PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care in

Copenhagen, 20-22 November 2013

Summary Report

29 November 2013

Contents 1 Peer learning activity in Copenhagen, 20-22 November 2013 ................................3

1.1 Background ..........................................................................................................................3 1.2 European context .................................................................................................................3 1.3 Danish context .....................................................................................................................4 1.4 Participation .........................................................................................................................4

2 The peer learning process .....................................................................................5

3 Concluding remarks ............................................................................................ 13

Annex 1 ECEC Background paper on ECEC in Denmark ...................................................... 14

Annex 2 PLA programme …………………………………………..……………………………………………………23

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 3

Peer learning activity in Copenhagen, 20-22 November 2013 This document summarises the discussions at the peer learning activity (PLA) that was

jointly organised and hosted by the the Danish Ministry of Social Affairs, Children and

Integration (Lars Hornung Bahn, SBIM), the Danish Evaluation Institute (Anne Kjær Olsen,

EVA) and Danish Union of Early Childhood and Youth Educators (Stig G. Lund, BUPL) in

Copenhagen. The PLA was one of the activities of the Working Group: Early Childhood

Education and Care which is managed by the DG Education and Culture. The PLA

considered the workforce issues surrounding quality in Early Childhood Education and Care

(ECEC), with particular focus on how initial and continuing training of professional and other

staff can support improvements in the quality of ECEC practice. There were two background

papers issued prior to the PLA – these are included in annex 1. They set out some of the

features of the Danish day-care system and some key data on the ECEC workforce.

The reflections during the PLA, as well as the information gained through visiting ECEC

settings, supported the Working Group’s thinking in relation to the development of a ‘quality

framework for ECEC’.

Background At previous Working Group meetings, five priorities had been identified for a quality

framework for ECEC (curriculum, workforce, access, monitoring and evaluation, and

governance) and sub-groups were formed to focus on each of them. This PLA looked at one

of these priorities in order for the Working Group to extend and deepen its understanding of

different European approaches to developing a confident and skilled workforce which can

provide high quality ECEC.

Time was allocated to discuss the other four priorities of the ECEC Working Group – the

curriculum, monitoring and evaluation, access and governance. To support discussions and

reflections with the Danish hosts and PLA participants, other approaches to workforce

development were presented from Greece, Estonia and Portugal. Discussions and inputs,

alongside visits to ECEC settings, meetings with stakeholders and partner organisations,

service providers and practitioners helped the participants to reflect on ECEC practice and

develop their thinking about policy implications at the European level.

European context The Working Group’s activities are part of the Education and Training 2020 process which is

based on the Open Method of Coordination. This focus on the quality of ECEC reflects the

emergence of the need for a better shared understanding of ECEC policies and provision

across EU Member States, in order to feed into policy-making at both EU and national level.

This has progressively emerged as one of the prominent topics on the EU agenda in

Education and Training in the past decade. The Working Group on ECEC was established

within this framework.

This growing interest has been observed at policy level in the past decade in ECEC-related

areas (e.g. the relationship between ECEC and women’s employment, key competences,

teacher education, early school leaving, etc.). Whereas in the beginning the main emphasis

was on creating more places in ECEC so that women could return to the labour market,

gradually there has been a growing interest in the quality of services.

In 2006 Ministers stated in the Council Conclusions on efficiency and equity in education and

training that ECEC can bring the highest rates of return over the lifelong learning cycle,

especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The 2008 Communication on

Schools reiterated this argument. The most recent developments in the area are the EC

2011 Communication on ECEC ‘Providing all children with the best start for the world of

tomorrow’ and subsequent Council conclusions which require the Member States together

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 4

with the Commission to produce concrete outputs on ECEC. Both documents focus on the

need to improve access and quality (quality of staffing, curriculum and governance) in

ECEC.

Danish context This was the fourth and final PLA for the ECEC Working Group (The first had focused on the

ECEC curriculum and had taken place in Hungary in November 2012. The second had

looked at access to ECEC services and had taken place in Romania in March 2013 and the

third had looked at monitoring and evaluation and had taken place in Ireland in May 2013).

Denmark has a universal approach and currently 97.4% of children aged from three to

school age, and 90.9% of children aged from one to three are in ECEC services. One of the

key principles associated with this provision is ‘choice’ and parents are entitled to select the

type of provision that meets their requirements the most. There is a guarantee for all families

that there will be a place in an ECEC setting. A second principle is one that is based on

funding following the child and ECEC settings receive payments based on parents’ choice of

provider which can be in the private or public sector. Municipalities pay at least 75% of the

cost of provision with a maximum contribution from parents of 25%. Within this context of

universal provision based on parental choice and public-sector subsidies (more details are

included in the two papers in annex A) the PLA set out to explore how staff are trained, how

professional autonomy is fostered and encouraged, and how ECEC settings deploy both

professional and other staff.

Participation EURYDICE and the following countries participated in the PLA: AT, BE, CY, CZ, DE, DK,

EE, EL, FR, GR, HR, HU, IE, LU, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK and TK. The social partners

were represented by ETUCE.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 5

The peer learning process There was a short pre-meeting on the evening of 19 November. This provided an opportunity

for participants to meet each other, ask questions relating to the PLA’s organisation and

finalise their selection of which ECEC provider to visit on the second day (21 November) of

the programme. Most participants had participated in one of the previous PLAs for ECEC –

which were in Hungary, Romania and Ireland. As such they were familiar with the Open

Method of Coordination and the approach which would be used during the PLA. This pre-

meeting provided an opportunity to find out more about the Danish day care context and

clarify some of the information in the background papers

Programme The first day opened with a formal welcome from the European Commission and the Danish

hosts from the Ministry of Social Affairs, Children and Integration. This outlined the context

for the PLA, the Strategic Objectives within EU 2020 and the overall intention to produce a

Quality Framework for ECEC. Mette Arnsfeldt Mcphail responsible for ECEC in the Ministry

of Social Affairs, Children and Integration welcomed everyone to the PLA and highlighted the

importance of developing a professional and competent workforce in order to maintain

quality within ECEC.

Ms Arnsfeldt explained the legislative context of the Danish day-care system, its universal

nature, the focus on parental choice and the financial arrangements which underpin its

implementation. She emphasised the importance of social dialoge with partner organisations

and the need to enable staff in individual ECEC settings to make decisions that respond to

their local context within an environment that is monitored by the local municipalities. Some

key areas were highlighted: the six areas of the curriculum framework which are interpreted

through pedagogic practice in individual ECEC settings; the use of a national scheme for

language assessment at the age of three if children are thought to be in need of additional

language support; and the publication of an annual report based on evaluations by the

municipalities.

