Mandatory Review of Early Childhood Education ... · PDF fileMandatory Review of Early Childhood Education Qualifications Wellington Sector Meeting Minutes ... Fereni Ete Pacific Training

ECE MRoQ Sector Meeting Notes Nov 2013 .docx 1

Mandatory Review of Early Childhood Education Qualifications

Wellington Sector Meeting Minutes

Date: Wednesday 27 November 2013 Location: WELLINGTON

Time: 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm New Zealand Career College Harcourts Building, Level 1 54 Cambridge Terrace WELLINGTON

Attendees (24 people) Wellington meeting

Name Organisation

Mary Stephen Aperfield-Montessori Trust

Peter Reynolds Early Childhood Council

Karin Dalgleish Ministry of Education

Misty Parbhu Ministry of Education

Maryanne Robertson Nanny Education Organisation of New Zealand

Derek Martin New Zealand Career College Limited - (Co-lead)

Sandy Bycroft New Zealand Career College Limited

Andy Walker NZ College of Early Childhood Education

Susan Elliot NZEI Te Riu Roa – NZ Educational Institute

Maureen Woodhams NZ Playcentre Federation

Diana Garrett NZQA – National Qualifications Services (NQS) - (Co-lead)

Deborah Wansbrough New Zealand Teachers Council

Ann Balcombe Open Polytechnic

Sonja Rosewarne Open Polytechnic

Fereni Ete Pacific Training Institute

Mino Cleverley Pacific Training Institute

Gillian Croad Playcentre Education

Sue Grant Plunket

Adrianne Sudfelt PORSE Education and Training (NZ) Ltd

Jane Ewens Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa / NZ Childcare Association

Heather MacLean UCOL

Ruth Barnes Waiariki Institute of Technology - (Co-lead)

Cyril Shaw Workforce Development Ltd

Kirsten Hughes Workforce Development Ltd


Apologies (6) Wellington sector meeting

Name Organisation

Dr Sarah Farquhar Early Childhood Network Child Forum

Michelle Maguren NZEI Te Riu Roa - NZ Educational Institute

Clare Wells NZ Kindergarten Association

Bella Tanielu-Dick Whitireia Community Polytechnic

Kaye Jujnovich Whitireia Community Polytechnic

Aaron Shackell-Smith Workforce Development Ltd

1. Welcome and introductions

Derek Martin, NZ Career College, welcomed everyone to the meeting and invited the co-

leads and participants to introduce themselves.

2. Schedule for meeting

Derek referred to the agenda for the meeting, and provided a brief overview of the schedule

for the day. He advised that the purpose of the meeting was to inform attendees about the

review process and the needs analysis, to obtain endorsement for the approach to

establishing governance for the review, and to provide a discussion forum to enable any

issues to be raised and queries to be addressed.

3. Setting the scene - Reviews of Qualifications

Diana Garrett, National Qualification Services (NQS), NZQA) provided an overview of the

Targeted Review of Qualifications (TRoQ), Mandatory Reviews of Qualifications (MRoQ),

qualification design and programmes.

Information was also provided on the process for mandatory reviews, and the requirement to

demonstrate evidence of need for the proposed new qualifications submitted for approval to

develop.

Key points:

• The TRoQ determined that there was a lack of understanding and clarity around the

multitude of qualifications; and you couldn’t always tell what a qualification was preparing

people for. This led to changes – some of which have already occurred (e.g. from NQF

to NZQF – which includes national, local and new New Zealand qualifications).

• The mandatory reviews of qualifications (MRoQ) are an important mechanism to reduce

the duplication and proliferation of qualifications. A new suite of NZ qualifications,

developed to new rules and guidelines, will replace existing national and local

qualifications. This is what we are now starting for the ECE qualifications.

• The focus of MRoQ is on a collaborative qualification development process with a

contributory basis, where similar qualifications are ‘clustered’ together for review by

stakeholders in the sector. New qualifications must be based on need with clear

graduate profile outcomes and pathways, and flexibility to allow a range of programmes

to be developed towards the new qualifications.

• An important change is that new qualifications will be publicly owned, with potentially

several different programmes from different providers leading to the qualifications.


• Providers can develop their own unique programmes to meet the requirements of the

new qualifications. Programmes effectively replace existing qualifications, and comprise

components (which may be unit standards, courses, prescriptions, or some combination).

