Structures and systems influencing quality improvement in Australian early childhood education and care centres

Abstract

This study assessed the impact of structural characteristics on quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS) outcomes in an Australian national study. Data from the Australian Children's Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA) repository of National Quality Standard (NQS) ratings were used to identify long day care services that had improved from Working Towards NQS to Meeting or Exceeding NQS or had no change over two assessments. QRIS outcomes were examined for state/territory jurisdiction, urban–rural location, community socio-economic status, type and size of provider organisation, centre size and stability of centre owner/provider using multinomial logistic regression analyses. Controlling for jurisdiction, results showed that improvement to Meeting NQS was more likely for not-for-profit versus for-profit providers and for large multi-site provider organisations versus small, stand-alone providers. Improvement to Exceeding NQS was also associated with not-for-profit and larger provider organisations, as well as larger versus smaller centres, and centres that had stable ownership.

Macro-structural predictors of Australian family day care quality

“…A general pattern of FDC schemes located in lower SES communities having lower NQS ratings and FDC schemes in communities of higher SES having higher ratings was found. The findings were similar to that of other research [e.g., ( 5 , 21 )]. This pattern could be explained by the theory of concentrated affluence and concentrated disadvantage ( 39 ).…”

“…Multiple layers of structure, deemed “macro-structural” variables by Harrison et al ( 5 ), may influence ECEC quality ( 5 , 6 ). The layers of structure that predict ECEC quality have been identified as systemic, organizational, classroom, and staff ( 7 ).…”

“…For-profit ECEC services are generally reported to be lower quality than not-for- profit services ( 5 , 17 – 20 ). Cleveland and Krashinsky ( 19 ) theorized that the lower quality of care for for-profit services was due to thick and thin markets, resulting from high and low levels of middle- and upper-income families in the local area, respectively.…”

“…The state the ECEC service was located in was a significant predictor of observed quality as measured by total scores on the Family Day Care Rating Scale ( 30 ) and the subscale scores for Tone and Discipline and Provisions for Learning and Health ( 29 ). Within Australia, NQS records and research into center-based ECEC services have revealed varying levels of quality and quality improvement for different states and territories ( 4 , 5 ).…”

Leadership in Australia’s early childhood workforce policy: Silences and ambiguities as missed opportunities

“…While there is a clear remit in Focus Area 4 for service providers, evidence suggests that success of Employee Assistance Programs is predicated on robust and effective relationships between HR and Employee Assistance Program professionals (Compton & McManus, 2015). In ECEC contexts, evidence also suggests that relationships between organisations (service providers, managers) and leaders is key to generating positive work environments (Harrison et al, 2019). In ECEC contexts, it may be extrapolated then that effective relationships between centre leaders, service providers and Employee Assistance Program providers are therefore critical to promoting workplace wellbeing.…”