Australian Indigenous perspectives on quality assurance in children's services.(Report)

Introduction

THERE ARE TWO MAIN approaches to managing the quality of any given service: quality control and quality assurance. While these two approaches are closely related, they are different concepts. Quality control activities focus on finding defects within a service after it has been delivered by comparing the delivery to a pre-existing specification (Doherty & Horne, 2000, p. 146). This form of quality management works well when there are penalties for non-conformance or substantial rewards for continual conformance. It is, however, risky when the wellbeing of clients is at stake, as it is a system which relies on getting it right the second time around rather than the first (Doherty & Horne, 2000). Quality assurance processes, in contrast, are based upon the principle of having clearly defined and appropriate policies and procedures embedded in practice before the client receives the service. This form of quality management ensures a quality service in the first instance.

Historically, responsibility for quality assurance in childcare services in Australia has been divided between the states and territories and the Australian Government. State and territory governments have been responsible for monitoring those components of quality that are generally quantitative and embodied within their respective childcare regulations, while the determining or process components of quality have been the responsibility of the Federal Government. Recently, through both its election commitments and its 2008 Budget statement, the current Australian Government has signalled its intention to develop a new integrated system of national quality standards for childcare and preschool services.

The development of a new integrated quality standards system provides an opportunity to reconsider the needs and aspirations of Indigenous families and service providers and to ensure that these are adequately reflected in the development of future quality assurance systems. While services for Indigenous children and families have always operated under state regulatory systems, they have until now remained exempt from participation in the broader National Child Care Quality Improvement and Accreditation System. The research we are reporting on here builds upon a substantial body of work already directed at teasing out the implications of a single national system of quality assurance for Indigenous children and their families. The following discussion reviews this body of work and reports the findings from broad-based national consultations with Indigenous communities and service providers funded by the Australian Government in 2005. The purpose of the consultations was to identify the childcare needs and preferences of Indigenous families and children. Results from that larger research project will be published separately, but the brief for the consultations included attention to Indigenous perspectives on quality and quality assurance in children's services, and it is this we address in the following discussion.

Quality assurance: An overview

In Australia, the stimulus to develop a quality assurance system for child care evolved, not from service users, but through a combination of political and professional concerns (Wangman, 1995). Since the late 1960s, when professional bodies such as the Preschool Board became increasingly concerned about the quality of care children were receiving in private long day care centres, the early childhood teaching profession, in particular, has been proactive in debates about the quality of Australian child care. This concern culminated in concerted lobbying in 1969 by the Preschool Board for a national inquiry into long day care. At that time there were 560 long day care services operating across the country; only 40 of which received local government grants, while the rest were privately operated (Brennan, 1994). The Preschool Board strongly contested the private nature of centre-based care, claiming that child care should come under their jurisdiction and thus be staffed by early childhood teachers. The community childcare sector, on the other hand, resisted this approach and sought to keep child care outside of the professional control of education. Discussions about monitoring the quality of care continued throughout the 1980s and were heavily influenced by the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs in North America which, in 1984, established a voluntary system of accreditation for early childhood programs throughout the United States. In 1986, the Australian Early Childhood Association (AECA)--now Early Childhood Australia--was commissioned by the Commonwealth Minister for Community Services to report on the quality of long day care in Australia.

In December of that same year, the AECA presented its findings, which included two proposals for establishing a national evaluation process of long day care centres. The AECA highlighted three factors underpinning their recommendations: