New developments

This article was downloaded by: [University of Gent] On: 24 November 2011, At: 11:34 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recr20

New developments a

Maelis Karlson Lohmander, Michel Vandenbroeck , Florence b

a

Pirard , Jan Peeters & Marit Alvestad

c

a

Department of Social Welfare Studies, Ghent University, Belgium

b

Office de la Naissance et de l’Enfance, Brussels, Belgium

c

Faculty of Arts and Education, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway Available online: 23 Sep 2009

To cite this article: Maelis Karlson Lohmander, Michel Vandenbroeck, Florence Pirard, Jan Peeters & Marit Alvestad (2009): New developments, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17:3, 407-424 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13502930903101610

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal Vol. 17, No. 3, September 2009, 407–424

New developments

In the current journal, new developments and challenges regarding early childhood education (ECE) policy and practice in Norway and in the Flemish and French communities in Belgium are presented. There are clear differences between the countries when comparing systems they have chosen for ECE. In Belgium, supervision and responsibilities for education, welfare and culture have been given to the communities. As a result, there are also differences between the two Belgian regions. Like other Nordic countries, Norway has an integrated system of services for children between the ages of one and five, and this is publicly funded by the state and the municipalities. A holistic approach to care and education is the typical approach adopted in early years settings. In contrast, Belgium has a split system between care and education and between services provided for the under three’s and for children who are older than three. Childcare for children from zero to three is under the auspices of the Ministry for Welfare, while children over three years of age attend kindergarten centres, which come under the responsibility of the Ministry of Education. According to recent policy discussions, in the Flemish region there is a growing concern about the unequal accessibility of childcare. In the French region the policy focus has been on issues of pedagogical quality in the kindergartens for children above three years of age. In spite of the differences between Belgian and Norway, there are also similarities. In both countries, ECE has a clear economic function, in that childcare services enable both men and women to combine parenthood with participation in the labour force, thus promoting equality. The two countries also face similar challenges. One of these challenges is related to the qualifications of the workforce; professionalisation issues are of major concern. The number of educated pre-school teachers in the Norwegian kindergartens needs to be increased, as do the educational qualifications of childcare assistants. Similarly, both the Flemish and the French Belgian communities share a concern over the seemingly low level of qualifications of childcare assistants. In addition, there are concerns that the education offered to those who work as managers of childcare centres is not really preparing them for the challenges in the field. These issues corroborate the conclusions and claims made by many researchers: there is a clear relationship between quality of ECE and the education and qualifications of professionals working in the field. Research indicates that the higher the qualification, the better the quality of the service provided (Sylva et al., 2003, among others). Across Europe, it seems that this relationship is being acknowledged by policy makers. One can only hope that this recognition will lead to specific funding being made available for raising the qualifications of the ECE workforce across Europe. A very positive initiative seems to have started in the Flemish community, where policy makers now are discussing a possible bachelor’s degree in ECE. Such a

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

European 10.1080/13502930903101610 RECR_A_410334.sgm 1350-293X Original Taylor 302009 17 [email protected] MaelisLohmander 00000September and & Article Francis Early Francis (print)/1752-1807 Childhood 2009 Education (online)Research Journal

ISSN 1350-293X print/ISSN 1752-1807 online © 2009 EECERA DOI: 10.1080/13502930903101610 http://www.informaworld.com

408

New developments

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

degree is already in place in Norway, where educated pre-school teachers are awarded a bachelor’s degree. In Norway there are also master-level degree programmes offered at four different universities /university colleges. A warning regarding the professionalisation matter is raised in the contribution by Vandenbroeck et al. It seems that childcare in the Flemish community faces a particular problem: there is a rapid growth of market-oriented childcare provisions in the community. This tendency can be traced in other countries as well. However, in these centres there are no requirements for mandatory staff qualifications. Given the research conclusions referred to earlier, one might wonder what the implications of such provision might be for the children in the Flemish community and elsewhere. The next New Developments section will appear in Volume 18, Issue 3 2010. If you have developments to report from your country please contact [email protected]. Maelis Karlson Lohmander Section Editor References Sylva, K., E. Melhuish, P. Sammons, I. Siraj-Blatchford, and B. Taggart. 2003. The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project: Findings from pre-school to end of Key Stage 1. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

New developments in Belgian childcare policy and practice Michel Vandenbroeck*a, Florence Pirardb and Jan Peetersa aDepartment

of Social Welfare Studies, Ghent University, Belgium; bOffice de la Naissance et de l’Enfance, Brussels, Belgium

Introduction Belgium has a long history of a split system between education and care. From the very origins of day care, in the second half of the 19th century, the care sector for infants and toddlers evolved quite separately from the education in kindergarten. While kindergarten in Belgium, as in France, was gradually considered as an educational environment that may benefit all children (e.g., Luc 1997), until the 1960s childcare for children below three years of age remained predominantly a charity for the poor, with a strong medical and hygienic emphasis (Vandenbroeck 2006; Humblet and Vandenbroeck 2007). Due to growing female employment since the 1970s, childcare gradually also became an economic instrument for equal opportunities for min and women in the labour market. However, early childhood care and education remained a split system: childcare for children below three years of age being under the competence of the Ministries of Welfare, while children from three years on were enrolled in kindergarten (kleuterschool or école maternelle), as a part of the educational system. Compulsory schooling started at the age of six. In this sense, Belgium shows some typical features of such a ‘split system’, as described by Bennett (2003): while all * Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal Table 1.

409

Numbers of childcare places in Belgium (2007).

Funded and accredited Total funded Non-funded Total non-funded Grand total

Centre-based care Family Day Care Centre-based care Family Day Care

Flemish Comm.

French Comm.

