Childcare regulations: Regulatory enforcement in Ireland. What happens when the inspector calls?

Abstract

Childcare regulations ensure children’s rights to Early Childhood Care and Education settings that protect them from harm and promote their healthy development. To ensure that settings comply, power is vested with regulatory bodies that are tasked with enforcing regulations. Using a qualitative methodology, 43 interviews were undertaken with Early Childhood Care and Education managers, early childhood educators, support agencies and members of the pre-school inspectorate to explore their perspectives of the regulatory environment in Ireland. In a context where reform of the pre-school inspectorate is currently underway, this article provides insight into how Early Childhood Care and Education managers and educators experience the current inspection system. Findings suggest that managers and educators experience a sense of frustration and helplessness in terms of regulatory enforcement. There is evidence of inconsistency across inspections that may be linked to inadequate inspectorate qualifications. In common with other researchers, that is, Early Childhood Ireland, Start Strong and Moloney participants in this study call for an expansion of the inspectorate to include somebody with early childhood education specifically.

Keywords

childcare regulations enforcement inconsistency inspectorate qualifications risk management

In May 2013, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Frances Fitzgerald T.D., announced a Pre-School Quality Agenda to enhance the quality of Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) provision in Ireland. Central to this proposed action plan, is an increased emphasis upon regulation and inspection, including online publication of inspection reports, increased sanctions for breeches of regulations, a strengthening of inspection teams and a registration system for ECCE providers. In relation to childcare, Sciarra et al. (2009) describe child-care regulations as a ‘basic and necessary component of government’s responsibility for protecting all children in all programmes from the risk of harm and promoting conditions that are essential for children’s healthy development and learning’ (p. 96). While this description moves the purpose of regulations beyond mere ‘risk control’ to align it with the potential of ECCE to support and enhance children’s development and learning; Fenech et al. (2006) suggest that regulation may in fact be a ‘double-edged sword’ (p. 6). On the one hand, therefore, Fenech et al. assert that regulation contributes to the structural and process elements of quality, while on the other, it leads to ‘excessive risk management’ (p. 6).

Research seldom accounts for the perspectives of those who ‘deal daily with the realities of implementing [regulations]’ (Duncan, 2004: 171). This article is therefore concerned with the perspectives of ECCE managers and early years educators, early childhood support agencies and members of the pre-school inspectorate with regard to the regulatory environment in Ireland. By bringing these various perspectives together, this article gives voice to the people who operate from the other side of the fence from policy makers (Brown and Sumsion, 2003) and, provides insight into the regulatory environment in Ireland.

To contextualise the discussion, the article provides an overview of the regulatory context in England, Denmark, Finland and New Zealand. Unlike Ireland, these countries have developed integrated systems under unified administrative auspices (Neuman, 2005). Conversely, in Ireland, the early years inspectorate under the aegis of the Department of Health and Children (DHC) (1996, 2006) is charged with inspecting ECCE services, while the Department of Education and Skills (DES) is responsible for quality assurance in primary schools.

Administration and regulation of ECCE across countries

In England, responsibility for all ECCE services rests with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). Regulation is enshrined within the remit of the Every Child Matters agenda (DfES, 2003), and regulatory adherence is monitored by the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2013), an independent, non-ministerial government department. ECCE providers must register on the Early Years Register, and are required to complete and regularly update an optional Ofsted early years self-evaluation form, which is factored into the inspection process.

In a review of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), Tickell (2011a, 2011b) found that teachers were concerned about inconsistencies across inspections, including the lack of a unified approach to inspection. Moreover, some inspectors did not fully understanding the nature of the setting they were inspecting (Tickell, 2011a, 2011b). Teacher confidence in Ofsted’s ability to make ‘fair and balanced judgements’ was therefore weakened (Tickell, 2011a: 52). Dissatisfaction with Ofsted’s approach to inspection gathered momentum in 2013, with the sector voicing concerns about the fairness and consistency of inspections, and requesting information on the number of inspectors who hold a relevant early years qualification (Morton, 2013). Clearly pointing to deficiencies within the inspectorate, Tickell (2011b) calls upon Ofsted to review the ‘training, capacity and capability of the current inspectorate … with a view to setting clear minimum requirements for all early years inspectors in terms of experience, skills and qualifications’ (p. 48).

ECCE provision for children aged from 6 months to 6 years is under the auspices of the social welfare system in Denmark, while in Finland, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health holds responsibility (Oberhuemer et al., 2010: 102). In both countries, the Ministry of Education is responsible for a pre-primary year. Danish settings are required to develop their own specific programme in accordance with the Law on Pedagogical Curriculum (2004) and responsibility rests at local level. The Danish State does not have a strong role in regulating the content of the early childhood programme (Oberhuemer et al., 2010), rather, teachers are trusted to get on with the job, and enjoy a good deal of autonomy (Ofsted, 2003).

