school hours care services and early intervention services. A list of sites consulted is attached at Appendix 3. Where site visits were not feasible, telephone interviews were conducted with staff from these services. Success Works sought the support of five primary schools to organise a focus group with interested parents/guardians. Due to a low participation rate from OSHC services in the online survey and at site visits, their results and comments have been added to those from early childhood educators. For the purpose of data reporting, OSHC services are included as early childhood professionals. D1. That further feedback is sought from outside school hours care services in the implementation of the Transition Initiative. Tables 2 and 3 below summarise the consultations undertaken in each region. Table 2: Consultations with Early Childhood and School Professionals Region Phone Interviews Site Visits Early Childhood Professionals* Prep Teachers and School Principals Total Participants Barwon South West 3 3 32 Educators 10 Managers 55 Teachers 46 Principals 143 Gippsland 3 6 60 Educators 9 Managers 33 Teachers 40 Principals 142 Grampians 3 3 21 Educators 3 Managers 34 Teachers 41 Principals 99 Hume 3 3 66 Educators 9 Managers 54 Teachers 47 Principals 176 Loddon Mallee 3 3 23 Educators 8 Managers 40 Teachers 41 Principals 112 Northern Metro 7 7 87 Educators 11 Managers 103 Teachers 68 Principals 269 Southern Metro 7 7 86 Educators 15 Managers 111 Teachers 73 Principals 285 Eastern Metro 7 7 42 Educators 18 Managers 89 Teachers 61 Principals 210 Western Metro 9 9 53 Educators 16 Managers 53 Teachers 40 Principals 162 Total 45 48 569 1,029 1,598 * „Early Childhood Professionals‟ includes outside school hours care educators
Table 3: Consultations with Parents/Guardians Region Online Survey Respondents Parent/Guardian Focus Group Total Participants Barwon South West 68 4 72 Gippsland 44 6 50 Grampians 24 - 24 Hume 31 - 31 Loddon Mallee 63 2 65 Northern Metro 177 3 180 Southern Metro 133 4 137 Eastern Metro 239 - 239 Western Metro 90 - 90 Region unknown or invalid response 34 - 34 Total 903* 19 922 * Of the 903 respondents to the online survey, 28 did not identify their location and six entered an invalid response, leaving 869 with known locations.
4.2. Effectiveness of the Initiative To determine perceptions by early childhood educators and managers and Prep teachers and principals of the overall effectiveness of the initiative, the online survey asked respondents to rate the effectiveness of the Transition Initiative in achieving the identified outcomes. On average, respondents to the survey ranked the effectiveness of the Transition Initiative against each identified outcome as neutral or above on a five point Likert scale.9 Detailed data on the responses from early childhood educators and managers and Prep teachers and principals, and a comparison between them, is presented below. Perceptions of Effectiveness by Early Childhood Professionals As shown in Figure 1, early childhood educators consistently ranked the effectiveness of the initiative in achieving the identified outcomes of the Transition Initiative lower than early childhood service managers. Figure 1: Early childhood educators and managers: Perceptions of the effectiveness of the Transition Initiative 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 Identifying strengths Common understanding Networking Knowledge re Confident & what works ready to learn Identifying supports Triggering supports Early childhood educators Early childhood managers Identifying children‟s strengths and facilitating a common understanding between early childhood educators and Prep teachers about supporting children‟s continuity of learning and development during transition to school were ranked highest by both early childhood educators and managers. 9 Respondents were required to rank each outcome on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 = very ineffective, 2 = ineffective, 3 = neither effective nor ineffective, 4 = effective, 5 = very effective
Figure 23: Prep teachers and principals: Perception of the Department support measures 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.3 2.6 2.7 DEECD advertising and promotion Advice to prep teachers Resources and materials development Prep teachers Principals & others Prep teachers rated the extent to which the Transition Initiative was supported by the Department slightly, but consistently, lower than principals. The scores ranged from 2.6 (somewhat supported) to 3.3 (moderately supported). Prep teachers felt that the Transition Initiative had been most supported by resources and materials (3.1) and least supported by professional development (2.6). Principals felt that the Initiative had been most supported by resources and materials and advice (3.3. and 3.1 respectively) and least supported by the Department advertising and promotion (3.0) and professional development (2.7). Figure 24: Early childhood educators and Prep teachers: Comparison of perception of the Department support measures 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 2.9 3.1 2.9 3.1 2.8 3.0 2.8 2.6 DEECD advertising and promotion Advice to EC workers/teachers Resources and materials development Prep teachers Early childhood educators
