DOI: 10.1111/ejed.

12260

EDITORIAL

Innovative approaches to continuous professional

development in early childhood education and
care. A European perspective*
1 | EUROPEAN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE (ECEC)—
DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORGANISATION AND OBJECTIVES

In the EU, policymakers explicitly acknowledge the important role of ‘Early Childhood Education and Care’ (all provision
of care and education for children before compulsory school age) in providing a basis for successful lifelong learning
(European Commission, 2011). In many countries, ECEC is organised as a split system where care services for children
up to the age of three are under the auspices of the Ministry for Welfare and preschool institutions for children from
the age of three to compulsory school age are under the auspices of the Ministry for Education. In countries with a
unitary system, these services are integrated in one system for children from birth to compulsory school age. Countries
with a split system traditionally struggle with differing degrees of professionalism, with lower qualification levels, less
supportive work conditions and less time for critical team reflection and feedback for staff working in the 0 to 3 sector.
This results in a lower quality of care for the youngest children (Oberhuemer, 2005; Urban, Vandenbroeck, Peeters,
Lazzari, & Van Laere, 2011).
Research findings show that ECEC can play a pivotal role in fostering children’s educational success, preventing
early school leaving and tackling social inequalities. However, this can only be achieved when access to high quality
and inclusive services is provided to all children and their families (Lazzari & Vandenbroeck, 2012). So, what constitutes
‘high quality’ in ECEC? The quest for conceptualisations and definitions of quality has been at the core of ongoing
debates in the last decades and there is no internationally agreed definition of ‘quality’ in ECEC services (Dumcius
et al., 2014).

2 | A PROPOSAL FOR KEY PRINCIPLES OF A EUROPEAN QUALITY

FRAMEWORK IN ECEC

Between 2012 and 2014, the European Commission took the initiative of creating a Thematic Working group on
ECEC in which 25 Member States plus Norway and Turkey and over 55 European stakeholder organisations worked
together for 3 years using the peer-learning methodology. This led to the Proposal for Key Principles of a European
Quality Framework for ECEC that is broadly supported (Milotay, 2016a) and can be used in very different countries
and contexts (Peeters, 2016). It highlights a broad vision of quality that covers accessibility, workforce, curriculum,
monitoring, evaluation, and governance and funding. As set out in the Proposal of the European Quality Framework,
high quality ECEC requires qualified staff whose initial and continuing training enable them to fulfil their professional
role. Supportive work conditions are also needed, including professional leadership which creates opportunities for
observation, reflection, planning teamwork and cooperation with parents.
This is in line with an existing consensus among researchers, organisations and policy makers about the impor-
tance of a highly-qualified workforce to achieve ECEC quality. Well-educated and competent staff who are capable of

*This special issue was a joint collaboration between the three editors. They played an equally strong role in the realisation of this
project.

Eur J Educ. 2017;1–6. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ejed V

C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd | 1
2 | EDITORIAL

working within a holistic framework that values and connects the concepts of ‘care’ and ‘education’ are seen as pivotal
(European Commission, 2011; Eurydice, 2009; Penn, 2009; UNESCO, 2010). This consensus is grounded in interna-
tional research evidence showing that better-educated staff are more likely to provide high-quality pedagogy and
stimulating learning environments which, in turn, foster children’s development leading to better learning outcomes
(Munton et al., 2002), as also shown in the Nordic countries with long-term effects (Esping-Andersen, 2002; Havnes &
Mogstad, 2015).