Finland also devolves power to the municipalities. In common with Denmark, settings develop an individual plan for each child that is regularly monitored and assessed by the centre team and parents (Oberhuemer et al., 2010). In fact, Finland does not have an inspectorate system (H. Jauhola, personal correspondence, 11 November 2011) and so, Finnish teachers, because of their high educational attainment enjoy autonomy (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2011) with little State involvement in regulating quality.

The Ministry of Education in New Zealand has been responsible for ECCE since 1986. The early childhood curriculum, Te Whariki is embedded in legislation (Amendment to the Education Act, 2008). While there is extensive regulation in NZ, monitoring is ‘relatively light in respect of licensing and service quality’ (Carroll-Lind and Angus, 2011: xiv). Licenses, issued by the Ministry of Education, are given in ‘perpetuity’ (ECE Taskforce NZ, 2011: 140). In practice, no more checks are made unless the Ministry receives a complaint about a setting (ECE Taskforce NZ, 2011: 140). However, quality is also assessed at three-yearly intervals by the Educational Review Office (ERO), the government’s external evaluator.

With the exception of England, there is a relatively lax approach to regulation in Denmark, Finland and New Zealand. Teachers are seen as professionals and for the most part enjoy autonomy. Conversely in Ireland, as this article demonstrates, ECCE managers and teachers do not enjoy professional autonomy. Rather, they are subjected to a rigid regulatory regime.

Inspectorate background and qualifications

The inspector’s role is complex and multi-faceted involving much more than checking off compliance and non-compliance. Indeed, disagreement abounds about the most appropriate inspector professional back ground (Gormley, 2000). At a minimum, inspectors should be trained in childcare or a related field (Gormley, 2000) preferably to Masters level (Helburn and Bergman, 2002). Equally, they must be knowledgeable about programme administration, and regulatory enforcement (Sciarra et al., 2009: 95) and, or have experience as a ‘licensed child care provider’ (Helburn and Bergman, 2002: 141).

In Ireland, pre-school inspectors generally come with a public health nursing (PHN) background (Jeyes, 2013). According to Start Strong (2013), the qualifications and role of the inspectorate is too narrow, ‘with the primary focus on health and welfare, rather than more broadly’ (p. 3). Similarly, Early Childhood Ireland (ECI) (2013) found that some educators felt that the inspectorate needed to focus more on interactions and the quality of the service with regards to children’s care and education, and less on health and safety aspects. Although the relationship between regulations and quality is well established (e.g. Gormley, 2000; Oberhuemer et al., 2010; Sciarra et al., 2009), the absence of somebody with in-depth knowledge of early childhood pedagogy on the inspection teams in Ireland is problematic, resulting in significant challenges with enforcement practices (Moloney, 2011, 2014; Start Strong, 2013).

The regulatory environment in Ireland

The Child Care (pre-school services) regulations, 1996 legislated primarily for structural quality, that is, adult/child ratios, space requirements, toilet facilities, and so on and provided for an annual inspection of settings by the Health Services Executive (HSE) who operate under the aegis of the DHC. Inspectors assess the compliance of a service in regard to the Child Care regulations. Researchers (e.g. Baldock, 2001; Gormley, 2000) warn of the dangers of policing the inspection process, arguing that it is essentially about controlling the environment rather than supporting childcare providers. Consequently, a didactic approach to regulation can lead to an adversarial relationship between childcare providers and inspectors (Gormley, 2000; Moloney, 2011).

In their writings on aged care in Australia, Braithwaite et al. (2007) developed an integrated compliance and strengths-based approach to regulation that has relevance for the ECCE field. The principle underpinning this model (Figure 1) is to promote better performance by rewarding and building on recognised strengths. The ‘regulatory pyramid’ responds to fear about a risk, whereas the ‘strengths-based pyramid’ responds to a hope that opportunities can be built upon (Braithwaite et al., 2007: 118). Both pyramids are linked at the bottom because education and persuasion about problems and strengths may have the same delivery mechanism (Braithwaite et al., 2007). Rather than being preoccupied with ‘guaranteeing a minimum standard’ as mandated through the Child Care (pre-school services) regulations, 2006, this model seeks to ‘maximise quality by pulling standards up through a ceiling’ (Braithwaite et al., 2007: 318).

Figure 1.

Regulatory and strengths-based pyramid.

Following a review of the 1996 regulations, the Childcare (pre-school services) regulations, 2006, were introduced. While retaining a focus upon the structural aspects of ECCE, Article 5: Health, Welfare and Development of the Child requires teachers to ensure that

each child’s learning, development and well-being is facilitated within the daily life of the service through the provision of the appropriate opportunities, experiences, activities, interaction, materials and equipment, having regard to the age and stage of development of the child and the child’s cultural context. (DHC, 2006: 9)

Article 5 demands a considerable level of critical engagement and decision making capacity from teachers, and calls for appropriate academic qualifications (Moloney and Pope, 2013). Equally, it calls upon inspectors to have in-depth knowledge of child development and how this is supported within centre-based settings.

