Assessments and recommendations
Ireland has a strong and ambitious policy agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care that builds on significant progress achieved so far
Ireland is currently pursuing a strong and ambitious policy agenda for Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) with the adoption of a long-term Whole-of-Government Strategy for Babies, Young Children and their Families covering the period 2019 to 2028 (hereafter referred to as “First 5”).
With this strategy, the country has committed itself to improving access, affordability and quality of ECEC provision, while involving stakeholders in the development of more specific policies to meet these goals. Related work on a new Workforce Development Plan, which should put forward strategies to further professionalise the workforce, has been underway and is due for publication at the end of 2021. A National Action Plan for Childminding has already been published to develop concrete steps for extending regulation and supporting quality development in home-based settings. A new funding model is also being developed with initial announcements made in October 2021, while the existing support structures are being re-considered through a review of the “operating model”. Lastly, the government plans reforms of monitoring and inspection arrangements to ensure a more integrated and proportionate approach to quality assurance and improvement.
This policy agenda builds on a shared feeling in the sector that important milestones have been reached over the past 20 years since the adoption of a National Childcare Strategy in 1999 and the creation of the Equal Opportunities Childcare Programme in 2000. The creation of the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme – not to be confused with the term ECEC – has signalled further public engagement for the sector. This programme provides public funding for children aged 2 years 8 months to 5 years 6 months to attend pre-school. A number of further public funding schemes have been in place providing support to parents, recently streamlined through a National Childcare Scheme in 2019.
In terms of children’s access, the participation of children aged 3 to 5 was nearly universal in 2019, placing Ireland among the leading countries in enrolment rates for this age group. A minority of children under the age of 3 (25%) were enrolled in registered ECEC services in 2019, the same as the OECD average. The extent of participation in other types of ECEC, such as home-based settings, is unclear.
Important pieces have already been put in place concerning the quality in ECEC provision. In 2009 and 2006, respectively a curriculum framework and a quality framework, Aistear and Síolta, were introduced, both of which are child-centred and play-based. The use of both frameworks in practice – which has differed across settings – has been promoted more actively in recent years through dedicated resources and training. The introduction of education-focused inspections constitutes a further element of the sector’s more recent quality agenda, complementing statutory inspections that already examined process quality alongside structural quality and compliance with regulations. A review of the curriculum framework (“Updating Aistear”) is providing an important opportunity to further strengthen the use of the framework across settings.
While co-ordination arrangements have been put in place and levels of public investment been increased, sector governance remains complex and levels of funding relatively low
However, while the current policy agenda has created a large number of expectations for positive change for the sector, there are concerns about the extent and pace of reforms, and the way in which stakeholders and practitioners on the ground are consulted and involved.
The connection and sequencing of different elements of reform also appear less clear to stakeholders. This may reflect overall complexity in responsibility and governance for the sector, even if arrangements to facilitate co-ordination and stakeholder engagement have been put in place. While policy responsibility for ECEC (outside primary school) lies with the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth (DCEDIY), the Department of Education (DE), also has some specific and some shared responsibilities in the areas of quality, workforce development and curriculum, as well as special needs education. The DE Early Years Education Policy Unit is co-located with the DCEDIY. Other institutions play a role for more discrete areas of responsibility. Pobal, for instance, administers the government’s funding schemes and audits compliance with funding requirements. There are two inspectorates, and the Operations and Systems Alignment Group chaired by DCEDIY seeks to promote co-ordination between them.
Public funding needs to increase substantively to match the aspirations of such an ambitious reform agenda, even if it has already increased in recent years. A review of the current funding model is in process. Indeed, by international comparison, spending on ECEC remains relatively low. In 2018, annual expenditure per child aged 3 to 5 amounted to USD 4 439, compared to USD 10 118, on average across OECD member countries. A substantial increase in public funding, combined with adequate monitoring and leadership capacity in settings, seems needed to make ECEC more affordable for families, while improving quality and providing good working conditions for staff. Existing funding schemes, such as the National Childcare Scheme, also appear to entail some administrative complexity, resulting in difficulties for some parents to access financial support.
Strengthen co-ordination across departments and agencies to deliver coherent and efficient ECEC policies while ensuring that co-ordination arrangements are not unduly burdensome.
Implement plans to increase public funding substantially in order to make ECEC more affordable for families, strengthen the workforce and support the policy agenda for quality improvement in the sector, as announced in the budget for 2022.