3 | PROFESSIONALISATION AND COMPETENT ECEC SYSTEMS

In the last few years, debates on the professionalisation of the early year’s workforce have gained attention in the
research community, as well as in practice. In these debates, the specific competences of ECEC practitioners, especially
for those working with disadvantaged children, are seen as crucial in promoting quality (European Commission, 2011;
Peeters & Sharmahd, 2014). However, being competent is not the sole responsibility of the individual educator.
Competent ECEC systems are also needed (Vandenbroeck, Urban, & Peeters, 2016) where ‘competence’ unfolds in
reciprocal relationships between all elements of the early childhood system: at the individual level, at the level of the
institutions, at the level of governance and even at the international level (Peeters, De Kimpe, & Brandt, 2016). With
regard to the Continuous Professional Development (CPD) of the ECEC workforce, this calls for an intensification of
partnerships and experimentation and mainstreaming good and innovative practices (Milotay, 2016a). However, the
specific processes and tools whereby practitioners’ professional development can be promoted remain rather
unexplored in the international literature (Sheridan, Edwards, Marvin, & Knoche, 2009). In the European Member
States, there is too little investment in strong and innovative systems of Continuous Professional Development,
_ 2016).
especially for the lower qualified practitioners (Peeters, Sharmahd, & Budginaite,

4 | AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO CONTINUOUS PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT (CPD)

This issue of the Journal aims at contributing to these findings. Starting from the assumption that CPD has a strong
impact on both the quality of ECEC and the experiences of parents and children, especially those from families living in
vulnerable situations, we want to provide new insights on the kinds of approaches to CPD that improve practice. We
aim to unravel some of the multi-levelled mechanisms that foster positive effects of ECEC. Continuous Professional
Development refers to all planned programmes of learning opportunities for staff members of ECEC services that com-
plement, update and consolidate the professional knowledge and competence of individuals and teams (Hauari et al.,
2014) at different levels and in specific in-service training or lifelong learning initiatives related to ECEC (Jensen &
Iannone, 2015). Hence, CPD is not narrowed down to a technical discussion on skills, competencies, methods and
procedures, but is understood as an ongoing process that requires constant dialogue and negotiation with practitioners
in order to address their specific needs in their work context (Lazzari, Picchio, & Musatti, 2013). Indeed, research has
shown that isolated and short-term CPD initiatives had a limited impact on daily practices or on the development of
sustainable high quality ECEC (Fukkink & Lont, 2007; Peeters et al., 2016).
Prompted by growing global challenges related to modern life in changing societies, there is a need to take an
innovative approach to CPD. Socioeconomic, political and cultural influences underscore trends and offer both
demands and opportunities for the future investments in CPD in ways that affect ECEC systems and processes as a
whole. The idea of professional development in an innovative perspective encompasses the extent to which staff are
able or can be enabled to provide higher quality ECEC than previous offerings (Jensen & Iannone, 2016)
We aim to shed light on innovative approaches to CPD in different contexts in Europe and from the differing but
inextricably linked perspectives of research, practice and policy. In the field of ECEC, the emphasis on innovation is
closely linked to new processes and practices in relation to a renewal of social services ‘aimed (. . .) at qualifying the
whole ECEC system and at creating a shared view on early childhood education rather than being focused on
EDITORIAL | 3

professionalization pathways for the career advancement of individual practitioners’ (Lazzari et al., 2013, p. 11). In this
regard, our notion of innovation is more closely linked to ‘social innovation’, which refers to new ideas that work to
meet social goals. It is ‘innovation that is good for society and increases its capacity to act’ (Milotay, 2016b, p. 2).
However, as with quality, there is no overarching consensus on the interpretation of the term ‘social innovation’. In the
EU, it is interpreted as a ubiquitous concept that includes products, services and models that simultaneously meet
social needs and create social relationships or forms of collaboration (Milotay & Liva, 2017). In the CARE research, the
term referred to the ‘processes of collective idea generation, selection and implementation by people who participate
collaboratively to meet social challenges’ (Dawson & Daniel, 2010, p. 16).