Concerns with current regulatory environment

There are indications that the current inspection system in Ireland is ineffective. Having exclusively obtained the 2012 pre-school inspection reports, the national broadcaster, Raidió Teilifís Éireann (RTÉ) highlighted considerable deficiencies with the inspection system. For example, of the 4782 notified ECCE settings currently operating in Ireland, 2644 were inspected, giving an inspection rate of 55 per cent in 2012. It was found that 75 per cent of pre-schools and crèches inspected were in breach of the Child Care regulations, with 34 per cent in breach of five or more regulations. It is worrying that one in seven crèches nationally were in breach of Regulation 5 concerning the welfare of children. The inspectorate had not taken any action in any of these cases. In one service, where appallingly bad practice had been exposed, it was revealed that in an inspection carried out just one month before the exposé, the inspector noted under Regulation 5, that ‘the environment throughout the service is homely and child centred’. This observation raises concerns about inspectorate capacity to effectively inspect ECCE settings.

A process of reform is currently underway in the pre-school inspectorate; the inspectorate is moving from the HSE to the New Child and Family Agency (from January, 2014), and ‘for the first time reporting lines are being introduced to national leadership along with the introduction of a system of registration and National Standards’ (Early Years Expert Advisory Group, 2013: 23). As part of the Pre-School Quality Agenda, the government is also introducing tougher sanctions for breaches of regulations.

ECCE professional qualification requirements

In countries where staff is not required to undertake professional training or attain specific qualifications to work with pre-school children, they may ‘lack the interactive skills and overall proficiency necessary to ensure that children in their care develop adequate cognitive skills’ (European Union (EU), 2011: 12). In terms of professional qualifications in Ireland, the absence of a mandatory training requirement has considerably undermined the quality of ECCE provision (Moloney and Pope, 2013). According to Pobal (2013), 86.6 per cent of ECCE teachers working directly with children have a qualification equal to or higher than a basic qualification at Level 5 on the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ).

On 24 September 2013, the government approved a number of legislative proposals that give the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs the power to set qualification levels for the sector. From September 2014, therefore, minimum qualification levels will be introduced. However, even though the majority qualification is below degree level with only 12 per cent approximately of ECCE staff holding such a qualification (Pobal, 2013), there is no proposal to introduce a degree level qualification requirement for the sector in Ireland.

Qualification levels are not the only issue. Remuneration is also problematic. Irrespective of qualification levels, salaries in ECCE are pegged at little more than minimum wage (Moloney and Pope, 2013). ECI (2012) indicate that the overall average salary for those with a basic minimum qualification is €10.85/hour (€423/week) and €11.24/hour (€438/week) for those with an ordinary bachelor degree. It is against this backdrop that the childcare (pre-school services) regulations, 2006 are enforced.

The study

Using a qualitative methodology, this study explores the perspectives of ECCE managers, teachers and support agencies as well as members of the pre-school inspectorate regarding the regulatory environment in Ireland. Interviews were undertaken with 10 ECCE managers and 15 educators working within both community-based and private ECCE settings (Table 1).

Table 1.

Overview of ECCE managers and early years educators.

Manager	Setting type	No. of years experience	Qualification level
1	Community	30	FETAC Level 5
2	Community	17	FETAC Level 5
3	Private	10	Montessori teaching diploma
4	Community	8	FETAC Level 6
5	Private	3	None
6	Private	5	FETAC Level 5
7	Community	6	Montessori teaching diploma
8	Community	10	FETAC Level 5
9	Private	8	FETAC Level 5
10	Private	4	Third-level degree (unrelated discipline)
Early years educators
1	Community	4	FETAC Level 5
2	Private	2	FETAC Level 5
3	Private	10	Montessori teaching diploma
4	Community	7	Montessori teaching diploma
5	Community	5	Montessori teaching diploma
6	Private	4	FETAC Level 5
7	Community	5	FETAC Level 5
8	Private	5	Montessori teaching diploma
9	Community	15	Montessori teaching diploma
10	Private	14	FETAC Level 5
11	Private	5	FETAC Level 5
12	Private	6	Montessori teaching diploma
13	Community	10	Montessori teaching diploma
14	Community	15	FETAC Level 5
15	Community	10	FETAC Level 5

FETAC: Further Education and Training Awards Council; ECCE: Early Childhood Care and Education.

