Content uploaded by Mary Moloney
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mary Moloney on May 25, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Mary Moloney on behalf of PLÉ
Early Years Leading Education in Ireland
PLÉ response to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
International Early Learning Study
Introduction
In 1998, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Education
Committee launched a Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care, which
resulted in two reports: Starting Strong 1 (2001) and Starting Strong 11 (2006). Both reports
which provided a comparative analysis of ECEC across OECD countries, were concerned
with improving the quality of, and access to provision, while being mindful of the diversity
and complexity of systems, curricula and pedagogical approaches in different countries.
While these reports highlighted the need for a strong and equal partnership with the education
system, they were critical of systems that focused upon cognitive development in the early
years, and the acquisition of knowledge, skills and dispositions, suggesting that such
approaches ‘are poorly suited to the psychology and natural learning strategies of young
children’ (OECD, 2006, p.13). Interestingly, as noted by Moss, Dahlberg, Grieshaber,
Mantovani et al, (2016) and Urban & Swadener, (2016) the focus and tone of subsequent
Starting Strong reports represented a significant shift in the OECD’s approach to ECEC,
towards ‘a discourse of outcomes and investments’ (p. 344). Consequently, Starting Strong
111 (OECD, 2011) offered a ‘quality toolbox for ECEC’, with Starting Strong 1V:
Monitoring Quality in ECEC (OECD, 2015), suggesting that governments should regularly
monitor and evaluate ECEC, staff performance, and children’s development in order to boost
standards. The concept of accountability, clearly linked to ‘return on investment’ for
expenditure on ECEC (OECD tender for IELS, 2016, p. 97) had moved centre stage.
International Early Learning Study
It is indeed disappointing to see that the OECD is now attempting to further consolidate this
shift in position by initiating the International Early Learning Study (IELS), a cross-national
assessment of early learning outcomes involving the testing of children between 4.5 to 5.5
Mary Moloney on behalf of PLÉ
years in 3-6 participating countries initially (OECD, IELS Tender, 2016, p.18). Figure 1
provides an overview of the domains to be assessed.
Figure 1: Domains to be assessed by the OECD International Early Learning Study
The domains to be assessed ‘represent a balance of both cognitive and social and emotional
skills’ (OECD, 2016, p. 18), and are seemingly benign. However, the finer detail associated
with these domains, as outlined in the call for tenders, is concerning. The domains are
outlined as follows:
Self-Regulation encompassing self-control, grit, self-management and
conscientiousness.
Oral language including the:
- Sounds produced while speaking (phonemes)
- Rules a given language requires to construct sentences (syntax), and
- Understanding that concepts have meaning (semantics)
Emerging Literacy
and Numearcy
Emerging
Numearcy Skills
Self-Regulation Social and
Emotional Skills
Mary Moloney on behalf of PLÉ
Emergent literacy associated with children’s knowledge of print, letters and sounds,
which will help them to learn to decode and read for meaning, building upon oral
language skills
Numeracy including the ability to reason and apply simple numerical concepts. It
comprises the ability to identify and understand numbers as well as computational
skills, ie the ability to count and to perform simple arithmetical operations such as
addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and compare numerical magnitudes
Executive function related to childrens’ ability to regulate attention, including
controlling reactions to new stimuli, working memory and planning, which are also
associated with later academic development
Self-Awareness/Locus of control refers to children’s own beliefs about whether they
possess the ability to complete tasks, and encompasses aspects such as self-esteem,
self-confidence, self-efficacy and locus of control
Social skills encompassing pro-social behaviour, and sociability. Within this domain
children will be assessed on their ability to take the perspective of another, to
demonstrate prosocial behaviour (ie showing kindness, sharing, co-operation, and
respect for others), agreeableness and empathy (OECD, IELS Tender, 2016, p.18-20).