Ms Arnsfeldt finished the introductory presentation by identifying the challenges that are

currently faced by the Danish system. These included developing:

pedagogic approaches which are based on clear evidence of success;

a greater focus on age-appropriate language, particularly for those children who

were bilingual or multilingual. This is partly to help children prepare for school and

partly to ensure they can function effectively in Danish society;

a stronger focus on inclusion to ensure all children benefited from ECEC provision;

strategies to support boys’ well-being which had been evaluated as lower than girls’

well-being;

new ways to combine play, learning and life-skills.

In response to many questions from the participants of the PLA, Ms Arnsfeldt and Lars

Hornung Bahn discussed the complexities of calculating the child/staff ratio in Denmark

which was based on an annual survey in October. There were no requirements at the

national, regional, municipal or setting level – each ECEC provider made their own decisions

within a context where the municipalities were responsible for assuring quality. Given the

complexities of measuring the staff/child ratio as well as the professionally trained staff to

children ratio, a working group with representatives from the government, municipalities and

the trade unions/professional associations was currently designing a standardised approach.

Professor Martin Bayer from Roskilde University outlined the latest thinking on the

relationship between the quality of ECEC provision and the development of the workforce.

He began by setting the context for the higher education sector in Denmark which had

experienced an ongoing process of mergers with the creation of eight (soon to be seven)

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 6

large university colleges whose provision includes the initial and ongoing training of ECEC

staff. In addition the impending change from a content-based curriculum to one which

focuses on professional competences (due to begin in 2014) would see a move from an

autonomous approach to the curriculum to one which increases the professionalisation and

outcome focus of pedagogy. This change in approach was taking place because there was

an increasing recognition of:

the value of intervention as a way of increasing the professional competence of

ECEC staff;

the international nature of the education market and the need to be aware of global

indicators of success;

indirect pressures from comparative studies on education performance (e.g. PISA);

a belief that many ECEC practitioners are conservative and hesitant about changing

their practice towards one that is based on evidence of success.

Staff surveys continue to show that ECEC provision is the most popular form of education in

Denmark and most ECEC staff love their job. It was interesting to note that there are no

more people leaving employment in the ECEC sector than in comparable professions i.e.

25% have left the profession within a ten year period. Within this context recent research has

looked at how ECEC staff develop their professional identity and that there are no big

generational differences among staff members, unlike among primary and secondary school

teachers. Professor Bayer concluded by noting that commitment to ECEC, the ability to

create effective relationships and the existence of empathy are seen as the most important

values for ECEC staff of all ages. Personality and personal experiences are very important

for ECEC staff – as is the belief that they will continue to receive training and develop their

professional skills.

After lunch the group assembled at the University College Copenhagen (UCC) where they

were welcomed by the Rector, Laust Joen Jakobsen, his staff and students. The UCC had

been created following a number of institutional mergers over the past 20 years and is one of

the largest providers of teacher and educator training and continuing education. There are

over 10,000 students based on 10 campuses in the vicinity of Copenhagen. The afternoon

presentations, accompanied by detailed conversations with each contributor, focused on the

organisation of the undergraduate training programme and the provision of continuing

professional development. Some of the challenges that were highlighted by UCC staff

included:

the dilemma between strandardised education and a system that has strong

traditions of informal and non-formal ways of learning;

the tension between preparing ECEC staff to acquire professional competences

based on a standards agenda alongside the development of their personal and

relationship skills;

training staff to value every child’s right to be independent, to take responsibility for

themselves and to make their own choice (within a context which manages risks and

keeps children safe);

encouraging ECEC to support children’s growing awareness of their competence

alongside their rights and responsibilities as citizens;

To complement the information on the Danish approach to staff training and the challenges

they face, there were two short presentations on other European countries’ experiences.

These presentations focused on the lessons that had been learnt:

in Estonia ECEC is governed by four separate pieces of legislation which cover the

national curriculum; qualifications and staff competences; regulations on premises;

and regulations on establishing an ECEC centre. With more than 98% of four to six

years olds (and 76% of children aged from 18 months to three) in an ECEC setting,

the policy of requiring local municipalities to provide an ECEC place at the request of

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 7

parents can be seen to be working. Some of the characteristics of the Estonian

system include:

- a well-qualified workforce as 62% of staff and 98% of principals have at least a

first degree;

- a compulsory induction year for all new staff – supported by a mentor from a

university;

- all ECEC teachers must complete in-service training every five years and the

state pays 3% of the staff salary bill to cover this continuing professional

development;

- an holistic approach to training which is competence-based and flexible;

- each ECEC setting involves two pedagogues and an assistant (with a minimum

level of education equivalent to a school leaver at 18) using a team-based

approach

Estonia faces the following challenges in relation to workforce issues:

- providing more continuing professional development to help staff work with

children with special needs in order to support an inclusion agenda;

- helping ECEC staff to work with children who do not have Estonian as their first

language;

- persuading municipalities of the importance and value of a high quality

workforce.

in Portugal ECEC is optional for parents with children aged from three to six.

Provision is based on a non-prescriptive national curriculum and children’s progress

focuses on observation. Issues surrounding the ECEC workforce are contained in

two pieces of legislation which focus on a set of general principles covering the initial

training of staff, and the mandatory requirement for staff to have professional

qualifications. The initial training is based on a three year general degree followed by

a two year specialised programme which includes periods of work-based learning.

Each year all ECEC staff in the public sector are required to complete 25 hours of in-

service training. Portugal faces the following challenges in relation to workforce

issues:

- improving the qualifications of existing ECEC staff;

- providing training for the leaders of ECEC settings;

- developing a national approach in order to measure and monitor the quality of

ECEC provision;

- the lack of curriculum guidelines for 0-3 year olds;

- the on-going budgetary context which inhibits innovation and improvement.

The second day started with visits to five ECEC settings/centres. Each had been selected to

demonstrate a particular pedagogic focus within the Copenhagen area. During each visit the

following centres explained their approach to workforce development and recruitment:

- Kongshvile in Gladsaxe (this centre’s pedagogy focuses on a different child each

day. As the focus of attention, the individual’s learning needs and progress are

monitored and analysed);

- Møllehuset in Gladsaxe which also uses the child-focus pedagogy;

- Valhalla in Ballerup (this is an outdoor centre based in the woods);

- Mini Ajax in Copenhagen (this is a sports day-care institution for 0-3 year olds);

- Konkylien in Copenhagen (with a particular focus on children with special needs).

Each ECEC setting presented a different approach to children's learning. This highlighted

the breadth of the curriculum (within a Curriculum Framework which identifies six key themes

- personal development of the child; social competences; language; body and motion;

nature and natural phenomena, and cultural expressions and values) and demonstrated the

breadth of topics and pedagogies that need to be included in the initial training programmes.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 8

To support the visits, PLA participants received a fact sheet for each institution. During each

visit, there was an opportunity to observe practice and discuss workforce issues with staff.

These visits helped the Working Group members to see how much autonomy rested with

staff, how ECEC leaders had made decisions on their centre’s staffing arrangements, how

on-going in-service training was organised and practitioners focused on a child-centred

approach while delivering the curriuculum.