Interviews were also undertaken with 10 representatives of the City and County Childcare Committees (CCCs), 4 representatives of the National Voluntary Childcare Collaborative (NVCC)¹ and 4 HSE pre-school inspectors. While 20 HSE pre-school inspectors were invited to participate in the study, only 4 agreed to do so. The participating inspectors were located in the West, South East, the Midlands and North East of Ireland (Table 2).

Table 2.

Interview participants.

Interviewee	Number
ECCE educators	15
ECCE managers	10
City and County Childcare Committees	10
National Voluntary Childcare Collaborative	4
HSE pre-school inspectors	4

ECCE: Early Childhood Care and Education.

Overall, 43 face-to-face interviews were undertaken. Interviews were guided by a schedule of open-ended questions enabling participants to speak freely about areas of interest or concern (Roberts-Holmes, 2005). Hence, participants expressed ‘depth of emotion, thoughts, experiences and basic perceptions’ (Patton, 2002: 21) relating to the regulatory environment.

Sampling

A purposive sample which requires the researcher to make theoretically informed decisions relating to whom to include in the research sample was used in this study (Hardy and Bryman, 2004; Lampard and Pole, 2002). Participants were selected on the basis that they were ‘information rich’ (Patton, 2002: 46), that is, knowledgeable about the regulatory environment.

The sampling frame used consisted of HSE notified listings of settings within a particular geographic region. Participants were located in both urban and rural areas and represented community-based and private ECCE provision. CCCs and NVCCs were contacted directly by the researcher and invited to participate. Prospective HSE participants were identified by the CCCs following which the researcher issued a written invitation to participate in the study.

Ethics

Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Mary Immaculate College Research Ethics Committee (MIREC). Each participant was provided with an information letter detailing the nature and extent of the study. Participants were advised of the voluntary nature of participation, and their right to withdraw at any stage, without consequence. They were further informed about confidentiality anonymity and what the data would be used for.

Data analysis

Using grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2006), data analysis occurred alongside data collection. Using an iterative process, interview transcripts were read line by line, and preliminary codes applied to data segments.

Following initial general coding, more focussed coding enabled units of analysis of the data to be fully developed (Charmaz, 2006). Codes were clustered so that links between codes could be established. By reviewing these tentative links, additional categories were identified. Throughout this interactive process, data were continuously integrated and reduced leading to the development of provisional hypotheses.

Findings

The research findings point to discord between the pre-school inspectorate and those working directly within the ECCE sector, that is, managers and educators. While there was a broad welcome for the emphasis upon supporting children’s learning and development through Article 5 of the Child Care (pre-school services) Regulations, 2006, participants expressed concern that the pre-school inspectorate continues to be ‘obsessed with health and safety’. The findings further suggest that ECCE managers and educators operate within a perceived culture of fear resulting from regulatory enforcement. There was widespread dissatisfaction with inspectorate qualifications, which research participants suggested lead to, inconsistency across inspections. Finally, there was consensus on the need to strengthen the inspection teams.

An unhealthy focus on health and safety

Research participants (N = 43) welcomed the Childcare (pre-schools services) regulations, 2006, and in particular, the emphasis upon child development within Article 5. However, 89 per cent (n = 39, excluding inspectors), claimed that the pre-school inspectorate had an ‘unhealthy obsession with health and safety’ (Angela, NVCC), which they believed was a legacy from the previous regulations (1996). There was consensus among support agencies (n = 14) that as a result of the regulatory environment, educators were ‘afraid to let children climb, run, fall or get dirty, or any of the normal things that children do when they’re playing’ (Nuala, CCC). According to the CCCs and NVCCs, settings had been required to ‘cover the whole outdoor play area in multi-purpose matting’, to ‘prove that paint used by children is non toxic’, and to ‘remove necklaces from the dressing up box’, for example. Indeed, Nuala claimed that the focus on health and safety was ‘creating protected environments for children that are far removed from real life’.

ECCE managers and educators expressed considerable frustration with the focus on health and safety, suggesting that it tends to lose sight of the child: ‘I know the building has to be up to standard but when you’re pulled because there’s a cobweb on the light, or the plug is missing from the sink, that’s ridiculous’ (Kathy, private manager). Overall, 84.6 per cent of managers and educators (n = 25) felt that the regulations had reduced their role to ensuring that ‘children are safe at all times while they’re in our care’ (Máire, private manager). Sophia (CCC) stated that there is an ‘unrealistic’ approach to children’s safety that is based upon an overall absence of ‘basic trust’ between the inspectorate and the sector. It is evident from the data that this absence of trust created certain challenges for ECCE managers and educators who believed that the inspectorate ‘is always trying to catch us out’ (Kathy, private manager).