Total

15.438 30.713 46.151 24.137 7.068 31.205 77.356

14.630 9.681 24.311 6.188 2.330 8.518 32.829

30.068 40.394 70.462 30.325 9.398 39.723 110.185

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

Source: Kind en Gezin, 2008 for the Flemish community; ONE, 2008 for the French speaking community.

kindergarten staff has a bachelor degree, childcare workers have a vocational training to secondary school levels. In addition, while access to kindergarten is universal, there are shortages and waiting lists in childcare, and public spending is far more important in kindergarten than in childcare. In this article, we focus mainly on recent developments regarding the youngest children (zero to three). As Belgium has decentralised many aspects of governance, since the 1980s, the communities are responsible for all matters regarding education, welfare and culture. This implies that childcare is under the auspices of the Flemish community (approx six million inhabitants), the French community (approximately four million inhabitants) and the (small) German community (approximately 70.000 inhabitants) of Belgium and, consequently, policy evolutions in these autonomous communities may be divergent. Childcare coverage in Flanders has reached the Barcelona targets for some years: there are approximately 35 places per 100 children from zero to three. In the French-speaking community, coverage is approximately 29%.1 In contrast, almost 100% of the children in both communities are enrolled in kindergarten from three years on. It needs to be noted that the childcare sector in both communities is rather disparate and includes centre-based care as well as family day care. In both types of care, governmentally funded and accredited care coexists with non-funded, market-oriented provisions. Table 1 gives an overview of the number of childcare places in different types of care in both communities in 2007. It is clear that the different types of care have a significantly different proportion in both communities, as a result of two decades of different policies. As Table 1 shows, the differences in coverage between the communities are predominantly caused by the presence of more family day care and more nonfunded day care in Flanders. Three societal functions In both the French and the Flemish speaking communities, a growing consensus can be noted among policy makers and leading administrators about the societal functions of childcare. It is generally agreed that childcare should combine three main functions in society. Obviously childcare has an economic function that has prevailed for a long time, enabling both men and women to reconcile their parental responsibilities with activities in the labour market. In recent decades, there has also been more attention to a second function: the pedagogical function that is central in the recent Unicef Report Card 8 (Unicef

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

410

New developments

Innocenti Research Centre 2008). For a growing number of children, childcare is an important socialising milieu, where essential competencies are developed in the foundational stage. Last, the social function of childcare looks at issues of social justice and equal opportunities, and therefore also at issues of accessibility, desirability and parental involvement. Considering the autonomy of the different communities, we separately address new developments in the Flemish and French-speaking community, focusing on changes since the new millennium. Regarding the former, we draw attention to evolutions in policy and practice that concern the social function of childcare. Regarding the latter, we focus on evolutions that concern its pedagogical functions. These differences reflect both differences in policy focus within the communities and different interests from the authors. This is of course not to say that the Flemish community is not concerned with pedagogical issues or the French-speaking community with social matters. Space however compels us to limit ourselves to those policy aspects that have received most attention in the last decade, and we will focus on the issue of accessibility in Flanders and only shortly touch upon some new developments regarding the pedagogical quality. Inversely we will focus on policy measures regarding pedagogical quality in the French-speaking community and only shortly touch upon some aspects of accessibility. A common conclusion for both communities is that these evolutions present particular challenges to the professionalisation of the workforce. We address these challenges in a common concluding chapter. The social function in the Flemish community Regarding the pedagogical quality, the governmental agency Kind en Gezin implemented a self-observation instrument, monitoring wellbeing and involvement and developed by Laevers from the University of Leuven (Laevers et al. 2006). In a very short period of time, in the spring of 2005, over 1500 professionals were sensitised and trained in the use of this self-evaluation system. Since then, all funded and accredited childcare provisions regularly use the system to monitor and discuss their pedagogical quality, while some of the private, non-funded childcare provisions also make use of it. Notwithstanding the importance of this instrument and its wide implementation, in this article we focus on a more novel development. Since the turn of the millennium, there is a growing attention amongst policy makers, administrators and practitioners towards the accessibility of childcare. Despite the fact that Flanders has for many years reached the Barcelona targets, different studies have showed that places in childcare are not only far too scarce, but that accessibility is unequal. Figures from the governmental agency Kind en Gezin (Van Keer, Bettens and Buysse 2004) show that while 63% of Belgian families regularly make use of childcare provisions, only 24% of ethnic minority families and 22% of poor families use childcare services. There are approximately 11% of children at risk of poverty in Flanders. A more detailed study in Brussels argued that these unequal figures cannot be interpreted as a result of parental choice but rather need to be viewed as being influenced by environmental constraints such as the unequal distribution of places (more places in more affluent neighbourhoods) and the priority criteria set by the management of individual provisions, favouring double-income majority families (Vandenbroeck, De Visscher, Van Nuffel and Ferla 2008). Finally, a large-scale study in 16 Flemish cities, commissioned by the Minister of Welfare, showed that some 10% of families failed in finding

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

411

a childcare place and another 10% settled with a place that did not meet their demands. Single-parent families, ethnic minority families and low-income families are overrepresented in those groups that cannot find a suitable place (Market Analysis and Synthesis, 2007). This study also confirmed the results of previous studies, stating that priorities set by managements are to a large extent responsible for this social gap. In short, there has been a growing political awareness that the organisation of Flemish childcare may contribute to existing social inequalities and may be one of the pathways through which poverty is reproduced. As a first attempt to overcome this early educational gap, the Flemish government agreed that Kind en Gezin would fund, from 2004 onwards, small and flexible community-based childcare centres in impoverished neighbourhoods. These community-based childcare centres focus on enrolling children who were predominantly excluded in mainstream provisions. By 2006, 18 of these centres were established (Depoorter 2006) and they succeeded in reaching the targeted populations (Seaux 2006). However, they did not succeed in influencing the access policies of mainstream provisions as policy makers expected, and in some cases even contributed to widening the educational gap by legitimating mainstream managements’ decisions not to alter their policies: In response to the observation that accessibility cannot solely be addressed on the level of individual provisions, an experiment started in 16 pilot regions in 2007. In each of these regions different childcare provisions worked together to develop a common social policy, and a more transparent access policy aimed at taking into account the needs of various populations, similar to (and partially inspired by) the French childcare decree of 2000 (Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité – CNAF 2000). However, in contrast to the French approach, the Flemish pilot projects were based on voluntary participation and lacked investment in a central leadership, despite the fact that literature shows the crucial role of this leadership to enhance the integration of services (Bertram et al. 2001). After two years of experimenting, the structural effects on accessibility for marginalised families were still very weak. Finally, early 2009, the Flemish government decided to take structural measures. Since then, all funded childcare centres are compelled to reserve 20% of their capacity for single-parent families and families living in poverty and crisis situations. It is of course too early to evaluate to what extent these structural measures will influence enrolment figures.

