Early childhood education and care (ECEC) assistants in Europe: Pathways towards continuous professional development (CPD) and qualification

Abstract

There is broad consensus amongst researchers and international organisations that the quality of early childhood education and care (ECEC), which means the wellbeing of children and families, depends on welleducated and competent staff. This remains a challenge in Europe, since part of the workforce is also represented by low-qualified ECEC assistants in many EU countries. In the CoRe study (2011), assistants are defined as 'invisible workers', meaning that their presence is usually not taken into account in policy documents and that they have far fewer possibilities of qualification and professional development than core practitioners. Building on the findings of the CoRe study, a recent NESET II report reviewed the profiles of ECEC assistants in 15 European countries and their professionalisation opportunities. This article describes the report's findings, with a focus on the roles of assistants and on how to create coherent pathways towards their qualification and continuous professional development (CPD) opportunities. The latter is shown through the examples of three case studies carried out in Denmark, France and Slovenia. Recommendations for policy makers are included in the conclusions. The framework of the article is the 'competent system': as pointed out in the CoRe study, individual competences alone are not sufficient to create quality. A 'competent system' is needed which includes collaboration between individuals, teams and institutions and has competent governance at policy level.This means working within a holistic 'educare' approach that is able to value the educative role of caring and the caring role of education.

Continuous professional development and ECEC quality: Findings from a European systematic literature review

“…Beyond the EU context, high‐profile international organisations (e.g., OECD, International Labour Organisation (http://ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/lang–en/index.htm)) have increasingly recognised the importance of continuous professional development (CDP) of early years staff and their work conditions as determinants of ECEC structural and process quality which, in turn, are linked to children's cognitive and non‐cognitive attainment (ILO, ; OECD, , ). However, whilst a broad consensus exists among researchers and policy‐makers on the importance of investing in staff professionalisation in order to increase the quality of educational and care practices in early childhood services, the processes and tools whereby practitioners’ development can be promoted remain unexplored in international literature (Sheridan, Pope Edwards, Marvin, & Knoche, ) and there is too little investment in strong systems of continuous professional development in the European Member States (Peeters, Sharmahd, & Budginaitė, ).…”

Teacher Characteristics and Students’ Performance in Mathematics

“…Apart from the supportive relationship students may need from teachers, Peeters et al (2018) insist that a teacher's qualification is also a very important determinant of students' performance in the classroom. Ambussaidi and Yang (2019) observed that among fifth-year teachers, more experienced teachers worked in classrooms with less emotional climate.…”

“Who Would Bother Getting a Degree When You Would Be on the Exact Same Pay and Conditions . . .?” Professionalism and the Problem With Qualifications in Early Childhood Education and Care: An Irish Perspective

“…In addition, even when a practitioner does have an ECEC degree, many of these courses can differ in content and quality, making it difficult to ascertain which characteristics are integral to the preparation of students for the ECEC workplace (Whitebook et al, 2014). Peeters et al (2016), however, claim that the key issue is not in identifying qualifications as a crucial factor in the delivery of quality provision but that limited opportunities exist for practitioners to enroll in a professional ECEC program that considers prior learning and the background of the practitioner.…”