The existing model of private provision creates challenges for access, affordability and quality, while provision overall appears somewhat fragmented
In Ireland, centre-based ECEC services are mainly offered by private providers, which can be for-profit or community-based. Among OECD countries, Ireland represents indeed only one of five countries in which more than three-quarters of children attending pre-primary education were enrolled in private institutions. This model of provision is seen as creating challenges for access, affordability and quality, even if it is acknowledged that it has facilitated a quick expansion of centre-based provision in particular for older children. Childcare costs for parents remain among the highest in OECD countries, while working conditions in the sector have not caught up with increasing qualification requirements.
At the same time, community-based providers, which often serve more disadvantaged children and may have difficulty raising sufficient fees from parents, seem to be struggling to be financially sustainable. This is also evidenced by the use of staff employed through government-funded programmes in order to support unemployed people in gaining employment. A number of stakeholders have been raising demands to progress towards a fully publicly funded and managed system, also encouraged by the government’s recent involvement to ensure the operation and funding of ECEC in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The current model of provision and funding may moreover create imbalances in supply and demand, and lead to a fragmentation of provision with different levels of financing and parental fees. For instance, public funding through the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme has reportedly created an incentive for providers to focus on the age group served by this programme. This has led to the closure of rooms for younger children, which are more expensive to run due to lower child-staff ratios, and for which funding needs to be topped up with parental fees. Funding arrangements also attract highly qualified staff in ECCE rooms, and therefore for work with the oldest children.
Make efforts to overcome the duality between provision for the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme and non-ECCE provision by increasing funding for younger children, aligning incentives to attract qualified staff, and extending education-focused inspections into non-ECCE programmes, as committed to in First 5.
Plans to bring childminders into the regulatory system are highly welcome, but need to be developed further with care so as not to drive childminders out of the ECEC system
Childminding clearly plays a substantial role in the overall pattern of Irish ECEC provision. National sources estimate that in 2016, 13% of pre-school aged children were cared for by a childminder, au pair or nanny. Home-based ECEC is however largely unregulated in Ireland. Childminders are self-employed, and the costs for childminding depend on the terms and conditions negotiated between childminders and parents. No financial subsidies, such as through the National Childcare Scheme, are available to parents employing unregistered childminders, which raises the importance of moving childminding into a more regulated space as planned under First 5 and the National Action Plan for Childminding.
As underlined in the National Action Plan for Childminding, options to regulate the childminding sector need to be considered carefully so as not to lose high-quality staff and reduce provision. There will be a need for the development of registration and qualification requirements, and quality standards that are coherent with those established for centre-based provision but appropriate to the childminding context. It will be crucial that the new arrangements are proportionate and deliverable in practice and that sufficient support is available to help childminders engage positively with them. Regulation and funding should keep the administration involved to the extent necessary. Creating more opportunities for professional development of childminders also requires dedicated strategies. Besides (re-)assessing current support structures, such as the City and County Childcare Committees (CCCs), one option includes the development of professional networks of childminders to facilitate professional learning and exchange, as committed to in the National Action Plan for Childminding.
Advance with plans and commitments in the National Action Plan for Childminding to increase the regulation of the childminding sector and ensure registration, training and funding reflect the nature of childminders’ work and involve minimum administrative burden for childminders and parents. Build on the meaningful consultation of childminders themselves to develop new regulations.
Innovative programmes support the creation of inclusive environments for children, but other disadvantaged groups of children might require additional strategies
As part of the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme, a specific initiative has been developed to support settings in delivering an inclusive experience for children. This Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) provides different levels of universal and targeted support to children in ECCE rooms for centres that apply. The model has been highly welcomed in the sector, although there is some evidence of a need for additional specialised supports and expertise (e.g. through more multidisciplinary teams). Stakeholders also appear to demand further efforts in addressing other sources of disadvantage in ECEC, in particular for children from Traveller and Roma communities. Strengthening connections with initiatives in the school system could be worthwhile in view of facilitating the transitions of disadvantaged children.
Consider further efforts to support inclusion in ECEC, such as providing additional specialised expertise and building connections with initiatives in tackling disadvantage from the primary school system, as committed to in First 5.
Make further efforts in addressing other sources of disadvantage in ECEC, in particular for the inclusion of children from Traveller and Roma communities.