Paradoxically, the growing attention for the social function of childcare in Flanders is contingent with a rapidly growing privatisation of the field. From 2000 to 2008, the capacity of funded centre-based care grew with 16% (from 13,652 to 15,864 places). Yet, in the same period, the capacity of the non-funded, private (market-oriented) childcare centres grew by 250% (from 11,215 to 28,112 places). In the Flemish case, there are two major differences between funded and market provisions. Funded provisions have strict regulations regarding the required training for all childcare staff, while market-oriented provisions have no requirements for staff qualifications. In funded provisions, parents pay according to their income, while market provisions set their own (fixed) price, since they have to operate commercially via parents’ contributions. In early 2009, the Flemish government decided to invest €52 million in the private, market-oriented provisions in order to enable them to adopt parental fees that are similar to those in the funded provisions. The objective is to enable the market-oriented provisions to take up a social function. However, the government failed in taking accompanying measures to ensure similar qualifications and working conditions in these two sectors. Considering the rapid marketisation of the childcare field in

412

New developments

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

Flanders, the biggest challenge for the next decade lies in how to bridge the gap between funded and non-funded provisions and, in so doing, how to combine the social function with overall minimal standards, regarding the pedagogical function, including the professionalisation of the childcare workforce. The pedagogical function in the French-speaking community The social function is also a major challenge in the French-speaking community. Legislation compels provisions to use the time of subscription as a major priority criterion, which has been shown to favour already favoured families (Vandenbroeck et al. 2008). However, this legislation also has provisions to allow providers to develop other priorities for 10% of their capacity. Since 2004, a major plan has been developed, aimed at creating 10,000 new places (both funded and non-funded) up to 2010. For the funded places, priority is given to regions with lower coverage and to regions with more families at risk of poverty. The effect of this policy on actual enrolment and accessibility need to be further studied. In the new millennium, the pedagogical quality has received most political attention in the French-speaking community of Belgium, as is apparent in new legislation, the reorganisation of the administration organisation – the Office de la Naissance et de l’Enfance (ONE) – and the development of projects in the field. Again however, this evolution has had little influence on the professionalisation of the workforce. The governmental decision of April 3, 1999 (revised in 2004) demands that each childcare provision (public or private, including family day care providers) develops an pedagogical programme together with the families, in which are defined the core pedagogical guidelines (Thirion 2004). This legislation goes beyond additional inspection criteria, as it aims to establish a different relationship to what quality criteria are, labelled as désubstantialisée (De Munck 1997), meaning that plural participation in face-to-face relationships is necessary to define what quality is, rather than focusing on quantitative norms. Indeed, the legislative frameworks only define very large objectives that remain to be interpreted locally. Contingent with this new legislation, since 2001 the functions of those responsible for controlling the centres profoundly changed, with a new mission for staff development and accompagnement (guidance) on pedagogical matters. In the middle-management of ONE, the traditional functions, reserved for medical branches (e.g., gynaecology or paediatrics) have seen the introduction of pedagogical counsellors, signifying a historical shift. New questions are being asked, such as how to reconcile control, evaluation and guidance. The focus on the pedagogical function of childcare is contingent with the valorisation of pedagogical counselling asking for fewer bureaucratic control systems. According to one of the leading administrators of ONE, the valorisation of the accompagnement does not mean that norms or basic quality criteria would matter less. However, when control and accompagnement are combined, the comprehension of these norms and their meaning seems to be more salient, and control is less hierarchical since it becomes part of the dynamics of meaning making (Sommer and Vanvaremberghe 2002). The focus on the pedagogical mission has become apparent through multiple publications, such as a psychopedagogical manual developed by the University of Liège with the participation of many practitioners. This states that pedagogical practices are reflected choices that are nourished by knowledge of different disciplines and have both individual and social objectives (Manni 1999). The manual served as a source of inspiration for a

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

413

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

series of practical reflection documents produced by the pedagogical counsellors of the central administration ONE (ONE 2004) and aimed at supporting practitioners in the development of their educational curriculum and their own meaning making. The dissemination of these publications was decentralised and the most important challenge was to go from a manual, established by a small group of experts to the implementation of a reflection process with input from local practitioners as well as taking into account knowledge and values of families (Pirard 2009): Finally, from 2005 to 2007, a second manual, focusing on school-age childcare for threeto twelve-year-olds was produced in a similar context (Camus and Marchal 2007). This time, the production of the manual was directly managed by the pedagogical counsellors, ensuring a participative approach. The process included academic scholars, trainers, employers and unions as well as other agencies. Implementation of this manual is ongoing. These policy evolutions have been accompanied by emerging dynamics in practice. At first, the construction of pedagogical projects was perceived as a legalistic framework, but a growing number of practitioners are now beginning to comprehend the meaning of documenting practices and of discussing these practices with colleagues, families and other stakeholders (e.g. schools and other educational partners) and, in so doing, of transforming practices. In the childcare provisions, a regulatory function is beginning to emerge, based on the valorisation of ‘the dynamics of instable norms’ (Vial 2001), enabling not only to conform with established norms but also to invent new possibilities for the organisation of the work. In this sense, regulating pedagogical practices cannot be considered to be synonymous with their regularisation, as the aim is not conformity to predefined outcomes. Regulating practices is rather a matter of analysing practices and their effects in order to construct new criteria and continuously adapt these criteria to new situations and contexts.