• Explanation of the mandatory review stages and process – lots to do and limited time.

o Pre-trigger (start): preparation phase (where the ECE review is now);

o Stage 1: Pre-approval – design and development of new qualifications to ‘application

for approval to develop’ (6 months);

o Stage 2: Listing – further refinements and development of proposed qualifications for

‘approval to list’.

Providers design and submit proposed programmes towards the new qualifications for

programme approval

• Transition phase - providers continue to offer existing qualifications but are expected to

make the transition from using their existing ‘expiring’ qualifications to the new NZ

qualifications. Existing learners are not intended to be disadvantaged. Timing is agreed

between the local qualification owner and NZQA QAD, and is generally expected to be

within 2 years of the new qualifications being listed on the NZQF.

• The Teacher Education review is occurring at the same time as the ECE review, and its

scope currently includes the Kohanga Reo qualifications. An approach has been made

to clarify which review they want their qualifications included with, and an invitation to

remain as a stakeholder for both reviews.

• Attendees were advised that further detail and guidelines are available on the NZQA

website, and any queries can be directed to the review mailbox

[email protected] .

Diana also provided a summary of roles and responsibilities, which included:

• Professional advisor & sector relationship manager (SRM) – appointed by QAD to

ensure good processes are followed and that reviews stay on track;

• Qualification developer/co-leads – project management and administration; ongoing

• Governance - strategic leadership; consult and make decisions on behalf of the

sector; approve each stage of new qualification development;

• Working groups – for detailed development work; subject matter technical experts;

• Stakeholders/sector – choose how to be involved, nominate/participate in

Governance or workgroups, feedback to surveys and consultations, monitoring

progress etc.

There was then opportunity for attendees to ask questions and seek clarification about any

areas of concern. The key issues raised related to existing qualifications and what happens

to them in the new environment. A copy of the presentation is available from the review

webpage. http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/early-childhood-

education-qualifications/review-of-ece-qualifications/

4. Governance for ECE MRoQ

Derek led the session on Governance, and reiterated that the governance group will provide

the strategic leadership for the ECE review, and should be established very soon.

Derek explained that the co-leads initiate the process to determine review Governance, and

that it is proposed that nominations for membership will be sought from the sector shortly.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/early-childhood-education-qualifications/review-of-ece-qualifications/



He detailed the proposed approach to the composition, nomination and selection process,

referring to the draft nomination form and terms of reference pre-circulated to attendees.

The meeting agreed with the proposed approach of seeking nominations with the

intention of having a broad cross-section of members that reflect the breadth of the sector to

provide the strategic leadership for the review.

Concern was expressed about the tight timeline, but agreed to the proposed timeline of

nominations by 10 December, with a view to appointments pre-Christmas, with a first

meeting to be held late January 2014.

There was further discussion on the proposed composition, and it was reinforced that

members would not ‘represent’ a particular sector, but provide holistic input and oversight,

and put aside personal interest.

The meeting proposed a breadth of coverage to ensure the following considerations were

reflected in the final composition (not directly representative – sector wide interests and

vision):

Employers of graduates

Providers – ITP (Polytechnics); PTE (maybe rep bodies ITENZ/ITI); maybe a

University rep

Centre-based, parent-led, home-based

Māori & Pasifika

Government (policy)

The meeting recognised that some applicants may have interests across more than one area

(e.g. Kohanga Reo and Playcentre can be both employer and provider); and there was a

reluctance to identify any specific peak bodies to seek nominations from.

Attendees agreed to think further about who may be suitable to lead the review in a

Governance capacity, and were happy for the application and selection process to proceed

as per the draft terms of reference, understanding that stakeholders would be kept informed

of developments as they occurred.

5. Needs Analysis

Ruth Barnes, Waiariki Institute of Technology, advised she is compiling the needs analysis

for this ECE qualifications review, and that the draft is due in January before the Governance

Group meet.

She explained that it is an important document as it must inform and support the decisions of

the Governance Group and justify the need for any proposed ECE qualifications that result

from this review.

Ruth provided an update on findings during this early stage of development of the needs

analysis. Her presentation included information on the current ECE sector including: the

range of ECE options; statistics on ECE enrolments, waiting times etc; and teachers and job

roles in ECE. It also showed that there are 33 ECE qualifications within the scope of this

review, with 22 qualification owners and delivered by 38 tertiary providers and some


secondary schools. Vocational pathways include an ECE specialisation option within the

Social and Community Services Sector pathway; and this and other education and

employment pathway links need to be identified and clarified for the review.