5 | THE STRUCTURE OF THE ISSUE—PART I

The articles in this Issue reveal different aspects of what is considered as ‘innovative’, ‘effective’ and ‘qualitative’ with
regard to Continuous Professional Development for the ECEC workforce. They are all explicitly European (in and
outside the EU) in focus and offer a critical reflection and contextualisation of the specific mechanisms that constitute
positive effects of CPD initiatives.
The first article about the Eurofound systematic review of the impact of Continuous Professional Development on
the quality ECEC services shows that, to be effective, CPD initiatives must be based on the active engagement of prac-
titioners and on peer exchanges within a shared scientific framework (Eurofound, 2015). It draws on both qualitative
and quantitative research results from European studies published in English and other EU-languages. The study
reveals that long-term CPD interventions that are integrated in practice, such as pedagogical guidance and coaching in
reflection groups proved to be effective in countries with a well-established system of ECEC provisions and a high
level of qualification requirements for the practitioners and in countries with poorly-subsidised ECEC systems and low
qualification requirements.
The second article is based on a literature review and a cross-country analysis within the CARE research project
(Jensen & Iannone, 2015). It analyses innovation as an aspect of Continuous Professional Development in ECEC and
shows that there are various characterisations of how it is perceived and adopted. By showing that there are three cru-
cial aspects (critical reflection, communities of practice and a focus on policies concerning social inequality and vulner-
ability), it contributes to fill the gaps in research on innovation at the macro (system), the meso (inter-organisational)
and the micro level (individual, organisational).
The third article elaborates on the CARE analyses by using case studies from another part of the CARE project
(Bove, Mantovani, Jensen, Karwowska-Struczyk, & Wysłowska, 2016). It shows that innovative approaches differ in
Europe: from new emerging ways of considering ECEC systems both politically and among service providers in other
regions such as Northern Italy or countries like Denmark where there has been a long tradition of innovative
approaches to CPD at all levels. For example, to be innovative in the Danish ECEC system, practices should involve
whole areas or networks, including parents and communities, and link the acquisition of educational skills with the
awareness of the cultural, social and political mission of ECEC (Jensen & Iannone, 2015).
 on the qualification pathways of assistants reviews the profiles
The article by Peeters, Sharmahd and Budginaite
of ECEC assistants in 15 European countries and their professionalisation opportunities. Three case studies carried out
in Denmark, France and Slovenia illustrate how adapted pathways can lead assistants to qualification. The case studies
argue for a ‘competent system’, with training initiatives at individual, team and inter-institution level and with a compe-
tent governance at policy level.
The fifth article by Sharmahd, Peeters and Bushati examines innovation in ECEC through CPD in Albania, a coun-
try outside the EU. The level of qualification of the ECEC workforce is quite high. 60% hold a bachelor degree, but
there is too much focus on teacher-centred approaches and the link between theory and practice is neglected. The
Ministry of Education has recently developed new Early Learning and Development Standards and a new pedagogical
coaching tool (Wanda) was used to translate these new standards in the preschools into innovative pedagogical
practice of high quality with the support of UNICEF. Albania has a tradition of a top-down approach to introduce new
4 | EDITORIAL

laws in ECEC, but, with Wanda, a democratic bottom-up approach was used in the trainers’ training. However, the
authors are realistic: the group reflection method that was introduced is only ‘one piece of the puzzle’. Other CPD
initiatives need to be taken at the regional and national level. However, the Albanian preschool system seems to be
motivated to work in the near future on the creation of a competent system.
In the last article on the Heidelberg Interaction Training for Language Promotion in Early Childhood Settings (HIT),
another effective innovative intervention is presented: a systematic approach to improve the language development of
children. The objective is to expand teachers’ knowledge about language development in general, and more specifically
of children with speech problems or multilingual children. Teachers learn a responsive interaction style and various
strategies of language modelling by means of video supervision and feedback. Daily interaction with children in their
preschool life is at the core of the intervention. Teachers’ satisfaction with the training has been evaluated and its
efficacy in terms of changes in teachers’ behaviour and children’s language performance has been proven in several
intervention studies and in meta-analytic reviews.
Two ‘thought pieces’ share personal reflections of renowned experts in the field of ECEC and CPD. The first by
Joan Lombardi urges us not only to ensure individual quality programmes, but also to develop continuity across the
early years, responding to the holistic needs of both children and families. These ‘whole family approaches’ require a
professional community that values partnerships and joint training where different professionals share experiences.
Staff should be trained to work with a diversity of families and children and be encouraged to appreciate their lan-
guages and cultures. Therefore, opportunities for learning and adaptation, starting from critical reflection, should be
provided and a fair compensation should be considered to overcome the false dichotomy between care and education.
The second ‘thought piece’ by Peter Moss challenges us to critically reflect on what we mean by ‘continuous pro-
fessional development’. He confronts it with Malaguzzi’s concept of ‘formazione’ which he sees as ‘an integral part of
the everyday pedagogical work, an attitude of mind, a way of thinking and being, a part of life, an inseparable element
of what it means to be an educator’. As such, it values uncertainty and wonder and includes the concept of ‘evolution’
as opposed to ‘development’ with its implication of linearity and predictability. For Malaguzzi, innovation in ECEC
presumes a readiness for ‘confrontation’ [confronto], a willingness and capacity to question the interpretations and
perspectives of others and of yourself—without degenerating into hostility and antagonism. It also expresses a central
value of Reggio Emilia’s pedagogy: the importance of documenting pedagogical experience and thus re-thinking,
re-considering and re-discovering past work and previous understandings.
The editors of Part I of this issue aimed to give a broad overview of CPD initiatives. The studies come from very
different countries such as Albania, Belgium, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Slovenia and France. Some are qualitative,
others quantitative. Nevertheless, they all share the same conclusion that effective CPD is based on critical thinking,
reflexivity and co-creation of innovation within and across ECEC systems. In other words, effective CPD must involve
practitioners in the process of innovation and create a system that supports the practitioners in their process of
change. We hope that these studies will contribute to the development of a competent system that will facilitate social
innovation in the ECEC sector in Europe and abroad.

