New report compares and contrasts ECEC systems across six different countries

A new report released by the Fawcett Society in the United Kingdom seeks to compare early childhood education and care (ECEC) systems across six different jurisdictions in a bid to understand how their systems are currently set up and operate.

 

Conclusions drawn from the analysis are hoped to help create better policy responses to address ongoing challenges in the ECEC delivery model in the authors’ home country of England.  

 

The report titled “Transforming Early Childhood Education and Care: Sharing International Learning” examines ECEC models employed in England, Australia, Estonia, France, Ireland, and the Canadian province of Quebec, all of which have recently reformed or are in the process of reforming their ECEC markets.

 

This article will aim to summarise some of the key findings noted in the report in order to provide some context as to what the Fawcett Society sees as the different qualities of the systems currently being used around the world and as a point of reference to readers interested in this area. 

 

England

 

Type of system: Market driven mixed system

Legal requirements: No legal requirement for children to engage in ECEC

Types of providers: Multiple provider types; for profit majority (45 per cent of places)

Type of funding: Demand side and supply side 

Regulated areas: Ratios, qualifications, curriculum, training

 

England’s system of ECEC can best be described as mixed with a combination of different service types operating in the market with families benefiting from demand side subsidies and providers also receiving supply side subsidies to cover the costs of mandatory free care provisions, 15 to 30 hours per week, required by the Government. 

 

Australia

 

Type of system: Market driven mixed system

Legal requirements: No legal requirement for children to engage in ECEC

Types of providers: Multiple provider types; for profit majority 

Type of funding: Demand side largely

Regulated areas: Ratios, qualifications, curriculum, financial declarations

 

Australia runs a market driven mixed system in which for profit, not for profit and Government services compete. The majority of services are for profit. Subsidies are largely demand driven although some supply side subsidy systems (eg inclusion funding) also are in place. 

 

Estonia

 

Type of system: Public provision – local council level  

Legal requirements: ECEC not mandatory but encouraged after 1.5 years old

Types of providers: Mostly council providers – 91 per cent

Type of funding: Supply side largely

Regulated areas: Ratios, qualifications, curriculum – Internal evaluations 

 

Estonia runs a largely public model centred around local governments that are mandated to provide ECEC services to children from the age of eighteen months and over.  Around 91 per cent of all services are publicly run with supply side subsidies most prevalent. 

 

France

 

Type of system: Under 3’s market driven mixed system – Over 3’s largely public

Legal requirements: Under 3’s not compulsory – Over 3’s compulsory

Types of providers: 18 per cent of under 3’s in centre based care of which 60 per cent is public  

Type of funding: Demand side for under 3’s 

Regulated areas: Ratios, premises, curriculum – Inspection driven

 

The French system has two distinct pathways with under three year old ECEC services being non compulsory, demand subsidy driven and provided by a large range of different types of formal and informal providers. Only 18 per cent of under 3’s are in centre based care services. Whereas over 3’s are more or less deemed part of the broader school system with mandatory participation and providers subsidised directly by Government. 

 

Ireland

 

Type of system: Market driven mixed system   

Legal requirements: No legal requirement for children to engage in ECEC

Types of providers: Mostly for profit providers – 74 per cent

Type of funding: Demand side largely – some supply side

Regulated areas: Ratios, curriculum – Inspection driven

 

Ireland’s system is largely for profit driven with a demand side subsidy and in form is quite similar to the Australian system. Universal subsidies and income based subsidies are available for families with around 27 per cent of families opting for private centre based care over Government or not for profit services. Take up in the under 2 year old age bracket stands at just 35.8 per cent. 

 

Quebec

 

Type of system: Mixed system 

Legal requirements: No legal requirement for children to engage in ECEC

Types of providers: Govt funded NFP’s – 68% : Unfunded FP’s – 32%

Type of funding: Supply side largely – Tax credits for non funded centre families

Regulated areas: Ratios, curriculum – Inspection driven

 

Quebec has implemented a universal flat fee model of care with prices currently capped at $8.85 per day at funded not for profit, and some for profit centres. These are referred to as Tier 1 services with the providers reimbursed via a supply side subsidy system. However, there is also a Tier 2 category with providers who have opted out of the universal flat fee model and charge market rates with tax credits, the main means of supporting affordability. 

 

To access the Fawcett Society Report please click here.