Parental expectations of and satisfaction with the services of preschool centres: A case study in Songkhla Province, Thailand

Introduction

The significance of preschool education has been emphasised in Thailand since the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) was launched on 20 August 1999 (ONEC, 1999). Besides the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security have also provided several strategic plans and programmes about early childhood development. The local administrative organisation is responsible for providing preschool education according to the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999). All childcare centres established by organisations such as the Department of Community Development; the Ministry of Interior; Department of Religious Affairs, the Ministry of Culture; and the Office of Primary Education, the Ministry of Education were transferred to the local administrative organisation in 2002. In all, since that transfer, 19,157 childcare centres across the country have been under the jurisdiction of the local administrative organisation [Department of Local Administration Organization (DLAO), 2014].

Both direct and indirect budgets from both central and local government were continuously provided to support and develop childcare centres, especially educating and training all caregivers in each childcare centre to have a formal qualification. A National Curriculum for preschool education, together with a plan of learning activities preparation, was developed as a guideline for caregivers to educate children in childcare centres to achieve an ultimate goal of the whole development of a child in physical, mental, emotional, social and intellectual domains, promoting morality and ethics and encouraging children to do their daily activities on their own [Ministry of Education (MOE), 2013; DLAO, 2014].

Although preschool education is not compulsory in Thailand, some local administrative organisations set up a policy to encourage parents to enrol their preschool-age children as a key performance index. In 2013, the Office of Regional Educational Sector Twelve reported that 72.5 per cent of children between three and five years of age were enrolled in a childcare centre or a kindergarten in Songkhla Province, which is located in the lower southern part of Thailand. However, parents, as their child’s first teachers, still have a crucial role in their child’s development in childcare centres (ONEC, 2007). Research has clearly shown that strong parent–teacher relationships lead to increased parental involvement, which has been shown to have a significant and lasting impact on children’s academic achievement (Knopf and Swick, 2007, p. 291). However, more specific guidance on developing positive relationships and ideas for involving parents in the childcare centres, especially in respect of parents’ expectations and satisfaction for asking their cooperation in childcare and child development, is needed for early childhood educators.

The overall objective of the research project reported here was to study parental expectations of and satisfaction with overall services of preschool centres and to determine factors which affect parents’ satisfaction with the preschool education provided in a part of one of Thailand’s southern provinces.

The population for the empirical work reported here were families with at least one child in pres-school education (see the Methodology section for more details). Thus, the objective noted was pursued amongst those who were actually engaged with the preschool education system. A major complementary issue, which we do not attempt to address in our primary work, is that of the degree of inclusion or exclusion of families and their children in preschool and later school education. We briefly review some of the associated issues at the end of the Literature Review section and pick up the theme again in the final section on the implications of our work.

Brief literature review

As stated in the Introduction, prior research from beyond Thailand asserts the importance of strong parent–teacher relationships if the kind of early years education now being promoted by the Thailand’s Ministry of Education is to bear fruit [e.g. Knopf and Swick (2007)]. An early study that focussed on the Thai parental attitudes was conducted by Dunn and Dasananda (1995). They noted that by 1995, at least one-third of the Thai children of three-six years of age were attending kindergarten programmes. The parent subjects in their study were reported to place a high value on the teaching of academic skills and rather less value on care giving. Since then, there have been several studies, master’s theses mostly, about parents’ satisfaction with childcare services in the area of each local administration organisation in Thailand (Tongsow and Runegsuwan, 2013; Marasi and Sewdon, 2013), but there remains much to be explored. Some of these Thai studies showed that factors affecting their levels of satisfaction were related to their own education. Information about parents’ satisfaction, along with knowledge of the dimensions with which parents are most and least satisfied and their expectations, could be used to show whether the childcare service in a centre is effective and could serve as a basis for future development of centres to serve all families in the service area of each local administration organisation. Israsena (2007) concluded within her doctoral thesis that while Thai teachers are favourably inclined to the notion of student-centred learning with early years children, they exhibit “relatively low levels of developmentally appropriate practices”. In other words, the spirit is willing, but they need help to develop professionally.

Whilst knowledge of prior work in the Thai context is clearly valuable, evidence from other places should not be overlooked as simple logic suggests that the issues involved are likely to be common across national boundaries: children, their parents and teachers have at least some aims in common [e.g. Liu et al. (2001); Kellingham et al. (2006); Frey et al. (2013)]. Liu et al. focussed on parental expectations of childcare facilities in Australia, while Kellingham et al. looked at the potential link between parental satisfaction and then loyalty to providers in the early years, educational arena. Omar et al. (2009) undertook a study in Malaysia which found that service quality, as perceived by parents, of childcare centres was positively related to parental satisfaction and trust. This may be thought to be especially relevant as Thailand and Malaysia are neighbouring ASEAN countries.