On their return to BUPL’s centre in Copenhagen, the participants discussed what they had

seen and identified a number of workforce factors that continued to contribute to high quality

provision. These included:

the high level of professional autonomy demonstrated by ECEC staff and leaders;

the emphasis on continuous professional development;

the presence of high levels of competence in the centres’ pedagogic leadership;

training for staff which focused on a child-centred approach;

staff awareness of the importance of children spending a significant amount of time

outside the centre where they develop a different range of skills, confidence and

competence.

After lunch there was a panel debate on workforce issues as seen from four perspectives:

the Danish Ministry of Social Affairs, Children and Integration (SBIM), the Danish Union of

Early Childhood and Youth Educators (BUPL), the Local Government Association for

Denmark (KL) and the Parents’ Organisation (FOLA). The discussion presented well in

practice the on-going dialogue between the different actors in the field for successful policy

making. Each of the representatives explained their priorities for workforce development and

then engaged in a debate with the PLA participants. SIBM began by emphasising the

importance of developing strong partnerships and the need to create a shared and common

agenda. Within this context funding is important but decisions are shared between the

ministry, the municipalities and the individual ECEC centres in partnership with staff and

parents. As parents have a legal entitlement to be represented on each ECEC centre’s

board, their role and responsibilities are clear and they welcome the opportunity to discuss

pedagogy and the organisation of the curriculum with staff. The whole panel recognised the

increasing importance of high quality ECEC – which cannot be achieved without well-trained

and engaged staff – and this is expensive. The panel also considered the content of initial

and on-going training and reflected on the importance of values and practical skills as well as

theoretical knowledge – these need to be developed in parallel within a system that supports

play-based learning.

During the subsequent discussion with the participants, there was a reference to the recently

published ILO report which provides ECEC guidance for all governments1. In addition five

key topics were considered:

how to measure the child/adult ratio and what is the right ratio;

whether investment in ECEC was vulnerable at a time when there was a falling

birthrate;

how best to encourage and support parents’ involvement in ECEC;

how best to define a child’s well-being and ensure it includes physical, aesthetic,

social, cognitive development as well as the development of a confident individual;

how ECEC centre leadership can be strengthened.

1 Draft ILO policy guidelines on the promotion of decent work for early childhood education personnel,

Meeting of Experts on Policy Guidelines on the Promotion of Decent Work for Early Childhood Education Personnel, Geneva, 12–15 November 2013/International Labour Office, Sectoral Activities Department. Geneva, ILO, 2013. ISBN 978-92-2-127832-0 (print) ISBN 978-92-2-127833-7 (Web pdf)

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 9

To conclude the presentations on the second day, a third country example of workforce

issues was considered. In this example from Greece there are two underlying assumptions,

namely that ECEC quality is dependent on:

a well-educated, experienced and competent workforce;

the need to improve both the education and working conditions of the workforce.

The initial training for pedagogic assistants (at ISCED level 4) takes four semesters, for

ECEC pedagogues (ISCED level 5) and pre-school teachers (ISCED level 5) it is eight

semesters – all of the initial training includes some time learning on the job. The presentation

considered the salaries, working conditions and expectations of ECEC staff and noted that:

the staff were well qualified at all levels;

there was a wide range of staff working in the day care centres;

there were no assistants in pre-primary schools;

there was value in organising on-going professional development for pre-primary

teachers which included mentoring, evaluation and a system of support;

occasional professional development for preschool pedagogues;

a national curriculum guide for pre-primary schools;

low levels of access to day care centres and pre-primary schools for children up to

the age of four;

there was no permanent workforce in the day care centres.

The challenges facing the ECEC system in Greece included:

• the on-going austerity measures;

• the appointment of teachers and pedagogues on short term contracts;

• limited accessibility to ECEC.

At the end of the second day, the Working Group met to discuss their experiences during the

morning visits to the ECEC settings/centres. In addition the Working Group considered the

advantages and disadvantages of revising the currently existing European benchmark on

participation in ECEC for children between the age of 4 and compulsory school age given

that many countries have reached the target, that the Barcelona target allows to follow-up

participation of the whole age group 0-6, and that the current benchmark does not call to

focus on quality. Due to the mid-term reporting exercise of the EU 2020 and the ET 2020

Strategy, it would be a good timing to come forward with a proposal of this sort. A wide range

of views on the idea of a benchmark were considered, including:

a recognition that participation is a good start but if the quality is not right then there

is little learning and progress for children. As such a measure of the quality of ECEC,

qualifying participation can be helpful; However it is very difficult to set a benchmark

of this sort at European level;

the need to avoid “school-readiness” language and recognise the inherent strengths

of the ECEC approach to learning;

the need for any benchmark or target to be simple, clearly expressed and easy to

comprehend;

a need to be bold and set expectations, which include a reporting process, that could

be in place for many years;

the need to consider implementation. Previous reports have included a large number

of targets which are seen as too complex and too demanding to be implemented

successfully. There is value in simplicity and clear priorities;

the need to make the purpose of the Quality Framework clear. If there was a

benchmark set then the Quality Framework could serve as a practical tool to

implement policies so as to move towards the benchmark in the Member States;

a proposal that the four main goals of the Danish daycare act could serve as an

example for defining a possible European benchmark.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 10

The third day focused on workforce research and how the findings from research have been

used to improve the quality of ECEC practice for children between 0-3 years.. It started with

a presentation from Professor Jan Kampmann from Roskilde University. He summarised the

key findings from the research, namely the importance of:

child-staff ratios;

support for new staff with each newcomer being assigned a ‘personal’ pedagogue;

the relationships between a pedagogue and individual children as well as groups of

children;

a sensitivity towards children’s interests, curiosities, moods and well-being;

a mix of planned pedagogical activities with single children/smaller groups of

children;

supporting children in their own activities;

indoor and outdoor activities on a daily basis.

He concluded by looking at the importance of traditions in the ECEC system and how these

affect day-to-day practice. He emphasised:

the importance of a central focus on individual care which recognises that children

have different rhythms, abilities, boundaries, etc.;

the need to respect children’s play (in itself and as a crucial aspect of learning) and

children’s interactions;

the increasing focus on planned learning activities – often for smaller groups of

children – related to the national curriculum;

an increased focus on children’s development of language;

the need to combine child-centredness and curriculum based pedagogical practice.

The subsequent discussion with the participants focused on whether the research evidence

supported a focus on process issues or outcomes. While a focus on process was the more

traditional approach, it was becoming clearer that there was an increasing interest in looking

at the quality of outcomes (though not on the basis of testing individual children).

Anne Kjær Olsen from EVA gave the final presentation on the Nordic Base of Early

Childhood Education and Care. This contains summaries and detailed analysis of all the

quality assured Scandinavian research covering 0-6 year-old children in the ECEC systems.