The importance of workforce development is strongly recognised in policy, but a continued focus on the quality of education and training programmes is needed
ECEC professionals are key agents for supporting the quality of an ECEC system and for shaping children’s everyday interactions, which are likely to influence their learning, development and well-being. Raising the levels of qualifications of staff working in the sector and the quality of their preparation has been a core element of Ireland’s recent policies to improve the quality of provision for children (e.g. through legal requirements, financial incentives and some funding for upskilling). As a result of these efforts, the qualifications of staff in ECEC centres have indeed risen, with 94% of staff working with children holding the minimum ISCED 4 qualification (NFQ level 5) in 2019/2020, compared to 71% in 2010.
As part of the country’s First 5 strategy and a new Workforce Development Plan, Ireland is now pursuing the next stage in the professionalisation of the ECEC workforce. The First 5 strategy includes a commitment to progress towards a graduate-led workforce, with the specific target of at least 50% of ECEC staff in registered centres holding a degree by 2028 (at least ISCED 6 or NFQ level 7). Based on the current qualification profile, this means increasing the share of degree holders by 17 percentage points between 2021 and 2028.
These goals and plans recognise the importance of education and training for high-quality ECEC provision, and may, in the long term, help raise social recognition for the sector and support the development of a stronger shared professional identity. Importantly, plans have been underpinned by the introduction of new standards for training programmes for staff, broadening for example programme content and raising the profile of practical experience. These new standards provide good opportunities to review, raise and harmonise the quality of programmes, even if continued attention to quality is required (e.g. the qualification of teacher educators, feedback loops between training providers and ECEC settings, linkages between training for ECEC staff and primary school teachers), and the impact of current changes in programmes needs to be monitored to inform further adjustments (e.g. through surveys of students).
The extent and quality of practical experience as part of programmes in particular needs to be assessed and supported. Further careful reflection could be useful on ways in which to strengthen work-based learning for new professionals in the future.
Build on the momentum of newly created standards, criteria and guidelines for qualification programmes to improve their quality. Monitor the impact of recent changes on the experience of students to inform future adjustments.
Support ECEC centres in offering quality practical placements through adequate resources, guidance/standards and regulations. The government should facilitate partnerships and trust between centres and institutions in co-developing and assessing placements and programmes.
A more comprehensive approach seems needed to support all staff in their development, and to better recognise the needs and experience of the current workforce
The relatively strong focus on formal types of education to raise the qualification of the workforce would nevertheless benefit from being embedded in a more comprehensive approach that reflects different needs of different staff. New staff need inductions that provide guidance and mentoring from more experienced colleagues to adapt to concrete work situations, for example. On the other hand, current staff already with degree-level qualifications also need to keep improving their practices, including through less structured training. Further strategies should be developed to support a broader range of professional learning in different types of settings, including those of smaller size. Such opportunities should include more informal and centre-embedded learning.
Particular attention needs to be paid to the needs of current practitioners who want to gain new qualifications. This requires a clear strategy involving employers, training providers and workforce representatives to facilitate access to formal training, which can be demanding in terms of commitment, cost and time. Although some settings may reimburse training costs to staff, this does not seem very common. Financial support from the government has been made available in the past through a bursary scheme, the Learner Fund, which should continue providing support. More information on available funding that staff can access should also be available.
The recognition of prior learning is another important component that needs to be further developed. The experience of other social sectors, such as nursing, in Ireland or elsewhere could provide valuable perspectives on how to bring qualifications and experience together in a twin track system. Lastly, care needs to be taken in the message that the country’s upskilling policy communicates to current staff, 50% of which are not envisaged to hold a degree qualification (at least ISCED 6, NFQ level 7) in 2028. Equally important, a discussion is needed on the role(s) of staff with lower levels of qualifications in settings in the future (e.g. as an assistant or co-professional in a room).
Build and support a larger ecosystem of formal and informal opportunities for professional development based on an assessment of current staff engagement and needs. Support centre-embedded learning and learning between centres with dedicated strategies (e.g. by creating time in schedules, building team leader capacity).
Put in place a clear strategy to realise the goals for upskilling the workforce, based on the engagement of employers, staff and government. This should include the recognition of prior learning or skills acquired on the job, flexibility to combine work and study through part-time and blended learning, study leave and funding arrangements.
Working conditions are relatively poor, contributing to high turnover and challenges for settings to work on quality improvement
Staff working conditions and well-being can be important drivers of process quality. In Ireland, with ECEC being almost fully provided by private institutions, the government’s general approach has been not to regulate most aspects of staff’s working conditions. Since the representation of employers and the workforce has only begun to take shape more recently, there has also been no collective bargaining of working conditions. Terms of work are negotiated between individual employers and employees. Combined with generally tight budgets in the sector, this has resulted in relatively poor working conditions.
Salaries, which are a crucial component of working conditions, are low from both a national and international perspective. This is also linked to the number of hours worked by staff. A relatively high share of ECEC staff work part-time, especially in centres only delivering the hours paid for through the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme (3 hours per day or 15 hours per week). Some contracts moreover only cover the pre-school year. This is again related to the way provision is organised and funded. Similarly, job security appears to be less strong than for many other workers in Ireland, even if the share of staff on permanent contracts differs across types of staff in ECEC centres. Other benefits, such as sick pay, maternity leave or pensions are also at a minimum for ECEC staff. This situation is quite different to primary education, where salaries and other benefits such as annual leave are very attractive.
Relatively poor working conditions contribute to a highly gendered workforce, with most staff being women, as well as high turnover rates in the sector. On average, the share of staff leaving services in the last twelve months was estimated at 18% for 2019/2020, with some variation across regions and types of centres. Half of services also reported experiencing challenges in recruiting suitably qualified staff. A lack of stability in the workforce can have a number of negative effects on the quality of provision, especially where staff change during the year, as it is important for children to learn and play in a stable environment. Frequent changes to centre staffing also mean that it is complicated to build up internal professional capacity and to follow up effectively on external inspections. Where staff leave the sector, investments in initial preparation and in gaining additional qualifications are lost. Better working conditions are therefore also an important pre-condition for realising the expected gains of the current upskilling goals. With new highly educated staff entering the sector, turnover rates might otherwise simply increase further.
A new mechanism has been established to negotiate working conditions for the sector between employers and the workforce, which could be supported with further policies
Attracting and maintaining a high-quality workforce cannot go without working conditions commensurate with the content, responsibilities and expectations attached to the job. One strategy for going forward lies in further clarifying roles and responsibilities and related requirements for knowledge, skills and values, while ensuring that wages are aligned with these roles. This can build on previous work carried out on the definition of occupational roles for the sector. Greater clarity about roles and possible opportunities for career development could also help make work in the sector more attractive and help retain staff. As new roles and career structures are developed, some innovative models of shared staffing across settings could be explored, also to take account of the large number of small centres. To benefit all children, and support the development of a more integrated system of provision, roles should nevertheless be defined for the sector as a whole, and not for a specific programme.
With low levels of public investment in ECEC and considerable fees for parents, higher wages cannot come without additional funding from the government as planned as part of First 5. Initial features of the new funding model, as revealed with the announcement on the budget for 2022, and further revisions to the existing funding model discussed at the time of writing are important to achieve improvements in working conditions. As featured in October 2021 announcements, the allocation of new funding can include clauses that ensure that it translates into enhanced quality, including better working conditions, with unchanged parental fees. Furthermore, in order to ensure that increased investments lead indeed to better quality, monitoring and inspection arrangements need to be strengthened to set incentives for quality improvement as discussed below. Building leadership capacity in settings will also be important. A more integrated provision of ECEC and linkages with school-age childcare, which is often also provided by ECEC settings, could help improve some aspects of staff’s working conditions, such as limited contracts or working hours.
In mid-2021, a Joint Labour Committee (JLC) for the sector was established by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, following a preparatory process led by DCEDIY, bringing together trade union and employer representatives under an independent chair, and tasked to develop and propose minimum requirements for pay and working conditions in ECEC. This is an important step towards the development of wage standards. Acknowledging that the scope of agreements under a JLC is determined by the parties to the JLC and not by the government, it will be important that the JLC covers several aspects of terms and conditions of employment, including fixed-term contracts and working time. At present, the time available for ECEC staff outside of their work with children is limited, leaving little time for engagement in professional learning, while demands on time have actually increased (e.g. for administration and paperwork related to inspections or funding). While the government does not take part in the JLC, it can make the allocation of additional funding contingent on progress being made in achieving a successful outcome from the JLC, as has already been done in the October 2021 announcements.
Continue efforts and discussions with stakeholders to define ECEC categories of staff, their required competencies/qualifications and career pathways, as done during preparation of the Workforce Development Plan, and how they can be implemented locally.
