Report on the situation of preschool education in the Czech Republic, England, Slovakia and Wales

Executive summaryThis report is one of the key outputs of the Erasmus+ Strategic Partnership Project: Supporting Social and Emotional Competences of Pre-school Children from Disadvantaged or Culturally Different Environments, funded by Erasmus+ program of European Commission: 2014-1-CZ01-KA201-001988. It reviews the situation in respect of preschool education in the four partner countries of Czech Republic, Slovakia, England and Wales. Although Wales is a region of the UK, it has had its own government since 1997 giving it a large degree of independence in terms of educational policy. This report is focused mainly on the empirical evidence related to a) the general situation of preschool education including size, attendance, and performance b) the situation in respect of socioeconomically disadvantaged children, the determinants of exclusion from preschool education and policy reactions to this problem. The report includes a summary of basic background information on the pre-school educational provision in the four countries, a summary of the statistical evidence, overview of policy approaches, outcomes from an original survey of preschool teachers and professionals conducted as a part of the project, and finally a selection of examples of good practice from partner countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, and UK). The report concludes with a comparison review of statistical evidence, implications of the survey outcomes, and recommendations for the future direction of analytical inquiry into the field of preschool education and Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC).

Coordinating Author: Egle Havrdova, PhD. (Schola Empirica)

Contributing Authors: Prof. Judy Hutchings (CEBEI – Bangor University), Gwilym Siôn Ap Gruffudd (Bangor University), Shân Elin Williams (Bangor University), Zora Syslova (Masaryk University), Mojca Williams (Tiny Signers), Simon Vydra (Schola Empirica), Janka Handzelová (Škola dokorán- Wide Open School)

3

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Contents

1 | Introduction: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 | Background information: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.1 Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.2 Structure and Attendance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.3 Public and private provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.4 Curriculum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 | Statistical overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1 England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 3.1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 3.1.2 Determinants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 3.2 Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 3.2.2 Determinants: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3.3 Czech Republic: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3.1 General: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3.3.2 Determinants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3.4 Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3.4.2 Determinants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3.5 State of empirical evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 | Policy approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.1 England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 4.2 Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4.3 Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 4.4 Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335 | Pre-School teacher Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 5.1 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 5.2 Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366 | Good practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6.1 England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6.2 Wales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 6.3 Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 6.4 Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 487 | Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Appendix I: Survey Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Appendix II: Survey Questioner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Souhrnná zpráva: Situace v předškolním vzdělávání v partnerských zemích . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Záverečná správa: Stav predškolského vzdelávania v partnerských krajinách . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88Crynodeb o’r Adroddiad: sefyllfa addysg cyn-ysgol yn y gwledydd sy’n bartneriaid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

About the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

4

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

1 | IntroductionPre-primary and early years education is a policy area that has recently become extremely salient in Europe in both academic and policy circles; Policy makers and academics in a number of countries are rethinking austere and deregulatory policy in the light of the recent economic crisis that has resulted in sluggish growth and stagnating or increasing poverty. What is emerging as the number one priority to achieve inclusive growth seems to be human capital. Supported by the OECD, the World Bank, but most importantly by the EU (European Commission, 2013), investment in education and training to increase and maintain human capital is seen as the answer to achieve increasing productivity and employment and sustaining the welfare state at a time of increasingly ageing populations. Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) is a significant part of this strategy as it is a crucial determinant of tertiary educational outcomes (Cuhne and Heckman 2007), overall skill acquisition and learning (Cunha et. al. 2006), overall education attainment (Heckman, 2006), PISA scores (Esping-Andersen, 2015) and even better nutrition and physical health (Heckman, et. al., 2006). Not only does ECEC benefit children across their lifespan in all of these ways, it is also the educational stage where the “returns on investment” (in employment, wages, etc.) are highest relative to primary, secondary and tertiary education (Carneiro & Heckman, 2003).

Another key issue, and one that is addressed by the project, is the focus on improving the inclusiveness of education in order to reduce child poverty, increase the life chances of disadvantaged children, reduce intergenerational transfer of poverty and increase the productivity of future workers. This is because universal good quality ECEC motivates parents to include their children in relevant programs (daycare, preschools, crèches, etc.) and ensures that they develop in a similar fashion to all other children. Furthermore if ECEC is coupled with well-designed parental leave and activate labor market policies it can have a very positive effect on female employment (Verbist , 2016; Simonsen, 2005), which in turn reduces child poverty, especially in single-parent households (Esping-Andersen, 2015). This project is contributing to the EU’s effort to better understand and support the development of inclusive education in its member states.

Participation in high-quality ECEC leads to better adjustment of children to formal learning within a school setting (i.e. improved educational opportunities), especially for children from disadvantaged groups. Children who have participated in high-quality ECEC are better prepared for school in both cognitive and socio-emotional domains (Peisner-Feinberg et al.1999; Barnett, 1996; Puma, Bell, Cook, & Heid, 2012; Zupancic & Kavcic, 2006; Kruszewska, 2011 ). High-quality ECEC experiences, in terms of both classroom practices and teacher-child relationships, increase children’s abilities to take advantage of the educational opportunities in school. These tendencies were especially evident in the school career of disadvantaged children (Lazzari & Vandenbroeck, 2013).

Longitudinal studies demonstrate that early experiences of socialization with peers in formal settings like ECEC promote pro-social behavior (i.e. sharing, cooperation, empathy, learning to live and work with other children) and self-regulation (e.g. to be autonomous, tolerate frustration, take turns, wait, stand in line)(Sylva et al., 2004; Harrison et al., 2009; Sammons et al., 2007). Mitchell et al. (2008). Sylva et al. (2004) state that high-quality ECEC programs tend to have positive effects on children’s social skills and socio-emotional development. ECEC graduates also show higher task orientation, greater independence, concentration, cooperation and conformity, positive learning dispositions (i.e. motivation to learn, persistence and perseverance in carrying out learning tasks), and peer sociability as well as less anxiety, anti-social/worried behavior and aggression.1

The report is structured into six sections: the introduction is followed by four sections that constitute the body of the report and a fifth concluding section. Section 2 contains background information from across the partner countries on the ages of children in pre-primary education, the structure of pre-primary education, how individual provisions are funded (public or private) and lastly whether there is a comprehensive national curriculum. This short section essentially provides the basic information that is necessary for readers to contextualize and understand information contained in latter sections.

Section 3 is the main body of report and contains an analysis of relevant information for each of the four partner countries: Czech Republic, Slovakia, England and Wales. It summarizes the basic descriptive statistics on pre-primary education, provides data on differences between regions and reviews studies that seek to establish causality between exclusion from pre-primary education and characteristics of children (with a focus on social, ethnic and economic characteristics). Section 4 describes the relevant policy approaches contained within national strategies, their goals and plans of action in relation to the issues identified in section 3.

1) Ibid. p.25.

5

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Section 5 reports on the main findings from the survey among pre-school teachers/ education professionals implemented in three countries: Czech Republic, Slovakia and England. This information is important for understanding pre-school teacher’s/ECEC professionals’ perspectives on the policies within each country as well their perceived needs for professional development and improving their work with children from disadvantaged or culturally different environments.

Section 6 builds on the information from previous chapters by describing some of the specific policies that have been labeled as “good practice”, as well as policies that still leave much to be desired. The document concludes with a comparative summary of findings and recommendations for further development that will help to address the challenge of exclusion of socioeconomically disadvantaged children from preschools.