Ruth fielded questions and invited feedback from attendees. In addition to clarifications

relating to the figures and some other material in her presentation, comments and

suggestions from the discussion included:

• Changing population demographics being likely to impact the ECE workforce and

learners – and numbers and ethnic mix of children seeking ECE

• Immersion language learning for some e.g. Pasifika ECE; and consider Kohanga Reo

although currently within scope of the Teacher Education review (invited to be part of

ECE review, and decision pending)

• Special character programmes e.g. Playcentre, Montessori

• Consideration of links to international registration/certification

• Consider advertised job vacancy data e.g. Seek, Trademe etc

• Education employment consultants may be a good place to get information for the

needs analysis (e.g. Education Personnel, Dixon St, Wellington)

• Reminder to include benefits to parents and community from ECE qualifications and

training

• Government policy and priority areas information to be included – ECE can ‘tick the

boxes’ for a few such as jobs or training for beneficiaries, improving educational

outcomes for Maori and Pasifika; home-based ECE environment

• Ministry of Education to provide updated statistics for the ECE sector

• Diana to provide usage figures for qualifications within the review.

Ruth thanked attendees for their input, and invited them to provide any additional

contributions to the needs analysis directly to her. She was particularly keen on getting

‘destination data’ on graduates of existing qualifications, which may provide evidence for job

roles and education or community pathways.

6. Key concerns, issues, queries

Derek led a discussion session, which provided an opportunity for attendees to raise any

issues. Points raised include:

• Quality of curriculum and outcomes and teaching must be paramount

• Sustainability of pathways enabling qualifications

• Benefits to children and country, not just qualification design

• Time constraints for the review an issue

• Congruence with graduated teacher standards, NZ Teachers Council (NZTC), and UE

• Relevant entry requirements e.g. IELTS 7

• Must be clear to students where the qualification leads to - pathways, exit points,

alignment to teacher qualifications/registration

• Pathway to teacher registration is important for Pasifika learners

• Consider demographic trends and impacts on ECE

• Consider Pasifika learners - both as students of ECE qualifications, and as young

children in ECE environment

• Existing qualifications and what happens to them

• Qualifications and programmes – the distinction and what it means for providers


• Transition from current qualifications to programmes towards new qualifications

• How co-leads were determined

• Encouraging Kohanga Reo qualifications to be part of ECE rather than Teacher

Education review

7. Next steps

Diana provided a progress update and outlined next steps for the ECE review.

Key points included:

• The ECE review is scheduled for the first quarter of 2014, and will likely trigger (start) late

January 2014, with application for approval to develop qualifications expected within 6

months

• Sector meetings are being held in Wellington 27 November and Auckland 28 November.

Presentation and notes from the meeting will be available from the review webpage.

• Governance – nomination documentation will be finalised asap and applications sought

by 10-12 December 2013; with appointments before Christmas and first Governance

Group meeting scheduled for 2 days late January 2014. Aim is to have a landscape of

the proposed suite of new qualifications for consultation asap following the GG meeting.

• Needs analysis – Ruth is compiling this important document, and the draft is due in

January to inform GG and new qualification landscape. Input from stakeholders is

encouraged by mid-late December (particularly destination data, and information on

special character ECE qualifications), and Ruth is considering a survey very soon to help

fill gaps in information. Draft will be available on the website once presented to the GG.

• Stakeholders are encouraged to engage with the review, and this may be by:

o completing the survey for the needs analysis;

o nominating someone and/or collaborating and contributing to costs for a

Governance Group nominee;

o spreading the word with networks,

o contributing to the landscape/map of proposed qualifications;

o participating or nominating for working groups;

o providing feedback to consultation documents;

o monitoring the review website and responding to review communications.

Key points from this meeting may be shared with participants at the sector meeting in

Auckland 28 November, and will inform the planning for the review.

8. Closing

Diana thanked the co-leads – Derek and NZ Career College for hosting the sector meeting;

and Ruth for her work on the needs analysis.

Diana thanked participants for attending and their input to the meeting, and invited them to

spread the word amongst their networks and to maintain their active interest and involvement

in the review. Also to think about who may be suitable to provide the strategic leadership of

the review, and look for the ECEGG nomination information that will be sent early next week.

The meeting closed at 4pm.


