Education and Care Program Design in Early Childhood Settings Report

This report provides a comprehensive overview of education and care program design within the context of early childhood settings in Australia. It delves into critical aspects such as documentation practices, highlighting the roles of various professionals and the significance of Ferraris’ theoretical framework, policies, and the challenges faced by educators. The report also examines the multifaceted planning and implementation processes, including the role of legislation, national quality standards, and the need for inclusive and collaborative approaches. Furthermore, it analyzes assessment methodologies, encompassing curriculum-based, school-based, and standard-referenced assessments, while also considering the influence of teacher development and equity criteria. The report also explores the pedagogical approaches, highlighting the evolution of ECEC in Australia, the importance of brain development research, and the programs like Long Day Care and Kindergarten, while also addressing the challenges of effective leadership and the balance between education and welfare. Finally, the report concludes by emphasizing the significance of policy, legislation, and research in shaping ECEC programs and the need for continuous improvement to enhance the learning experience of each child.

Running head: EDUCATION AND CARE PROGRAM DESIGN
1
Education and Care Program Design in Early Childhood Setting
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation

EDUCATION AND CARE PROGRAM DESIGN
2
Education and Care Program Design in Early Childhood Setting
Introduction
In education, continuous quality improvement is a regular process of improving the
delivery of the curriculum. The success and effectiveness of early childhood education (ECD)
depends on the level of implementation; however, other factors such as documentation,
pedagogy, planning, and method of assessment are equally critical (Rosenkvist, 2010). It is
paramount to often think about how these factors impact the quality of learning at the
preliminary level of education. In Australia, ECD is a special stage of learning that gives
fundamental insight into the subsequent levels (Australian Government Task Force on Child
Development, Health, and Wellbeing, 2003). About 61% of children are between 3 – 4 years old,
which also indicates that this percentage attend different programs under Childhood Education
and Care (ECEC) framework (Tayler et al., 2016). In this case, the state and territory
departments have been keen to ensure that the quality standards have been upheld to local and
international requirements. There is a range of studies focused on how curriculum design plays a
critical role in ECD (Rosenkvist, 2010). In most cases, the improvement of the learning
experience is focused on activities, processes, and challenges to enhance the learning process.
The same theme has become the center of scholarly reflections and evaluations. While different
changes have occurred in the recent decade, there are several key characteristics that dominate
the assessment method, pedagogy, planning, and documentation aspects of the Australian ECD
as illustrated in this paper.

EDUCATION AND CARE PROGRAM DESIGN
3
Documentation
The process of documentation of ECD in Australia is a shared responsibility that trickles
down along the leadership chain. The ECD workforce incorporates different professionals based
on the roles they play in the entire system from the state to territorial level. Currently, the ECD
workforce in the country includes coordinators, managers, teaching assistants, teachers, childcare
experts, intervention workers, and social welfare personnel. Based on the scope of their roles,
they are required to keep in touch with the existing record maintenance practices. The
documentation practices in Australian ECD take Ferraris’ theoretical framework. In this case,
there are some key factors that inform the documentation process (Ferraris, 2013). Data
regarding the progress and interaction of the learners with the existing curriculum design is
expected to be up-to-date across all level, which implies that teachers are central players in ECD
documentation. At the same time, the visibility of the interactions in term of recorded evidence
paves the way for interpretation and assessment. Apart from the curriculum framework,
Australian ECD relies on policies, which are equally part of the documentation elements (Tayler
et al., 2016). ECD teachers in the country have ensured that the progress of learners is captured
including the emerging insights, which are later incorporated in curriculum improvement and
policy development.
It is important to highlight that ECD documentation in Australia has been a central
practice that has inspired quality implementation (Elliott, 2006). Teachers and other ECD
workforce professionals attest to the significant role of documentation in Australian ECD.
Through this process, professionals are able to plan for developments and improvement of
teaching practices. Pedagogical implementations also rely on documentation to track progress
and initiate monitoring and evaluation. A properly managed documentation process ensures that