2 | Background information2.1 Age

In England and Wales, compulsory schooling begins at the start of the term following a child’s fifth birthday. However all children are offered full time education from the start of the year in which they will become five (year 0). Parents can chose to delay their child’s entry to reception (year 0), until the term after their child becomes five, which for some children would not be until the start of year 1. In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, compulsory school attendance starts at the beginning of the school year following a child’s sixth birthday. A child can also start school at the age of five, given that they will turn six before the end of the first school year, and parental requests for an early start are then approved by a counselor. Through a similar procedure to that in the UK the start of compulsory education can also be delayed by one year (until age of 7) contingent on the approval of a counselor.

Children that have yet to enter the first year of compulsory education are considered to be in pre-primary education for the purposes of this report. It is important to bear in mind that children in pre-primary education can therefore be up to 7 years of age in the Czech Republic and Slovakia and up to 5 years of age in the UK including Wales.

The proportion of children under the age of six in the population is relatively high for the countries covered by this report: The EU average is 6.3%, while Slovakia has 6.4%, Czech Republic 6.7% and the UK has the highest proportion of under six year olds with 7.5% (Wales and England are included in the UK figure) (European Commission, 2014). However, in the long term, even though birth rates are rising in all three countries, they are still significantly lower than the replacement rate (approx.. 2.1): in 2012 Czech Republic had an average number of children per family or per woman of 1.45, Slovakia 1.34, and UK 1.92. Because of this the actual numbers of children are expected to decrease, especially for the Czech Republic and Slovakia where the estimated decrease in numbers of children under the age of 6 is between 17% and 22% by 2030 (European Commission, 2014).

2.2 Structure and Attendance

In England and Wales parents can choose to enroll their children with a range of service providers before they turn five. Early childhood education and care in the UK occurs in several settings. These include playgroups, nursery schools and nursery classes in primary schools that generally have qualified teachers and are provided for older preschool children, day nurseries that have facilities for younger children and registered child-minders. These different provisions target specific age groups, as shown in figure 2.1.

6

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Figure 2.1: Structure of pre-primary education in England and Wales. Source: (European Commission, 2014: 189–190)

Despite having broadly similar structures, Wales has its own Ministry of Education and the uptake for the different facilities might vary. This reflects on the attendance rates for the different facilities captured in table 2.1 (for England) and 2.2 (for Wales). The ISCED 0 and 1 statistic refers to pre-primary and primary education respectively.

Table 2.1: Attendance rate by pre-primary facility type in England. Source: (European Commission, 2014: 189)

(%) Reference year 2011 Under 3 3–4 years

Childminders 5.0 4.0

Day nursery 17.0 13.0

Playgroup or pre-school 7.0 15.0

Nursery school 5.0 14.0

Nursery class attached to a primary or infant‘s school 1.0 17.0

Reception class (-) 29.0

Source: DfE, 2013

(%) Reference year 2011

3 year-olds 4 year-olds 5 year-olds 6 year-olds 7 year-olds

ISCED 0 * 85,7 67,4 1,2 0.0 (-)

ISCED 1 * (-) 29,7 98,5 99,2 99

* Data for the United Kingdom (all parts). Source: Eurostat, UOE (data extracted November 2013)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Home-based provision Responsible authority Centre-based settings

Ministry of Education

Other

Childcare leave Beginning of compulsory education ISCED 0

A = Free provision at least some hours B = Legal entitlement A + B

Childminders

Day nurseries / children‘s centres

Pre-schools / nursery schools and other private, voluntary or independent providers

Schools, including maintained nursery schools and nursery classes/reception classes in primary schools

7

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Table 2.2: Attendance rate by pre-primary education type in Wales. Source: (European Commission, 2014: 190)

(%) Reference year 2009 Under 3 3–4 years

Childminders 5.0 4.0

Day nurseries/integrated children‘s centres 22.8 8.0

Playgroup or pre-school 10.0 12.0

Reception class (-) 30.0

Nursery school 2.0 7.0

Nursery class attached to a primary or infant‘s school (-) 35.0

Source: Welsh Assembly Government, 2011

(%) Reference year 2011

3 year-olds 4 year-olds 5 year-olds 6 year-olds 7 year-olds

ISCED 0 * 85,7 67,4 1,2 0.0 (-)

ISCED 1 * (-) 29,7 98,5 99,2 99

In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, before preschool children can be placed in “crèche” programs, and for preschools parents can chose a preschool provider. There is also an important one-year “preparatory” class for children who need help when transitioning from preschool to primary school – this preparatory class could be officially a part of the primary school. However, it does not count for the compulsory primary education. The pre-primary education structure for Czech Republic and Slovakia are illustrated in figure 2.2 and 2.3 respectively.

Figure 2.2: Structure of pre-primary education in Czech Republic. Source: (European Commission, 2014: 165)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Zařízení pro péči o děti do 3 let

Mateřská škola

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Home-based provision Responsible authority Centre-based settings

Ministry of Education

Other

Childcare leave Beginning of compulsory education ISCED 0

A = Free provision at least some hours B = Legal entitlement A + B

8

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Figure 2.3: Structure of pre-primary education in Slovakia. Source: (European Commission, 2014: 186)

Even though these two diagrams look similar, there are significant difference mainly in the absence of legal entitlement in Slovakia and the much longer childcare leave available to parents in the Czech Republic. Unfortunately, attendance statistics are only available for “Materska skola” (En. Pre-school) and they are presented in tables 2.3 (for Czech Republic) and 2.4 (for Slovakia).

Table 2.3: Attendance rate by pre-primary education type in Czech Republic. Source: (European Commission, 2014: 165)

(%) Reference year 2012/2013 2 year-olds 3 year-olds 4 year-olds 5 year-olds

Mateřská škola 26.7 75.2 86.9 88.2

Source: CSU & MEYS, 2013

(%) Reference year 2011

3 year-olds 4 year-olds 5 year-olds 6 year-olds 7 year-olds

ISCED 0 58.5 83.7 91.6 46.1 7.5

ISCED 1 (-) (-) 0.6 50.7 91.7

Source: Eurostat, UOE (data extracted November 2013)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Detské jasle

Detské jasle

Materská škola

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Home-based provision Responsible authority Centre-based settings

Ministry of Education

Other

Childcare leave Beginning of compulsory education ISCED 0

A = Free provision at least some hours B = Legal entitlement A + B

9

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Table 2.4: Attendance rate by pre-primary education type in Slovakia. Source: (European Commission, 2014: 186)

(%) Reference year 2012/2013 1 year-olds 2 year-olds 3 year-olds 4 year-olds 5 year-olds 6 year-olds

Materská škola (-) 10.3 62.2 72.3 80.5 35.9

Source: CSU & MEYS, 2013

(%) Reference year 2011

3 year-olds 4 year-olds 5 year-olds 6 year-olds 7 year-olds

ISCED 0 60.1 72.3 81.5 39.9 2.9

ISCED 1 (-) (-) 0.0 50.2 92.7

Source: Eurostat, UOE (data extracted November 2013)

2.3 Public and private provisions

In Europe, the general priority is to provide pre-primary education and care for all children, with countries opting for either compulsory pre-school attendance in certain years (eg. Luxembourg or Belgium), or a legal entitlement to a pre-school place (not necessarily fully subsidized, but affordable). In Wales, England, and the Czech Republic there is legal entitlement to preschool for certain age groups and preschool is not compulsory. In Slovakia, there is no entitlement and preschools are not compulsory.

