2. CONCEPCIONES Y MODELOS EN LA EVALUACIÓN ESCOLAR: DE LA
2.3 Modelo Alternativo de la Evaluación
2.3.1 Principios éticos y morales de la evaluación
The ECEC National Workforce Census (NWC) is the largest-ever survey of the Australian early childhood workforce, conducted in 2010 and 2013; with a further 2016 data collection in progress at time of writing. Many survey items in the NWC are attitudinal, capturing educators’ subjective views on various aspects of their engagement in the ECEC sector. It is therefore valuable for examining the second of the three themes in the data analysis: educators’ sense of belonging in the ECEC sector.
A sense of belonging in the ECEC sector implies a match between educators’ habitus
(as shaped by their cultural, social and economic capital) and doxa, or norms and expectations, ofthe ECEC field. It implies a sense of being in the right place—Bourdieu’s
(1989) “fish in water” metaphor (p. 43)—in accordance with subjectively- and objectively- formed aspirations and beliefs about one’s place in the world. Cultural, social and economic capital may all exert an influence on this feeling, in the sense that one’s knowledge is valued, one’s social networks are strong and supportive, and one’s economic circumstances are neither better nor worse than one’s expectations.
This chapter uses NWC data to examine educators’ views on their work and their aspirations for the future, both of which may be informed by their social, cultural and economic capital. Results are presented for the same main qualification groups defined in the previous chapter: degree-qualified, diploma-qualified (including advanced diploma), certificate-qualified, and unqualified educators (including the small proportion of educators reportedly qualified below Certificate III).30 The number of educators in each group is presented in Table 5.1, noting that these figures differ from the ABS Census due to different methods for defining the groups (see Chapter 3). Table 5.1 also introduces one of the major analytic advantages of the NWC—its ability to show change over time, before (2010) and after (2013) the National Quality Agenda came into force. Table 5.1 – Staff in ECEC services, by qualification (n, % all educators)
Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified
n % row n % row n % row n % row Total n
2010 14,505 14.1% 26,242 25.5% 30,828 29.9% 31,501 30.6% 103,076
2013 18,344 16.1% 33,382 29.3% 42,914 37.7% 19,177 16.8% 113,817 Source: SRC, 2011, 2014 (all staff). 31
30 Educators with out-of-field qualifications are not captured in the NWC data provided for this
study, so qualification groups are defined according to ECEC-related qualifications alone.
31 Publicly-available NWC data tables were used for Table 5.1 and Figure 5.1. All other analysis
132
Table 5.1 shows that the total size of the workforce in ECEC services within-scope for this study grew by 11,440 staff from 2010 to 2013, to 113,817 staff in 2013. The increase in overall numbers may be attributable in part to increasing demand for ECEC, and in part to increases in staff:child ratios under the National Quality Agenda (National Regulations 2012). The qualifications profile of the workforce also changed dramatically during this time, especially in the substantial reduction in the size of the unqualified educator group (from 30.6 per cent in 2010 to 16.8 per cent in 2013), and increase in the certificate-qualified group (from 29.9 to 37.7 per cent). The diploma- and degree-qualified groups also increased in proportion during this time, but to a lesser extent.
Another analytic advantage of the NWC is that data are disaggregated by the type of ECEC service in which educators work: preschool, long day care, family day care and school age care (see Chapter 1 for definitions of these services). This disaggregation is used throughout this chapter to explore whether differences between qualification groups are stronger or weaker than differences between service types—another mediating factor that may complicate the relationship between qualifications, capital and practice. The first example is shown in Figure 5.1, which divides the total group of educators by both qualification and type of ECEC service. The 2010 results are presented as dots (no data labels)—a format that will be used in subsequent graphs throughout this chapter. Discussion of results is for 2013 figures, unless otherwise signalled in the text.
Figure 5.1 – Educators by qualification and service type (n)
Source: SRC, 2011, 2014 (paid contact staff).
Figure 5.1 clearly shows the differing numbers of educators at each qualification level in different types of ECEC services, reflecting the different roles that each service has played in the history of ECEC services in Australia. Preschool services are the only type in which degree-qualified educators are the largest qualification group (n=8,697, or 39 per cent of preschool educators), while school age care is the only service type in which
133
unqualified educators are the dominant group (n=5,927, or 43 per cent of school age care educators). Long day care, by far the largest type of ECEC service, is dominated by educators with VET qualifications (diploma-qualified: n=23,075 or 35 per cent of long day care educators; certificate-qualified: n=26,134 or 40 per cent of educators in long day care). The total number of VET-qualified educators in long day care (n=49,209 or 75 per cent of long day care educators) is in fact larger than the total number of educators in all other service types (n=48,690).