This calls for individual as well as collective reflexive activities, in an alteration of time to act, time to reflect in action and time to reflect on action. Consequently, professional competences cannot be framed in terms of knowledge about care work, but in reflexive competences and competences of oral and written, individual and collective communication: The new demands on professionalism, in line with this emerging focus on the pedagogical function of childcare, have given rise to different tensions and paradoxes. A first tension regards the emergence of pedagogical functions within all early childhood professions (coordinators, management and staff), while their basic education is either framed in a medical or in a social paradigm. Second, when the value of external norms diminishes to the profit of the co-construction of shared meanings and reflections, one could expect that initial training of the childcare workers would be enhanced, considering that in the case of Belgium this initial training is lagging behind compared to many other European countries. This is, however not the case, despite much public debate. As a result, all too often inservice training and counselling needs to compensate for lack of training rather than focusing on analysis of practice. One example is that working with families and involving parents in the daily work is an aspect of the work that is seldom developed in the French-speaking community, despite the abundance of literature showing how important this is. In addition, the lack of formal training goes hand in hand with low status and questionable working conditions, as is often the case in split systems (Bennett 2003), resulting in lack of time to document, meet with colleagues and reflect. Finally, it needs to be carefully observed that the valorisation of pedagogy within childcare lead to new objectives of professionalisation rather than to new objectives of standardisation (Barbier 2005).

Professionalisation: the weakest link Considering the separate evolutions in the two Belgian communities, it seems obvious that both communities may benefit from exchanges between them. In the complex

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

414

New developments

political situation of Belgium, this, unfortunately, is seldom the case, despite common challenges. The growing attention towards the social functions of childcare in Flanders and towards its pedagogical functions in the French-speaking community raises questions of professionalisation of the childcare workforce. Yet, it is well known that the workforce in Belgium is lagging behind, according to both European and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) standards (OECD 2006; Peeters 2008a). There are two main problems with this professionalisation that are common to both communities: the low qualifications for nursery nurses (or childcare staff), and the fact that training for the management of childcare centres is hardly preparing them for this field. In addition and specific for the Flemish community, a third and growing concern is the increasing number of unskilled workforce in childcare. We will shortly comment on each of these challenges. Childcare workers in Belgium receive training at secondary vocational level. This initial training is embedded in a long history of hygienic and technical professionalism and is adapted to the considerations about the pedagogical and social missions of childcare (OECD 2006). In addition, Belgium is one of the only European countries where no bachelor degree in early childhood education exists. In both Belgian communities, managers of these centres, as well as family day care schemes, are required to have a bachelor’s degree. However, considering the total absence of bachelor-level courses in Belgium that specifically prepare people to work in this field, managers are also ill-prepared to provide leadership and support to their team members in the reflexive work that is needed to construct the pedagogical or social projects that may be expected from them. As we write this report, political discussions have started, so as to organise such a bachelor-level in Flanders. This has been inspired by recent studies documenting the need for such a degree (Peeters 2008a, 2008b) and by the growing stream of scholarly literature documenting the link between staff qualifications and quality of care (e.g., Fukkink and Lont 2007). Two main options are now discussed.

The first option is to embed such a bachelor-level course to train students in social work. The French example of Educateur Jeunes Enfants is a good example of how this may lead to reflexive practitioners, valuing the social functions of childcare without jeopardising its pedagogical mission (Peeters 2008a). The other option is to embed the bachelor-level course within the existing bachelors course in early childhood education, traditionally limited to the kleuterschool or école maternelle (ECE for three- to six-year-olds). It remains to be seen if and how these emerging political discussions will result in the creation of new initiatives in pre-service trainings. In contrast with this hopeful development, childcare in Flanders faces a particular problem that may be framed as the paradox of deprofessionalisation (Peeters 2008b). We have documented earlier the rapid growth of market-oriented private childcare provisions, in which staff qualifications are not mandatory. Moreover, there are hardly any regions in the world where family day care providers have such a large part in the coverage of childcare. As in most countries, family day care providers in Flanders have traditionally been recruited from women in ‘at risk’ groups in the labour market, meaning less educated women. The ‘home as heaven’ ideology legitimised this economic choice, as it allowed for a lack of investment in the professionalisation of the workforce (Mooney and Statham 2003). These two evolutions (growing marketisation and domestication of childcare) have lead to the astonishing result that for only one in four childcare places in Flanders are any staff qualifications required.

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

415

Addressing these issues will remain one of the biggest challenges for the many years to come, since failing to do so will inevitably undermine all efforts of creating highquality provisions that combine their economic functions with genuine pedagogical and social missions. Note 1. Coverage is calculated as the ratio of childcare places per 100 children. This does not indi-

cate the percentage of children enrolled in childcare, since one childcare place may be used by more than one child.

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

References Barbier, J.M. 2005. Cultures d’action et modes partagés d’organisation des constructions de sens. Paris: Ellipse. Bennett, J. 2003. Starting strong: The persistent division between care and education. Journal of Early Childhood Research 11: 21–48. Bertram, T., and C. Pascal. 2002. Early excellence centre pilot programme, Second evaluation report 2000–2001. Research report 361. London: DfES. Camus, P., and L. Marchal. 2007. Accueillir les enfants de 3–12 ans, viser la qualité, un référentiel psychopédagogique pour des milieux d’accueil de qualité. Bruxelles: ONE. De Munck, J. 1997. Normes et procédures: les coordonnées d’un débat. In Les mutations du rapport à la norme. Un changement dans la modernité, ed. J. De Munck and M. Verhoeren, Bruxelles: De Boeck. Depoorter, S. 2006. De inschakeling van doelgroepmedewerkers in het team van kinderopvang in Buurt- en Nabijheidsdiensten. Meesterproef ingediend tot het verkrijgen van de titel Master in Sociaal Werk. Gent: Universiteit Gent. Fukkink, R.G., and A. Lont. 2007. Does training matter? A meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 22: 294–311. Humblet, P., and M. Vandenbroeck. 2007. Sauver l’enfant pour sauver le monde. Le ‘care’ et la reconstruction de problems sociaux. In Repenser l’éducation des jeunes enfants, ed. G. Brougère and M. Vandenbroeck, 189–206. Bruxelles: Peter Lang. Kind en Gezin. 2008. Jaarverslag 2007. Brussel: Kind en Gezin. Luc, J. 1997. L’invention du jeune enfant au XIXème siècle. De la salle d’asile à l’école maternelle. Paris: Belin. Laevers, F. et al. 2006. Werken aan kwaliteit vanuit kinderperspectief: Welbevinden en betrokkenheid als richtsnoeren. Eindverslag. Leuven: ECEGO-KULeuven. Manni, G. 1999. Accueillir les tout-petits: oser la qualité Vol. 6. Bruxelles: ONE. Market Analysis and Synthesis. 2007. Analyse van het zoekproces van ouders naar een voorschoolse kinderopvangplaats. Leuven: MAS. Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité – CNAF. 2000. Guide pour la création de lieux d’accueil des jeunes enfants. Paris: Ministère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité. Mooney, A., and J. Statham. 2003. Family day care. International perspectives on policy, practice and quality. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Office de la Naissance et de l’Enfance [ONE]. 2004. Repères pour des pratiques de qualité 0–3 ans: A la rencontre des familles I, à la rencontre des enfants II, soutien à l’activité des professionnel les III. Bruxelles: ONE. ONE. 2008. Rapport annuel 2007. Bruxelles: ONE. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2006. Starting strong II. Early childhood education and care. Paris: OECD. Peeters, J. 2008a. The construction of a new profession. A European perspective on professionalism in early childhood education and care. Amsterdam: SWP. Peeters, J. 2008b. De Warme Professional, begeleidsters kinderopvang construeren professionaliteit. Gent: Academia Press.