Mandatory Review of Early Childhood Education Qualifications

Auckland Sector Meeting Minutes

Date: Thursday 28 November 2013 Location: AUCKLAND

Time: 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm New Zealand Career College 75 Karangahape Road - Level 3 AUCKLAND

Attendees (30 people) Auckland meeting

Name Organisation

Norah Fryer Aperfield-Montessori Trust

Amanda Shribman Ashton Warner Nanny Academy

Steve Brown Ashton Warner Nanny Academy

Natalie MacKenzie Auckland Kindergarten Association

Alison Sutton COMET Auckland

Allison Hislop Cornell Institute of Business and Technology

Tahera Afrin ICL Business School

Fisi Kaliatama-Pange KAAT (Kuki Airani Angaanga Tupuna) Trust

Lesley Marsters KAAT (Kuki Airani Angaanga Tupuna) Trust

Naomi Tamangaro KAAT (Kuki Airani Angaanga Tupuna) Trust

Sue Kurtovich Kurtovich Consulting

Ann Le Marseny Manukau Institute of Technology

Carol Potts Maria Montessori Education Foundation

Tia Wooller Maria Montessori Education Foundation

Derek Martin New Zealand Career College Limited - (Co-lead)

Kitt Foreman New Zealand Career College Limited

Emma McAlister NZ Home Base Childcare Association

Diana Garrett NZQA – National Qualifications Services (NQS) - (Co-lead)

Bev Mitchell NZQA (Sector Relationship Manager)

Dr Linda Austin New Zealand School of Education

James Ward New Zealand Tertiary College

Maria Rodriquez New Zealand Tertiary College

Donna Ertel Taranaki Educare Training Trust

Sue Hobby Taranaki Educare Training Trust

Ken Simpson Unitec - NZQA appointed Professional Advisor

Ruth Barnes Waiariki Institute of Technology - (Co-lead)

Anne Carter Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec)


Christine Coombes Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec)

Kathleen Moriarty Western Institute of Technology

Tanya Pintchouk Whitireia New Zealand

Apologies (5) Auckland meeting

Name Organisation

Jenny Whiley Auckland Kindergarten Association

Sandy Duncan ICL Business School

Naama Prasad KAAT (Kuki Airani Angaanga Tupuna) Trust

Celeste Harrington Kidicorp

Wendy Reinink Manukau Institute of Technology

1. Welcome and introductions

Feroz Ali, Managing Director of NZ Career College, introduced himself and welcomed

everyone to the College for the meeting.

Derek Martin, NZ Career College, also welcomed attendees, and invited the co-leads and

participants to introduce themselves. Some issues raised during introductions have been

included in the discussion summary (point 6 – Key concerns, issues, queries)

2. Schedule for meeting

Derek referred to the agenda for the meeting, and provided a brief overview of the schedule

for the day, mentioning a sector meeting was also held in Wellington the previous day. He

advised that the purpose of the meeting was to inform attendees about the review process

and the needs analysis, to obtain endorsement for the approach to establishing governance

for the review, and to provide a discussion forum to enable any issues to be raised and

queries to be addressed.

3. Setting the scene - Reviews of Qualifications Diana Garrett, National Qualification Services (NQS), NZQA) provided an overview of the Targeted Review of Qualifications (TRoQ), Mandatory Reviews of Qualifications (MRoQ), qualification design and programmes.

Information was also provided on the process for mandatory reviews, and the requirement to

demonstrate evidence of need for the proposed new qualifications submitted for approval to

develop.

Key points:

• The TRoQ determined that there was a lack of understanding and clarity around the

multitude of qualifications; and you couldn’t always tell what a qualification was preparing

people for. This led to changes – some of which have already occurred (e.g. from NQF

to NZQF – which includes national, local and new New Zealand qualifications).

• The mandatory reviews of qualifications (MRoQ) are an important mechanism to reduce

the duplication and proliferation of qualifications. A new suite of NZ qualifications,


developed to new rules and guidelines, will replace existing national and local

qualifications. This is what we are now starting for the ECE qualifications.

• The focus of MRoQ is on a collaborative qualification development process with a

contributory basis, where similar qualifications are ‘clustered’ together for review by

stakeholders in the sector. New qualifications must be based on need with clear

graduate profile outcomes and pathways, and flexibility to allow a range of programmes

to be developed towards the new qualifications.

• An important change is that new qualifications will be publicly owned, with potentially

several different programmes from different providers leading to the qualifications.

• Providers can develop their own unique programmes to meet the requirements of the

new qualifications. Programmes effectively replace existing qualifications, and comprise

components (which may be unit standards, courses, prescriptions, or some combination).

