item: Interactions among children (Interaction)

  6. Example ECERS-E item: Book and literacy areas (Literacy)

  7. Example ECERS-E item: Food preparation (Science)

  8. Histogram of total ECERS-R scores(N = 141 pre-school settings, randomly selected) From EPPE Technical Paper 6 (Sylva et al., 1999)

  9. 2. Using quality scores to predict child outcomes in the EPPE study The EPPE Team: Principal Investigators: Kathy Sylva Department of Education, University of Oxford Edward Melhuish Birkbeck, University of London Pam Sammons University of Nottingham Iram Siraj-Blatchford Institute of Education, University of London Brenda Taggart Institute of Education, University of London Researchers: Stephen Hunt Institute of Education, University of London (Sofka Barreau Department of Education,University of Oxford) Helena Jelicic Institute of Education, University of London Olga Cara Institute of Education, University of London Rebecca Smees Institute of Education, University of London Wesley Welcomme Institute of Education, University of London A Longitudinal Study Funded by the DCSF An ESRC/TLRP Project

  10. Design of EPPE: 6 LAs, 3,000 children Pre-school Provision (3+ yrs) Yr 1 Yr 2 Reception Yr 5 Yr 6 25 nursery classes 590 children Key Stage 1 600 Schools Key Stage 2 1000 Schools 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

  11. The impact of pre-school quality (ECERS-E) on English and Mathematics in Year 6

  12. The impact of pre-school quality (ECERS-R and ECERS-E) on self-regulation

  13. The impact of pre-school quality (ECERS-R and ECERS-E) on anti-social behaviour

  14. 3. Factors predicting quality scores in settings Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) and Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative (NNI) Quality Studies • Both large-scale DCSF-funded research studies. • Both national samples (England) N=301, N=103 • Both used systematic observation scales (ECERS & ITERS) to assess quality of Early Years provision. • MCS sample was nationally representative; NNI was targeted at disadvantaged areas. • MCS Quality Study focused on provision for 3-5s; NNI focused on 3s and under. • Both studies offer information about setting characteristics related to quality – ‘which factors lead to high quality provision?’ (Mathers & Sylva, 2007a, b)

  15. MCS and NNI Quality Studies • Both large-scale DCSF-funded research studies. • Both national samples (England). • Both used systematic observation scales (ECERS & ITERS) to assess quality of Early Years provision. • MCS sample was representative; NNI was targeted at disadvantaged areas. • MCS Quality Study focused on provision for 3-5s; NNI focused on 3s and under. • Both studies offer information about setting characteristics related to quality –‘which factors lead to high quality provision?’

  16. Quality of Childcare in the Millennium Cohort Study • MCS is the first new birth cohort study in the UK since 1970 and one of the largest studies of its kind. • The Quality Study used systematic observations to assess childcare quality (for children aged 3 - 5 years) in over 300 settings across England. • Sample representative of children across England. • Detailed ‘snapshot’ of provision quality across England. • Comparisons with existing quality data (EPPE) provided opportunity to consider impact of recent Government policy on pre-school provision.

  17. MCS Quality Study: Influences on provision quality (rank order) • Sector (maintained status = higher quality) • Group size (larger groups = higher quality) • Staff qualifications (higher quals = higher quality) • Children’s Centre status (CCs = higher quality) • Age range of children (older children = higher quality) • Staff-child ratios (fewer children per adult = higher quality) • Links with SSLPs (SSLP links = lower quality) • Health services (centres providing health services = lower quality) • Centre size (smaller centres = higher quality interactions) • Nursery manager qualifications (higher quals = higher quality)

  18. Individual dimensions of quality (combined results for ECERS/ITERS subscales)

  19. Comparing MCS and NNI

  20. Focus on staff qualifications • MCS Quality Study tested variety of qualification factors: • Strongest predictor of quality was mean qualification level of childcare staff working in room observed. • Proportion of staff unqualified almost as predictive. • Other measures tested and found to be related to quality: • Proportion qualified to Level 3 or higher; • Presence of qualified teacher; • Presence of staff member qualified to Level 4 or higher. • Presence of qualified teacher – working in room or as centre manager – was most important for academic provision.

  21. 4. Using the quality scales to improve practice in England Local Authorities: • Audit: mapping quality trends across the authority to prioritise spending, training and support; • Setting standards for decision making e.g. allocation of Nursery Education Grant funding; • Measuring change, e.g. assessing the impact of a new initiative or training programme; • Quality improvement and supported self-assessment: a tool for advisers to work with settings and identify priorities for improvement; • Quality Assurance: either to form the authority’s QA ‘framework’ or in conjunction with an existing scheme. Early Years Settings: • Self-assessment and evidence for Ofsted Self Assessment Form (SEF)

  22. Example of an audit summary: ECERS-R and E subscale means in one LA (across settings)

  23. ECERS-R ‘activities’ item means in one LA (across settings)

  24. References • Harms, T., Clifford R., & Cryer D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale – Revised Edition (ECERS-R). New York: Teachers College Press. • Mathers, S. & Sylva, K. (2007a). Quality of childcare settings in the Millennium Cohort Study. London: DCSF. • Mathers, S. & Sylva, K. (2007b). National Evaluation of the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative: The Relationship between Quality and Children’s Behavioural Development. London: DCSF. • Sylva et al. (1999). EPPE Technical Paper 6 – Characteristics of the Centres in the EPPE Sample: Observational Profiles. London: DCSF. • Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart (2003). Assessing quality in the early years: Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale – Extension (ECERS-E) Four curricular subscales. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. • Sylva et al. (2006). Capturing quality in early childhood through environmental rating scales. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 21, 76-92 • Siraj-Blatchford et al. (2006). Educational Research and Evidence-based Policy: The Mixed-method Approach of the EPPE Project. Evaluation and Research in Education. 19 (2), 63-82

  25. For more information... http://www.education.ox.ac.uk/research/resgroup/fell/index.php http://www.ioe.ac.uk/schools/ecpe/eppe/index.htm

More Related