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

416

New developments

Pirard, F. 2009. ‘Oser la qualité’: Un référentiel en Communauté française de Belgique et son accompagnement. In Quel curriculum pour un accueil de qualité de la petite enfance, ed. S. Rayna, C. Bouve, and P. Moisset, 85–105. Toulouse: Eres. Seaux, S. 2006. Kinderopvang vanuit gebruikersperspectief. Kwalitatief onderzoek bij gebruikers van kinderopvang in buurt- en nabijheidsdiensten. Onuitgegeven meesterproef. Gent: UGent – Vakgroep Sociale Agogiek. Sommer, M., and I. Vanvaremberghe. 2002. Guide d’accompagnement du Code de Qualité, vers une dynamique d’accompagnement. Vol. 3. Bruxelles: ONE. Thirion, A.M. 2004. Formation et soutien institutionnel. L’encadrement des structures préscolaires: Perspectives européennes. Athens: SEDCE – EADAP. Unicef Innocenti Research Centre. 2008. Report Card 8. The childcare transition. Florence: Unicef. Van Keer, S., C. Bettens, and B. Buysse. 2004. Enquête naar het gebruik van opvang voor kinderenjonger dan 3 jaar. Brussel: Kind en Gezin. Vandenbroeck, M. 2006. The persistent gap between education and care: A ‘history of the present’ research on Belgian childcare provision and policy. Paedagogica Historica. International Journal of the History of Education 423: 363–83. Vandenbroeck, M., S. De Visscher, K. Van Nuffel, and J. Ferla. 2008. Mothers’ search for infant childcare: The dynamic relationship between availability and desirability in a continental European welfare state. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 232: 245–58. Vial, M. 2001. Evaluation et régulation. In L’activité évaluative réinterrogée, ed. G. Figari and M. Achouche Bruxelles: De Boeck.

Early childhood education and care policy in Norway Marit Alvestad** Faculty of Arts and Education, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

Introduction Norway, a country of 4.8 million inhabitants described as one of the Nordic social welfare states, is today known for an integrated system of services for all children between the ages of zero and five years, with a well established and extensive system of publicly funded kindergartens and having high quality standards (OECD 2006). The kindergarten tradition in Norway can be traced back to 1837 when the first asylum for young children – mainly from poor families – was established in the city of Trondheim. From 1920, institutions for young children were called daghjem (daynurseries) and the responsibility was transferred from the central authority to the municipalities. The ideal for the pre-schools educational establishment at that time was the ‘good commonly home’ (Balke 1995). In 1953, the kindergartens came under the auspices of the Ministry of Social Affairs, and from 1975 they were moved to the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs. The first Kindergarten Act in Norway came into force in 1975. From that time forward, increasing debate centred around content matters and aims within kindergartens. However, the growth in the early childhood education sector was slow until the 1970s, when early childhood institutions gradually spread from urban to rural area. By the late 1980s every municipality ran kindergartens. In 1982, Norwegian kindergartens were provided with a handbook called Goal-directed work in day care centres (Ministry of Family and Administration Affairs 1982). This handbook was the first **

Email: [email protected]

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

417

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

public document for people working with young children, in which the function of kindergartens in relation to family and society was stated. The expansion of kindergartens increased during the 1990s, and in 1996 the first National Framework Plan for Kindergartens was introduced (Ministry of Children and Family Affairs 1995). During 2009, a law will be introduced that will give parents legal rights to a place in a kindergarten for all children from birth to five in all municipalities across the country. The administrative responsibility for kindergartens in Norway has been transferred from the central government to the local level. i.e., the 19 counties and 435 municipalities. Government’s aim to provide access to kindergarten for all children is about to be reached (The Ministry of Education and Research 2009). Today 87.2 per cent of children aged one to five attend kindergartens in Norway. Approximately half of kindergartens are privately owned (Statistics Norway 2009).

Development of early childhood education and care policy In the autumn of 2005, kindergartens in Norway were transferred from the Ministry of Child and Family Affairs to the Ministry of Education and Research. This was done to ensure coherence and continuity in the education of young children and young people (Ministry of Education and Research 2007, 8). The Ministry of Education and Research has responsibility for early childhood education and care, for schools from primary to university level, for out-of school care and for the education of pedagogues. In 2006, the Act and Framework Plan for kindergarten was revised. The Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens became a regulation in the Kindergarten Act, and this led to a shift in the sector of early childhood education. At the local level, the county governor now has the responsibility for both schools and early childhood education. In addition to providing high quality pedagogical institutions for children, the task of kindergartens is also to take care of children while their parents are studying or working, and thereby promote equality between the genders. The government has overall responsibility for quality development, leadership and financing of the kindergarten sector, and allocates earmarked funds for the running of kindergartens to the municipalities. The county, led by the County Governor, acts as a link between the Ministry of Education and Research and the kindergarten sector. The County Governor implements kindergarten policy through development work, administrative tasks, supervision and guidance for municipalities. The municipalities are responsible for providing and running municipal kindergartens, as well as approving and supervision both in public and in private kindergartens. The municipalities also ensure that the kindergartens are operating within the Kindergarten Act, the regulations and the Framework Plan. In addition, the municipalities are responsible for providing guidance. Kindergarten owners are responsible for the contents of the individual kindergarten. There is a parents’ council in every kindergarten that, among others things, has the right to contribute to and consider the implementation of the National Framework Plan in the local annual plan. In this way, participation of both parents and staff is safeguarded in the framing of the educational content (Ministry of Education and Research 2007, 6). Since 2005, school and pre-school services have been under the auspices of the Ministry of Education and Research in Norway. The National Framework Plan provides guidelines to all kindergartens in Norway, both private and public, concerning