• Explanation of the mandatory review stages and process – lots to do and limited time.

o Pre-trigger (start): preparation phase (where the ECE review is now);

o Stage 1: Pre-approval – design and development of new qualifications to ‘application

for approval to develop’ (6 months);

o Stage 2: Listing – further refinements and development of proposed qualifications for

‘approval to list’.

Providers design and submit proposed programmes towards the new qualifications for

programme approval.

• Transition phase - providers continue to offer existing qualifications but are expected to

make the transition from using their existing ‘expiring’ qualifications to the new NZ

qualifications. Existing learners are not intended to be disadvantaged. Timing is agreed

between the local qualification owner and NZQA QAD, and is generally expected to be

within 2 years of the new qualifications being listed on the NZQF.

• The Teacher Education review is occurring at the same time as the ECE review, and its

scope currently includes the Kohanga Reo qualifications. An approach has been made

to clarify which review they want their qualifications included with, and an invitation to

remain as a stakeholder for both reviews.

• Attendees were advised that further detail and guidelines are available on the NZQA

website, and any queries can be directed to the review mailbox

[email protected] .

Diana also provided a summary of roles and responsibilities, which included:

• Professional advisor & sector relationship manager (SRM) – appointed by QAD to

ensure good processes are followed and that reviews stay on track;

• Qualification developer/co-leads – project management and administration; ongoing

• Governance - strategic leadership; consult and make decisions on behalf of the

sector; approve each stage of new qualification development;

• Working groups – for detailed development work; subject matter technical experts;

• Stakeholders/sector – choose how to be involved, nominate/participate in

Governance or workgroups, feedback to surveys and consultations, monitoring

progress etc.

There was then opportunity for attendees to ask questions and seek clarification about any

areas of concern. The key issues raised related to existing qualifications and what happens

to them in the new environment. A copy of the presentation is available from the review

mailto:[email protected]


webpage. http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/qualifications-standards/qualifications/early-childhood-

education-qualifications/review-of-ece-qualifications/

4. Governance for ECE MRoQ

Derek led the session on Governance, and reiterated that the governance group will provide

the strategic leadership for the ECE review, and should be established very soon.

Derek explained that the co-leads initiate the process to determine review Governance, and

that it is proposed that nominations for membership will be sought from the sector shortly.

He detailed the proposed approach to the composition, nomination and selection process,

referring to the draft nomination form and terms of reference pre-circulated to attendees.

Concern was expressed about the contributory funding model proposed, and how this may

disadvantage smaller organisations from being involved. Collaboration between

stakeholders was encouraged to identify, agree on, and contribute to costs for suitable

nominee/s to provide the strategic leadership for the review. The intent is to meet in the

place convenient to most on the GG and include some teleconference meetings, with

consideration of varying the location of meetings if appropriate.

There was further discussion on the proposed composition, and it was reinforced that

members would not ‘represent’ a particular sector, but provide holistic input and oversight,

and put aside personal interest.

The meeting agreed with the proposed breadth of coverage to ensure the following

considerations were reflected in the final composition (not directly representative – sector

wide interests and vision), added to from the Wellington meeting:

Employers of graduates

Providers – ITP (Polytechnics); PTE (maybe rep bodies ITENZ/ITI); maybe a

University rep

Centre-based, parent-led, home-based, hospital-based, nanny education

Māori, Pasifika, Multicultural and International

Government (policy)

The meeting recognised that some applicants may have interests across more than one area

(e.g. Kohanga Reo and Playcentre can be both employer and provider); and there was a

reluctance to identify any specific peak bodies to seek nominations from.

The attendees also requested that the wording of the ToR and nomination form be amended

to include reference to multicultural perspectives, experience of teacher education, and

programmes of special character (e.g. Montessori, Playcentre, Nanny Education) in the

‘collective’ experience, knowledge and skills of Governance Group membership.

The meeting agreed with the proposed approach of seeking nominations with the

intention of having a broad cross-section of members that reflect the breadth of the sector to

provide the strategic leadership for the review.

Concern was expressed about the tight timeline, but agreed to the proposed timeline of

nominations by 10-12 December, with a view to appointments pre-Christmas, with a first

meeting to be held late January 2014.




Attendees agreed to think further about who may be suitable to lead the review in a

Governance capacity, and were happy for the application and selection process to proceed

as per the amended draft terms of reference, understanding that stakeholders would be kept

informed of developments as they occurred. The Professional Advisor emphasised the

importance of nominating people that wanted to do it, and could commit the time and

resources required.