6 | THE STRUCTURE OF PART II

The first article in Part II by Knud Illeris on the history of Learning Theory sets out its main elements and focuses on
the understanding of how learning takes place and functions as interior individual processes.
The second article on the Mentoring of teachers in Albania discusses one area that is still in need of significant
reform: the induction and mentoring of new teacher-candidates. Based on a mixed-method study, it provides insights
into the benefits and challenges of current practices. The study identifies key areas in need of improvement, including
the selection of mentors; professional training for mentors; communication among different stakeholders; and overall
planning and coordination of mentoring services.
The third article, Destination unknown? Study choices and graduate destinations of Hungarian youth in Slovakia
l Pasztor focuses on Hungarian minority youth in a rural Slovakian setting and analyses their higher education
by Ade
EDITORIAL | 5

aspirations and choices amidst significant economic, political and educational reforms. Relying on mixed methods and a
longitudinal design, it follows a cohort of high school students from their last year of secondary school through
university up to their graduate destinations several years onwards.

Brecht Peleman,1 Bente Jensen,2 and Jan Peeters1

1
Centre for Innovation in the Early Years, Ghent University, Ghent 9000, Belgium
2
Danish School of Education, Aarhus University, Copenhagen 2400, Denmark

Correspondence
Brecht Peleman, Centre for Innovation in the Early Years, Ghent University, Dunantlaan 2, Ghent 9000, Belgium. Email: brecht.
peleman@vbjk.be