It is inconceivable that the OECD would consider that testing 4.5 – 5.5 year old children as
outlined, is suited to their psychology and natural learning strategies. On the contrary, PLÉ
considers that the IELS’ focus upon comparative education, represents a narrow
interpretation of education, as well as a considerable shift away from the concept of holistic
child development which recognises that children are not divided up into separate domains,
learning styles, intelligences, attitudes, dispositions or creativities. Indeed, the IELS is at odds
with the national frameworks for quality and curriculum both of which were developed
following extensive consultation with the ECEC sector in Ireland. Named Síolta, developed
by the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education (2006) and Aistear,
developed by the National Council for Curriculum and Assessement (2009) respectively, both
frameworks emphasise the integrated nature of children’s learning and development from
birth to six years of age.
The National Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Charter and Guidelines for Early Childhood
Care and Education acknowledge children’s ‘role in constructing and reconstructing personal
meaning within their cultural contexts’ (2016). However, as Urban & Swadener (2016) argue,
Mary Moloney on behalf of PLÉ
the general approach suggested by IELS not only underestimates the complexity of local
practice, rooted in diverse historical and cultural contexts. It actively contradicts the
rights of children, families and communities to meaningful participation in all matters
concerning and affecting the upbringing and education of young children. Conspicuous
by its absence from the IELS proposal is, for example, the recognition of minority groups
and indigenous peoples in OECD countries and beyond
(p. 12).
They conclude that the kind of standardised assessment and ranking proposed by IELS
is not going to provide a meaningful basis for achieving more just and equitable
outcomes for children, families, and the wider community. Resources will be diverted
from much needed local and national improvement processes to creating a largely
meaningless international league table instead
(p. 10)
The IELS presents one world view, as if it were the only absolute truth. Is it however, as
proposed by Morris (2016) a case of ‘the west...
Exporting its vision of schooling around the world through the auspices of cross-national
tests supported by the modern missionaries and camp followers of our time: the think
tanks and multinational companies who specialize in identifying and delivering ‘what
works’ (p.2).
Teaching to the test in Early Childhood
PLÉ believes that ‘what works’ in early childhood is inextricably linked with competent
systems which unfold in relationships between individuals, institutions, and governance,
based on shared knowledge, practices and values (Urban, Vandenbroeck, Van Laere, Lazzari,
and Peeters, 2011) and is therefore, far removed from standardised testing of young children.
Consequently, the IELS does not take account of children’s natural learning styles and
abilities in the early years, and as stated earlier, it is contrary to the emphasis within the
national practice frameworks: Síólta and Aistear on the integrated nature of children’s
learning and development during early childhood. Rather than testing children, Aistear for
example, supports the notion of assessment, defining it as the ‘ongoing process of collecting,
reflecting on, and using information to develop rich portraits of children as learners in order
to support and enhace their future learning’ (NCCAb, 2009, p.72 ). In doing this, the adult
working with the young child
Uses the assessment information to give on-going feedback to children about how they
are getting on in their learning, to provide challenging and enjoyable experiences for
them, to choose appropriate supports for them, and to document, celebrate and plan the
next steps in their learning (ibid., p. 73).
Mary Moloney on behalf of PLÉ
The NCCA assert that such assessment benefits, involves and makes sense for children,
involves their families, is multi-modal, happes over time, and celebrates the breadth and
depth of children’s learning and development.
Regrettably, the proposed assessment of young children in the IELS will lead to rankings of
ability across particular skills sets as outlined earlier. Within this construct, there will be an
inevitable erosion of the period of early childhood, and informal learning in early childhood,
a move away from play based pedagogy to a pedagogy of compliance, a re-emergence of
rote, and forced learning, and a push-down formalised curriculum, where children risk being
pitted against each other, as governments scramble to increase rankings. This is precisely
what happened in Ireland, following the ranking of Irish children in the Programme for
International Student Assessment (PISA), which tests the skills and knowledge of 15-year-
olds. In spite of curriculum overload, (McCoy, Smith and Banks, 2012), Ireland saw fit to
publish The National Strategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy among Children and
Young People 2011-2020 (Department of Education and Skills (DES) 2011) as a conduit to
improve PISA rankings. There are concerns that PISA has resulted in a narrowing of
children’s experiences and opportunities in Irish schools, as teachers prioritise literacy and
numeracy, which Sahlberg (2015) notes are particularly suited to global assessment and
measurement. As Urban & Swadener (2016) state
A persistent criticism of such league table approaches is that they lend themselves to over-
simplification and ignore the reality that different cultural traditions and socio-cultural
contexts produce different paradigms, particularly in education.