Commit to maintain the Joint Labour Committee (JLC) on a long-term basis and continue to make the allocation of additional funding conditional to the achievement of working conditions standards. Acknowledging that the scope of agreements under a JLC is determined by the parties to the JLC and not by the government, the JLC should cover minimum wages and pay scale for different categories of staff; the definition of working hours with the inclusion of protected time for activities to be performed without children; terms and conditions for employment. As part of the JLC, the question of staff hired under a succession of short-term contracts with breaks in between can also be discussed.
Leadership will be key for making change happen in settings, and some promising initiatives exist, but more should still be done to strengthen leadership capacity
Leadership is a key element for developing and sustaining quality in ECEC by creating a stimulating environment for both staff and children. Similar to a number of other countries, attention to leadership development in ECEC settings has thus far been rather incipient in Ireland, although it has been given greater importance as part of ongoing policy initiatives. The introduction of the Access and Inclusion Model (AIM) as part of the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme has led to the creation of an inclusion co-ordinator role in participating settings to promote inclusive practices – something that has been highly welcomed by staff. Other than that, the organisation of leadership and management is largely up to individual centres and/or the providers to which they belong.
Leadership however will be an important condition for the success of ongoing policy initiatives to improve quality in ECEC in Ireland, be it through further staff development, through greater consistency in the implementation of the Aistear curriculum and Síolta quality frameworks, or through a greater focus on self-evaluation. To further develop leadership in the sector, it will first be important to gain a better understanding of the current leadership arrangements in different types of settings, to then develop a shared vision of the leadership functions required for quality provision. While effective leadership is always context dependent, there needs to be a strong focus on pedagogical leadership, especially in large centres whose managers might have more of a business background. Leadership can then be further promoted through both preparation and training as well as monitoring and inspection.
Particular attention will also have to be paid to the large number of small centres and how leadership can be developed in these settings. This could again be supported through the development of more integrated ECEC settings and linkages with school-age childcare.
Lastly, the demanding nature of ECEC centre leadership should be sufficiently reflected in employment conditions, such as remuneration, to help attract staff to leadership roles and encourage them to stay. Adequate support systems may help mitigate work-related stress, such as the one stemming from too much administrative work, and support leaders in balancing their functions.
Develop pedagogical leadership capacity in settings. This should include a clearer definition of the role of centre managers and adequate preparation for their role through dedicated leadership training. The role of room leaders should also be rethought and clarified, to include pedagogical leadership in rooms or centres more broadly, including with staff for younger children.
Arrangements for regulation and inspection provide a good basis for quality improvement, and efforts are underway to raise stakeholders’ voice in inspections
In recent years, the Irish government has established a range of quality assurance arrangements for the ECEC sector, with responsibilities and functions allocated across different institutions.
Systematic arrangements for the statutory registration of centre-based and of part of home-based provision are in place (although a small minority of childminders are registered) with Tusla, a state agency, managing and maintaining the national register. Regulations for ECEC, most recently updated in 2016, set out standards that providers need to meet in order to achieve and maintain registration. Continued compliance with regulatory standards is monitored nationally through a systematic risk-based inspection programme for all registered providers through Tusla’s Early Years Inspectorate.
To drive improvement in the Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) programme, at the request of DCEDIY the Department of Education Inspectorate (DE Inspectorate) has extended inspections to the ECCE programme, and there are plans to also extend to programmes for children under the age of three. In addition to these two forms of inspections, a third form of external review is undertaken by Pobal, a separate public agency, with a focus on compliance with DCEDIY funding requirements.
The Tusla inspection programme has played an important role in ensuring centre-based provision meets the expectations set out in regulations. Tusla takes into account several factors of risk to determine the schedule of inspections but all services receive an inspection within a three-year timeframe. A Quality and Regulatory Framework helps clarify expectations for compliance, while an e-learning programme supports providers in preparing for these inspections. The DE inspections, using their own quality framework, have also already had a positive impact, providing impetus for a shift towards focusing more strongly on process quality. These education-focused inspections aim to inspect ECCE rooms at least once every five years.
Systematic ways for tapping into the experience of the direct users of services should be a priority for any monitoring and quality assurance strategy, although engaging parents’ and children’s voices in ECEC inspections has particular challenges. Some innovative steps are being taken to build children’s views into consultations in Ireland, and both Tusla and the DE inspections are exploring ways of better engaging with parents and children in future inspection models.