It is available in four languages (including English) at http://www.nb-ecec.dk/

The third and final day concluded with a Working Group discussion which looked at what are

the most important workforce issues which could be included in a Quality Framework. The

Working Group members identified that the quality of children’s experiences of ECEC is

improved when:

Working environment and the role of workforce

leadership includes a focus on pedagogy;

there is autonomy for ECEC staff within a culture of guidance and support;

there is a split between administration and pedagogic leadership;

there is a good child/adult ratio;

the professionally trained staff to children ratio is high – within an arrangement

where ecec settings make their own decisions on staffing levels;

ecec staff are encouraged and supported to communicate with parents in relation to

their plans and approach etc.;

there is an explicit expectation that ecec provision is focused on the needs of

children;

there is an agreed and shared view of the purpose and objectives of ecec (this

includes staff views);

there is a clear role for all ECEC staff;

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 11

ecec should expect to work collaboratively (in teams) and participate in a social

dialogue with partner organisations in relation to practice and policy developments;

prepare documentation which set out their approach to ECEC;

staff need time to observe children in ECEC settings;

there are external supervisors/mentors who can support ECEC settings;

there the use of new technologies is addressed;

ECEC staff should be representative of the local community.

.

Workforce training:

training integrates theory and practice;

continuing professional development is based on the training needs of the staff;

the importance of personality and professional skills are both recognised in the

selection and training of staff;

staff are well qualified;

when new initiatives are piloted, unqualified staff can make a significant contribution

to the quality of ECEC provision;

there are opportunities for staff to visit (and complete an exchange with) other

settings;

the initial training is enhance and improved when it combines an alternance model

(i.e. alternating periods of time in classrooms and in practice);

training includes an understanding of children’s rights and democracy;

Working conditions:

ECEC staff have good working conditions including a physical environment that

meets their needs;

there is a well-paid workforce;

there is stability in the contracts given to ECEC staff;

lifelong learning is encouraged;

the competences of the professional team to provide ECEC provision are recognised

and supported.

At the end of the PLA the Working Group discussed the third draft version of the Quality

Framework. There was agreement that the new structure was clear and provided a logical

approach which was easy to navigate and understand. A number of issues were raised

which should be considered in preparing the next draft - these included:

a need to provide an explicit link between the introduction and the reasons for the

selection of the key areas of quality (workforce, access, governance and funding,

monitoring and evaluation, and the curriculum);

more clarity on the purpose of the document and its intended audience;

agreement that there would not be a short annex on implementation;

a need to reduce the overall length of the document and remove duplication –

however the statements should be emphasised as they are key to improving quality;

the need to check the tone of the text as there are times when the language can be

harsh and would benefit from being softened – however it was important to be clear

and avoid euphemisms and imprecise terms;

a long discussion on the value of including proposals for indicators on each of the

individual statements in the Quality Framework.

o A range of views were expressed on this type of indicator as well as an

overall benchmark on ECEC quality. There was a strong view that we

should avoid indicators which require any additional measurement of

children – this led into a wider discussion on the purpose of indicators and

benchmarks. For some they were about providing a means of measurement

– perhaps structural conditions, perhaps the quality of the ECEC processes

– for others there were seen as a stimulus to promote improvements. This

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 12

philosophical difference needs to be clarified to ensure there is a shared

understanding of purpose;

o the practicalities of reporting on indicators or benchmarks were seen as

important considerations. It would not be helpful if they were unmeasurable

or they did not lead to information that was comparable or meaningful. This

discussion was linked to concerns about the bureaucratic nature of

collecting some data – any new indicators or benchmarks would need to

minimise burdens. For some Working Group members there was an

attraction in producing simple and relatively easy to measure indicators such

as the percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) spent on ECEC;

o it may be worth considering different indicators or benchmarks for children

from birth to three and for children from three to school age;

o there was a view that the current PISA process on school achievement was

already capturing and reporting on the outcomes from ECEC as they had a

strong connection with children’s performance in schools;

o some members of the Working Group thought it was too early to consider

indicators for each statement or an overall quality benchmark for ECEC. For

them, the production of the statements in the Quality Framework needed to

be completed before we could consider indicators or benchmarks. However

for others, there was a recognition that these issues can, and should, be

considered simultaneously.

The discussion concluded with an agreement that the topic of indictors will need to be re-

considered at the next meeting of the Working Group in January 2014. At that meeting

Eurydice will give a shot presentation of possible indicators based on the first draft of Key

data on ECEC forthcoming in 2014. This can then bring the discussion into a more concrete

mode on applicability and feasibility of indicators linked to the statements in the Quality

Framework.

Information from the discussion during the PLA would be used to draft the fourth version of

the Quality Framework which would also be discussed at the next meeting of the Working

Group.

Alongside the discussion on indicators and the next version of the Quality Framework, the

next Working Group meeting would look at the issue of governance and funding. This would

help to ensure this transversal topic had been covered in the statements in the Quality

Framework - and there was a clear view on how governance and funding contributed to

quality.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 13

Concluding remarks At the end of the PLA, Nora Milotay thanked the hosts, and colleagues from the three

organisations (SBIM, BUPL and EVA) who had planned and managed the programme, and

demonstrated social dialogue in practice. Particular thanks were given to the three

individuals from Denmark (Lars Hornung Bahn, Stig G. Lund and Anne Kjær Olsen) who had

ensured everything went as planned – and all the presenters who had helped the Working

Group members to understand the Danish system. In addition Nora and the Working Group

expressed their thanks to all the staff and leaders at the five settings/centres who had

provided a stimulating and informative opportunity to discuss workforce issues within ECEC

practice.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 14

Annex 1 Background papers on ECEC in Denmark

Paper 1 – fact sheet on the day care system

The Act on Day-Care, After-School and Club Facilities for Children and Young People (Day-Care

Facilities Act)2

Key objectives in the Act on Day-Care

Promote children’s well-being, development and learning.

Provide families with flexibility and options.

Break the vicious circle of deprivation.

Create coherence and continuity between facilities.

Expenditure

The total public spending on day-care, including family day-care and age integrated day-care

institutions was in 2012 DKK 25.5 billion approx. EUR 3.4 billion.

The total expenditure per child aged 0-2 years in family day-care was DKK 110,000 - approx.

EUR 14,700 per year and in age integrated day-care institutions it was DKK 133,000 - approx.

EUR 17,700 for children aged 0-2 years and DKK 75,000 - approx. EUR 10,000 for children

aged 3-5 years.

Purpose of day-care facilities

Children in day-care facilities must have a physical, mental and aesthetic child appropriate

environment that promotes their welfare, health, development and learning.

Day-care facilities must cooperate with parents to provide care for the children and support the

comprehensive development and self-esteem of the individual child and contribute to the

proper and safe upbringing of children.

Day-care facilities must promote children’s learning and development of competencies

through experiences, play and educationally planned activities that give children room for

contemplation, exploration and experience.

Day-care facilities must give children co-determination, co-responsibility and an understanding

of democracy. As part of this objective, day-care facilities must contribute to developing

children’s independence, skills for entering into committing social relations and solidarity with

and integration in the Danish society.