The movement of educators up the qualifications ladder can be clearly seen in all service types, since the new regulations came into force in 2012 – which may also have had an effect on patterns of educator recruitment. As in Table 5.1, the greatest movement is from unqualified to certificate-qualified, especially in long day care. Both preschool and long day care have also seen increases in degree-qualified educators, while family day care and school age care show little change in the absolute number of educators in the degree-qualified category—probably attributable to the absence of regulatory requirements for degree-qualified educators in these types of services.
Revisiting demographics
Before analysing the attitudinal questions in the NWC, the two analytic advantages of the NWC—disaggregation by service type, and change over time—will be used to revisit the key demographic characteristics of the ECEC workforce described in Chapter 4. This provides a deeper understanding of how age, gender and cultural diversity may vary across ECEC service contexts, and how the workforce profile is evolving. These analyses are presented below, beginning with educators’ age in Figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2 – Proportion of educators in each ten-year age bracket, by qualification and service type (% service/qualification group)
134 n 2010 2013 15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55+ 15–24 25–34 35–44 45–54 55+ Preschool Degree 243 1,524 2,127 2,410 1,008 310 1,816 2,917 2,605 1,474 Diploma 200 557 1,024 1,147 431 253 734 1,399 1,433 601 Certificate 310 431 1,134 1,056 322 592 783 1,985 2,306 1,021 Unqualified 387 484 1,604 1,938 999 355 274 638 729 503
Long day care
Degree 563 2,638 1,835 1,037 551 725 3,289 2,550 1,470 802 Diploma 3,775 8,025 4,920 3,252 1,190 3,842 9,526 6,483 4,286 1,694 Certificate 7,514 5,594 3,792 3,118 1,078 8,786 6,880 4,829 4,169 1,984 Unqualified 5,545 3,110 3,348 3,324 2,250 4,495 1,878 1,830 1,868 1,478 Family day care
Degree 8 141 229 164 109 0 175 237 104 119
Diploma 47 465 773 623 268 51 517 1,219 1,043 607
Certificate 102 700 1,432 1,392 747 186 1,152 2,041 1,973 1,411 Unqualified 122 1,043 1,696 1,539 1,211 109 646 888 602 548 School age care
Degree 434 443 242 191 158 569 596 290 228 158
Diploma 404 710 607 716 357 469 807 699 765 508
Certificate 814 638 526 589 268 1,045 672 593 693 412
Unqualified 4,402 964 815 1,040 667 4,164 783 455 524 477
Source: DET, 2016.
Figure 5.2 reveals striking differences in age profiles between ECEC service types. Preschool services have the oldest profile, with every qualification group having its highest proportions in the 35–44 and 45–54-year-old age brackets. Long day care services have much younger staff, with degree- and diploma-qualified staff most likely to be 25–34-year-olds, and certificate-qualified or unqualified staff most likely to be aged 15–24. Family day care has an age profile closer to preschool, although (as shown in Figure 5.1), the qualification profile is very different. School age care has a very young workforce, with almost two-thirds (65 per cent) of unqualified educators—who constitute 43 per cent of the total school age care workforce—aged 15–24. The interaction between age and qualification profile is important when considering the capacity for each type of ECEC service to meet the new qualification requirements – for example, the high proportion of young people among unqualified educators in long day care suggests that they may be in the process of pursuing their first ECEC qualification.
135
Figure 5.2 does not show much change in the age profile of service type and qualification groups from 2010 to 2013. The one notable change is an increase in the proportion of the unqualified group in the youngest age bracket. This trend is consistent across all service types except family day care, as it is the service type least likely to attract young educators overall. This suggests that the unqualified group of educators is increasingly made up of new entrants to the ECEC workforce; which may be expected, as older, more experienced educators move to comply with new qualification requirements.