Although developments are still at a very early stage and much stronger impact needs to be achieved in fostering a culture of effective self-evaluation and improvement, inspection bodies have clearly recognised the value of promoting the development of self-evaluation skills and practices through their work. The ongoing review of the curriculum framework, Aistear, provides a welcomed opportunity to create new momentum for improving the ability of providers to self-evaluate, if accompanied by a well-resourced programme of advice, training and support. As the capacity for self-evaluation develops, external review can move even further in the direction of risk-based or proportionate programming.
Encourage settings to take responsibility for their own continuous improvement by further developing resources and programmes of support aimed at building capacity for self-evaluation and improvement planning in the sector as committed to in the First 5 strategy. Inspections of ECEC centres should include attention to how good settings are at reviewing their own provision and taking action to improve.
Pursue as a priority the initiatives currently underway to increase the engagement of children and parents/carers in inspection processes.
In the short term, the different strands of regulation and inspection need to be better co-ordinated, and, in the longer term, potentially more fully integrated
Overall, however, providers find current arrangements for external review, to be somewhat confusing and as taking too much time away from staff focusing on children’s experiences. This may be a particular issue for small providers. The focus in inspection seems to be overlapping between Tusla and DE, with both taking an interest in process quality, albeit to different degrees.
Streamlining the activities of the range of bodies engaged in inspection and regulation should be a priority going forward. This will also potentially be even more important as childminding is brought within the scope of regulation and inspection. In the short term, this should include steps to deepen the integration of frameworks and methodologies used for inspection, in particular by Tusla and DE Inspectorates, and improving the flow of data between institutions. Taken together, the existing quality and curriculum frameworks present a somewhat complex landscape of documentation to navigate. Key quality documents that settings need to engage with, should be integrated into a more coherent overall package. Both Tusla and DE inspections could then draw selectively on this common framework appropriate to their needs.
Continued attention should also be paid to ensuring proactive, systematic co-ordination of inspection programming between Tusla and DE inspections. Going forward, there may be benefit in arranging some joint inspections within the overall programme, providing an integrated experience for the setting and promoting exchange of expertise between inspectors with different backgrounds.
Over and above improvements to co-ordination, possibilities for a more significant re-shaping of the regulatory landscape should be considered in the longer term (e.g. bringing inspection and monitoring within a single organisation). This would also need to consider the current monitoring activities of Pobal, and especially so if significant changes are made to the overall funding model.
As part of these changes to re-shape the regulatory landscape, the consistency in quality assurance arrangements for different types of provision should be reviewed. The aim should be to bring all ECEC provision within a coherent set of quality assurance arrangements operating in line with a core set of principles and quality expectations, while being adapted proportionately to different settings. Extending the scope of regulation and inspection to childminding will send a clear signal that it is equally important and worthy of attention for quality development.
Take steps to streamline and integrate the processes of regulation and inspection experienced by ECEC providers as committed to in the First 5 strategy. In the short term, deepen collaborative working between Tusla’s Early Years Inspectorate and the DE Inspectorate. In the longer term, consider bringing their functions within a single body that provides integrated care and education inspections.
Develop a single integrated framework to be used as the common reference point for all inspection activities and for self-evaluation by settings. An inter-agency group including Tusla’s Early Years Inspectorate, the DE Inspectorate and support bodies including Better Start should take the lead in developing this framework through a process of extensive consultation and practitioner involvement.
Inspections have a clear developmental focus, but more robust steps could be in place for intervention and more information on quality could be available to service users
How the outputs of monitoring and inspection are used is a further area worth consideration. Inspections in the Irish ECEC system have a clear developmental purpose in a range of ways. Every inspection provides settings with an independent perspective on the strengths and weaknesses, drawing on wide experience of evaluating settings. Processes are also in place to promote improvements when settings are found to be persistently non-compliant and/or falling short of expected standards. Tusla’s Early Years Inspectorate supports providers to make the necessary improvements when non-compliance is identified and prevent them from re-occurring. ECEC settings which Tusla finds to be non-compliant with regulations can ultimately be removed from the register in the case of continued breach of regulations, although this only happens very rarely. DE inspections have employed an improvement-focused style of inspecting, reflecting the approach developed for school inspections. The DE Inspectorate can refer struggling settings to sources of external support although, unlike for Tusla, no direct route of referral has been established.