In cooperation with parents, day-care facilities must ensure a good transition to school by

developing and supporting basic competencies and the desire to learn. In cooperation with

schools, day-care facilities must create a coherent transition to school and after-school

facilities.

Responsibility of the local council

The local council is responsible for day-care.

The local council must establish and publish local authority objectives and a framework for

day-care in the local authority.

The local council must supervise the activities of the facilities under the Act on Day Care etc.

and the manner in which tasks are performed.

Equal access

All children under school age are entitled to enter a day-care facility. Guaranteed day-care

availability implies that the local council must offer places in an age-appropriate day-care

2http://english.sm.dk/MinistryOfSocialWelfare/legislation/social_affairs/Day-

Care%20Facilities%20Act/Documents/Daycare.pdf (Changes to the act no. 501 have been made

since 2007, but the new Act has not been translated into English).

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 15

facility to all children older than 26 weeks and until they reach school age. It has financial

implications for a municipality if a place in a day-care is not provided.

Parents’ payment

Parents pay a maximum of 25 per cent of the budgeted gross operating expenditure for day-

care services for children from 26 weeks to age six. In addition, parents receive a sibling

discount. Moreover, the local council must grant financially aided place subsidy based on the

parents’ financial situation. Low-income families pay between 0-25 per cent of the operating

costs.

The expenditure on day-care in per cent of disposable income exclusive tax and residence

expenses ranges between 7 to 10 per cent, depending on income and whether the family

consists of a single parent or a couple.

Municipality funding

Minimum 75 per cent of the operating costs.

Operating costs can vary from one municipality to the other depending on the level of service.

Coverage

97.4 per cent of children between 3 and 5 years of age, 90.9 per cent of children between 1

and 2 years age are in day care3. Almost all children are in full-time day-care.

Types of day-care facilities

Day-care facilities in private homes and other premises in the children’s home environment –

family day-care (operated by either local authority or private provider)

Nurseries

Kindergarten

Age-integrated institutions

Private day-care schemes

Pool schemes

After-school centres for children attending school.

Operators

Public day-care facilities run by the local authorities (municipality).

Independent day-care facilities run by independent organisations.

Private day-care facilities run by private businesses/providers.

Flexibility and options

Request to access a specific day-care.

Free choice of either public or private day-care.

Possibility to choose a day-care centre placed in another municipality.

Financial subsidy for minding own children or for arranging a private child minder - as an

alternative to a place in a day-care facility.

Pedagogical curriculum

Since 2004 all day-care facilities have been obliged to prepare a written pedagogical

curriculum for children aged 0-2 years and children aged 3 to school-age.

The curriculum must describe children’s learning within 1. personal development, 2. social

competences, 3. language development, 4. body and motion, 5. knowledge of nature and

natural phenomena, 6. cultural values and artistic expressions.

The pedagogical curriculum must describe relevant pedagogical approaches and activities

applied to reach the objectives and how to evaluate the curriculum. All day care facilities and

family day care are obliged to develop and publish a pedagogical curriculum.

3 In Denmark parents are entitled to one year of maternity leave.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 16

Language assessments

The local council is responsible for ensuring that children aged three in need of language

stimulation and children who are not attending day-care are offered a language assessment test.

Local councils must offer language support activities and other assistance as required.

Meal schemes

A healthy meal must be offered every day. The parents' board in each day-care facility can

choose not to offer a healthy meal.

Table 2: Total expenditure per full time place in a day-care facility, DKK per year

2013 prices 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2011* 2012 2012*

Family day-care

(0-2 years) 106.400 105.000

105.30

0

107.50

0

110.30

0

111.30

0 -

111.40

0 -

Nurseries (0-2

years) 142.400 143.000

141.70

0

143.80

0

141.50

0

135.60

0

139.20

0

133.30

0

136.80

0

Kindergarten (3-5

years) 76.500 77.100 76.700 77.700 79.400 75.700 77.900 75.300 77.300

Source: Own calculations based on data from Lovmodellen, The Ministry of Economic Affairs and the

Interior.

Note: Including yearly expenditures for lunch schemes fully financed by parents. The number of children

included in the lunch scheme has been taken into account.

Table 3: Day-care (family day-care and day-care facilities) coverage by age groups, 2005-2012

Pct. 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

0 years 15,2 15,3 16,5 16,8 15,3 17,9 19,1 18,6

1-2 years 84,9 87,4 89,9 90,3 89,9 91,4 91,3 90,9

3-5 years 95,3 95,7 96,1 96,6 96,7 97,3 97,1 97,4

Source: Statistics Denmark.

Note: Accounted in October each year. Including all forms of ownership: local authority, independent and

private day-care centres.

Table 4: Number of children enrolled in day-care by age groups, 2005-2012

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

0-2 years 120.175 123.237 127.860 128.991 127.465 130.867 128.409 124.667

3-5 years 179.765 177.562 177.393 179.203 178.877 178.970 179.795 178.618

Total 299.940 300.799 305.253 308.194 306.342 309.837 308.204 303.285

Source: Statistics Denmark

Note: Including all forms of ownership: local authority, independent, and private day-care centres.

Table 1: Operating expenditures for the local authority on day-care facilities

Accounted Budget1

2013 prices 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Net operating

expenditures1 in billion

DKR 25,2 25,3 25,4 26,1 26,5 25,7 25,5 25,6

Changes compared to

previous year, billion DKR. 0,5 0,1 0,1 0,7 0,4 -0,8 -0,2 0,0

Changes compared to

previous year, pct. 1,9 % 0,6 % 0,4 % 2,7 % 1,5 % -3,1 % -0,8 % 0,1 %

Source: Statistics Denmark: Local authority accounts and budgets, Included is expenditures concerning:

family day-care, Nurseries, Kindergarten and age-integrated institutions. Expenditures concerning children

aged 6 years and above, cannot be excluded from the accounted expenditures.

Note 1: compared with 2012 budget.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 17

Table 5: Number of children enrolled, 2005-2012

Number of children

enrolled

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Family day care (0-2

years)

64.191 64.978 65.346 62.911 61.525 59.564 55.400 50.801

Nurseries (0-2 years) 55.984 58.259 62.514 66.080 65.940 71.303 73.009 73.866

Kindergartens (3-5 years) 179.897 177.996 177.603 179.396 178.962 179.169 179.810 178.607

Source: Statistics Denmark.

Note: Includes all forms of ownership: local authority, independent, and private day-care centres.

Table 6: Number of children in day-care facilities under the Day-Care Facilities Act by form of

ownership, 2007-2012

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Local authority day-care

centres 181.605 189.132 189.165 193.366 195.795 196.087

Independent day-care

centres 51.516 49.130 47.797 47.105 45.025 41.799

Private day-care centres 1.628 2.639 3.958 6.122 8.613 11.584

Pool scheme day-care

centres 4.660 3.957 3.262 3.081 2.827 2.540

Subsidy for private

childminding 3.868 4.116 4.963 5.227 6.378 6.881

Subsidy for minding of own

children 695 755 859 868 811 877

Source: Statistics Denmark.

