New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies

, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 269–284 | Cite as

Quality in Home-Based Child Care for Under-Two-Year Old Children in Aotearoa New Zealand: Conceptualising Quality from Stakeholder Perspectives

Article

Abstract

Recent policy reports have raised concerns about quality education and care for under 2-year-olds attending home-based early childhood and care (HBEC) services, an issue that has received minimal research attention in Aotearoa New Zealand. This article explores what is meant by “quality” in HBEC for children under two using an ecological framework, drawing on the perspectives of various stakeholders, outlining implications for future policy and practice. Four semi-structured focus group interviews elicited stakeholders’ views of quality. The four groups were: experts; service providers/visiting teachers; educators/nannies; parents/whānau. The participants identified key aspects of the roles, relationships and activities of the different actors within quality HBEC microsystems, as well as the critical importance of mesosystem connections. Relationships at all levels were identified as a key component of quality, supporting a principle underpinning the philosophy and framework of Te Whāriki.

Keywords

Quality Home-based care Relationships Te Whāriki 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a University of Otago Research Grant.

References

  1. Bromer, J., Paulsell, D., Porter, T., Henly, J., Ramsburg, D., & Weber, R. (2011). Family-sensitive caregiving: A key component of quality in early care and education. In M. Zaslow, K. Tout, T. Halle & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Quality measurement in early childhood settings (pp. 161–191). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (Ed.). (2005). Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  4. Calman, L. J., & Tarr-Whelan, L. (2005). Early education for all: A wise investment. New York: MIT Workplace Legal Momentum.Google Scholar
  5. Carroll-Lind, J., & Angus, J. (2011). Through their lens: An inquiry into non-parental education and care of infants and toddlers. Wellington: Office of the Children’s Commissioner.Google Scholar
  6. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2013). Beyond quality in early childhood education: Languages of evaluation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Dalli, C., White, J., Rockel, J., Duhn, I., with Buchanan, E., Davidson, S., et al. (2011). Quality early childhood education for under-two-year-olds: What should it look like? Report to the Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  8. Doherty, G. (2014). Quality in family child care: A focus group study with Canadian providers. Early Childhood Education Journal. doi: 10.1007/s10643-014-0645-6.Google Scholar
  9. Doherty, G., Forer, B., Lero, D. S., Goelman, H., & LaGrange, A. (2006). Predictors of quality in family child care. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 296–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duncan, J., Irvine, P., Auld, S., Cross, T., Fagan, H., Seiuli, T., et al. (2008). Homebased early childhood education (family day care)—the visiting teacher’s role in improving educators’ practices: A summary. Wellington: Teaching and Learning Research Initiative.Google Scholar
  11. Early Childhood Taskforce. (2011). An Agenda for amazing children. Anne Tolley: Report to Minister of Education.Google Scholar
  12. Education Counts. (2014). Enrolments in licensed early childhood services. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved November 18, 2014 from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/statistics/ece2/participation.
  13. Education Review Office. (2009). Implementing self review in early childhood services. Wellington: Education Review Office.Google Scholar
  14. Everiss, E. (1998). Responding to the training needs of home-based caregivers in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Early Education, 17, 31–36.Google Scholar
  15. Fauth, R., Owen, S., & Jelicic, H. (2013). The next best thing to being at home: Parents’ views of quality in home-based childcare settings. Research Summary 10. Retrieved from http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/891898/ncb_rsch_summ_10_final.pdf.
  16. Fleer, M. (2010). Early learning and development: Cultural-historical concepts in play. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Larner, M., & Philips, S. (1994). Defining and valuing quality as a parent. In G. Dahlberg, P. Moss & A. Pence. (Eds.). (2013). Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education: Languages of Evaluation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Layland, J. (2009). Affordance of participation rights for children in home-based education and care: An interactive process model of participation. Children and Society, 23, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Layland, J. (2012). Applying a model of participation rights in home-based early childhood settings: A case study. Early Childhood Folio, 16(2), 26–32.Google Scholar
  20. McLachlan, C. (2005). Focus group methodology and its usefulness in early childhood research. NZ Research in Early Childhood Education, 8, 113–123.Google Scholar
  21. Ministry of Education. (1993). Te Whāriki: He whariki matauranga mo nga mokopuna o Aotearoa: Draft guidelines for developmentally appropriate programmes in early childhood services. Wellington, New Zealand: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whāriki: He Whāriki Mātauranga mō ngā Mokopuna o Aotearoa (early childhood curriculum). Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  23. Ministry of Education. (2003). Learning through relationships: Ma te whanaungatanga ka ako. Using Te Whāriki in home-based settings. Wellington: Learning Media.Google Scholar
  24. Ministry of Education. (2008a). Education (home-based care) Order 1992 and amendments 2008. Retrieved November 11, 2009 from http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1992/0238/latest/DLM165942.html.
  25. Ministry of Education. (2008b). Education (early childhood services) regulations 2008. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Government.Google Scholar
  26. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  27. Reedy, T. (2013). Toku rangatiratanga na te mana-matauranga “knowledge and power set me free…”. In J. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te Whāriki: Aotearoa New Zealand’s early childhood curriculum document in theory and practice (2nd ed.). Wellington, New Zealand: NZCER.Google Scholar
  28. Shonkoff, J. P. & Phillips, P. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on integrating the science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, A. B., Grima, G., Gaffney, M., & Powell, K. (2000). Early childhood education: Literature review report to the ministry of education. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Children’s Issues Centre.Google Scholar
  30. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vandell, D., & Wolfe, B. (2002). Child care quality: Does it matter and does it need to be improved? USAL Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
  32. Wright, L. (2003). Living the early childhood curriculum: Five days in family day care settings. Unpublished study submitted to Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, as a part requirement towards the degree of Master of Education.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© New Zealand Association for Research in Education 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Otago College of EducationNorth DunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Centre for Children and Young PeopleSouthern Cross UniversityLismoreAustralia

Personalised recommendations