In the UK the state supports early years provisions. Since 1998 all 4-year-olds have been entitled to 15 hours funded early education per week and in 2004 this was extended to all 3-year-olds. Although not compulsory, the provision is used by over 95 % of 3- and 4-year-olds.. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, in the most economically deprived areas, legal entitlement to 15 hours a week is extended to 2-year-olds.

In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, preschools are largely state funded, with the last year before primary education being fully funded (and in case of financial hardship the years before can be fully subsidized as well). There are alternative preschool programs, but they operate in a market setting with little to no state subsidies.

Unfortunately, the intended inclusivity of pre-school education is sometimes negatively impacted by the lack of capacity – responsible authorities might be committed to meeting the demand for pre-school education, but in reality the demand sometimes exceeds the supply. When that happens, there is a need to prioritize certain children. In the UK and Wales this task falls primarily on local authorities, who can allocate free spaces in day nurseries for example, as they see fit and the governing criteria would probably be economic disadvantage, single parenthood etc. In Slovakia the only relevant criteria for allocating a pre-school place is age and in the Czech Republic it is age, socioeconomic criteria and parent’s employment status (European Commission, 2014: 42).

2.4 Curriculum

In the UK the government provides for the Early Years curriculum guidance on delivering quality integrated education and care for children from birth to age 5; and a reformed regulatory framework to raise quality. The guidelines on good practice and standards are part of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) in England and Early Years Foundation Phase in Wales and are compulsory. Every early years setting is inspected by the government-funded Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) in England and her Majesty‘s Inspectorate for Education and Training, Estyn in Wales to ensure minimum standards are met. The results of both Ofsted and Estyn inspections are publicly available on the internet.

In the Czech Republic and Slovakia, there are national level priorities stated in the Education Framework Program (Rámcový vzdělávácí program, RVP) , but preschools themselves have a lot of freedom, especially when it comes to integrating socioeconomically disadvantaged children. Both countries have a national “Schools Inspection” institution, which reviews the situation at schools (not all preschools are inspected every inspection period, and the inspection period has no set frequency and varies based on current goals and tasks).

10

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

3 | Statistical overviewUnfortunately, there is a lack of rigorous research in the participating countries focused on children from “socially and culturally disadvantaged environments”. This is mainly because of the conceptual ambiguity of the definition itself, as “culturally disadvantaged environments” are difficult to define and vary greatly from country to country. However, some research explores the link between different performance and attendance indicators for pre-primary education to poverty, low income, or ethnicity.

Before providing an overview of what evidence there is, it is important to describe the European dimension of the problem and its crucial importance for the Europe 2020 agenda. The primary goal of this agenda is to lift 20 million people out of poverty and risk of social exclusion. However, 26% of children aged under six in Europe are currently at the risk of poverty or social exclusion. In the Czech Republic it is 17.1%, in Slovakia 25.1%, and in the UK 33.2% (European Commission, 2014). This is a major problem, as equality of opportunities is established or jeopardised in early childhood and is necessary for sustained and inclusive growth. Children living in poverty and social exclusion may well find it very difficult to integrate into society and are likely to require considerably more state support as adults than the rest of the population.

This is a complex issue as there are many well established factors that contribute to the risk of poverty and social exclusion that children face. One reason is that 11.2% of households in Europe are jobless (all household members are either inactive or unemployed), more specifically 9% in the Czech Republic, 9.5% in Slovakia, and 17.4% in the UK (European Commission, 2014). Children living in such households are at higher risk of poverty, which is a crucial determinant of skill formation and educational attainment. This situation is even worse for single parent households: There are 8.4% of single parent households with children under 6 in the Czech Republic, 4.2% in Slovakia and 22.2% in the UK (European Commission, 2014). In such households the lack of (especially maternal, as single parents tend to be mothers) employment is closely correlated with poverty and increasing female employment dramatically increases their socioeconomic status and thus the life chances of children living within those households (Esping-Andersen, 2015).

Nationality can be another factor contributing to exclusion (also as a proxy for ethnicity). In the Czech Republic 2.5% of all children under six years old are of foreign nationality, in Slovakia it is 0.4% and in UK it is 7.2%. The proportion of children with an immigrant background is crucial, as it is one of the determinants of ECEC attendance. In the Czech Republic the attendance of ECEC by children from immigrant families is lower than that of Czech children by 17.1%, in England this number is 17.9% and in Wales it reaches the highest value measured in entire Europe at 35.1% (European Commission, 2014: 74). Surprisingly, in Slovakia there is no significant difference between immigrant and Slovak children in ECEC attendance.

In the light of these specific differences between the four countries this section presents national-level evidence on a country-by-country basis under two sub-headings:

→ General country overview (statistics on general participation, performance, and regional specificities) → Potential determinants – risk factors (of exclusion or low performance in pre-primary education)

The determinants section focuses on the research at a national level, which identifies potential causal links of exclusion on low performance in pre-school education with a specific focus on variables associated with cultural and social disadvantage. Due to the difficulty of attributing causalities in this field and the insufficiency/absence of available data, a loosely structured review is presented.

The section concludes with the description of the situation of children from socially disadvantaged and culturally different environments, and reflects on the adequacy of the efforts of the involved countries in collecting and interpreting empirical data as evidence for policy interventions.

11

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

3.1 England

3.1.1 General

In terms of general attendance, the Statistical First Release (SFR) contains the latest information for January 2015 on the provision of education for children under 5 in the various preschool settings in England (these can be the maintained, private, voluntary and independent sectors in England), together with figures for earlier years. The data were collected from schools, maintained nurseries, local authorities and private, voluntary and independent providers (PVIs) in January 2015 as part of the early years census, spring school census and the school level annual school census (for general hospital schools). The most relevant general insights are shown in figures 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

Figure 3.1.1: Number of three and four year old attending pre-primary education. 2

Figure 3.1.2: Percentage of three and four year olds attending pre-primary education3

The data show that the number of 3–4 year olds who are benefitting from some funded education is now 1,321,900 or 96% of all 3–4 year old population in England. For 3- and 4-year-olds, the eligible population used to calculate take-up rates is the ONS population estimate. The data are even more encouraging for the four year olds. There were 675,220 or 99% of four-year-old children benefitting from some form of funded early years education in 2014. (DfE, 2015)

2) Provision for children under five years of age in England: January 2015 (source:DfE)3) Ibid,

12

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

In terms of performance, one of the relevant data sources is the “Early Years Foundation Stage Profile” outcomes (EYFSP). This comes from an annual survey of teachers in England conducted by the teachers in which they label the educational attainment of children on a three point scale for 17 goal areas split into two further groups:

1. Prime areas of learning: Includes communication and language; physical development; personal, social and emotional development; and others.

2. Specific areas of learning: Includes literacy; mathematics; understanding the world; expressive arts and design; and others.

The scale attributes 1 point for “emerging”, 2 for “expected”, and 3 for “exceeded” relative to the particular skill in question. This gives a minimum score of 17 and the maximum possible score of 51 points, with the national average being 34.3 points and 64.1% of children achieving at least “expected” for all 17 goals as rated by the teachers (Department of Education, 2015). Unfortunately the data can only be disaggregated to particular regions of England and not to individual children allowing only comparison of the performance of the most economically deprived regions of the UK (in this case bottom 30%) with the rest of England. These regions have only 53% of children achieving “good level of development” compared to 65% in all other areas.