418

New developments

values, objectives, curricular aims and pedagogical approaches. There are three types of early childhood services in Norway: • •

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

•

kindergarten (barnehager, for children aged one to five years); family day care (familiebarnehager, mainly for children aged one to three years); open kindergarten (åpen barnehage, mainly for children aged one to three years) – drop-in centres for children and parents lead by a pre-school teacher

As previously, mentioned one of the aims of the kindergartens is to provide a place for children when their parents work or study. About 80 per cent of women aged 15–84 are in the workforce. The parental leave is either 44 weeks with full salaries or 54 weeks with 80 per cent of the salary, and it gives the parents a possibility to stay at home until the child is one year of age. Access and coverage With a retrospective glance we can see progress taking place by leaps and bounds in early childhood education (ECE). At the beginning only a few per cent of all children attended kindergartens in Norway, and in 1969 the coverage had still not reached three per cent. Today, however, 69 per cent of one- to two-year-olds and 94 per cent of children aged three to five attends kindergarten. The costs for kindergartens are shared between parents and the public. While the parents cover 20 per cent of the costs (maximum 2330 NOK per month) the state and the municipalities are responsible for the remaining costs. Kindergartens play an important role in the society today, not the least when it comes to preventive child welfare, as children at-risk are fully funded by the actual municipality. Furthermore, a child with disabilities has first priority when it comes to admission to kindergarten if a place is deemed to be of use for him or her. In order to get this priority, the child has to be assessed by an expert (e.g. child psychologist or medical doctor ) and they will have to recommend that the child will benefit from attending the kindergarten. There are also grants to help pay for special education for children with functional impairments in kindergartens. The municipal educational and psychological counselling service acts as the expert and advisory authority in these matters. These centres also carry out surveys, offer counselling and training and conduct development work. (Ministry of Education and Research 2007, 24). Norway has, as many other countries have, increasingly become a multi-cultural country, and there are also kindergartens for the Sámi people. These kindergartens are funded generously whenever there is a concentration of Sámi families. In addition, approximately 50 per cent of children under six years of age do not have Norwegian as their first language attend kindergarten (OECD 2006; Ministry of Education and Research 2009). The kindergarten in Norway is an educational institution providing pre-school children with opportunities for development and activities. The kindergarten is both a means of ensuring good conditions for children and a service for families whose parents are studying and working: it provides education as well as supervision and care. Kindergartens give children a safe and stimulating community and individual support and care. The core is to create a good and safe childhood and good learning conditions for the children. The objectives of the Kindergarten Promotion are:

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

419

Kindergarten places for all children whose parents so wish, at high quality and low price (Ministry of Education and Research 2007, 8). One important factor in the provision of high quality care in kindergartens is the qualification of the staff. In 1935, the first education for pre-school teachers (barnehagelærerinner) was established in Oslo. It was not until 1973 that pre-school teacher education became part of public teacher education. Today, pre-school teachers gain a bachelors degree after finishing a three-year study programme at university level. The proportion of qualified pre-school teachers (førskolelærere) within the kindergarten system is 35 per cent, and according to the authorities a goal is to increase the number. In the Norwegian kindergartens eight per cent of the employed are men. In 1998 a cash benefit scheme was introduced for parents with children aged between one and three who do not make use of, or only partly made use of, government-subsidised kindergarten places. The introduction caused much public debate (Gulbrandsen 2009; Alvestad 1998). The intention of the scheme was to provide cash grants to parents to take care of their own child at home, or alternatively children could attend kindergarten part time and be cared for at home part time. It was argued that this would give the family a choice of care of their own children. With no time spent in kindergarten, the grant is 3300 NOK per month. However, the scheme led to a conflict between those who were in favour of the cash benefit system and kindergartens, as the cash benefit system is an expensive arrangement. Today only 10 per cent of parents receive the cash benefit option today (OECD 2006; Ministry of Education and Research 2009; see also Korsvold 2008 and see Gulbrandsen 2009 for in-depth information).

The National Curriculum Core values According to the actual Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergarten, the social mandate of kindergartens in Norway is to provide children under compulsory school age with good opportunities for development and activity in close understanding and collaboration with the children’s homes (5). Kindergartens should support children, the indigenous Sámi people, national minorities and minorities with immigrant backgrounds, on the basis of their own cultural and individual circumstances. The Kindergarten Act states that the kindergarten shall, in collaboration and understanding with children’s homes, take care of children’s needs for care, play, learning and development. The kindergarten shall build on basic values in Christian and humanistic heritage and tradition, such as respect of human dignity and nature, intellectual freedom, charity, forgiveness, equality and solidarity – values that are expressed in many religions and philosophies of life and also part of human rights legislation. The Act also states that the kindergarten shall promote democracy and equality, and work against all kinds of discrimination. The new act gives children legal right to participate in all questions concerning their life in kindergartens. The Framework Plan underlines that children’s participation in the internal life of kindergartens may be their first step towards gaining an understanding and experience of participation in a democratic society (Ministry of Education and Research 2005, 2006). It also states that kindergartens for Sámi children in Sámi districts must be an integrated part of Sámi society and must demonstrate the diversity, vigour and variety of this community. The question of equity is in general a central issue in the plan.

420

New developments

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

Care, play and learning The Framework Plan says that learning is seen as a holistic concept, and care, upbringing, play and learning shall promote human dignity, equality, intellectual freedom, tolerance, health and an appreciation of sustainable development (Ministry of Education and Research 2006, 23). When it comes to learning, kindergarten shall give children basic knowledge of central and topical fields, and nurture children’s curiosity, creativity and desire to learn, offering challenges based on the children’s interests, knowledge and skills (26). Kindergarten is seen as the start and as a part of lifelong learning, and there is an emphasis on the children as active participants in a democratic society. The kindergartens should look at children’s participation in the Framework Plan as it states that in everything that affects the children, their views should always be taken into consideration (13).