Establishment of new pool schemes has not been possible since 2006.

Table 7: Women’s employment rate and parent payment

Women’s employment

rate in Denmark

Women with children under the age of 3: 71,4 pct.

Women with children in the age of 3-5 years: 77,8 pct.

Parent payment Parents pay 9 pct. of their net income.

Table 8: Average opening hours per week (in hours and minutes)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Day-care centres 51h.32m.

51h.32m

. 51h.32m. 51h.37m. 51h.34m. 51h.35m.

51h.9m

. 51h.26m.

Source: Statistics Denmark and own calculations.

Note: Workers in family day-care’s working hours and thereby their opening hours are determined to 48

hours per week by a collective agreement.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 18

Paper 2 – The Danish Day-Care Facilities Act

A day-care facility is the term used for various types of facilities for children under school age. Daycare

facilities cover crèche, family day-care, nursery schools and age-integrated institutions.

Facilities for school-age children fall under the term after-school centres. Older children and young

people are offered after-school facilities in the form of club facilities and other socio-pedagogic

afterschool facilities. The rules on this subject can be found in the Day-Care Facilities Act but fall

under the auspices of the Ministry of Education.

Areas not included under the Day-Care Facilities Act:

Special day and club facilities, for children fall under the auspices of the Ministry of Social

Affairs, Children and Integration

School-based day-care facilities are established under the Danish Act on Primary and

Secondary Education, and fall under the auspices of the Ministry of Education.

After-school facilities under the General Education Act and the Continuation School Act, and

fall under the auspices of the Ministry of Education.

Day-care facilities

All children from 26 weeks old must be given the opportunity to attend a day-care facility. This

therefore obliges the local council of the individual municipality to ensure the necessary number of

places for the children in the municipality, referred to as guaranteed day-care availability. Day-care

facilities can be organized in various ways – either as local-authority childminding, local-authority day-

care centres, independent day-care centres, private childminding or an approved private day-care

centre.

3.0.1 Local-authority childminding

Local-authority childminding is an offer where childminders take care of children in private homes. The

local authority assigns children to the individual childminders. One childminder may take care of up to

five children. If two or more persons are carrying out childminding together, the local authority may

allow the childminders to receive up to ten children. The parents can select a childminder from the

local authority list, but will have to wait until a place is available if they want a specific childminder, see

below for details on guaranteed day-care availability.

Local-authority day-care centres

Local-authority day-care centres are local-authority owned institutions such as crèches, nurseries and

age-integrated institutions. In the day-care facility area, centres basically take children aged 0 to

school age (compulsory schooling starts at age 6).

Independent day-care centres

Independent day-care centres are institutions owned by private individuals and have concluded an

operating agreement with the local authority to operate a day-care facility. In the operating agreement

it is stated how many children the center shall receive and it is the local-authority who refer children to

the center. Independent day-care centres are subject to local-authority supervision and are paid by the

local authority to provide this service. The Independent day-care centres receive the same amount per

child as the local-authority centres. The parents also pay the same fee as in a local-authority center,

see below for details.

3.0.2 Approved private day-care centres

Approved private day-care centres are owned and operated by private individuals. The local authority

must approve private day-care centres. The centres decide which children are admitted to the daycare

centre and the local authority does not refer children to the day-care centre. The local authority grants

a subsidy per child admitted to the private day-care center, and the private day-care center can decide

on the fee it charges to the parents, without a maximum. The private day-care centres are allowed to

draw any profit out from the center. See below for details.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 19

3.0.3 Private childminding

Private childminding involves private childminders whose work is based on an operating agreement

with the local authority. The local authority pays an agreed fee to the childminder for each child

admitted to the scheme and supervises the scheme. The private childminder can decide the fee. The

local-authority does not refer children to the private childminder.

Admission and guaranteed day-care availability

3.1.1 Admission

The individual local authority determines the guidelines for and makes decisions on admission to

daycare facilities. The local council may decide that the individual independent day-care centre or

other day-care provider can make its own decision on admission to the day-care centre.

The local authority must lay down the guidelines for admission to day-care facilities based on local

needs in the local authority. When determining the guidelines, the individual local authority may, within

the framework of the guaranteed day-care availability, consider factors such as siblings, composition

of the group of children, geographical location of the day-care facility and children with special needs.

Parents may state their wishes for admission to a specific day-care facility. When allocating a specific

place, the local authority must, to the extent possible, consider the parent’s wishes. Parents are also

entitled to state their wishes for admission to specific day-care facilities if they want a place in another

local authority. Admission and registration follows the guidelines of the relevant local authority.

When allocating a specific place, the local council may specifically assess the child’s and the family’s

time needs and offer the child a part-time/half-time place accordingly.

3.1.2 Guaranteed day-care availability in day-care facilities for children under school age

The local council of the municipality must provide guaranteed day-care availability. Guaranteed day-

care availability means that the local council of the municipality must offer a place in an age-

appropriate day-care facility to all children aged 26 weeks to school age. The local council of the

municipality must state application deadlines for parents wanting a place immediately after their child

reaches the age of 26 weeks. This deadline must be observed in order for parents to earn a right to a

place at that time.

If the parents want a place immediately after their child reaches 26 weeks and have applied for a

place in a day-care facility within the deadline for applications, the local council must, in order to

comply with the guaranteed day-care availability, be able to offer a place to the child at least four

weeks after the child has reached the age of 26 weeks, regardless of whether this follows immediately

after the parent’s parental leave. The guaranteed day-care availability does not guarantee a place in a

specific daycare facility. However, parents are always able to make requests for admission to specific

day-care facilities in the local authority. The local council will comply with the guaranteed day-care

availability within the wealth of day-care facilities that can be offered under the Danish Act on Social

Services when a day-care facility covers that need, as demonstrated from an overall assessment of

the child’s and the family’s situation. However, the local council may decide that children be moved to

a school based leisure-time facility or an after-school centre when they start school.

Generally, the local authority will ask the parents to state when they need a place. In these situations,

the local authority may set the date when the parents must be given a place as the date when the

parents need a place. The guaranteed day-care availability is observed as long as the deadline for a

place is prolonged at the request of the parents.

3.1.3 Breach of guaranteed day-care availability

A local authority is in breach of the guaranteed day-care availability if it fails to offer a place at least

four weeks after the child has reached the age of 26 weeks. If the guaranteed day-care availability is

breached, the local authority must offer to cover either the parents' expenses for a private care

scheme or the expenses for a place in another municipality. Also, effective as from the first calendar

day of the month following a breach of the guaranteed day-care availability, the local council shall

increase the subsidy it pays to the parents. This rises from 75 per cent to not less than 78 per cent of

the average cost of providing children in the local-authority with day care provision. This increase in

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 20

subsidy continues until the council is able to meet the day care guarantee and the local council has

laid down new rates for subsidies and user-payment. These rules makes it very costly for the local-

authority to breach the guaranteed day-care availability, a as an effect there has not been reports on

breaches.