Another relevant data source is the number of children that are eligible for the government’s “Fairness Premium” programme. The programme provides disadvantaged two year olds with up to 15 hours a week of free early education and was implemented in two phases, with the second phase expanding the coverage of the first from 149 900 children (20%) to around 296 300 (40%). This expansion was based on increased eligibility criteria. Phase one criteria were:

→ Looked after children and those children with a child protection plan automatically qualify for a free childcare place. The remaining criteria are benefits based around the entitlement to Free School Meals (FSM).

→ IIncome Support → Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) → Income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) → Support through part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act → The guaranteed element of State Pension Credit → Child Tax Credit and have an annual income not over £16,190

And phase two criteria added the following:

→ Working Tax Credits and earn no more than £16,190 a year → A child has a current statement of special educational needs (SEN) or an education, health and care plan

(EHCP) → A child gets or attracts Disability Living Allowance(DLA) → A child has left care through special guardianship or an adoption or residency order. Reference????

However, statistics for 2014 show that only 42% of eligible two year olds were accessing these entitlements. However, since accessing these entitlements is almost 100% for all entitled three year old, it is likely that policy novelty is at least a partial cause. Nevertheless, this data provides an illustration of the situation for children living in the bottom two quintiles of social disadvantage illustrating the type of exclusion disadvantaged two-year-olds face.

Problems of social exclusion are greater in some regions. Data on childcare attendance shows that there is significant variation between different regions of England (see table 3.1.1).

13

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Table 3.1.1: use of childcare in different region4

Use of childcare

Region Any childcare (in %)

Formal childcare (in %)

Informal childcare (in %)

Unweighted base

Base: All children

All 68 53 31 (6,393)

North East 77 53 49 (318)

North West 67 53 33 (858)

Yorkshire and the Humber 77 50 44 (703)

East Midlands 68 53 27 (565)

West Midlands 67 47 35 (686)

East of England 69 53 34 (669)

London 55 49 11 (1,003)

South East 70 56 31 (1,004)

South West 78 62 39 (587)

Another issue to be addressed is the number of children that do not have English as their first language and thus require additional education. The proportion of children in England with English as an Additional Language (EAL) has increased in recent years from 12.8% in 2009 to 15.4% in 2013. Levels of EAL are significantly higher in younger age groups and the expectation is that these higher levels of EAL will feed through to later key stages. The languages that are most commonly identified in pupils with EAL are Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali and Polish. (NCSR.2012).

There has been an increase in single parent households. As the 2011 national Census of Population shows the proportion of households that are headed by a single parent was 10.9%, up from 9.8% in 2001. This is just under 25,000 households in 2011, over 3,000 more than in 2001. At the same time the percentage of households deemed to be overcrowded has increased from 7.8% in 2001 to 9.1% in 2011 reflecting a housing shortage.

In terms of child poverty, 22% (35,100) of all children experience child poverty (defined as households earning less than 60% of median income). Five wards have over 40% of children in poverty and five wards have less than 10% of children in poverty.

3.1.2 Determinants

In terms of factors that cause, or are correlated with, exclusion from pre-primary education, research has identified two: Ethnicity and household income. These findings are largely based on a survey of childcare and early years services that was funded by the Department for Education.

In terms of ethnicity, as table 3.1.2 shows, children’s ethnic group bears a significant relationship to receipt of both formal and informal childcare. Children from mixed White and Asian backgrounds, White British backgrounds, and mixed White and Black backgrounds were most likely to receive formal childcare (62%, 55% and 54% respectively), while children from Asian Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds were least likely to (38% and 28% respectively). Receipt of informal childcare was highest among White British and mixed White and Asian children (36% each), and was lowest among children from other Asian, Black African and Bangladeshi backgrounds (9%, 9% and 6% respectively). Causality remains impossible to establish, due to the possible presence of other impactful variables that were not measured. However, the correlations between poverty and access themselves illustrate an important part of the overall picture.

4) Soruce: National Centre for Social Research.2012 (Childcare and early years provision.2012)

14

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Table 3.1.2: Child’s ethnicity/special needs/disability and childcare attendance in 20125

Use of childcare

Child characteristics Any childcare

(in %)Formal childcare

(in %) Informal childcare

(in %)Unweighted

base

Base: All children

All 68 53 31 (6,393)

Ethnicity of child, grouped

White British 73 55 36 (4,689)

Other White 57 49 16 (352)

Black Caribbean 59 48 18 (72)

Black African 48 43 9 (241)

Asian Indian 65 48 24 (196)

Asian Pakistani 56 38 18 (302)

Asian Bangladeshi 34 28 6 (78)

Other Asian 50 44 9 (110)

White and Black 67 54 28 (113)

White and Asian 74 62 36 (90)

Other mixed 73 59 28 (77)

Other 47 40 10 (71)

Whether child has SEN

Yes 63 46 27 (442)

No 69 53 31 (5,949)

Whether child has health problem/disability

Yes 73 54 31 (368)

No 68 53 31 (6,025)

In terms of household income, there was a significant relationship between family annual income and children’s receipt of childcare. Three in five (59%) children in families with an annual income of under £10,000 received some type of childcare, rising to four in five (81%) of children in families with an annual income of £45,000 or more (see Table y). Take-up of formal childcare also increased with family annual income: 41 per cent of children in families with an annual income of under £10,000 received formal childcare, rising to 68 per cent of children in families with an annual income of £45,000 or more.

5) Source: National Centre for Social Research, 2012

15

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Table 3.1.3: Annual family income and childcare attendance6

Annual income Any childcare (in %)

Formal childcare (in %)

Informal childcare(in %)

Unweighted base

Base: All children

All 68 53 31 (6,393)

Family annual income

Under £10,000 59 41 26 (456)

£10,000 – £19,999 58 43 27 (1,459)

£20,000 – £29,999 65 48 29 (1,208)

£30,000 – £44,999 74 54 38 (1,150)

£45,000+ 81 68 35 (1,679)

This relationship is also corroborated by the correlations between parent’s professional occupation when compared to childcare, as children of parent(s) in traditional professional occupations, in modern professional occupations, and in senior managerial and administrative roles were most likely to receive childcare (79%, 77%, and 77% respectively), while children of parent(s) in routine or semi-routine occupations were least likely to receive childcare (59% and 60% respectively) (NCSR.2012).

3.2 Wales

3.2.1 General

As apparent from tables 2.2 and 2.3 in section 2, Wales and England tend to have statistics on preschool attendance bundled together. This is despite the fact that Wales received devolved status in 1997. The Welsh Government is the devolved government for Wales and works across devolved areas that include key areas of public life including health, education and the environment. However, in terms of strict attendance, the figures are very similar to those of the UK.

Pre-schools or nurseries in Wales take the form of nursery classes attached to primary schools, nurseries run as private businesses, volunteer-run playgroups and maintained nursery schools (those run by the state). There were 3,082 (Department for Education, 2013) pre-schools in the UK in 2013. There are only 19 maintained nursery schools in Wales (The British Association for Early Childhood Education, n.d.). Maintained nursery schools are seen as providing a community benefit, especially in areas of high deprivation. Historically maintained nursery schools have been ground breaking in terms of introducing practices such as learning through play, outdoor activities and holistic development of the child.