Figure 5.3 shows the proportion of males in each service type and qualification group. In all service types, the proportion of males in the unqualified group has also increased. This is consistent with the relationship between gender and age shown in Chapter 4, in that male educators are more likely to be younger, and possibly on their way to other careers. Figure 5.3 also shows a startling difference in the proportion of males across ECEC service types, with school age care significantly more likely to attract males, especially in the unqualified group (26.3 per cent male). There are many potential explanations for this, including the older age group of the children; the fact that many school age care educators may be completing primary or other teaching degrees; or the involvement in the school age care sector of sporting groups such as the YMCA and Police-Citizens’ Youth Club (PCYC), which have strong histories of male involvement. Figure 5.3 – Male educators, by qualification and service type (%
service/qualification group)
n 2010 2013
Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified
Preschool
Male 914 45 44 109 718 40 81 73
Female 24,254 3,528 3,450 5,685 26,130 4,485 6,820 2,506
Long day care
Male 1,734 278 382 866 2,039 362 599 787
Female 66,185 20,976 20,830 16,794 73,492 25,747 26,423 10,906 Family day care
Male 150 17 27 73 392 55 138 146
136 School age care
Male 2,498 130 186 1,763 2,893 162 259 1,696
Female 13,770 2,687 2,665 6,173 14,903 3,115 3,188 4,764
Source: DET, 2016.
The other key demographic variable captured in the NWC data is Indigenous status. The proportion of Indigenous educators in the NWC was too small to be disaggregated by qualification in the data provided, but is shown in Table 5.2 disaggregated for service type. The table shows the proportion of Indigenous educators working in each service type, as well as the total proportion across all ECEC services included in this study. Table 5.2 – Indigenous educators, by service type (% service group)
Preschool Long day care Family day care School age care Total
n % n % n % n % n % Indigenous 2010 725 3.2% 988 1.8% 92 0.8% 267 2.1% 2,072 2.0% 2013 813 3.3% 1,242 1.9% 91 0.7% 288 2.2% 2,434 2.1% Non-Indigenous 2010 22,006 96.8% 53,438 98.2% 11,541 99.2% 12,699 97.9% 99,684 98.0% 2013 23,623 96.7% 64,783 98.1% 12,851 99.3% 13,013 97.8% 114,270 97.9% Source: DET, 2016.
Table 5.2 shows that Indigenous educators are most likely to be found in preschool services (3.3 per cent), followed by school age care (2.1 per cent). In all service types except family day care (which has a minimal proportion of Indigenous educators), the proportion of Indigenous educators has increased slightly from 2010 to 2013. This may reflect efforts by governments to attract more Indigenous educators to the field through scholarship programs (for example, VDET, 2016a, New South Wales Department of Education, n.d.), and points to the value of sustaining strong pathways into ECEC work for Indigenous Australians, to continue to improve their representation in the sector.
Attitudes to work
The attitudinal items in the NWC Staff Survey provide a unique insight into the subjective experiences of a substantial proportion32 of educators in the Australian ECEC workforce. Taken together, these survey items may be seen as an indication of educators’ sense of
belonging in the ECEC workforce, or the extent to which they feel that their habitus is aligned with the expectations of the ECEC field. Attitudes to work may be informed by capital through many mediating factors; for example, in the tasks that educators are
137
asked to perform (based on their competence or habitus), their sense of their own worth and value (including the potential effects of symbolic violence), and the emotional resources they have available to cope with the job (including emotional capital as defined in Chapter 2). These indicators therefore leave another layer of questions unanswered about the mediating factors that may contribute to these attitudes for different qualification groups—but nevertheless provide a valuable picture of the differences in attitudes that are present among different groups in the ECEC workforce.
Figure 5.4 and Figure 5.5 explore two fundamental attitudinal questions for educators at different qualification levels, using data from the NWC. The items presented here captured educators’ agreement and disagreement33 with two statements: “I am satisfied with my job” and “The job is stressful”. Results are disaggregated by both service type and qualification group. Data labels represent percentages in the 2013 survey34, and dots represent corresponding percentages from 2010 (not labelled). This format will be used for all graphs representing attitudinal questions throughout this chapter.
