Week 6 Getting to Know Your International Contacts Part 3

This week the three podcasts I listened to were “How Federal Policies Affect Early Childhood,” “Underpaid Early Childhood Professionals: Finding the path to better pay,” and “Curtailing High Turnover among Early Childhood Educators.”

Daniel, Jerlean, Pica, R. (2011). How Federal Policies Affect Early Childhood. Retrieved from https://itunes.apple.com/podcast/naeyc-radio-national-association/id328570104?mt=2

According to the podcast, federal policies have an extremely large effect on Early Childhood. Most Early Childhood programs that feel the largest effect are federally funded programs such as Head Start. Although federally funded programs are affected, other programs are also affected because federal dollars are used on Head Start as well as other programs. For example, each private or public early childhood program has a licensing counselor paid by the state; the state will pay for some training, and the federal and state grants and funds are available for some programs other than Head State and state Pre-K.

Ginsberg, M. and Pica, Rae. (2010). Underpaid Early Childhood Professionals: Finding the path to better pay. Retrieved from http://www.bamradionetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=288:jackstreet54&catid=49:naeyc-radio-channel&Itemid=81

Educators are looking for their return on investment where their education can be compensated. Wages for early childhood educators are not comparable to K-12 educators. Early childhood educators make $15,000 to $20,000 whereas K-12 teachers make more. When an educator picks an early childhood career, they are deciding to live at the poverty level due to the low pay. The average wages for a preschool teacher with a Bachelor’s degree is $10,000 to $15,000 less than a kindergarten teacher.

Ginsberg, M. and Pica, R. (2010). Curtailing High Turn Over Among Early Childhood Educators. Retrieved from http://www.bamradionetwork.com/index.php?

option=com_content&view=article&id=288:jackstreet54&catid=49:naeyc-radio-channel&Itemid=81

The biggest factor of turnover in early childhood educators is the vow of poverty they make to work with children. Turnover in any program can cause mass exodus of staff or at least a derailment of staff as others compensate for the change until someone else can take over the roll. This problem leads to the motivation of staff changing. Instead of working together, the team is working separately because of the change of motivation. You, as an early childhood educator, must decide why you have chosen this field. The job is not babysitting but is a rigorous job that asks a lot out of its teachers. Motivation and the sense of a job well done is what is important to many educators.

I reviewed the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization website. I found information on a study called Caring and Learning together. The one article I read was “Caring and Learning Together: a cross-national study on the integration of early childhood care and education.” Kaga, Bennett, and Moss (2010) stated, “This research Caring and Learning Together is focused on a current, major development, namely, the integration of early childhood care and education through the transfer of responsibility for the sector to education ministries (p 7).”

Kaga, Y., Bennett, J., and Moss, P. (2010). Caring and Learning Together: A cross-national study on the integration of early childhood care and education within education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001878/187818E.pdf

The caring and learning together was studied in several different countries: “A Case Study of Brazil (2010),” “A Case Study for New Zealand (2010),” “A Case Study for Slovenia (2010),” “A Case Study of Sweden (2010),” “A Case Study for Ghent, The Flemish Community of Belgium (2010),” and “A Case Study for Jamaica (2010).”

Nunes, F., Corsino, P., and Didonet, Vital. (2010). Caring and Learning Together: A Case Study of Brazil. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001878/187884e.pdf

Nunes, Corsino, and Didonet (2010) stated, “this study is very clear concerning children’s development, as well as in the scope of laws, rules and policies on early childhood, that a child is a whole subject, that the physical, social, emotional and intellectual aspects are only parts of a single and complete human being, and none of them can be fulfilled without the other (p 4).”

“Education in Brazil is a right for all and free in public schools, from early childhood to higher education. It is a government’s duty and is provided for by the different branches that comprise the federacy: Union (federal government), States, Federal District and Municipalities (p 6).”

Meade, A. and Podmore, V. (2010). Caring and Learning Together: A Case Study of New Zealand. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001872/187234e.pdf

Meade and Podmore (2010) stated, “In 1986, responsibility for childcare administration moved formally from the Department of Social Welfare to the Department of Education. From that date, the Department of Education2 became responsible for all ECS recognized by its chief executive officer (p 6).”

Umek, L.M. and Peklaj, U.F. (2010). Caring and Learning: A Case Study of Slovenia. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001878/187882e.pdf

“The Preschool Law (1996) defines that preschools are established and funded by municipalities. Preschools are organized and integrated, and are intended for children from the end of maternity leave till entrance into the 1st grade of compulsory school, but they are internally divided into two age periods: the 1st age period includes toddlers aged from 1 to 3 years and the 2nd age period includes children aged from 3 to 6 years (Umek and Peklaj, 2010, p 2).”

Munkhammar, I. and Wikgren, G. (2010). Caring and Learning: A Case Study of Sweden. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001879/187923e.pdf

“The government bill “Quality at pre-school” declares that the pre-school’s commission, in accordance to the curriculum should remain unchanged and continue to give children good care while providing educational stimuli and promoting good conditions for growth (Munkhammar and Wikgren, 2010, p 1).”

Munkhammar and Wikgren (2010) also stated, “Pre-school ought to be a unique type of school in the Swedish school system. Today the national school system consists of many different types of schools, such as pre-school class, compulsory basic, upper secondary school, special school principally for pupils with impaired hearing/vision and speech disabilities, schools for the mentally disabled and Sami school ( p 6).”

Peeters, J. and Vandenbroeck, M. (2010). Caring and Learning: A Case Study of Ghent The Flemish Community of Belgium. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001878/187883e.pdf

“All kleuterscholen (preschool) are fully subsidized and no parental fees are due, whether the schools are private (mainly organized by Catholic organizations) or public (either municipal of State schools). State and private (both funded) schools have consistently been in competition with each other and fierce debates between the ideologies of confessional (denominational) versus lay or neutral education have marked the history of Belgian education (p 5).“

Jones, J., Brown, A. and Brown, J. (2010). Caring and Learning: A Case Study of Jamaica. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001913/191327e.pdf

“Until 1975 no ministry had been involved in care services for children from birth to three years old except for medical and immunization services in the primary healthcare system under the Ministry of Health (Jones, Brown and Brown, 2010, p 9).”

Jones, Brown and Brown (2010) also stated, “A new democratic socialist government launched a National Day Care Program in 1975 and built 23 day care centers to serve the working mothers of low-income communities but the program did not work out and 10 centers closed; the others are partially subsidized (p 9).”