OECD国家学前教育质量监测系统分析及其对我国的启示

On the Quality Monitor Systems of Early Childhood Education and Care in OECD Countries and the Inspiration to China

OECD新近发布的《强势开端:学前教育质量监测系统》对其成员国在学前教育机构质量监测、教师队伍质量监测和幼儿发展与表现监测等方面的举措和做法做了全面、系统的比较研究。只有提供高质量的学前教育才能带来高回报,同时不断增长的学前教育公共投入的效益也需要得到证明,这些都成为OECD国家关注学前教育质量监测的重要原因。尽管各国学前教育质量监测实践不尽相同,但仍然体现出了一些共同的趋势。首先,问责、干预、支持政府决策、为公众提供信息、改善教师表现是各国开展质量监测的主要目的。其次,各国一般采用外部监测和内部监测并行的方式,其中督导评估因其权威性与客观性,成为最常见的外部监测方式,教师自我评估因其能够促进教师专业成长而成为教师质量监测中常用的内部监测方式。再次,质量监测内容的确定既考虑数据可得性,也考虑指标对学前教育质量的可预测性。在学前教育机构质量的督导评估中,政府会重点考察其是否符合法定要求(偏重结构性质量),但目前也开始逐渐关注过程性质量。第四,各国依据特定的目的匹配和选择一定的监测工具和方法,如对儿童发展与表现的质量监测多采用观察和描述性评价等方法,而较少采用标准化测验工具。第五,重视以恰当的方式向公众披露托幼机构服务质量监测结果。我国也应建立与完善覆盖所有托幼机构、教师和儿童的学前教育质量监测系统,兼顾监测的问责功能和发展功能,努力实现监测主体的多元化,加强有关监测工具的科学研究和选择,充分利用质量监测数据,促进我国学前教育质量的持续稳定提高。

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development （OECD） has issued a series of reports on Early Childhood Education and Care （ECEC）. This paper mainly focuses on her newly released one Starting Strong IV： Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, which primarily depicts common trends in monitoring ECEC quality arising across selected OECD countries and provides concrete examples of monitoring practices. Compared to monitoring staff and child development and outcomes, monitoring service quality is more often utilized for accountability of public investment, which means ECEC settings possibly would be rewarded or punished based on the results of monitoring service. When practice service monitoring, OECD countries rely not only on external monitoring initiated by external agencies, evaluators or offices but als0 on internal monitoring conducted by actors who work inside the same settings. Structural indicators such as safety regulation, staff qualification, health and hygiene regulations, teacher-child ratio are easily quantified, and thus commonly fall into categories that are taken into account in inspections. Process quality, such as curriculum implementation, which directly affects the developmental and social experience of young children, is increasingly involved in inspections. When it comes to monitoring instrument, it is very common for a mix of different instruments to be used so that different sources are used in the assessment of quality. The report also indicates that monitoring ECEC quality is not an easy task. OECD countries have encountered several challenges that need to be overcome meticulously. Because China has not started to set up and run an ECEC monitoring system until very recently, there is no doubt that the report can shed light on how to improve the ECEC monitoring system in China. Firstly, a national ECEC monitoring system should be established and all the centers, staff, and children should be covered in this system. Secondly, multiple actors should participate actively in monitoring practices. Thirdly, enacting scientific research to develop and select appropriate monitoring instruments are quite crucial. Lastly, a comprehensive ECEC quality monitoring system needs to be built up and the results of monitoring should be made full use in order to support the diverse functions, such as accountability, intervention, and informing policy etc.