EDUCATION AND CARE PROGRAM DESIGN
4
the ECD curriculum is child-centered. Occasionally, the available data has been used to
determine the level of inclusivity and participation, which also provides the baseline for
improvement or change. Although the country has a robust documentation plan and guidelines,
there are several elements that feature out in scholarly reflections. Teachers and other ECD
professionals in Australia face critical challenges that impede effective documentation (Tayler et
al., 2016). Some teachers and other workforce personnel lack skills and the technical experience
that are essential for the systematic collection and evaluation of practice, participation, and
experience of learners. The nature of the learning methods, as well as limited time, also affects
the achievement of comprehensive documentation of early childhood education and care
practices in the country. Such issues require immediate attention to revitalize the change process
in ECD in the country (Australian Government Task Force on Child Development, Health, and
Wellbeing, 2003).
Planning
The process of planning and implementation of ECEC in Australia is multifaceted. It
entails the legislation and delegation aspects of management. The current legislations are
categorized into Commonwealth and Queensland subordinate legal frameworks. The legislations
provide the guidelines and policies that define the scoop and practice in early childhood affairs.
However, the duties of implementation require proper instruments and bodies. The portfolios of
education and training of instructors and learners receive their authority from the existing laws
and other legislative instruments. The allocation and use of funds criteria are defined in the
finance delegation manual, which defines the authority of how financial appropriations are
conducted and approved. Apart from legislation and delegations, the Australian ECEC also
depends on the national quality standard as a key benchmark in planning and implementation.

EDUCATION AND CARE PROGRAM DESIGN
5
Through NQS, the state governments are able to plan for in-school and outside school programs
that are meant to improve not only the academic experience but also the health aspects of each
child. The states are also responsible stakeholders who prepare and facilitate rating inspection. In
this case, assessment and rating aimed at determining the level of performance is part of the
regular and repetitive practices incorporated in planning programs (Adamson, 2017; OECD,
2012). It is essential to highlight that amid the comprehensive planning framework for ECEC in
the country, there is a need for a diversified approach that guarantees inclusivity and
collaboration. Cases of duplication of programs are numerous in the country, which impacts the
optimization of resource allocation.
Assessment Methodologies
Assessment of ECEC is an essential practice that informs the process of improving the
quality of teaching practice. In Australia, the assessment practice is based on six fundamental
themes that inform the methods used. The first component is curriculum-based assessment,
which entails the evaluation of the anticipated objectives against the outlined milestones. The
second level is the school-based assessment, which is geared towards the evaluation of school-
level achievement (Cumming & Graham, 2004). Standard-referenced assessment involves the
comparison of the quality standards against the expected scores (Elliott, 2006). Australia has
strived to meet the global quality requirement. The use of standard-referenced assessment has
been central to quality improvement implementations. The fourth element is respect for teachers
and professional development, which involves the position of the professionals in curriculum
implementation. The country has invested in the training of ECD professionals with the aim of
imparting international-standards and requirements in practice. Outcome-based frameworks and
the national benchmarking and equity criteria have also been adopted as part of the assessment

EDUCATION AND CARE PROGRAM DESIGN
6
themes in the country. Since ECEC involves different stakeholders drawn from areas such as
education, health, and welfare, the assessment process also entails similar dimensions (Cumming
& Graham, 2004). One of the key factors that segregate the approach used in Australia and the
common or shared frameworks is that the country went beyond the national quality standard to
include student-centered methodologies.
Moreover, Australia has six federal states, which have the autonomous mandate to
implement education changes in line with the national objectives and scope. However, a single
and centralized system of assessment is used to ensure uniformity in term of achievements and
quality. Such a provision implies that while the states and territories have the obligation of
adopting a varied approach to improve quality, they are limited and restrained to the centralized
parent framework of the country (Cumming & Graham, 2004; Elliott, 2006). For example, the
assessment process is funded by public expenditure, which is usually sourced through direct and
indirect taxation. The same is true about the curriculum changes, which must be
comprehensively assessed, planned, and widely accepted before implementation. At the same
time, the goals of ECEC are nationally-focused, which is the same case witnessed across the
globe. In this case, shared objectives and a uniform curriculum imply that the assessment criteria
are in equal measure unified across all states. However, calls to improve the assessment methods
also exist especially in term of welfare and health since the country has achieved great
milestones in instructional assessment and evaluation of performance (Cumming & Graham,
2004).
Pedagogies
One of the major trends in early childhood education and care across the globe is the
increased interest that revolves around quality and competitiveness. The same scenario has been