A culture of fear

In relation to the alleged issue of mistrust, 92 per cent of managers and educators (n = 25) suggested they ‘never measure up because [inspectors] always find something no matter how small it is’ (Annie, community educator). These managers and educators (92%) further indicated that the inspectorate ‘keep moving the goal posts’. Justine (community educator) expressed her frustration:

In the last inspection … it was all routines … now they’re moving away from that … You don’t know where you stand. Before they didn’t want the very young children mixing with the older ones and now they’re encouraging that; so they do change their mind and you’re getting a little bit frustrated that you’re doing what they said the last time and now they’ve changed it again.

Amid an overarching agreement on the need to ‘keep the HSE happy’, managers and educators were unequivocal that they ‘don’t rock the boat’, ‘I wouldn’t draw them (inspectors) on me’ and ‘even if it’s a recommendation … do it … they’ll make you anyway’. In fact, 92 per cent of managers and teachers (n = 25) identified their single biggest issue, as the level of ‘power given to the HSE over us’ (Tara, private educator).

Further alluding to inspectorate power, the CCCs (n = 10) referred to the ‘top down heavy handedness of the HSE’ (Jacinta, CCC interview). The NVCCs and CCCs were concerned that daily practice is ‘all about complying with the regulations’ (Alana, NVCC interview) where the sector is ‘more concerned with looking at what has to be done as opposed to what could be done’ (Patsy, NVCC). All 10 CCC participants were critical of the emphasis on ‘minimum basic standards’ within the regulations and suggested that the top down approach to inspection instils fear rather than building capacity. Thus, the sector aims to ‘please the inspectors’ (Jacinta, CCC interview) rather than seeking to maximise quality. Ultimately, regulations may in fact ‘drive standards down’ (Patsy, NVCC interview).

Dissatisfaction with inspectorate qualifications

In all, 40 participants (NVCCs, CCCs, ECCE managers, educators and one inspector) articulated concern regarding the absence of ‘childcare personnel on the inspection team’, which they suggested, resulted in inconsistency across inspections. Eimear (private manager) argued that ‘inconsistency is a problem; inspectors are simply learning and interpreting as they go along’. Ruby (NVCC) claimed that because of their PHN background, inspectors were uncertain about the dynamic aspects of quality; they ‘concentrate on the area they know best … measure the place to bits; probe it and measure it and test it and count whatever [they] can count’. Martina, an inspector with a PHN background confirmed this assertion. She stated that ‘when the 1996 regulations were introduced, we got on fine – we were able to measure rooms … I could do any part of it … I became an expert, the same will happen with Article 5’.

A need to strengthen inspection teams

Signifying concerns with the composition of the current inspection teams, Stella (CCC) summarises participant dissatisfaction, stating that ‘childcare is inspected by a public health nurse and that’s disgraceful’. In order to redress the perceived imbalance within the inspectorate, 93 per cent of participants (N = 43) recommended a strengthening of the inspection teams. However, there was disagreement about how this might be achieved. For example, Ruby (NVCC) proposed a dual inspection system where the ‘static elements’ (health and safety) and environmental aspects remain with the HSE, while responsibility for ‘curriculum and the more dynamic aspects of quality’ would be transferred to the DES. Irrespective of a desire to involve the DES in pre-school inspections, the NVCC was fearful that this would result in the appointment of somebody with a ‘qualification in national teaching’, that is, primary school teaching (Ruby). Such an appointment would be inappropriate to the needs of the sector. Any additional personnel appointed to the inspectorate should have a ‘qualification in the early years specifically’ (Sophia, CCC). Moreover, managers and educators were sceptical of DES involvement asking ‘what would they [DES] know about early childhood?’ (Ursula, community educator). Mirroring NVCC commentary regarding the need for an early childhood qualification specifically, ECCE managers and educators (n = 25) did not believe that a ‘primary school teacher would understand what we do … they [sic] only know about the curriculum in school not play’.

HSE perspective on inspectorate qualifications and inspection teams

Each of the four participating pre-school inspectors was aware of criticism regarding their qualifications. While three inspectors were unperturbed about such criticism, one expressed concern. Therefore, while Christine (HSE), for example, justified the appointment of PHNs claiming they have ‘the maturity of understanding the seriousness of the situation that, children are in …’, Magdalene disagreed:

It was easy for the HSE to go what’s this pre-school inspection role? Sure the nurses can do that. It’s all about babies and children, that would have been the attitude and then they face challenges and their answer to the challenge is, well we do child development, but they do children development for mothers and children at home. (Magdalene, HSE)

She claimed that PHN understanding of child development is ‘utterly different from group care’ and takes no account of how to ‘support children’s learning and development in a group situation … [PHNs are] looking at learning and development but they just don’t get it’. Consequently, in relation to Article 5 of the Child Care (pre-school services) regulations, 2006, Magdalene suggested that it is a ‘real challenge for the inspection teams’. Confirming this assertion, ECCE managers and educators (n = 25) indicated that in relation to Article 5, the inspectorate did not seem to know what they are looking for. Alanna (community manager) observed, ‘they don’t know from their right hand to their left hand what they’re looking for’.