However, it can apparently be difficult to address persistent quality concerns and to enforce the necessary remedial action. The range of statutory options open to Tusla to ensure providers take prompt action to address concerns, short of moving to de-registration, appear to be too limited. Processes for intervening robustly where services fall short in aspects of structural and/or process quality should be reviewed, introducing stronger intermediate steps in the statutory intervention options open to Tusla. Complaints received by Tusla are analysed and may subsequently be used to inform inspection activity but a more explicit and widely publicised national system of complaints could help address quality concerns and increase public confidence that concerns are being addressed robustly where they occur.
Consideration should also be given to increasing the transparency of evaluations and to making the results of inspections more accessible to the public. At present, it seems difficult for parents and other stakeholders to access a clear and succinct analysis of the quality that the services in their area provide. Using transparency as a driver for improving quality would appear particularly relevant in a market-based system of provision as currently exists in the Irish ECEC sector. This could entail developing and publicising an integrated online parent portal that brings together relevant information in a user-friendly and accessible form, in line with the existing commitment in the First 5 strategy.
Review the statutory steps available for Tusla’s Early Years Inspectorate to deploy in cases of services that are falling persistently short of expected standards. Consider developing a more formal system for service users to have complaints reviewed by Tusla, as the body responsible for statutory registration, if they remain dissatisfied after exhausting the complaints procedures operated by providers.
In pursuit of the commitment in the First 5 strategy, increase ease of access for parents/carers to user-friendly information about the quality of services, drawing on the results of both Tusla and DE inspections.
A number of quality support structures have been established, but need to be streamlined into a stronger development support infrastructure
Complementing the role of the inspectorates, a number of organisations provide ongoing support and guidance to providers on quality and improvement, to respond to issues identified in inspections and to develop improvement strategies independently of inspections. For example, the Better Start Quality Development Service provides an important source of active consultancy for centres seeking to address development needs. At a more local level, 30 City and County Childcare Committees (CCCs) receive national funding to provide local co-ordination and support for the ECEC sector in their areas and a number of National Voluntary Childcare Organisations provide a source of guidance and resources.
Overall, however, access for providers to external guidance and support for improvement is limited and patchy. The capacity and resources of the CCCs, for instance, appear to be variable, and their functions have been changing to more administrative tasks and less provision of quality support, as compared to before. Developing a stronger and more coherent infrastructure for development support should be a priority for the next stages of national policy development. This will be especially important given the plan to bring a large number of unregulated home-based providers into the system.
While potentially challenging, the objective should be to establish a more easily accessible ‘one-stop-shop’ approach to directing providers to all relevant guidance and sources of support. The extent to which the existing City and County Childcare Committees (CCCs), or perhaps larger organisational units, could provide a stronger ‘middle layer’ merits exploration. A commitment to create a new national body, provisionally called ‘Childcare Ireland’, will be directly relevant to these considerations.
Develop a stronger and more coherent infrastructure for providing quality development support for ECEC settings replacing the relatively patchy and fragmented provision currently in place.
Improve synergies between providers of continuing professional development in the short term, while working towards a more unified system of quality support in the long term.
A range of data and evidence is being collected, but could be shared and combined more effectively to support the quality system
Well-designed arrangements for the gathering and analysis of data and evidence from across the sector play an important role in a comprehensive quality assurance and improvement strategy. In Ireland, there are a growing number of ways in which this is being done. Pobal collects a substantial amount of data on the sector nationally, focused on settings receiving national funding. Tusla collects a range of data on all registered provision through the registration and inspection processes, and also has access to other forms of evidence (e.g. in the form of ‘unsolicited information’ submissions from the public). In addition, Tusla and the DE Inspectorate both separately undertake systematic analysis of the results of their inspections. More generally, a strong culture of using evidence and evaluating policies is apparent in the Irish ECEC context, such as in relation to the First 5 strategy.
While valuable data appear to be gathered and analysed, there is a need to explore how data and intelligence can be shared more easily between the various bodies involved (and potentially other institutions supporting quality) and integrated to strengthen quality assurance arrangements and policy development. Possible options involve the development of a shared ‘data lake’ or central data hub which integrates the intelligence from each of the bodies into a single coherent database. Such a shared ‘data lake’ could also ensure that providers are not asked for the same data multiple times by different bodies. Some data sharing protocols exist, but these may need to be reviewed while others may need to be developed to form an integrated data management environment.