Figure 5.4 – Educators agreeing that they are satisfied with their job, by qualification and service type (% service/qualification group)
n 2010 2013
Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified
Preschool
Agree 3,361 1,625 1,666 2,988 3,898 1,868 2,842 2,018
Disagree 113 61 31 42 193 68 59 39
Neutral 236 121 117 182 310 165 248 172
Long day care
Agree 2,728 7,216 8,093 6,299 3,804 8,662 10,763 4,620
Disagree 160 342 309 170 224 406 453 145
Neutral 350 1,033 1,131 692 520 1,267 1,516 515
Family day care
Agree 411 981 1,709 1,641 418 937 1,572 627
Disagree 18 32 37 58 14 20 72 22
Neutral 37 95 153 172 30 87 165 74
33 A neutral option was also available for all attitudinal questions, not shown in the graphs. 34 Percentage symbols are omitted from attitudinal graphs in this chapter, for ease of legibility.
138 School age care
Agree 669 983 1,236 3,258 903 1,219 1,641 3,306
Disagree 21 27 22 50 31 42 39 56
Neutral 68 93 132 201 98 131 167 259
Source: DET, 2016.
Figure 5.5 – Educators agreeing that their job is stressful, by qualification and service type (% service/qualification group)
n 2010 2013
Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified
Preschool
Agree 2,586 1,000 736 1,120 3,149 1,150 1,405 800
Disagree 395 303 434 989 414 322 679 677
Neutral 712 487 630 1,056 818 617 1,031 734
Long day care
Agree 2,154 5,782 5,360 3,227 2,994 6,670 6,747 2,235
Disagree 335 753 1,272 1,566 484 1,022 1,926 1,231
Neutral 716 1,974 2,755 2,273 1,028 2,542 3,886 1,760
Family day care
Agree 264 662 1,050 930 214 574 991 312
Disagree 62 120 260 282 99 173 308 183
Neutral 131 301 538 588 149 258 476 212
School age care
Agree 295 611 606 1,001 424 751 721 889
Disagree 226 186 309 1,341 312 236 467 1,427
Neutral 235 292 454 1,139 290 391 637 1,284
Source: DET, 2016.
Figure 5.4 shows that educators’ overall levels of job satisfaction are very high, and relatively consistent across qualification groups. Educators with lower-level qualifications demonstrate slightly higher rates of job satisfaction in all service types, except family day care. Levels of satisfaction in long day care are somewhat lower than those in other service types, especially for degree-qualified educators (83.6 per cent). As noted above, there are many possible explanations for these slight differences between qualification groups, including the age profile of each group, and possible differences in the tasks that
139
they perform. Generally, however, the ECEC workforce shows a high level of satisfaction with their work, which has remained stable between 2010 and 2013.
Figure 5.5 shows a noticeably different pattern in educators’ perceived levels of stress in their jobs. In preschool and long day care, degree- and diploma-qualified educators are significantly more likely to perceive their job as stressful than educators with certificates or no qualification, with over seven in 10 (71.9 per cent) of degree-qualified educators in preschool experiencing stress in their job. In contrast, educators without a qualification are far less likely to report stress in their work, especially in school age care—the only group for whom the proportion of educators disagreeing with the statement (39.6 per cent) exceeds the proportion who agree (24.7 per cent). Like job satisfaction, stress levels show little change for all groups from 2010 to 2013.
Relationships are also relevant to a sense of belonging in the ECEC sector, and may be informed by habitus in the extent to which educators feel accepted and valued by their colleagues (and accept and value them in turn). The NWC data include two items that examine relationships within ECEC services: the level of spirit and team morale in the educators’ workplaces; and the supportiveness that educators perceive in their service management. Again, two statements were presented to educators with which they could agree or disagree. Results for these items are shown in Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.7. Figure 5.6 – Educators agreeing that “There is good spirit and team morale in my workplace”, by qualification and service type (% service/qualification group)
n 2010 2013
Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified
Preschool
Agree 3,090 1,511 1,512 2,739 3,634 1,734 2,619 1,900
Disagree 236 106 95 128 277 108 155 94
Neutral 371 176 196 311 465 249 344 226
Long day care
Agree 2,476 6,493 7,102 5,622 3,389 7,617 9,431 4,098
Disagree 276 635 666 428 363 736 921 312
140 Family day care
Agree 325 759 1,411 1,342 359 755 1,278 547
Disagree 17 56 66 87 20 58 93 40
Neutral 102 240 324 353 77 174 338 113
School age care
Agree 653 977 1,176 3,175 895 1,183 1,548 3,220
Disagree 33 31 48 81 43 40 56 71
Neutral 68 90 151 235 89 143 224 310
Source: DET, 2016.
Figure 5.7 – Educators agreeing that “Management are supportive”, by qualification and service type (% service/qualification group)
n 2010 2013
Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified
Preschool
Agree 2,889 1,422 1,447 2,668 3,461 1,673 2,541 1,860
Disagree 277 137 98 158 317 130 175 95
Neutral 513 235 262 339 599 293 401 256
Long day care
Agree 2,454 6,275 7,092 5,685 3,461 7,767 9,683 4,314
Disagree 251 764 747 388 339 758 877 263
Neutral 495 1,448 1,542 991 680 1,685 1,977 646
Family day care
Agree 331 804 1,446 1,405 386 776 1,377 593
Disagree 19 76 78 75 27 68 71 35
Neutral 92 192 299 288 48 155 288 73
School age care
Agree 613 834 1,086 2,986 828 1,103 1,493 3,118
Disagree 35 76 71 136 67 83 95 149
Neutral 108 179 210 361 129 187 239 320
Source: DET, 2016.
These two graphs signal a generally high level of satisfaction among educators with their relationships with colleagues and with management, which has remained steady from 2010 to 2013. This may perhaps be expected, in a sector where quality of interpersonal relationships is so central to practice. There are nevertheless some differences between different groups of educators, both by qualification and service type. Like job satisfaction, the educators in each service type who appear happiest with their collegial relationships
141
are those with no qualification; with the exception of family day care, in which degree- qualified educators appear happiest (noting that this is a relatively small group).
Both graphs also show clear differences across ECEC service types. Paradoxically, the educators least likely to report good spirit and team morale are located in long day care services, which typically involve long hours working in a collaborative team environment; and in family day care, in which educators spend most of their working lives alone with small groups of children. This suggests that team morale may be equally tested through isolation; or through sustained contact in collegial teams. For the family day care sector, these results are borne out in published data from National Quality Standard assessments, which show that family day care services are far less likely to meet the standard relating to relationships between staff than centre-based services (75 per cent of family day care services, 92.4 per cent of centre-based services, as at January 2017) (ACECQA, 2017a). As assessments for centre-based services are not further disaggregated, it is not possible to consider results for long day care as a group.
The difference between service types is less striking in Figure 5.7, suggesting that the structure of the workplace has less impact on educators’ perception of the supportiveness of management. It is unfortunately not possible to examine this measure by the type of management in the service (not-for-profit organisations, for-profit corporate or volunteer committees), through which greater differences in educators’ opinions might be expected to emerge. Overall, it is difficult to draw robust conclusions from these data about the factors that influence the quality of educators’ relationships, except to be able to say the differences associated with qualifications do not exert a strong effect.
The NWC data accessed for this study offer little information about educators’ relationships outside the ECEC sector, except for a single item that explores educators’ perceptions of how their work is regarded. This item conflates several concepts— whether the job is important to the educator, whether it has high status, and whether the educator receives positive recognition in the community—meaning that results should be treated with caution, due to the risk of respondents interpreting the question in different ways. Results for the item are shown in Figure 5.8.
142
Figure 5.8 – Educators agreeing that “My job is important to me because it has high status and I receive positive recognition in the community”, by qualification and service type (% service/qualification group)
n 2010 2013
Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified Degree Diploma Certificate Unqualified
Preschool
Agree 1,632 866 917 1,548 2,009 1,022 1,625 988
Disagree 874 375 313 533 1,000 415 530 392
Neutral 1,179 547 571 1,094 1,372 654 953 833
Long day care
Agree 1,369 4,129 5,303 3,851 2,034 5,067 7,024 2,818
Disagree 903 1,972 1,611 1,081 1,158 2,227 2,020 804
Neutral 931 2,418 2,496 2,138 1,300 2,921 3,497 1,591
Family day care
Agree 163 543 1,130 1,012 236 558 1,105 392
Disagree 145 200 268 267 111 165 242 104
Neutral 143 337 447 521 114 287 412 212
School age care
Agree 335 599 799 1,844 483 782 1,084 2,041
Disagree 152 187 167 511 205 211 227 445
Neutral 266 310 407 1,127 341 382 519 1,115
Source: DET, 2016.
Figure 5.8 shows relatively low levels of agreement with the item overall, compared to other items that examine how educators feel about their work. In most qualification groups, around half the educators agree with the statement, with higher proportions among certificate-qualified educators in family day care and school age care. This item