Although three pre-school inspectors were satisfied with the current inspection system, Magdalene was not averse to expanding the composition of inspection teams. She acknowledged that the inspectorate role was not solely the remit of PHNs, and referring specifically to Article 5, she claimed that ‘a different lens is required for the education side’ (Magdalene, HSE). The inclusion of ECCE graduates or experienced educators on the team would enable the inspectorate to ‘be more credible and supportive to providers who are asking where they go next and how they can improve’ (Magdalene, HSE).

Inspectorate perspective on power and authority

Misgivings with regard to inspectorate power and authority were highlighted earlier in this article where ECCE managers, educators and the CCCs referred to the ‘top down heavy handedness of the HSE’. Notwithstanding Magdalene’s reservations about inspectorate capacity, she rightly stated that inspectors are ‘actually functional authorised officers of the HSE which has got the legal responsibility for looking at Article 5’. Contrary to perceptions among the CCCs, ECCE managers and educators of a heavy-handed approach to inspections, Magdalene expressed concern that the inspectorate was not ‘robust enough about challenging people’s practice’. In a context where ‘providers are legally obliged to comply [with the regulations] our job is to make sure it happens … we are willing to take whatever measures necessary including court to make sure that the sector is compliant … it doesn’t bother us’. She further stated that ‘we should be confident with our power’. All four HSE participants were unequivocal that ‘the regulations are the law, are the law are the law’.

Discussion

The purpose of this article was to explore the perspectives of ECCE managers, educators, early childhood support agencies and members of the inspectorate regarding the regulatory environment in Ireland. Findings provide insight into a sense of exasperation and helplessness experienced by managers and educators in terms of regulatory enforcement. These feelings were not related to the childcare regulations, per se, but to the arbitrary nature of regulatory enforcement.

Findings concur with an ECI (2013) study which found that 40 per cent of respondents found inspection ‘nerve-wracking’. In the present study, managers and educators were critical of enforcement style, indicating that there was ‘excessive risk management’ (Fenech et al., 2006), where educators were ‘afraid to let children climb, run, fall or get dirty, or any of the normal things that children do when they’re playing’ (p. 6). Likewise respondents in the ECI (2013) suggested that the inspection should be ‘focused more on interactions and quality of care and commitment from staff … and less on nit-picking health and safety requirements’ (http://www.earlychildhoodireland.ie). While the purpose of regulations is to reduce the risk of harm to children, early years educators also have a responsibility to enhance children’s development and learning. This involves enabling children to take risks so that they can become confident and competent in their own abilities. However, in an attempt to ‘keep the HSE happy’, managers and teachers accept inspectorate dictates without question. Unlike Denmark, Finland and New Zealand, educators in Ireland do not enjoy professional autonomy; their practice is rigidly policed.

In common with educators in the United Kingdom, participants in this study were also concerned about inconsistencies across inspections in Ireland. They suggested that the current inspectorate does not know how to inspect the dynamic aspects of quality, that is, interactions and curriculum. This claim was supported by one pre-school inspector who stated that while PHNs were looking at learning and development in settings, they do not understand it. Analysis of the 2012 inspection reports by RTÉ, support this assertion, where in one instance, an inspector described the environment throughout the service as homely and child centred, yet a month later, bad practice, bordering on child abuse was exposed.

Findings indicate that inconsistencies are directly related to inspectorate qualifications. Earlier, this article discussed the need for inspectors to have training in childcare or a related field, as well as experience as a childcare provider (e.g. Helburn and Bergman, 2002). There is little doubt that a PHN background limits the scope of inspectors’ ability to assess certain aspects of the regulations, most notably, Article 5 (Moloney, 2011). Although one pre-school inspector in this study felt that inspectors became experts during the enforcement of the Childcare (pre-school services) Regulations, 1996, and that they would also become experts in relation to the 2006, regulations, it is evident that this has not happened. According to Start Strong (2013), the qualifications and role of the inspectorate is too narrow with the primary focus on health and welfare, rather than more broadly (p. 3). Consequently, participants in this study concur with Start Strong (2013), the Early Years Expert Advisory Group (2013), ECI (2013) and Moloney (2011, 2014), in calling for an expansion of the inspection teams to include somebody with expertise in early childhood pedagogy specifically.