In terms of what is mandated at nations level, early years education in Wales is provided on a part-time basis for those age 3–4 in nurseries and full-time basis in years 4–5 in primary school reception classes. Statutory duty lies with local authorities to provide nursery education for all children from the age of three onwards and at least 15 hours a week for 38 weeks is provided by the state.

PISA scores show that Wales has substantial ground to cover to catch up with its international counterparts and investing in pre-school education is widely seen as one of the best ways to achieve this (Welsh Government, 2013a). In the latest round of assessments, in 2012, Wales was ranked 39th out of 64 participating countries in Mathematics. In literacy the mean PISA score in Wales was 480, significantly below the OECD average of 496 – this places Wales in 32nd place internationally. Wales seems to do better in sciences with an average score of 491 compared with the average OECD score of 591. This places Wales 26th in the international rankings. Since PISA scores are good determinants for employment and productivity in adulthood, establishing an early education system that would aid the development of children and allow them to perform better in school and acquire more skills is crucial for the economy.

The population of Wales is projected to increase by 4 per cent to 3.19 million by 2022 and 8 per cent to 3.32 million by 2037. The number of children aged under 16 in Wales is projected to increase to around 582,000 by 2026 before decreasing. Overall, the number of children is projected to reduce by 1 per cent between 2011 and 2036. This compares with 0.1% projected growth of the number of children under the age of 16 living in England by 2037 (ONS, 2013).

6) Source: National Centre for Social Research.2012

16

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

In the UK as a whole the number of children aged under five is not projected to change much over the 25 years to mid-2037, but the number of primary school age children is projected to increase by 13 per cent to reach 5.7 million by mid-2037. Over the same period, the number of children aged 12 to 16 is projected to rise by 10 per cent to 4.1 million (ONS, 2013).

The number of people in Wales aged 16–64 is projected to decrease by nearly 60,000 or around 3 per cent between 2012 and 2036 while, the number of people aged 65 and over is projected to increase by 292,000 or 50 per cent between 2012 and 2036 (Welsh Government, 2013d). The preponderance of children in Wales come from a white ethnic background and this rate is much higher than is the case in England showing that Wales, as a whole, is less ethnically diverse than England.

Zooming in on the situation of ethnic minorities, minority ethnic learners make up around 8% of the Welsh school population. Many of these children are identified as those that need support with language acquisition to access the curriculum i.e. children for whom English and Welsh is an additional language (EAL/WAL) (Davies & Sharples, 2015: 8). The unequal distribution of ethnic minorities is also very important. Figure 3.2.1 shows that majority primary schools where a lot of students are of a minority ethnicity are located in Southern part of Wales. ‘Ethnic minority’ means of any ethnicity except for “White-British”. There were 29 schools where students of minority ethnicities constituted more than 66% of the entire student body, 19 of these schools are in Cardiff, 4 in Newport, 3 in Carmarthenshire, and one each in Swansea, Powys and Gwynedd. Of primary schools, Grangetown Primary School in Cardiff has the highest percentage of pupils from ethnic minority (95.1%). It is important to note that this data is for primary schools and not preschools, but it does show the important difference in the proportion of learners from ethnic minorities across Wales.

Figure 3.2.1: Southern Wales and the percentage of ethnic minorities in schools (small green labels signify 33%–66% of students being of minority ethnicity and large green labels signify 66%+)

Source: http://statiaith.com/blog/addysg/ysgolion/lleiafrifoedd-ethnig/

3.2.2 Determinants

In terms of determinants of exclusion from preschool education, Wales gathers some interesting evidence. However, as this section shows, this evidence tends to be largely qualitative and is limited by certain institutional conditions.

Her Majesty‘s Inspectorate for Education and Training in Wales, Estyn published a report in 2007, which reports on pupils that are educated outside of the official school system, or pupils that are absent from the education altogether (Estyn, 2007). The report identifies socioeconomically disadvantaged children (including traveller children, refugees, or asylum seekers) as the ones most likely be missing from the educational system altogether. However, the very same report acknowledges that records of absence are not robust enough and the attendance of children from socioeconomically vulnerable groups tends to not be a part of school’s evaluation (Estyn, 2007: 5). However, the most significant shortcoming of this report is that it is only concerned with children of compulsory school age, thus excluding preschool education. There are good reasons to assume that the situation will be similar in preschools, but this is merely an assumption.

17

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Focusing specifically on preschool aged children, qualitative studies shed some light on the matter. A recent qualitative study reports on the experiences of 27 families from five ethnic groups living in a big city on the North Wales coast, in the South Wales valleys and rural areas (Holtom, et. al, 2013). The research showed that parents considered children’s education to be of key importance and that educational attainment and the surroundings children grow up in are likely to have a major impact on poverty levels in adulthood. However, it is not clear how representative the participating families were and to what extent results were influenced by other factors such as key aspects of their human capital (eg. health and skills), their access to help and advice, availability of information that may help them escape poverty, social norms, and gender roles.

One minority group that is recognized as significantly excluded from the educational system altogether are the Roma (gypsy) community. This community constitutes an ethnic minority group and as such is protected against discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976. Like Plowden (Plowden Report on English Primary education in 1967–the first to research and report on the situation of Gypsy and Traveller children in the education system), Swann in 1986 concluded that this group is at risk in the system. Swann also highlighted the particular needs of Fairground and Circus children and the impact of interrupted education due to their mobility. To this day, the lack of access to education and the discrimination faced by Gypsy & Traveller children when they go into school is disturbing and in urgent need of addressing, as the average participation by travelling children in nursery, playgroup or other under-five provision is approximately 20%.

It remains difficult to empirically evaluate the participation of the Roma (and similar) minority groups in the educational system. These “traveller communities” may remain ‘hidden’ due to systems of self-identification, which are currently in existence. In education the ASC (Pupil Level Annual School Census) is a statutory requirement on all schools under section 537A of the Education Act 1996. This places a duty on schools to provide information in relation to individual pupils (usually in January of each year), including information regarding ethnicity. ASC provides essential information to inform the allocation of funding to Local Authorities and schools, and is needed to understand what is happening in schools and to ensure that national policy is developed sensibly and appropriately. However, the ASC data is likely to be inaccurate due to the reluctance of parents and pupils to identify themselves by their ethnicity due to fear of hostility, rejection and racist incidents.

The best (quantitative) piece of information with regards to the exclusion of Roma community comes from a 2014 governmental report (Welsh Government, 2014). It shows a very interesting statistics in terms of the total number of children of Roma ethnicity who are registered to receive support in education. Interestingly enough, only 82 Roma children in the entirety of Wales receive support to attend pre-school, while 944 children receive the same assistance to attend primary schools, suggesting that a large number of Roma children are not attending pre-school, or at least not receiving the benefits to do so. Unfortunately, this evidence is rather indirect.

The central focus of the Welsh government with regards to exclusion from preschool education is poverty. A “Children in Wales” network report on eradicating child poverty (2009) notes that the characteristics and impact of poverty and rural isolation has drawn the attention of public authorities and informed them of the need for a rural measure by the Rural Policy Unit in the Department for Rural Affairs on Government policies. The report of the Rural Wales Poverty and Deprivation Committee (2008 p.10 ) also states that the rights and needs of people living in rural areas should be identified as rights and equality policies which should improve the quality and efficiency of services and the importance of a rural measure for the results.

However, the current Early Years and childcare plan (Welsh Government, 2013) does provide good evidence for the diverging performance of children from high and low socioeconomic status (fig 3.2.2.1) as well as rather large differences in development based on the income quintile of the household (fig 3.2.2.2). These two findings inform the government’s focus on tackling poverty.