Learning areas The Framework Plan provides guidelines for fundamental values, content and tasks for kindergartens, and gives staff, parents, owners and supervisory authorities a framework for their work. It states that all kindergartens must be goal-oriented with children’s development and learning, and stimulate children’s linguistic and social competence. Childhood is a phase of life with intrinsic value, and kindergartens must be inclusive fellowships with space for each child. Each learning area covers a wide range of learning. It is a clear connection between the Framework Plan and the Curricula for Norwegian primary schools. The learning areas are to a great extent the same as children will meet again as subjects at school. The Framework Plan has seven learning areas that children should be acquainted with in kindergartens: communication, language and text; body, movement and health; art, culture and creativity; nature, environment and technology; ethics, religion and philosophy; local community and society; numbers, spaces and shapes. Each of the learning areas covers a wide range of content knowledge for learning. The implementation of the Framework Plan is complex and has raised questions on many levels. However, pre-school teacher appreciate the fact that they have a plan, as it recognises their pedagogical work with the children and strengthens their position as an important profession in society (Alvestad 2001). A national evaluation of the implementation, use and experience of the Norwegian framework plan has recently been published (Østrem et al. 2009).

Staff and parents Furthermore, the Kindergarten Act states that kindergartens should assist parents in the upbringing of their children, and that they should lay a sound foundation for the children’s development, life-long learning and active participation in a democratic society. The Act gives children and parents a legal right to participation. Parents can participate in the kindergarten’s parents’ council and co-ordinating committee (consisting of staff, parents and owner). The co-ordinating committee must establish an annual plan for the pedagogical activities. The Kindergarten Act also states that head teachers and pedagogical leaders must be trained pre-school teachers or have other college education that includes qualifications for working with children and pedagogical expertise. Although an increasing

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

421

number hold some kind of secondary education, there is no formal qualification required for assistants, who make up the majority of the staff working directly with the children. According to regulations, there has to be a qualified pre-school teacher1 per seven to nine children under the age of three, and per 14 to 18 children over the age of three. Further staffing must be sufficient for the staff to carry on satisfactory pedagogical activity. Approximately 33 per cent of these are trained pre-school teachers. Approximately 13 per cent of the head teachers and pedagogical leaders are not educated pre-school teachers and have had dispensations from the educational requirement. There is a lack of staff in Norwegian kindergartens in accordance with the educational requirement (Ministry of Education and Research 2007). While 35 per cent (that is the personal norm stated in the law) of the staff in Norwegian kindergartens are qualified early childhood pedagogues, the percentage of trained pedagogues is 60 per cent in Denmark and 51 per cent in Sweden (OECD 2006). The lack of trained preschool teachers and the low ratio of teachers in the kindergartens is a major challenge for the quality of the early childhood education in Norway. Looking at the working hours, these are set to 37.5 hours per week. Although there is an aim to bringing the proportion of men up to 20 per cent, today the percentage of men working in kindergartens is still below 10 per cent. The annual salary for a preschool teacher depends on the position held by the individual and his or her years of experiences, but is approximately 280–360,000 NOK per year. Quality, development and research The integration of services for children up to six years of age has led to a wellestablished and extensive system of publicly funded kindergartens. Today Norway moves towards universal access for all children under six. All municipalities must offer kindergarten to all parents who want to enrol their children. One important question today is who is not asking for a place for their child. The question of the cash benefit is one important question to consider in relation to this matter. Parents are actively encouraged to take part in quality monitoring and in reviewing the kindergarten activity through meetings, conversations, committees and regular surveys (OECD 2006) The Ministry presented a strategic plan in 2007 for the raising of the competence in the sector (Ministry of Education and Research 2007). The overall aim was a further development of the concept of the kindergarten as a learning organisation having an active relationship with competence development. Staff competence is completely central in order to strengthen both the kindergarten as pedagogical institutions and the staff’s occupational status. The strategy should also stimulate the development of competence of the municipalities as kindergarten authorities, the owners of kindergartens, the higher education, and the research in the field (4). The cost of the research and development strategy was set at 62 million NOK (2007–2010). The Ministry prioritises some central elements in this strategy: pedagogical leadership, children’s contribution, language environment and language stimulation, and transition and co-operation between kindergarten and school. Another important part of that strategy was a practice-based research and development research program for the early childhood education and care sector at the Norwegian Research Council commissioned by the Ministry. One article on this topic, Status and challenges in research on kindergarten issues, concludes that there is a need for more research using

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

422

New developments

comprehensive methodological approaches in the field of early childhood education in Norway (Alvestad et al. 2009). To strengthen the research competence in the sector is essential. The establishment of the research network Barnehageliv2 an important way of meeting the challenges of small and fragmented early childhood education and care research milieus in Norway. The foundation of the journal Nordic Early Childhood Education Research by the research network last year, was a further milestone for the field (www.nordiskbarnehageforskning.no). The need for a national school of research focusing on the field of early childhood education and care is obvious. When it comes to research, the field has to deal with challenges such as a lack of research and international publishing, variations in quality and a lack of quality control. A majority of qualitative small- scale studies in the field, and more variety within the field would be desirable. The abovementioned article shows that many interesting projects are in progress, but it also points at a need of more research and knowledge about children’s lived everyday life in Norwegian kindergartens (Alvestad et al. 2009. 17). The report to the Storting lay down guidelines for further development of quality in the Norwegian kindergartens (Stortingsmelding 41 2008–2009). Challenges The need for a school model is a challenge for the field of early childhood education in Norway in the years to come. A stronger emphasis on the concept of learning in the revised Framework Plan has already led to a debate about whether education and schoolification are thrown into relief at the expense of care and a broad developmental approach for the children in Norwegian kindergartens. Norway builds as other Nordic and Central European countries’ social pedagogy traditions with a broad concept of pedagogy (OECD 2006). The focus in this tradition is holistic, natural learning including play, interaction, varied activities and personal investigation. In this approach, ‘all children should develop a desire and curiosity for learning, and confidence in their own learning, rather than achieving a pre-specified level of knowledge and proficiency’ (OECD 2006, 60). The pre-primary approach to early education found in the United Kingdom, United States and Australia among others, introduces the contents and methods of primary schooling into early childhood education, often bringing in standard-based education models with ‘a range of knowledge, skills and dispositions and dispositions that children are expected to develop as a result of classroom experiences, and focus increasingly on knowledge and skills useful for school, viz., literacy, math and scientific thinking’ (ibid. 61). While the individual child’s outcome is central in the pre-primary approach, a broader group-oriented outcome is focused in the social pedagogy tradition. Even so, this does not mean that there is no variation on this within the Norwegian kindergartens (Alvestad 2004). The process of implementing a national curriculum into kindergarten practice raises questions on many levels, and are another subject to examine. The question of social mobility, and the enrolment and inclusion of children with minority backgrounds in kindergartens, presents some highly important tasks to deal with in the Norwegian context. Looking further at the earlier mentioned cash benefit system, this is also an area to reassess for the authorities. One of the main challenges today is that the ratio of trained pre-school teachers employed in the Norwegian kindergartens is much lower than in other Nordic countries. To raise assistants’ educational competence is another important task. The main challenge at the moment is that the