EDUCATION AND CARE PROGRAM DESIGN
7
witnessed in Australia where the pedagogical approach to ECD is currently multidimensional
(Leech & Lewis, 2005). Scholars have noted that it took the government a long time to initiate
substantive programs focused on improving the health and education experience of young
children. The first step to improving to change was the initiation of a series of brain development
research. Investigative reports provided a wide range of evidence and comparative insights from
other countries that were used to improve the quality of education and health in early childhood
development (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005). The government tasked the territorial authorities with
the mandate of ensuring quality practices in ECD. Such a move is achieved through proper
training and recruitment of teachers and on-job professional development. Collaboration with
other stakeholders such as the health and welfare departments provides the synergistic teamwork
to enhance the experience of children in classrooms and beyond. In Australia, there are key
quality ECEC elements that inform the current design. There are programs such as Long Day
Care, the Kindergarten, and Family Day Care. Moreover, scholars such as Leech and Lewis
(2005) and Woodruff and O’Brien (2005) dedicated their analysis to economic policy
development. The outcome of their study showed that welfare imperative remained one of the
critical issues pursued by state and territorial government to improve the welfare of children. The
justification of this dimension emanated from the fact that many children in Australia come from
families that experience multifaceted problems (Tayler et al., 2016). Through programs such as
Child Care Benefit, the government has been able to outsource universal pedagogical expertise.
Based on the scope of early childhood pedagogy, it is clear that the state and territorial
governments are focusing on both the education and the welfare of children to ensure a
competitive and sustainable practice. By changing its approach to funding disbursement and
allocation in 1990, Australia aligned its process of changing the face of ECD to the increasingly

EDUCATION AND CARE PROGRAM DESIGN
8
global market emphasis. Cox (2005) pointed out that the realignment of pedagogical
methodologies and practice became the onset of comprehensive government involvement
especially in monitoring and evaluation of quality, compliance, and improvement of early
childhood education and health. Nevertheless, amid the numerous improvements recorded in the
country, there is a major pedagogical challenge facing the country: lack of effective leadership in
early childhood education and welfare. The country has collaborated with numerous health
partners to offer multidimensional programs. However, researches indicate how the welfare part
of the programs has thrived to the expense of the instructional part of learning (Horin, 2005). It is
clear that the country has made significant milestones in term of the welfare of children but the
same magnitude cannot be attested when it comes to instructional improvement. A call for
effective leadership that is founded on evidence-based research should be adopted to create a
balance between education and welfare (MacNaughton, 2005).
Conclusion
In conclusion, early childhood education and care is an essential part of the education
framework in the country. The government has ensured that significant milestones have been
attained both at state and territorial levels. Through proper planning, Australia has transformed
its ECEC programs to focus on improving the experience of each child. The use of policy,
legislation, and research is central to the changes being implemented. The National Quality
Standards forms the basis of implementation, which is part of the tools used to inform the nature
of pedagogical implementations. Although the country’s ECEC programs are diverse and
comprehensive, there are significant challenges facing the approach to documentation and
pedagogical leadership. A change geared towards improving these areas could lead to positive
outcomes in the long-run.

EDUCATION AND CARE PROGRAM DESIGN
9

EDUCATION AND CARE PROGRAM DESIGN
10
References
Adamson, E. (2017). Staring Strong IV: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and
Care Country Note. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Australian Government Task Force on Child Development, Health, and Wellbeing. (2003).
Towards a National Agenda for Early Childhood – what you told us. Canberra:
Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services.
Cox, E. (2005). Changing Childcare Policy Frameworks. Centre for Policy Development.
http://cpd.org.au/node/3546
Cumming, J. S. & Graham, M. (2004). Profiles of educational assessment systems worldwide.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 89 – 108.
Dahlberg, G. & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood. London: Routledge
Falmer.
Elliott, A. (2006). Early Childhood Education: Pathways to quality and equity for all children.
Australian Education Review, Camberwell, Victoria: ACER.
Ferraris, M. (2013). Documentality: Why It is Necessary to Leave Traces. Fordham University
Press: New York.
Horin, A. (2005). Reading to Tots as Vital as Vaccines. Sydney Morning Herald, 1 September.
Leech, M. & Lewis, E. (2005). Communities for Children: Non-government organizations as
government partners. Paper presented at the Australian Social Policy Research
conference, Sydney.
MacNaughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in Early Childhood Studies: Applying post-structural
ideas. London: Routledge.
OECD. (2012). Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care.

EDUCATION AND CARE PROGRAM DESIGN
11
OECD Publishing, Paris.
Rosenkvist, M.A. (2010). Using student test results for accountability and improvement: A
literature review. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 54, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Tayler, C., Cloney, D., Adams, R., Ishminee, K., Thorpe, K., & Nguyen, T. (2016). Assessing
the Effectiveness of Australian Early Childhood Education and Care Experiences: Study
Protocol. BMC Public Health, 16, 352.
Woodruff, J. & O’Brien, J. (2005). Children’s and Family Services Working Together.
Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(1), 49-57.