18

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Figure 3.2.2.1: The socioeconomic status of parents and children’s test scores (tests of development, such as stacking cubes, eventually language, etc.) over 96 months and 4 tests.

Source: Welsh Government (2013: 8)

Figure 3.2.2.2 : An average “development age” in months at 62 months of age, divided by income quintiles

Source: Welsh Government (2013: 9). Based of a prior study by Washbrook & Waldfogel

This focus is also evident from the numerous publications of Estyn, including the 2013 publication on tackling the impacts of poverty on educational achievement (Estyn, 2013). This very ambitious goal has long been the key priority of the Welsh educational policy, as Wales has a large portion of its population living in rural settings and a lot of people in, or at risk of, poverty. Estyn provides more indirect evidence, as we can look at the FSM subsidy program, which provides disadvantaged children with school lunches (thus can be used as a proxy for economically disadvantaged children). These children show significantly more negative school performance when compared to children not eligible for school lunches, and these differences are escalating with age and educational level (fig 3.2.2.2.3).

19

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Fig 3.2.2.2.3: The performance gap between children receiving FSM and those not receiving FSM

Source: Estyn (2013)

Despite this evidence presented by both the Welsh Government and Estyn, its inspectorate of education facilities, due to the difficulty of gathering certain types of data it is difficult to gauge the exclusion from the educational system caused by poverty. The key finding this chart is presenting lays in the assumption, that the gap between FSM pupils increases as they get older.

3.3 Czech Republic:

3.3.1 General:

In terms of general attendance the Czech Schooling Inspection provides yearly data. The most recent data is presented in table 3.3.1.

Table 3.3.1: Selection of variables on preschool attendance (source MŠMT, http://www.msmt.cz )

VariableValue for school year

Change2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Number of children attending preschools342 521 354 340 363 568 +

Ratio of five-year-olds attending preschools out of total number of five-year-olds (in %)

89,1 88,2 90,5 +

Ratio of children with a physical disability in preschools (in %)

2,8 2,8 2,8 0

Ratio of foreigners in preschools (in %)1,4 1,5 1,7 +

Ratio of children under three years of age in preschools (in %)

9,2 9,0 9,1 +

Ratio of children who deffered from primary education in preschools (in %)

22,8 22,8 20,0 -

Number of refused admissions requests for preschools

49 186 58 939 60 281 +

20

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

This data shows a steady number of children with a physical disability in preschool education as well as a steadily increasing (but still very small) number of children with non-Czech nationality. In terms of finances, preschool education receives increasing state funding, but due to rapidly growing demand the funds per child are actually decreasing. An evaluation of the Czech Schooling Inspection however states, that in 99% of preschools the financial situation is at least satisfactory (www. http://www.csicr.cz)However, this data is not to be taken at face value, as the “satisfactory” label is a subjective evaluation of a standard and is based on the current system (where parents have to pay for a large fraction of the expense, such as school trips, lunches, equipment, and others).

As it is apparent from the table above, there is no explicit focus of the Ministry of Education on socioeconomically disadvantaged children. There are some remarks on this topic in the yearly reports of the Czech Schools Inspection office, but they tend to be very shallow: In the last three reports the percentage of children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds is listed as only 3% (based on the number of children in “preparatory classes” that aim to integrate socioeconomically disadvantaged children into regular education).

However, the percentage of socially disadvantaged children in pre-school is only 0.1% (based on official registers for relevant benefits) and 0.8%. This demonstrates a shortcoming of data, as preschools clearly lack a working system for identifying disadvantaged children (pre-school and “preparatory class” are subsequent stages of education). In term of cultural disadvantaged there were 1.4% estimated children of parents with non-Czech nationality. The percentage of children with specific educational needs is estimated to be 2.8% in both 2013 and 2014.

In terms of qualitative insights the reports mention that preschool teachers have largely insufficient education to integrate children from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, but the situation is improving (increase from 20% of teachers qualified in 2013 to 44% in 2014). Another positive development is that preschools perform well in integrating children with Czech as a foreign language and, thus, have to overcome the language barrier.

A far more sophisticated source of data is an exhaustive report compiled by Hůle, et. al. (2015), which not only works with the official data to provide a much more comprehensive and region-specific evaluation, but also conducts survey research into some aspects of exclusion of socioeconomically disadvantaged children. Many of the insights from this report are mentioned in the “Local” and “Determinants” sections to follow.

Shifting focus to the inter-regional differences, thanks to the report by Hůle, et. al. (2015), official statistical sources have been merged to create an inter-regional overview of the basic indicators relevant to pre-school education (table 3.3.2).

21

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Table 3.3.2: Number of preschools, children in preschools, preschool classes and preschool teachers for each individual region of the Czech Republic for the school year 2013/2014.7

From this table we can discern substantial inter-regional differences, but the insufficient disaggregation remains a problem. For example, this is the case with the number of children in preschools per 100 of children between 3 and 5. Since this statistic goes well above 100, children are either entering preschools earlier, or leaving them later (both are allowed for by the Czech legislation). Thus, that statistic becomes somewhat meaningless unless it can be disaggregated further to either include early entry or late leave as a separate group or exclude them from the statistic. Despite that, the number of preschools, classes and teachers provides a valuable insight into the inter-regional differences.

Information from table 3.3.2 represents the capacity problem with capacity, which is one of the major concerns of pre-school education in the Czech Republic. Whether preschools have sufficient capacity is of course dependent on the number of children that can attend preschool, for which the report of Hůle, et. al. (2015) provides not only current statistics, but also estimates for future developments (figure 3.3.1)

7) Source: Hůle, et. al. (2015). The vertical dimension of the table refers to individual regions (“kraj” translates as region). The horizontal dimension is split into four columns of preschools, children in preschools, classes in preschools and preschool teachers (from left to right). Each column is further split into two, with the left being the total number (“celkem”) and the right being per 1000 or 100 children between 3 and 5 years of age.

22

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Figure 3.3.1 Projected decrease of children between 3 and 5 in selected regions based on the school year of 2013/2014 as a baseline. This is a balanced prediction.8

These estimates are important in terms of meeting the demand for preschool education without unnecessary expenditure in regions where the capacity is sufficient (or will become sufficient due to the decline in number of children) in the very near future. The money saved via optimization can be used to improve the quality of pre-school education, as highly productive cohorts of workers will be necessary to sustain the welfare state through demographic ageing.

In the Czech Republic pre-schools that provide education to children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) are either specifically geared for this goal, or have special classes for such children. The report of Hůle, et. al. (2015) provides a regional breakdown of these pre-schools and pre-school classes (table 3.3.3).

8) Source: Hůle, et. al. (2015). The vertical axis represents the of children between 3 and 5, with 100% being the current baseline. The horizontal axis then represents school years

23

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Table 3.3.3: Number of preschools providing education to children with SEN, children with SEN in preschools, and classes in preschools for children with special education needs in various regions of the Czech Republic for the school year 203/2014.9

Here we can again see substantial variations between regions, with the alarming difference being mainly in the percentage of children in special educational needs classes as a share of the total number of children in preschool. This number fluctuates between 0,1% and 1,8%, which indicates a problem of either oversubscribing children for the special program in some regions, or (and more likely) the under-subscription of children with special educational needs into these programs (unless we are willing to assume that the number of children with special educational needs varies so greatly between regions). Another explanation could be the lacking capacity, but based on the fact that preschools for children with special educational needs tend to reject less children than general preschools it is not likely.