(p. 9)
Worryingly, the early indications are that the IELS, will eventually result in standardised
testing of children at all levels of education, from early childhood through to third level. This
intention is clearly signalled within the IELS tender document which states that...
In time, the information [gathered] can also provide information on the trajectory between
early learning outcomes and those at age 15, as measured by PISA. In this way, countries can
have an earlier and more specific indication of how to lift the skills and other capabilities of
its young people (p. 103)
The second relationship with PISA is to enable countries to link early learning outcomes to
the capabilities of the same cohort of students at age 15. This will give countries greater
information on what must be done within the schooling years, to give students a better chance
of developing the skills they need and achieving success. If the first early learning outcomes
assessment runs in 2017, depending on the age or stage selected for assessment, some of this
cohort of students will likely undertake PISA in 2027 (p.110)
Mary Moloney on behalf of PLÉ
According to Morris (2016) the function of metrics and measurements, as proposed through
the IELS, is to provide ‘competitive comparisons’ or ‘comparison advocacy’ harnessed to the
task of winning imaginary contests and competitions, such as the global ‘war for talent’, the
‘education race’, and ‘skills race’ (p.3), but at what cost to children?
During a TED talk in February 2017, Ken Robinson argued that ‘kids don’t fail, schools fail
kids’, a claim that resonates with Malaguzzi’s assertion that although children have one
hundred languages, (i.e., their endless potentials, their ability to wonder and to inquire, and
multiple ways of seeing and being), school and culture robs them of ninety-nine. Although
this may be an unjust critique of the education system globally, the harsh reality, is, that
regardless of a teacher’s best intentions, the IELS will result in teaching to the test, both
inside and outside the classroom at both pre-school and early primary level. Where once
parents read bedtime stories to their children, they will now feel compelled to introduce
letters and numbers, and test their child’s knowledge and skills acquisition at the youngest
age.
Exacerbating Educational Disadvantage and Inequality
In justifying the need for the IELS, the OECD assert that information on early learning
outcomes, could provide parents with reliable information on:
What practical activities they can undertake with their child that will make a
significant difference to their child’s learning and make the most from their ECEC
and schooling experiences;
What age it would be beneficial to enrol their child in an ECEC setting and what is
likely to be best in terms of intensity, duration and continuity;
What kinds of capabilities their child should be building, in both social and emotional
and cognitive domains (2016, p.104).
Herein lies a conundrum. Is it not more likely that parents with greater social capital, access
to resources, and the wherewithal to access appropriate support, and quality early education
for their child, will yet again, have a ‘competitive advantage’ over parents and families living
in poverty, or suffering from socio-economic disadvantage? There is every possibility that the
IELS will set children up for failure as early as 4.5 years. Likewise, parents whose children
do not ‘make the grade’ will feel equally incompetent. The narrow definition of the context of
children’s lives in the IELS approach leaves little room for considering existing inequality as
a factor that influences measurement of the learner. This in itself inequitable and points to a
Mary Moloney on behalf of PLÉ
lack of awareness of the social, cultural, economic and political diversity of families and
contexts.