5. Needs Analysis

Ruth Barnes, Waiariki Institute of Technology, advised she is compiling the needs analysis

for this ECE qualifications review, and that the draft is due in January before the Governance

Group meet.

She explained that it is an important document as it must inform and support the decisions of

the Governance Group and justify the need for any proposed ECE qualifications that result

from this review.

Ruth provided an update on findings during this early stage of development of the needs

analysis. Her presentation included information on the current ECE sector including: the

range of ECE options; statistics on ECE enrolments, waiting times etc; and teachers and job

roles in ECE. It also showed that there are 33 ECE qualifications within the scope of this

review, with 22 qualification owners and delivered by 38 tertiary providers and some

secondary schools. Vocational pathways include an ECE specialisation option within the

Social and Community Services Sector pathway; and this and other education and

employment pathway links need to be identified and clarified for the review.

Ruth fielded questions and invited feedback from attendees during her presentation,

mentioning that MoE had offered to provide updated soon to be released figures for

inclusion. In addition to clarifications relating to the presentation material, comments and

suggestions from the discussion included:

• Need to clarify ‘unregistered’ teacher roles

• Teachers in schools – clarify what levels of qualifications are required for ECE

• Pathways and benefits to be clarified – education pathway to degrees; job provision;

community and skilled parent

• Suggested inclusion of destination statistics from providers showing what graduates

move on to next e.g. Nanny

• Usage figures of existing qualifications (Diana to provide to Ruth)

Ruth then provided the attendees with a range of issues they could select from to discuss in

groups, and a summary of the feedback from the discussion groups to the meeting follows.

1. What are the ECE needs of industry, learners and community?

• Fewer qualifications shouldn’t mean less diversity

• Recognition required for special areas such as Montessori

• Partnership with whānau

• Recognise that review needs to cater for some learners who are less academic

and won’t go higher than level 3 – often great workers, willing, kind, helpful,

reliable but can’t handle the academic demands at higher level

• Need ‘taster’ before degree – check capability and suitability of working with

young children and pursuing higher level study


• Whānau and use of mother tongue to be recognised

• Learners need a passion for working with young children

2. How does policy direction impact on these needs?

• Pathway problems with Teachers Council

• ECE is not part of the NZ Curriculum so only has unit standards (not

achievement standards), which is seen as a disadvantage by some as they don’t

count as well towards getting UE (only in total credits for NCEA Level 3 – not

counted as an ‘approved subject’).

3. What are the job roles for graduates of education pathways levels 1-6 (current and in

the future)?

• Job roles – education support workers, teacher aides, relievers, some with

disability support link, nannies, home-based, manager/owners of ECE business

• Some employers don’t recognise the level 3 qualification

4. What are the key characteristics of a good ECE teacher education qualification level

1-6?

• Placements and work experience are critical

• Te Whāriki must be core to all ECE qualifications

• Continuing education and pathways – need a mix

• Academic skills need to be built into qualifications (preparation for further study)

5. How well do existing qualifications meet the industry needs in the level 1-6 space?

• Nanny Education seems to be the main area developing infant specialists

A full transcript of the notes from each of the discussion groups is attached as appendix A.

Ruth thanked attendees for their input, and invited them to provide any additional

contributions to the needs analysis directly to her. She was particularly keen on getting

‘destination data’ on graduates of existing qualifications which may provide evidence for job

roles and education or community pathways, and information on programmes of special

character.

6. Key concerns, issues, queries

Derek led a discussion session, which provided an opportunity for attendees to raise any

further issues. Points raised include:

• Ethics of the sector contributing funding for travel related to the review; and challenges in

how any funding mechanism would work.

• Family learning programmes encouraging parents to work alongside children in an ECE

• Need fewer silos – lack of professional collaboration and conversations in some parts of

the ECE sector

• Is there a need for an ITO for ECE? – mixed views on this

• Sub-sector meeting groups for future coming out of MRoQ

• Status of sub level 7 qualifications in the workplace – check with employers

• Time constraints for the review an issue

• Pathway to teacher registration important


• Existing qualifications and what happens to them

• Transition from current qualifications to programmes towards new qualifications

• Encouraging Kohanga Reo qualifications to be part of ECE rather than Teacher

Education review

7. Next steps

Diana provided a progress update and outlined next steps for the ECE review.

Key points included:

• The ECE review is scheduled for the first quarter of 2014, and will likely trigger (start) late

January 2014, with application for approval to develop qualifications expected within 6

months

• Sector meetings are being held in Wellington 27 November and Auckland 28 November.