The share of individuals who identify themselves with the Roma ethnicity (which is one of the risk factors of exclusion from preschool, as debated in the next section) also significantly varies from region to region (figure 3.3.2)

9) Source: Hůle, et. al. (2015). The vertical dimension of the table refers to individual regions (“kraj” translates as region). The horizontal dimension is split into three columns of preschools, children in preschools, and classes in preschools (from left to right). Each column is further split into two, with the left being the total number (absolute value) and the right being the share of these values as a total of all preschools (eg. What percentage of all children in preschools are children who attend a program for special education needs children.

24

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Figure 3.3.2: The share of those who identify themselves as “Roma” out of the total population for 1991, 2001 and 2011 in different regions of the Czech Republic source: Hůle, et. al. (2015)

3.3.2 Determinants

The previous section has already touched on some of the potential determinants of exclusion from preschool. The first one is certainly capacity, as the number of rejections from pre-school education is increasing (figure 3.3.3).

Figure 3.3.3: Number of rejected applications for preschool education in the Czech Republic (vertical dimension) over time (horizontal dimension)

25

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Furthermore, there are also significant differences in rejected applications between different regions, with Prague having the highest rejection rate of 310 rejections per 1000 children eligible for preschool (Hůle et. al., 2015). In spite of this number seeming alarming, it should only be approached as an estimate, since parents can ask to be accepted into more preschools, and many of them do so as a form of insurance (in case they get rejected from one, they still have a chance to accepted into second). Furthermore, the increase in demand for preschools (despite the number of children between 3 and 5 declining) can be explained partially by the increased demand for two year olds to be accepted to preschools: Creches can be prohibitively expensive and a parental subsidy was extended to two year olds, to motivate women to enroll their children sooner and, thus, return to the labor market (Hůle et. al., 2015). Nevertheless, the supply is not meeting the demand in some regions making it difficult for parents to place their children in preschools.

Besides the capacity, another significant factor is social exclusion. In the case of the Czech Republic, an example of this is the Roma community: Despite good integration of some of its members, some live in excluded settlements and tend to drop out from the mainstream education (Kaleja, 2014). The main reason for this is that in such a setting children do not grow up in an environment supportive of education: Many Roma adults believe that even with sufficient education they will be discriminated against other applicants for employment, and thus place very little value on education in general tending to enroll their children into pre-school only for the “preparatory year” before the first compulsory school year. (Kaleja, 2014). Another problem Roma children face is the language barrier: Their parents speak a very specific dialect of Czech, also called the “Roma Czech”, which is not only problem in terms of learning and skill acquisition, but can also lead outsiders to believe that a child is less developed or smart, purely because of the accent (Kaleja, 2014). The financial strain of paying tuition, lunches, transport, equipment, and other can also be a contributing factor to children not attending preschool. As the survey research conducted by Hůle, et. al. (2015) shows, 72% of mothers not sending their children to preschool thought that the tuition was too high and 73% thought that the price for lunches was too high. Surprisingly, only 7% thought the transport was too expensive and only 13% thought “other” expenses were too high. In terms of the “other” category a big concern was clothing (so that children are not picked on for being poorly dressed) and also the possible stigmatization if a child cannot participate in optional preschool activities that need to be paid for extra (such as trips, swimming classes, etc.) (Hůle et. al., 2015).

Lastly, it is worth mentioning that mothers’ educational attainment does not seem to be a statistically significant determinant of enrolling ones child in preschool (which general research sometimes suggests). However, this finding is based on a survey research of Hůle, et. al. (2015) and not on an official statistic (which doesn’t exist).

3.4 Slovakia

3.4.1 General

In Slovakia for the school year of 2014/2015 there were 2895 active preschools. Figure 3.4.1 shows how the attendance is distributed across the regions.

Figure 3.4.1: number of children attending preschools per region

Bratislavský

Trnavský

Trenčianský

Nitrianský

Žilinský

Banskobystrický

Prešovský

Košický

KRAJ

0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000

26

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Preschools are heavily subsidized, but parents do have to contribute. There is a ceiling for how high this contribution can be and it is maximum 7,5% of the “living minimum” for one child. These fees are set regionally. This fee can be waived should the child only have one year before starting primary education, should the parents receive welfare, or should they be placed in the preschool following a ruling of the court.

There is a legally set definition for children with Special Educational Needs (SEN). Such children belong to one of the three groups: physically disadvantaged, socially disadvantaged, or especially talented. A socially disadvantaged child is further specified to be “A child living in an environment that due to social, cultural and economic factors doesn’t sufficiently supports his/her mental and emotional development, doesn’t support his/her socialization and doesn’t provide enough inputs for personal development. (Authors translation, Law 245/2008).” Such an environment can be identified via the following attributes:

→ A family receiving welfare with a household income below minimum for decent life → A family in which at least one parent or guardian falls into a disadvantaged group when looking for

employment → A family in which highest educational attainment of parents is compulsory education, or at least one parent

failing to finish compulsory education → A family with insufficient housing and hygienic situation (no individual bed, no room to play, no electric

plugs, etc.)

There is data on how many children in each region that attend preschool are considered from disadvantaged social background (see figure 3.), as defined at the start of the “General” section.

Figure 3.4.2: Number of socially disadvantaged children per region

As we can see from Figure 3.4.3 the above map largely corresponds to the density of the Roma minority in Slovakia, whose exclusion is also a significant problem (just as it is In Wales or the Czech Republic).

27

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

Figure 3.4.3: Density of the Roma population in Slovakia

There are also individual research projects and studies that can be funded by the government. A good example of such a project that provides some statistics is the Overview of Roma Communities 2013 project. Even though not all regions were investigated (hence this data should not be generalized for Slovakia), it certainly provides some useful insight (see table 3.4.1).

Table 3.4.1: Results of the Overview of Roma Communities 2013 project

Region Number ofareas with

a preschool

Approximate number of

Roma children

Number of areas without

preschool

Approximate distance to

closest preschool

Approximate number of

Roma teaching assistants

Banskobystrický kraj 179 1835 87 5 km 187

% of monitored areas 7,3 32,7

Bratislavský kraj 27 101 0 0 km 0

% of monitored areas 100 0

Košický kraj 211 1936 45 4 km 39

% of monitored areas 82,4 17,6

Nitriansky kraj 127 521 7 3 km 2

% of monitored areas 94,8 5,2

Prešovský kraj 196 2639 47 5 km 40

% of monitored areas 80,7 19,3

Trenčiansky kraj 38 127 3 3 km 1

% of monitored areas 92,7 7,3

Trnavský kraj 75 456 1 2 km 13

% of monitored areas 98,7 1,3

Žilinský kraj 25 88 2 2 km 4

% of monitored areas 92,6 7,4

Aggregate 878 7703 192 6 km 286

% of monitored areas 82,1 17,9

Another project worth mentioning is the MRK 2 project (focused on inclusivity of pre-primary education). According to this project, most Roma children attend preschool in the Košickom, Prešovskom and Banskobystrickom region. These preschools tend to be located in cities with high Roma population but also with a high level of integration of this population into the city (not located in districts or towns). Unfortunately, only 9 out of 110 preschools involved in

28

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

this project work with children from highly segregated Roma townships. In this entire project more than 50% of all the children attending preschools were Roma, with the highest representation being of 5 and 6 year olds (the year before you enter primary education). So in that age category Roma children form a majority, but in other age groups they remain a minority. Most of (74) of the preschools involved in this project would evaluate its capacity as sufficient.