Schoolification of Early Years Education
Given the age cohort identified for assessment by the OECD, PLÉ is concerned about the
potential expectation that young children should be engaging in formal academic activities
within early years settings, prior to school entry. We believe that we must resist the
“schoolification” of early childhood education where early childhood programmes are
underpinned by primary school academic activities, and where children spend much of their
time indoors, learning letters and numbers in preparation for primary school (OECD, 2006;
Moloney, 2011; Pantazis and Potsi, 2012, Ring, Mhic Mhathúna, Moloney, Hayes et al,
2015), rather than the development of social skills, independence, curiosity and child-agency
(NCCA, 2009; PACEY, 2013).
It is thought that an early introduction to academic learning is unnecessary and can impact
negatively on children’s development (Claxton, 2008; House, 2012). In terms of children’s
learning dispositions, Da Ros-Voseles and Fowler-Haughey (2007) argue that when
programme expectations “focus primarily on knowledge and skills acquisition, important
dispositions are often ignored” (p.3). Similarly, Hatch (2002) asserts that when teachers rely
upon drill and decontextualised activities instead of fostering skills development through
meaningful integrated learning, the dispositions that children need to learn will likely
diminish. As observed by Palmer (2009) ‘It’s time we recognised that too much too soon isn’t
working. To give our under-sevens the best chance of growing up bright, balanced and
literate we must stop trying to fast-forward their education. (p.1).
Conclusion
The initiation of the International Learning Study (IELS) represents a considerable shift in
the OECD’s approach to ECEC, from a focus upon quality (1998 to 2006) towards a
discourse of outcomes and investments (Moss et al., 2016). The OECD tender for the IELS
leaves little doubt that the primary consideration relates to return on investment. While the
domains to be assessed through the IELS, i.e., Self-regulation; oral language, emergent
literacy, numeracy, executive function, self-awareness/locus of control, and social skills are
described as representing a balance of cognitive and social and emotional skills (OECD,
IELS tender, 2016), the level of detail associated with each domain, strongly indicates that
the pre-dominant emphasis upon cognitive development. Furthermore, it is evident that the
Mary Moloney on behalf of PLÉ
IELS will eventually lead to standardised testing of children at all levels of education,
beginning in early childhood. This objective which is concerned with comparative education
is clearly flagged within the IELS tender document.
In relation to Ireland, the IELS contradicts the approach to children’s learning and
development proposed within the national practice Frameworks for quality and curriculum,
Síolta and Aistear. Assessment of and for learning, as proposed within Aistear, benefits,
involves and makes sense for children, involves their families, uses multiple methods of
inquiry, happens over time, and celebrates the breadth and depth of children’s learning and
development. Conversely, the IELS does not take account of children’s natural learning
styles and abilities in the early years, focussing instead upon international rankings of ability
across particular skills sets. Worryingly, this is a regressive step in the history of the OECD’s
overall positive relationship with ECEC, and will inevitably result in a narrowing of
children’s experiences and opportunities in early years settings. The risk is that early
childhood education will become schoolified at pre-school level, with the resultant erosion of
play, and a re-emergence of rote learning. Educators will engage in a pedagogy of
compliance; teaching to the test, rather than celebrating children’s exploration, discovery,
mastery, fun, and joyful learning which lie at the core of learning in early childhood. Equally
parents will feel pressured to prepare children for the IELS, and where once, they read
bedtime stories to their children, they will now feel compelled to introduce letters and
numbers, and test their child’s knowledge and skills acquisition. Not only will the IELS set
young children up for failure from the youngest age, parents whose children do not ‘make the
grade’ will feel equally incompetent.
Rather than attempting to fast-forward children’s education (Palmer, 2009), it is time to put
play back into early childhood education, and redirect attention towards competent systems.
In fact, it is imperative that the OECD revisits its original concern for quality, and moves
away from approaches that are poorly suited to the psychology and natural learning strategies
of young children (OECD, 2006), and which pose a threat to the nature and period of early
childhood into the future.
Mary Moloney on behalf of PLÉ
References
Centre for Early Childhood Development and Education. 2006. Síolta: the National Quality
Framework. Available at: http://siolta.ie/
Claxton, G. 2008. What’s the Point of School: Rediscovering the Heart of Education?