This study provides evidence that regulatory compliance may be linked to fear. In this respect, ECCE managers, educators and support agencies expressed concerns about the ‘top down heavy handedness of the HSE’ which resulted in managers and educators striving towards pleasing the inspectorate rather than looking at quality more broadly. As indicated, 92 per cent (n = 25) of managers and educators identified their single biggest issue, as the power given to the inspectorate. Unlike the Braithwaite et al. (2007) strengths-based model, discussed earlier in this article, which acknowledges the need for different strategies to encourage compliance, findings suggest that the current inspectorate instils fear in the sector. In turn, the sector attempts to achieve minimum standards rather than seeking to ‘maximise quality by pulling standards up through a ceiling’ (Braithwaite et al., 2007).

In relation to inspectorate power, inspectors are mandated through the Child Care Act, 1991 to inspect ECCE provision. Hence, the four pre-school inspectors in this study were clear that ‘the regulations are the law, are the law are the law’. Contrary to perceptions among the CCCs, ECCE managers and educators of a heavy-handed approach to inspections, one inspector felt that the inspectorate was not ‘robust enough about challenging people’s practice’. In a context where ‘providers are legally obliged to comply [with the regulations] our job is to make sure it happens … we are willing to take whatever measures necessary including court to make sure that the sector is compliant … it doesn’t bother us’. She further stated that ‘we should be confident with our power’. For whatever reason, however, the inspectorate has not exercised this power as evidenced by the 75 per cent of services found in breach regulations. Moloney (2014) suggests that the increased inspectorate powers in the areas of enforcement, prosecution and closure of settings are disconcerting as, ‘the inspectorate already had these powers but did not use them’ (p. 82).

Conclusion

Given that the inspectorate is the ultimate guardian of quality within the ECCE sector, it is heartening to note that plans are underway to reform the inspectorate. On 12 August 2013, the government approved draft legislation to increase inspectorate powers to close or impose higher fines on ECCE providers. In common with the United Kingdom, a new registration system to replace the current notification system was introduced in January 2014, under the Child and Family Agency Act 2013.

The government has also committed €1.1 million to recruit ‘additional staff … to address gaps which currently exist in the inspection system’ (http://www.dcya.ie). As with the United Kingdom, it is clear that there are deficiencies in relation to ‘training, capacity and capability of the current inspectorate’ in Ireland (Tickell, 2011b: 48). Notwithstanding repeated calls within the ECCE sector that inspectors should hold an early years education qualification, there is no such requirement for inspectors. In fact, five additional public health nurses are currently being recruited as pre-school inspectors. The continued appointment of PHNs to act as inspectors has the approval of the Minister for children and youth affairs (Oireachtas Debates, 2014).

There are concerns that the inspectorate has not been required to up-skill (Early Years Expert Advisory Group, 2013; Start Strong, 2013) ‘so that it is better equipped to conduct and make balanced judgements in relation to process quality within settings, e.g., relationships between practitioners and children and curriculum development’ (Moloney, 2014: 82). It the context of findings in this study, it is imperative that the government review the training, capacity and capability of the inspectorate. To this end, it must devise clearly defined minimum qualification requirements, levels of skill and experience for all inspectors.

While 40 per cent of respondents in the ECI (2013) study found the system ‘nerve-wracking’ participants in this study were critical of what they perceived as the top down heavy handedness of the inspection teams. The proposed reforms grant even greater powers to the inspectorate. Forthwith, the approach to quality lies in punitive measures to be enforced by the pre-school inspectorate. In revisiting the Braithwaite et al. (2007) model of regulatory compliance, it is clear the model envisaged in Ireland, is the ‘regulatory pyramid’ that is characterised by escalated sanctions rather than support, praise and encouragement. Interestingly, in their 2012 study, ECI found that in cases where support and constructive feedback and advice were given during inspection, the inspection process was found to be more beneficial and a positive experience for all involved. In light of the proposed changes to the regulatory environment in Ireland, what is proposed is more of the same, a top down, heavy-handed approach. Settings may well become more compliant because of the risk of sanctions, the question is: is this the most appropriate way to motivate the ECCE sector to meet regulatory standards?

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Baldock

(2001) Regulating Early Years Services. London: David Fulton.

Braithwaite

Makkai

Braithwaite

(2007) Regulating Aged Care: Ritualism and the New Pyramid. Northampton, MA: Elgar Publications.

Brown

Sumsion

(2003) Voices from the other side of the fence: early childhood teachers experiences with mandatory regulatory requirements. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 8(1): 30–49.

Carroll-Lind

Angus

(2011) Through Their Lens: An Inquiry into Non-Parental Education and Care of Infants and Toddlers. Wellington, New Zealand: Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Available at: http://www.orc.org.nz/assessets/Uploads/Reports/Education/Through-their-lens.pdf. Accessed on 26th May, 2014.

Charmaz

(2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE.

Department of Health and Children (DHC) (1996) Childcare (pre-school services) Regulations, 1996 and Explanatory Guide to Requirements and Procedures for Notification and Inspection. Dublin: Government Stationery Office.