Presentation and notes from the meeting will be available from the review webpage.

• Governance – nomination documentation will be finalised asap and applications sought

by 10-12 December 2013; with appointments before Christmas and first Governance

Group meeting scheduled for 2 days late January 2014. Aim is to have a landscape of

the proposed suite of new qualifications for consultation asap following the GG meeting.

• Needs analysis – Ruth is compiling this important document, and the draft is due in

January to inform GG and new qualification landscape. Input from stakeholders is

encouraged by mid-late December (particularly destination data, and information on

special character ECE qualifications), and Ruth is considering a survey very soon to help

fill gaps in information. Draft will be available on the website once presented to the GG.

• Stakeholders are encouraged to engage with the review, and this may be by:

o completing the survey for the needs analysis;

o nominating someone and/or collaborating and contributing to costs for a

Governance Group nominee;

o spreading the word with networks,

o contributing to the landscape/map of proposed qualifications;

o participating or nominating for working groups;

o providing feedback to consultation documents;

o monitoring the review website and responding to review communications.

Key points from this meeting may be shared with participants at the sector meeting in

Auckland 28 November, and will inform the planning for the review.

9. Closing

Diana thanked the co-leads – Derek and NZ Career College for hosting the sector meeting;

and Ruth for her work on the needs analysis.

Diana thanked participants for attending and their input to the meeting, and invited them to

spread the word amongst their networks and to maintain their active interest and involvement

in the review. Also to think about who may be suitable to provide the strategic leadership of

the review, and look for the ECEGG nomination information that will be sent early next week.

The meeting closed at 4pm.


Appendix A: Transcript of notes from discussion groups re needs analysis

ECE STAKEHOLDERS FEEDBACK

re Needs analysis discussion at Auckland meeting 28 Nov 2013

Discussion re level 1-6 qualifications. In groups consider:

• Needs of the industry, learners and community

• How does policy direction impact on these?

• Job roles for graduates of education pathways levels 1-6 current and in the future?

• Key characteristics of a good ECE teacher education qualification levels 1-6?

• Existing qualifications – how well do they meet the industry needs in the level 1-6 space?

Needs of industry, learners and community (whānau, family, children)

Teachers have knowledge – infants and toddlers

Industry (high quality) – inter-disciplinary

Vulnerable children need informed education

Wider context of relating to others

Partnerships and collaborations between services to ensure holistic care

Learners

Clarity and industry

Work ready

Passion is a huge factor. Ensure that learners/teachers have a passion for children.

Entry requirements

Creating fewer qualifications does not create less diversity

Specialist programmes have a place under the qual structure

Job roles – home-based, unqualified teacher

Need to look at more career pathways function – i.e. home based pathway to teacher

registration outcomes

Practicums are critical – standardisation in variety of settings and includes home-based.

Why does ECE not have “academic subject” status within Schools? e.g. for gateway

students?

Need to cater for international, mature-age learners. Need a formal qualification:

Academic writing is needed

Self-esteem/confidence

Flexible delivery

Need academic skills built into qualifications.

Identify for different levels what is needed

Taster programme – needed before degrees

Data collection – who did lower level qualification before degree?

Lower level qualifications qualities:

Like children!!!

Safety

Interactions with child

Practicum is important


Needs of:

o The industry – people who understand the context/content

o The learners – transparency and clarity of purpose

o The community – 80% with recognised courses – funding

Qualifications to meet sector needs

- Qual 1 – for centre-based

- Qual 2 – for home-based

- A graduate profile for entry level

- Mandatory level for all qualified and non-qual

- Pay rise

- Diploma – under 25 (neglected area) & over 25s

Acknowledgment of different level qualifications by the industry

Job roles –

o Level 3 – education support workers – but they need more

o Relieving, home-based, the ‘20’ of the 80/20

o introductory, practical, research – critical learning is required for each level

o Year-based job-role is hard to define, as all (through the) year need all skills

Standardisation of practicum

Continuation

ECE as an academic subject in schools

Needs – industry, learners and community:

Recognised quals – entry into workforce

Pathways – further study and employment

Whanau collaborative approach, and linking

Language – use of mother tongue

Funding

Policy direction:

TEC/SAC/MOE

Leadership

Welfare reform – 98% child participation in ECE

Parents off benefits and into workforce or study

80/20 qualified teachers and funding relationship

Gaps

University level 7

Montessori/specialised service providers

Pathways

Recognition of lower level quals

How does policy direction impact on these?