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

423

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

comprehensive expansion of kindergartens in Norway during the last couple of years has led to an increasing need for, but at the same time a lack of, trained and qualified pre-school teachers. Today there are far too many kindergartens run on dispensation from the requirement of qualified teachers in Norway. Further research in the field is necessary to mark out a course for the future kindergarten policy. Longitudinal quality survey studies of the current state of early childhood education would provide important information and be a valuable contribution to the field. Another challenge is the increase of children under three years of age in kindergartens: this raises new challenges concerning education and care quality. As pointed to by the Minister of Education in Norway at the EECERA 2008 conference in Stavanger, there is a need for a shift in focus from stressing quantity to emphasising quality in the field of early childhood education and care in Norway (www. ansatt.uis.no). Conclusion Integrated early childhood services for young children are well established in Norway. As mentioned earlier, during this year a legal right will ensure full coverage for all children from birth to five in all municipalities, and parents’ payments are now reduced to a minimum amount. The rapid expansion of kindergarten in recent years has been nothing but a silent revolution, although several major challenges and tensions in the field of early childhood in Norway have to be addressed and studied in the years to come. Development of competence and quality at all levels as well as more research are needed to meet some of the future challenges and demands in field of early childhood education in Norway. Notes 1. Pre-school teachers in Norway hold a three-year Bachelor degree in Early Childhood

Education at the university level. 2. The research network Barnehageliv, Kindergarten life, consisting of Queen Mauds

University College, Vestfold University College, Oslo University College and University of Stavanger, was started in 2004.

References Alvestad, M. 1998. Forandringer i omsorgstilbud for småbarn. Innføring av kontantstøtte til småbarnsforeldre [Changes in early childhood education and care. The introduction of the cash benefit scheme in Norway]. Gothenburg: Göteborgs Universitet Alvestad, M. 2001. Den komplekse planlegginga. Førskolelærarar om pedagogisk planlegging og praksis [The complexity of planning. Preschool teachers’ conceptions of pedagogical planning and practice]. Göteborg Studies in Educational Sciences 165, Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Alvestad, M. 2004. Preschool teachers’ understandings of some aspects of educational planning and practice related to the National Curricula in Norway. International Journal of Early Years Education 12, no. 2: 83–97. Alvestad, M., J-E. Johansson, T. Moser, and S. Söbstad. 2009. Status og utfordringer i norsk barnehageforskning. Et faglig didaktisk perspektiv [Status and challenges in the Early Childhood Education reasearch in Norway]. Nordisk barnehageforskning 2, no. 1: 3–19. http://www.nordiskbarnehageforskning.no Balke, E. 1995. Småbarnspedagogikken historie [The history of Early Childhood Education] Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Downloaded by [University of Gent] at 11:34 24 November 2011

424

New developments

Fra kvantitet til kvalitet i barnehagen [From quantity to quality in kindergarten]. http:// ansatt.uis.no/aktuelt/article11220-2955.html Guldbrandsen, L. 2009. The Norwegian Cash-for-Care Reform. Changing behaviour and stable attitudes. Nordic Early Childhood Education Research 2, no. 1: 17–25. Korsvold, T. 2008. Barn og barndom i velferdsstatens småbarnspolitikk [Children and childhood in the welfare state’s policy of young children]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget Ministry of Family and Administration Affairs 1982. Målrettet arbeid i barnehagen. En håndbok. [Goal-directed work in day care centres]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Ministry of Children and Family Affairs 1995. Rammeplan for barnehagen. [Framework Plan for Kindergartens]. Q-0903B. Oslo: Ministry of Children and Family Affairs. Ministry of Education and Research 2005. Act no. 64. The Kindergarten Act Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research. http://www. regjeringen.no, Ministry of Education and Research 2006. The Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens. Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research. Ministry of Education and Research 2007. Kompetanse i barnehagene. Strategi for kompetanseutvikling i barnehagesektoren 2007–2010. [Competence in the kindergartens. Strategy for development of competence in the early childhood education sector]. Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research. Ministry of Education and Research. 2007. Education – from kindergarten to adult education. Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research. Ministry of Education and Research. 2009. Early childhood education and care policy. Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2006. Starting Strong II. Paris: OECD. Østrem, S., H. Bjar, L.R. Føsker, H.D. Hogsnes, T.T. Jansen, S. Nordtønne, and K.R. Tholin. 2009. Alle teller mer: En evaluering av hvordan rammeplan for barnehagens oppgaver og innhold blir innført, brukt og erfart [An evaluation of how the framework plan for kindergartens are implemented, used and experienced] . Rapport 1/2009. Tønsberg: Høgskolen i Vestfold. Stortingsmelding 41 2008–2009. Kvantitet i barnehagen [Quality in Kindergarten]. Oslo: Ministry of Education and Research. Statistics Norway 2009. Children in kindergartens. Preliminary figures, 2008 http:// www.ssb.barnehager.