Department of Health and Children (DHC) (2006) Childcare (pre-school services) (Amendments No 2) Regulations, 2006 and Explanatory Guide to Requirements and Procedures for Notification and Inspection. Dublin: Government Stationery Office.

Duncan

(2004) Misplacing the teacher? New Zealand early childhood teachers and early childhood education policy reforms, 1984–96. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 5(2): 160–177.

Early Childhood Ireland (ECI) (2012) Salary survey 2012. Available at: http://www.earlychildhoodireland.ie

10.

Early Childhood Ireland (ECI) (2013) HSE inspection survey summary. Available at: http://www.earlychildhoodireland.ie

11.

Early Years Expert Advisory Group (2013) Right from the Start: Report of the Expert Advisory Group on the Early Years Strategy. Dublin: Government Publications.

12.

ECE Taskforce NZ (2011) An agenda for amazing children: final report of the ECE taskforce. Available at: http://www.taskforce.ece.govt.nz/wp…/2011/Final_Report_ECE_Taskforce

13.

EU (2011) Report on Early Years Learning in the European Union’ Available at: www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT…A7…EN. Accessed 26th May, 2014.

14.

Fenech

Sumsion

Goodfellow

(2006) The regulatory environment in long day care: a ‘double edged sword’ for early childhood professional practice. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 31(3): 49–58.

15.

Gormley

Jr (2000) Early childhood education and care regulation: a comparative perspective. International Journal of Educational Research 33: 55–74.

16.

Hardy

Bryman

(Eds, 2004). Handbook of Data Analysis. London, Thousand Oaks.

17.

Helburn

Bergman

(2002) America’s Child Care Problem: The Way Out. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

18.

Jeyes

(2013) Oireachtas health and children committee. Available at: http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament

19.

Lampard

Pole

C J

(2002) Practical Social Investigation: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Social Research. Harlow: Prentice Hall.

20.

Law on Pedagogical Curriculum (2004) Ministry for Social Affairs. 2004. Lov om pædagogiske læreplaner. [Act on Curriculum]. Copenhagen: Ministry for Social Affairs.

21.

Moloney

(2011) Locating quality in early childhood care and education discourse in Ireland: Pre-school and infant classrooms as a crucible for learning and development. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Mary Immaculate College, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.

22.

Moloney

(2014) Breach of trust – getting it right for children in early childhood care and education in Ireland (Special Issue: Early Childhood Policy). NZ Research in Early Childhood Education Journal 17: 71–88.

23.

Moloney

Pope

(2013) Where to now for early childhood care and education (ECCE) graduates? A study of the experiences of Irish BA ECCE degree graduates. Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education. Epub ahead of print 3 April. DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2013.782327.

24.

Morton

(2013) Nurseries Unite to Tackle Consistency of Ofsted Inspections. London: Nursery World, MA Education.

25.

Neuman

(2005) Governance of early childhood education and care: recent developments in OECD countries. Early Years 25(2): 129–141.

26.

Oberhuemer

Schreyer

Neuman

(2010) Professionals in Early Childhood Education and Care Systems: European Profiles. Munich: Barbara Budrich Publishers.

27.

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2003) The education of six year olds in England, Denmark and Finland: an international comparative study. Available at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/education-of-six-year-olds-england-denmark-and-finland. Accessed 26th May, 2014.

28.

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2013) Framework for the regulations of provision on the Early Years Register. Available at: http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/framework-for-the-regulation-of-provision-early-years-register. Accessed 26th May, 2014.

29.

Ofsted (2013) Framework for the regulation of provision on the Early Years. Available at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/framework-for-the-regulation-of-provision-early-years-register Accessed on 26th May, 2014.

30.

Oireachtas Debates (2014) Childcare in Ireland: Discussion- Current Debates- Houses of the Oireachtas. Available at http://www.oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%2520Authoring/Debateswebpack.nsf/committeetakes/H. Accessed on 26th May, 2014.

31.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011) Strong Performers and Successful Reformers in Education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Paris: OECD Publishing.

32.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd ed. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

33.

Pobal (2013) Annual survey of the early years sector 2012. Available at: http://www.pobal.ie?…?pobal%20Annaul%20years%20sector

34.

Roberts-Holmes

(2005) Doing Your Early Years Research Project: A Step by Step Guide. London: Paul Chapman.

35.

Sciarra

Dorsey

Lynch

(2009) Developing and Administering a Child Care and Education Program. 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

36.

Start Strong (2013) Budget 2014 analysis. Available at: http://www.startstrong.ie

37.

Tickell

(2011a) The early years: foundations for life, health and learning. An independent report on the early years foundation stage to Her Majesty’s government. Available at: http://www.education.gov.uk

38.

Tickell

(2011b) The early years foundation stage review: report on the evidence. Available at: http://education.gov.uk