Day-care facilities in another municipality4

For some families it may be easier to reconcile family life and working life if their children are admitted

to a day-care facility in another municipality. This may be because the parents of a family work in

another municipality than where they live, meaning that it better fits with the family’s everyday life for

the child to go to a day-care facility in the municipality where the parents work. Under the Day-Care

Facility Act, children may thus be admitted to a day-care facility in a municipality other than their

municipality of residence.

3.2.1 Closing of waiting list for children from other municipalities

The individual local authority may decide to close the waiting list for day-care, after-school and club

facilities, etc., to children from other municipalities for capacity reasons or special considerations

regarding children from the municipality. The local council may only decide to close the waiting list for

three months at a time. If one of the conditions for closing the waiting list is still met after this period, a

new decision can be made to keep the waiting list closed for new admissions. The local council’s

decision to close the waiting list for admission of children from other municipalities to day-care, after-

school and club facility in the municipality is only valid from the time that the local council reports its

decision to close the waiting list to www.ventelistelukning.dk. (This web-site only contains information

in Danish).

3.2.2 Terms for admission and subsidies

If a local authority has not closed its waiting lists for children from other municipalities, these children

will be entered on the waiting list on the same terms as children from the municipality. There may not

be any available places precisely where parents would most prefer their children to be admitted;

however, requests will be considered based on the same rules that apply to parents living in the

municipality.

If parents get a place in a day-care facility for their child in another municipality, the municipality where

they reside must grant a subsidy to the day-care centre for the place. The size of the subsidy is

determined on the basis of the level of expenditure and service of the municipality of residence.

Consequently, when calculating subsidies for a place in another municipality, one applies the gross

operating costs that the parents’ own municipality uses to calculate subsidies.

If day-care facilities in another municipality are more expensive than day-care facilities in the local

authority of residence, parents must pay the difference between the subsidy from their own

municipality and operating costs per place in the day-care facility used in the other municipality. In

cases where the other municipality has a higher service level than the municipality of residence,

parent payment for a day-care facility in the other municipality may be more expensive than payment

for a place in a day-care facility in municipality of residence.

3.2.3 Right to keep a place in a day-care facility in connection with a move

Parents are always entitled to keep a place for their child in a facility if they move to another

municipality. This right is maintained even if the waiting list is closed for children from other

municipalities. A child who keeps their place or is given a place in a day-care facility in a municipality

other than the municipality of residence has no direct right to progress to other day-care facilities in the

other municipality unless it is an age-integrated institution where children automatically progress from

crèche to nursery school and where children are meant to progress within the specific facility.

4 Municipality refers to the geographical area. Local-authority refers to the local government of the municipality.

Local Council is the political leadership in the local government.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 21

Subsidies and parent payment

When a child is admitted to a day-care facility under local authority allocation, the local authority pays

a subsidy to the day-care centre for the costs related to the place, while the parents pay the rest. The

price for a place in a day-care facility is thus comprised by both the local authority’s subsidy and the

parents’ own payment.

For children under school age, the parents’ payment of a place in a day-care facility must not exceed

25 per cent of the gross operating costs for operating the individual day-care facility, or of the average

gross operating costs for operating similar day-care facilities in the municipality. This means that the

local council’s subsidy must account for at least 75 per cent of the gross operating costs for operating

the individual day-care facility, or of the average gross operating costs of operating similar day-care

facilities in the municipality.

The subsidies are not paid directly to the parents but to the day-care facility to which the child has

been admitted and must be used to run the day-care facility. The subsidy is fixed on the basis of the

budgets of the day-care facilities for the coming year and may only be fixed for one financial year at a

time. However, when determining subsidies and the parents’ payments for a new financial year, the

local authority may decide to change subsidies and parents’ payment during the year.

The individual local council decides whether the local authority subsidy and the parents’ payment is to

be fixed at an institutional level, i.e. on the basis of the budgets of the individual institutions or as the

average rate on the basis of the total budgets of similar institutions in the municipality. Parents are

entitled to receive information about the relevant rates from the local authority of residence.

3.3.1 Subsidies for a place in an approved private day-care centre

If parents want their child to attend an approved private day-care centre, the parents may receive a

financial subsidy from the local council of their municipality of residence to pay for the place. The local

council is only obligated to grant subsidies from the time a child is eligible for a day-care facility under

local authority allocation. Only after this, may parents choose to let the money follow the child and use

a private day-care centre in the municipality of residence or in other municipalities.

Private day-care centres are not controlled by the payment rules for day-care facilities provided by the

local authority - this allows them to fix the amount of parent payment themselves. Consequently, no

ceiling exists for parent payment in private day-care centres, since the parents choose themselves

whether their children should be admitted to a private day-care centre.

The subsidy granted by the local council for a place in a private day-care centre consists of an

operating subsidy, a building subsidy and an administration contribution. The total subsidy is paid to

the private day-care centre and not the parents. If parents want a place in a private day-care centre,

they must contact the relevant day-care centre. Only the private day-care centre can allocate places or

admit children to the private day-care centre.

3.3.2 Aided place subsidy

Parents with an income below a certain limit may, in addition to the general subsidy for a place in a

day-care facility, receive an extra subsidy from the local authority to reduce their own payment. This

subsidy is called aided place subsidy. The local authority makes the decision to grant aided place

subsidy.

If a child lives with both parents, their total income forms the basis for assessing whether to grant

aided place subsidy. If the child lives with just one of parent, but this parent is married or cohabitates

with another person, their income will also be calculated together. If a child whose parents do not live

together lives the same amount of time with each parent, the household income of the parent at which

the child has its registered address is used, regardless of whether the parents share custody.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 22

If a child lives with just one parent and this parent is single, the income limit for aided place subsidy is

raised. The child’s own income does not affect the assessment of whether to grant aided place

subsidy.

3.3.3 Sibling discount

A sibling discount is granted if more than one child in a household is admitted to a day-care centre.

The day-care centre receives the full price for the first child and a 50 per cent discount is given on

payment of other places. The sibling concept comprises biological siblings, adoptive siblings and

children of different marriages living in the household. Children in after-school centers are also eligible

for sibling discount, while it is optional for the local council to grant sibling discount in youth clubs.

3.3.4 Treatment and socio-pedagogic aided place subsidy

A treatment aided place subsidy is given when a child with considerably and permanently diminished

physical or mental capacity stays in a day-care facility for treatment reasons. A socio-pedagogic aided

place subsidy is given when a place in a day care facility is deemed necessary for social or

pedagogical reasons and the issue of payment reduces the child’s possibility of being admitted to or

remaining in a day care facility.