London: Oneworld Publications.
Da Ros-Voseles, D., & Fowler-Haughey, S. 2007. Why children's dispositions should matter
to all teachers. Young Children: Beyond the Journal, September, 1-7.
Department of Education and Skills. 2011. The National Strategy to Improve Literacy and Numeracy
among Children and Young People 2011-2020 (Department of Education and Skills.
Department of Children and Youth Affairs. 2016. Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Charter and
Guidelines for Early Childhood Care and Education. Available at: http://aim.gov.ie/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/Diversity-Equality-and-Inclusion-Charter-and-Guidelines-for-Early-
Childhood-Care-Education.pdf
Hatch, J. A. 2002. Accountability shovedown: Resisting the standards movement in Early Childhood
Education. Phi Delta Kappan (February): 457–62.
House, R. 2012. Bright children should start school at six, says Academic. The Telegraph (London).
Available at: Http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9266592/Bright-children-
shouldstart- school-at-six-says-academic.html
Moloney, M. 2011. Locating quality in early childhood care and educational discourse in Ireland:
Pre-school and infant classrooms as a crucible of learning and development (unpublished PhD
thesis). Limerick: University College Limerick.
Morris, P. 2016. Education Policy, Cross-National Tests of Pupil Achievement, and the Pursuit of
World-Class Schooling. London: UCL Institute of Education Press.
Moss, P., Dahlberg, G., Grieshaber, S., Mantovani, S et al, 2016.The Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development’s International Early Learning Study: Opening for Debate and
Contestation. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 2016, Vol. 17 (3) 343 – 351.
McCoy, S., Smyth, E., and Banks, J. 2012. The Primary Classroom: Insights from the Growing Up
in Ireland Study. Available at:
http://www.ncca.ie/en/The_Primary_Classroom_ESRI_January_18_2012.pdf
National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. 2009. Aistear: the Early Childhood
Curriculum Framework. Available at: http://www.ncca.biz/Aistear/
Palmer, S. (2009) Four Years Bad, Six Years Good, Seven Years Optimal: United Kingdom –
Literacy Today.
Available at: http://www.suepalmer.co.uk/modern_childhood_articles_four_years.php
Mary Moloney on behalf of PLÉ
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2001. Starting Strong I. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2006. Starting Strong II. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2011. Starting Strong III. Paris: OECD.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2016. Call for tenders: International
Early Learning Study. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/callsfortenders/CfT%20100001420%20
Pantazis, S. and Potsi, A. 2012. Beliefs and Practices of Pre-Primary Teachers in Greece: Are they
capabilities or performance-based? Available at: http://www.academia.edu/8298376/Greek_Pre-
primary_Teachers_Beliefs_and_Practices_Are_they_Capabilities-_or_Performance-based
PACEY. 2013. What Does ‘School Ready’ Really Mean. Bromley: Professional Association
for Childcare and Early Years. Available at:
https://www.pacey.org.uk/Pacey/media/Website-files/school%20ready/School-Ready-
Report.pdf
Ring, E., Mhic Mhathúna, M., Moloney, M., Hayes, N et al., 2015. An Examination of
Concepts of School Readiness among Parents and Educators in Ireland. Available at:
http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=aaschsslrep
Sahlberg, P. 2016. The Global Educational Reform Movement and Its Impact on Schooling. In
Mundy, K., Green, B.L., and Verger, A. (Eds.). The Handbook of Global Education Policy. UK:
Wiley Blackwell.
Urban, M., M. Vandenbroeck, K. Van Laere, A. Lazzari, and Peeters, J. 2011. CoRe – Competence
Requirements in Early Childhood Education and Care. Final Report. London: European
Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture
Urban, M., and Swadener, B. B. 2016. Democratic accountability and contextualised systemic
evaluation. A comment on the OECD initiative to launch an International Early Learning Study
(IELS). International Critical Childhood Policy Studies, 5(1), 6-18.