3.4.2 Determinants

The two key determinants of children failing to access preschool attendance or exclusion seem to be ethnicity and capacity. According to a 2012 World Bank report in selected communities with a high ratio of people of the Roma ethnicity only 28% of children aged between 3 and 6 attended pre-schools. (World Bank, June 2012) This figure is much higher for neighboring areas with a higher ratio of ethnic Slovaks. The lowest levels of pre-school attendance and inclusion are thus found in segregated Roma towns. Sometimes, pre-school capacity is an issue as well, as the demand significantly exceeds the supply in certain regions.

Data on socially disadvantaged children are not collected from the entire country, but the National School Inspection does track a few select the preschools to have a rough idea of the developments. This data is presented in table 3.4.2.

Table 3.4.2: Children with needs and disadvantages per school year in a few selected pre-schools- References

School Year 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014

Total no. of children14 292 11 584 9 093 8 454 10 863 10 344

Children from socially disadvantaged background

375 170 33 63 16 24

Children with physical handicap 20 48 60 78 44

Talented Children 2 1 1

Children with special educational needs

395 170 83 124 95 68

The integration of children from the Roma community remains one of the larger problems of the entire Slovak education system, including primary education, where the significant segregation also leads to inclusion and lower attendance. In 2013, 87% of all eligible children were attending preschool, but only 53.1% of eligible Roma children were attending preschool. This under-representation is due to multiple factors:

→ Insufficient number of preschools in geographically segregated areas → Teachers are not ready or qualified to work with disadvantaged children → Preschools only very rarely support intercultural activities → Insufficient capacity → Discrimination on the side of service providers that cater mainly to Slovak children (resulting in either Roma

children not being accepted or educated in separate classes) → The economic disadvantage itself: high levels of (especially female) unemployment disincentive entering

their children into preschool (or the funds are simply lacking)

A further problem with the exclusion of the Roma community is that children get most of their pre-primary education in the family setting, which is often dysfunctional and doesn’t allow for the proper development and internalization of values necessary to be a successful member of society. Unfortunately, providing appropriate stimuli for cognitive and emotional development is usually a low priority in such households and children can grow up without an appropriate moral compass or skills to integrate themselves into society later on in their life. There is a multiplicity of reasons that children from such backgrounds find themselves excluded from preschools: – Please provide reference for these statements.

29

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

→ Inability to speak Slovak: Slovak is the main tutoring language, which many children cannot speak well enough. If they can speak it, their language tends to be rather informal and crude.

→ Unsupportive family situation: As mentioned before, families can sometimes be dysfunctional and lacking hygienic or work discipline impacts the child’s performance. Due to lack of parental attention these children lack the ability to understand emotions/feelings of others, express their own emotions in a constructive way, regulate their emotions, adapt to new situations, and reach set goals.

→ Lack of access: Roma children can find it very difficult to find a preschool and to find one with open spaces and one without discrimination.

→ Psychology: Roma children come from a different background and entering into a background where different things are valued can lead them to isolation and feeling of being rejected or not appreciated by the system (as well leading into rejection of the system).

→ Attendance: Attendance can be a problem for many of the above mentioned reasons, but simply also because of long distances to pre-school and lack of money for transport.

→ Prejudice: Prejudice Slovak children and parents hold against the Roma community, but also vice versa. → Features of difference: In general, there are some observable differences between Roma and Slovak children

(be they genetic or environmentally induced). These include “slower” vision in terms of recognition, worse concentration, lack of logical thinking, worse memory and internalizing new concepts, more aggression and temperament, lack of responsibility and understanding of consequences of their behavior.

→ Underdevelopment: When entering preschools, children are underdeveloped in basic competences (lack of fine motoric skills, language, hygien skills etc.)

As a result of this, many children are excluded from preschools and those who are not still face segregation in preschools themselves. This segregation can be formal (education in special classes), or informal (eg. separating children by ethnicity for lunch, so that Roma children sit at tables together).

3.5 State of empirical evidence

By the way of conclusion, there are positive and constructive, as well as negative conclusions to be drawn from this section. The negative conclusion is clear: The empirical research on the relationship between exclusion and underachievement in preschool and variables such as ethnicity or poverty in the given contexts is not always rigorous, sometimes falling back on intermediate evaluations, international research, or reflections from qualitative studies. However, there are very good reasons for this, as gathering data on individuals excluded from a system is very difficult (as the data cannot be collected using the system in question). Data collection is made even more difficult by the fact that, for example, members of the Roma community, whose exclusion is a significant problem in Wales, Czech Republic, and Slovakia, tend to move around and do not reside at a fixed address (meaning that even country-wide population censuses can miss them). Causation or the relationship between membership of excluded groups and ECEC access is difficult to establish in the absence of first hand data Highly focused studies with substantial coverage are not something that exists as of yet. There are some advances in that direction (eg. EU-SILC), but ECEC has yet to gather enough political capital to justify the expenses of gathering such data.

On the bright side, conclusions that can be drawn from the existing evidence. Firstly, and most importantly, there is a good deal of macro-level and qualitative evidence to confirm what general research is suggesting that in UK, Wales, Czech Republic, and Slovakia, belonging to an ethnic minority and/or coming from an economically disadvantaged family ( these two factors are strongly correlated) impedes children’s performance and inclusion in preschools. There is also some data on coverage and regional differences both in terms of preschool facilities and the economic situation or proportion of ethnic minorities living in the given regions. The capacity of pre-schools can be further contextualized by looking at demographic projections, that are available in all four countries. This might not be enough to inform targeted and specific interventions to address this problem, but it shows that current systems of ECEC has inclusivity gaps.

The evidence for the extent of inclusive preschool and ECEC interventions is not strong enough to speak of “evidence-based” policies just yet, but it is strong enough to say that the existing interventions are informed by research. Ideally, for an issue as complex as the returns from investment in, and costs of exclusion from, ECEC for disadvantaged children, requires rigorous micro-level data as well as macro-level data with sufficient coverage, and detailed qualitative insights. Unfortunately, the micro-level data is lacking, but there is some good macro-level evidence and a wealth of qualitative evidence showing, that support in early stages of development may reduce the gap in future academic achievement. Combined with the international research on the impacts and economic returns of inclusive early education, the evidence base for early interventions is growing.

30

Repo

Rt o

n t

he

situ

atio

n o

f pR

esch

oo

l ed

uca

tio

n in

 paR

tneR

co

un

tRie

s

4 | Policy approaches4.1 England

The policies aimed at early years/pre-school provisions are shaped, designed and controlled within the different parts of the United Kingdom with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the Northern Ireland Assembly all setting their own educational priorities. Nevertheless the general recognition of both the importance of early years education to redress the impact of disadvantaging life circumstances is recognised across the UK. These policies are part of a wider social change and are influenced by changes in beliefs and understandings about best practices. For example, social policy developments around social inclusion have impacted significantly on early years education and child care policy, but have also introduced measures to support parents returning to work or study and a raft of retraining and upskilling measures to improve an individual’s employment chances.

It is important to recognise that Early Years policies are viewed as part of a wider mandate and therefore may be designed to achieve goals that are not all directly related to children’s wellbeing. The current Westminster government is trying to address two major issues to improve the chances of all childre