Language assessment

A child aged 3 enrolled in a day care facility receive a language assessment if there are linguistic,

behavioural or other factors suggesting that the child may be in need of language stimulation. In

addition all children aged 3 who are not included in a day care facility must receive a language

assessment. If the language assessment shows sign of need for language stimulation, the local

council must provide the necessary stimulation. Parents are required to accept a language

assessment and language stimulation for their child if needed. The language assessment and

language stimulation must be carried out by persons who have special qualifications to perform the

task. The Ministry of Social Affairs, Children and Integration provides language assessment material

which is available to municipalities.

Pedagogical curricula

Since 1 August 2004, all day-care facilities must prepare an educational curriculum, one for the

children aged 0-2 years and one for the children aged 3 until the child starts in school. The

pedagogical curriculum shall describe the local goals of the day care facility in respect of children’s

learning within six themes as well as relevant pedagogical approaches and activities applied to reach

the objectives and how to evaluate the curriculum. The six themes are:

The comprehensive personal development of the child

Social competencies

Language

Body and motion

Nature and natural phenomena

Cultural expressions and values

Further, it must appear from the pedagogical curriculum how the work to ensure a good and

stimulating environment for children are integrated into the pedagogical work in the day-care. The

children’s environment must be considered from a child's perspective and children’s experience of the

environment must be taken into consideration. It is up to the individual day-care facility to decide how

to approach the work with the pedagogical curricula.

The leader of the day care facility is responsible for preparing and publishing the pedagogical

curriculum and for evaluating it annually. In this respect, the leader is responsible for documenting

whether the pedagogic approaches and activities chosen meet the objectives outlined within the

themes. The local council must approve the pedagogic curriculum and shall on the basis of the

evaluations decide whether they give rise to further action from the local council.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 23

Private childminding and minding of own children

Private childminding schemes are an offer outside the local authority supply, based on an agreement

between parents and the private childminder/childminding scheme. Private childminding schemes are

required to ensure the well-being, development and learning of the child as the objects clause of the

Day-Care Facility Act, but are not subject to the other rules in the Day-care Facilities Act.

There are no set rules on what private childminding may charge or who must be admitted to the

individual childminding scheme. The local council must supervise the private childminding scheme and

if the child minder receives payment for more than two children below the age of 14 the local council

must also grant its approval. The private childminding scheme cannot enroll more than five children. If

the private childminding scheme comprises of more than one adult, the local council can give

permission to enroll up to 10 children. The local authority must grant a financial subsidy to the parents

for private childminding paid to the parents and approve the childminding agreement.

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 24

Annex 2 PLA programme

Tuesday 19 November 2013

Arriving in Denmark and check-in at Hotel Østerport (http://hotelosterport.dk/en/)

Kl. 20:00 Welcome meeting at the Hotel Østerport. Responsible: SBIM

Wednesday 20 November 2013

Meeting time at the Ministry 9.00 to 12.00

- 9.00 Welcome Presentation by Director Nina Eg Hansen

- 9:15 Presentation of day-care legislation and recent results of the work on child-staff ratio

Tackling the questions by the sub-groups on child-staff ratio

- 10:30 to 12:00 Presentation of recent research on the relationship between trained staff in ECEC and

quality in day-care.

- Martin Bayer, Head of Department, Associate Professor Administration Department of

Roskilde University, The Department of Culture and Identity

Subsequent questions and discussion

- 12-13 Lunch in the Ministry

- 13-14 Shuttle to University College Copenhagen (UCC). Responsible: SBIM

- 14:00 to 17:00 Visit at UCC.

The aim of the visit is to give members of the TWG insights into the content of the pedagogue

education in Denmark, with focus on how the students are being prepared: to work with the day-care

curriculum, particularly for the youngest children aged 0-3 years; to deal with diversity of children; and

to work together with the parents. The links between generalist and specialist training will be clarified.

The presentations will made by professors and students, and there will be time to talk to the students.

The questions from the sub-groups regarding initial training of the ECEC staff and the workforce’s

understanding and attitude towards monitoring and evaluation will be answered during the visit.

There will also be a presentation by three of the members of the TWG on workforce preparation in

their respective Member States: Estonia, Portugal and UK.

Time is allocated for subsequent evaluation of the visit. Responsible: BUPL

- 17-18 Shuttle to Tivoli. Responsible: SBIM

- 18.00 Social event in Tivoli. Tour of the garden and then dinner at Tivoli. Responsible: SBIM

PLA on Early Childhood Education and Care – workforce 25

Thursday 21 November 2013

- 9:00 to 9:30 Introduction to the day program and collection. At Hotel Østerport. Responsible: SBIM

- 9:30 departure for visits to institutions. Taxi (6-7 persons in each) Responsible: SBIM

- 10:00 to 11:30 Visit in daycare institutions. We will divide the group up so that we are max 6-7 people

in each institution. Responsible: SBIM

Municipalities and Centres:

Gladsaxe: - Kongshvile (Works with Focus child pedagogy)

- Møllehuset (Works with Focus child pedagogy)

Ballerup: - Valhalla (in the woods)

Copenhagen: - Mini Ajax (sports day-care institution 0-3 years)

- Konkylien (inclusion of children with special needs)

Each institution presents a different approach to children's learning, thus the main issue to be

discussed will be how workforce is prepared to work with such a broad range of curriculum

approaches. Fact sheets for each institution will be provided to participants before the visits.

- 11.30 Shuttle to BUPL in the taxi. Responsible: SBIM

- On arrival at BUPL groups feedback from their visits.

- 12:30 to 13:30 Lunch at BUPL. Responsible: BUPL

- 1:30 p.m. to 15:00 Panel discussion on how the various parties ensure quality in day-care.

Panel: SBIM (Nina or Mette), KL (Local Government Denmark), BUPL (possibly also FOA) and FOLA

(Parents’ organization) Responsible: BUPL

-15.00-18.00 TWG work including two more examples from Member States (Greece and Croatia) for

workforce preparation. Nora Milotay, European Commission,

Evening free for participants to explore Copenhagen on their own.

Friday 22 November 2013

Meeting time at EVA (Østbanegade 55) all day

- 9:00 Welcome by EVA (Director Katja Munch Thorsen)

- 9:15 to 11:00 Presentations on research in day-care, preferably with a focus on 0-3 year range. The

main focus of the discussions and presentations will be how research findings are transferred into

practice:

- Professor Jan Kampmann, Roskilde University Childhood, Youth and Family Life, the

Department of Psychology and Educational Studies.

- Presentation of the Nordic Base of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC-NB) by Anne

Kjær Olsen. Quality assured Scandinavian research on 0-6 year-old children in early

childhood education and care. http://www.nb-ecec.dk/

- 11:00 to 13.00 Summary of the PLA with the TWG. Nora Milotay, European Commission

- 13:00 to 14.00 Lunch Responsible: EVA

Possible time for self-organised subgroup discussions in the afternoon.