The learners – transparency

- Clarity of purpose

The community

- 80% recognised courses

- Funding

- Standard RPL


TEC/SAC/MOE

Leadership

Welfare reform

- 98% participation

Parents off benefits and into workforce/study

80/20%

Decisions based on correct info

Policy can put barrier – 80% had impact

Job roles for graduates of education pathways levels 1-6 current and in the future?

Job roles – home based, unqualified teacher

Intro, practical and research – critical learning is required for each level

- Year-based job role is hard to determine as all year need all skills

Job roles graduates likely to fill

- Home-based

- Relieving

- 80/20

ECE teachers, head teachers, education, support workers, teacher aides, relievers,

manager/owner

Nannies, home-based

Lower quals – work ready/work experience

Plunket programme L3 into schools

Nanny training

Building relationships with various whanau

Variety of placements in different settings and different age groups

Suggest at least 400 hours

Existing quals meet needs!

Good job outcomes – nanny and centre mostly NZ jobs – some overseas

Pathways to degrees – only for over 20s or those with UE (problem with USs not Ass in

schools)

Able to support a range of diverse needs within a variety of family environments

Needs of the learners (Nanny graduate profile – also check numeracy and literacy and MOE

regs)

Graduates have:

Developed a professional philosophy of child education and care to practice reflecting the

values, culture, and traditions of the practises of family/whanau in Aotearoa that is

underpinned by the aspiration of Te Whāriki………Early Childhood curriculum.

Knowledge and understanding of theories of development to support and guide the

learning and development of infants, toddlers, young children, and school children

Ability to enhance and guide learning and development through the provision of child

centred play experiences that reflect the principles of Te Whāriki and links with essential

skills and learning areas of the NZ school curriculum

Professional skills and attitudes to work in partnership with families and whānau


Knowledge, skills and attitudes to support whānau and children with special support

needs while considering the social and relational impact for whanau and families

Efficiency in managing a household while integrating safety, hygiene, and money

management skills using sustainable practices

Strategies to respond to children’s needs and whānau dynamics in a reflective, non-

impulsive and ethical manner

Skills and knowledge to support the holistic health and well-being of children, their

families and whanau while acknowledging the principles of the NZ Ministry of health

Knowledge of and positive attitudes to nutrition guidelines, and hygienic practises with

skills to plan, prepare and provide a variety of nutritional appropriate meals

Practices to provide an environment where children are kept safe from harm and

effective steps in case of accident and illness

Practical caring and health promotion skills for infants, toddlers and young children

Knowledge to recognise the signs and symptoms of ill health and provide appropriate

care for the unwell child

Effective oral and written communication and use interpersonal communication skills

appropriate to the context

Responsibility and leadership skills and adhere to the NEONZ code of professional

practice and conduct.

Positive attitudes to Te Tiriti o Waitangi integrating te reo, tikanga Maori and toanga

Maori into daily practice.

Systems for the maintenance of accurate records and reflective practices

Academic writing skills

What about awareness of nutrition guidelines when planning range of meals, snacks

etc??

Te whāriki and communications, contributions, exploration

Decisions based on correct info

Policy can create barriers e.g. 80% had impact on employment and training

Diversity valued – infants not well covered in some qualifications

Key characteristic of a good ECE teacher education qualifications level 1-6?

Key characteristic – partnership with whanau, passionate, resilient – make a difference,

parents work,

lifelong learning

To meet needs – pathway

Infants not covered qualification

Existing qualifications – how well do they meet the industry needs in the level 1-6 space

Good job outcomes – nanny plus centre history. NZ jobs. Some overseas.

Pathways to degree – only for over 20’s, or those with University entrance.

Able to support a range of diverse needs within a variety of family environments.

Job roles: ECE teachers (towards), education support workers, teacher aides, relievers –

less likely head teachers or manager/owners


Attitude is important

Lower level quals = work ready, work experience, nannies, home-based

Plunket programme to level 3 in schools

Those who have diploma came out of university with papers (theorists) but may have no

passion for children

We see low literacy girls who have a passion for children – can’t get diploma need a qual

to show they can gain a job such as teacher aide.

L1 – school foundation

L2 – employment

L3 – 1st qual ECE (teacher aids)

L4 – tertiary training (teacher aids)

L5-8 – degree

Documents

Mandatory Review of Early Childhood Education ... · PDF fileMandatory Review of Early Childhood Education Qualifications Wellington Sector Meeting Minutes ... Fereni Ete Pacific Training