The following table provides an overview of the funding arrangements related to the delivery of these services. Service type Service providers Funding arrangements Maternal and child health Local government with community service organisations Jointly funded by local government and the Victorian Government Long day care, family day care, occasional care and outside school hours care services Local government, community organisations and for-profit private providers Paid for by parents with Commonwealth Government subsidies. Victorian Government partly funds kindergarten programs in long day care settings Kindergarten programs Local government, community organisations and for-profit private providers Currently part funded by the Victorian Government, with parent contributions and fundraising meeting unfunded costs. The Commonwealth is also beginning to provide funding through the National Partnership on Early Childhood Education for increased service delivery Early childhood intervention services Victorian Government and community organisations Funded by the Victorian Government, with ad hoc supplementary parent contributions Parenting programs Victorian Government, local government and community organisations Funding contributed by all levels of government and community organisations Early years of school Victorian Government and non- government organisations Funding contributed by Victorian Government, Commonwealth and parent contributions
Region Telephone Interviews Site Visits Southern Metropolitan o Athol Road Primary School o Biala Peninsula ECIS o Elwyn Morey Specialist Service, Monash University o Fenwick St Kindergarten o Hallam Gardens Kindergarten o Inner South Community Health Service Child Development o Yarrabah Specialist School o Balnarring Kindergarten o Kunyung Primary School o Monash (Caulfield) Child Care Centre o Wesley College Early Learning Centre Eastern Metropolitan o Aurora School o Box Hill North Primary Kindergarten o Essex Heights Primary School o Kalinda Primary School o Knox Gardens Pre-School o St Gregory the Great Primary School o St Thomas Moore Primary School o The Merrell Kindergarten o Kinder Haven o Knox City Council o Knoxfield Preschool o Kew Kids Early Learning Centre o Monash City Council Preschool/school network o Ruyton Early Learning Centre Western Metropolitan o Cairnlea Kindergarten o Footscray Primary School o Jigsaw Childcare o Kealba Kindergarten o Keilor Gatehouse o Lady Huntingfield Children's Centre o Noah's Ark Inc o Seaholme Kindergarten o St Alban's West Preschool o Altona Kindergarten o Altona North Yooralla o Caroline Springs College o Moonee Valley City Council o Warringa Park Primary School o Westbourne Grammar School o Western Autistic School Total 45 44
Proportion of parents/guardians with children with additional needs 5.8% Additional needs 94.2% No additional needs A total of 5.8% of parents/guardians indicated that their child had additional needs. There is a significant inconsistency in the survey results regarding the proportion of parents/guardians who have children with additional needs. Only 51 (5.3%) of parents/guardians directly reported that their child had additional needs. However, in a subsequent question where they were asked if their child had additional needs, whether those needs had been adequately supported, a total of 76 parents/guardians (8.1% of the total sample) reported that their child‟s additional needs had not been adequately supported. It may be that parents/guardians have interpreted the first question as relating only to diagnosed additional needs, and have interpreted „additional needs‟ far more broadly for the second question. Another possible explanation for the different responses could be that parents/guardians thought their child‟s needs were not identified prior to school and therefore felt they were not adequately addressed now that their child was in school and needing support. Yet another possibility is that this difference in responses may be an artefact of the question itself – that is, parents/guardians may be more likely to report that their child has additional needs when asked to respond to a question about support options.