RE FE RE NCE S
Bove, C., Mantovani, S., Jensen, B., Karwowska-Struczyk, M., & Wysłowska, O. (2016). 613318. CARE Curriculum quality
analysis and impact review of European ECEC: D3.3. Report on “good practice” case studies of professional development
in three countries. Retrieved from http://ecec-care.org/resources/publications
Dawson, P., & Daniel, L. (2010). Understanding social innovation: A provisional framework. International Journal of
Technology Management, 51, 9–21.
, L., . . . Hulpia, H. (2014). Study on the effec-
Dumcius, R., Peeters, J., Hayes, N., Van Landeghem, G., Siarova, H., Peciukonyte
tive use of early childhood education and care (ECEC) in preventing early school leaving (ESL) Report No. EAC/17/2012.
Brussels, Belgium: European Commission DG Education and Culture.
Esping-Andersen, G. (2002). A child-centred social investment strategy. In G. Esping-Andersen, D. Gallie, A. Hemerick, &
J. Myles (Eds.), Why we need a new welfare state (pp. 26–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eurofound. (2015). Working conditions, training of early childhood care workers and quality of services. A systematic review.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2011). Early childhood education and care: Providing all our children with the best start for the world
of tomorrow. Brussels, Belgium: Author.
Eurydice. (2009). Key data on education in Europe 2009. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Fukkink, R. G., & Lont, A. (2007). Does training matter? A meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 294–311.
Hauari, H., Lazzari, A., Cameron, C., Peeters, J., Rimantas, D., & Siarova, H. (2014). Impact of training and working condi-
tions of early childhood education and care practitioners on children’s outcomes. Interim report: Protocol for Systematic
Review. London: University of London, Institute of Education.
Havnes, T., & Mogstad, M. (2015). Is universal child care leveling the playing field?. Journal of Public Economics, 127,
100–114.
Jensen, B., & Iannone, R. L. (2015). 613318. CARE. Curriculum quality analysis and impact review of European ECEC.
D3.1: Comparative review of professional development approaches. Curriculum quality analysis and impact review of
European ECEC CARE. Retrieved from http://ecec-care.org/resources/publications/
Jensen, B., & Iannone, R. L. (2016). 613318. CARE. Curriculum quality analysis and impact review of European ECEC.
D3.4: Recommendations for common policy across the EU regarding professional development as an element of quality in
ECEC and child wellbeing for all. Retrieved from http://ecec-care.org/resources/publications/
Lazzari, A., Picchio, M., & Musatti, T. (2013). Sustaining ECEC quality through continuing professional development:
Systemic approaches to practitioners’ professionalisation in the Italian context. Early Years: An International Research
Journal, 33, 133–145.
Lazzari, A., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2012). Literature review of the participation of disadvantaged children and families in ECEC
services in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Milotay, N. (2016a). From research to policy: The case of early childhood and care. In M. Vandenbroeck, M. Urban, &
J. Peeters (Eds.), Pathways to professional early childhood education (pp. 119–131). London: Routledge.
Milotay, N. (2016b). Understanding social innovation. Policy briefing for the European Parliament. Brussels: European
Parliamentary Research Service.
Milotay, N., & Liva, G. (2017). Fostering social innovation in the European Union. Policy Briefing for the European
Parliament. Brussels: European Parliamentary Research Service.
6 | EDITORIAL

Munton, T., Mooney, A., Moss, P., Petrie, P., Clark, A., & Woolner, J. (2002). Research on ratios, group size and staff qualifi-
cations and training in early years and childcare settings. London: TCRU, University of London. Commissioned by the
Department for Education and Skills.
Oberhuemer, P. (2005). Conceptualising the early childhood pedagogue: Policy approaches and issues of professionalism.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 13, 5–16.
Peeters, J. (2016). Quality of ECEC services in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Montenegro. Geneva,
Switzerland: UNICEF.
Peeters, J., De Kimpe, C., & Brandt, S. (2016). The competent ECEC system in the city of Ghent: A long-term investment
in continuous professional development. In M. Vandenbroeck, M. Urban, & J. Peeters (Eds.), Pathways to professional-
ism in early childhood education and care (pp. 57–71). London: Routledge.
Peeters, J., & Sharmahd, N. (2014). Professional development for ECEC practitioners with responsibilities for children at
risk: Which competences and in-service training are needed?. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 22,
412–424.
_ I. (2016). Professionalization of childcare assistants in early childhood education and
Peeters, J., Sharmahd, N., & Budginaite,
care (ECEC): Pathways towards qualification. NESET II report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
https://doi.org/10.2766/898530
Penn, H. (2009). International perspectives on quality in mixed economies of childcare. National Institute Economic Review,
207, 83–89.
Sheridan, S. M., Edwards, C. P., Marvin, C. A., & Knoche, L. (2009). Professional development in early childhood programs:
Process issues and research needs. Early Education and Development, 20, 377–401.
UNESCO. (2010). Caring and learning together. A cross-national study of integration of Early Childhood Care and Education
within education. Paris, France: Author.
Urban, M., Vandenbroeck, M., Peeters, J., Lazzari, A., & Van Laere, K. (2011). Competence requirements in early childhood
education and care. CoRe final report. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Vandenbroeck, M., Urban, M., & Peeters, J. (2016). Pathways to professionalism in early childhood education and care.
Oxford: Routledge.