Frey et al. (2013) examined the feasibility of and satisfaction with an early childhood intervention programme in the USA (namely, the preschool version of the “First Step to Success”), investigating its treatment integrity, social validity and outcome satisfaction (The focus of the programme is on proactive interventions with children who have had poor parenting, up to and including abuse, prior to their exposure to formal preschool). The researchers found that parents’ perceptions of and satisfaction with the programme’s goals, procedures and outcomes were extremely favourable of the first step to success of interventions aimed at improving children’s social skills and decreasing problem behaviour. In a different context, Norwegian day-care legislation places the responsibility for developing positive and close relationships with parents on the care giver [Drugli and Undheim (2012)]. They investigated the perspectives of parents and care givers regarding their partnerships when young children are in Norwegian day-care facilities. They found that most parents and care givers expressed some measure of satisfaction with their daily communication but felt that the quality of communication could be improved, particularly at the end of the day. Overall, these two pieces of research emphasise the idea that early stage interventions with children as they enter a structured care and learning environment can be very positive.

Dalli et al. (2011) conducted a literature review for the New Zealand Government, focussing on quality of very early years education. Their conclusions included, inter alia, that: clear programme protocols are beneficial; low adult–child ratios, well-qualified staff and a well-articulated curriculum are of benefit; and, direct benefits to children include social development and positive social behaviour. At the very least, this suggests that the Thai Government’s decision to make efforts in the area of early years (preschool) is well judged. Another study supporting this view is that of Powell et al. (2010). They examined public sector school pre-kindergartens in the mid-west area of the USA. Key aspects of their findings were that parental involvement with the schools and perceived teacher responsiveness were severally, positively linked with children’s social skills, maths skills (parental) and early reading (teacher responsiveness), while both aspects of adult activity were negatively related to problem behaviour amongst children. The finding about behaviour seems especially important as it indicates that preschool centre attendance can help avoid the bad behaviour of spoilt, and perhaps also ignored, young children.

An Asian study supporting this line of reasoning (particularly relevant because of its social setting) is that of Aboud (2006); looking at data from rural Bangladesh, she reports as follows (p. 46):

Four hundred children between 4.5 and 6.5 years were assessed, half in preschools and half in villages where there were no preschools. After controlling [for] the differences in children’s age, nutritional status, mother’s education, and assets: preschool children performed better than the comparison children on measures of vocabulary, verbal reasoning, nonverbal reasoning, and school readiness. On some indicators of social development during play, preschool children performed better, though not on the cognitive aspects of play. They were less likely to be stunted but did not differ on most other health variables.

Again, while asserting the benefits of early years interventions in some form, the study by Kabitcibasi et al. (2001) in Turkey looks at the differing effects of such interventions being home-based (i.e. the input is mainly from parents) or based at preschool day-care centres. They found that both types of intervention could be effective in the short term but the home-based approach had more enduring effects. Our thought here would be that primacy of parental input and control obviously pre-supposes that the children’s parents themselves have the social and educational skills necessary to create an environment which delivers benefits. Such an assumption may be somewhat “heroic” when one looks at parents who actually are poorly educated rural peasants, of whom there are many in Thailand. This argues for day-care centres and kindergartens if all children are to have a decent chance.

While there appears to be a broad consensus as to the value of preschool education, and there have been efforts to identify positive situational factors, there may be problems too. This is illustrated by a study in Hong Kong of Ho (2008). She highlights the potential tensions inherent in preschool provision where parents already worry about their children’s future school attainment before they even arrive at a “proper” school. These tensions are basically between the parents’ desire for academic preparation for primary school and the professionals’ belief in the value to children of learning through play. This is perhaps likely to be less of an issue in rural Thailand but illustrates the principle that the actors in the play may not always begin by pulling in the same direction, albeit all of them have the children’s interests at heart in a broad sense.

We pause here to consider the issue of inclusion/exclusion, as it relates to the education of young children in Southeast Asia, of which Thailand is part. There are a variety of reasons why children may not participate in preschool education: these include social convention (ideas such as “parents know best”); ability to pay, given that such education is often not funded by the state; and unwillingness of providers to deal with handicapped children (Bray, 1998; de Los Angeles-Bantista, 2004; Rao and Pearson, 2009; Kim and Umayahara, 2010; Gangopadhyay and Bhattacharyay, 2015).

Kim and Umayahara (2010) state that, although pre-primary enrolment has increased substantially in the first decade of the twenty-first century in the Asia Pacific region, huge disparities continue to exist among and within countries. Countries in the region are far from providing equal opportunities for all children from birth. One of the problems that governments face is the competing demand for funding from other important areas such as pollution, disease and infrastructure development [Bray (1998)]. This is why, in some countries such as Cambodia, non-governmental funding is the norm for preschool education [Rao and Pearson (2009)].

Children with special needs are a particular case for concern. Such children have educational needs similar to other children, but these are not always readily provided for. In the context of Brunei, Mundia (2009) noted with concern that there was a lack of contact and coordination between special education in schools and school counselling professionals. Even worse, there are no special education teachers or school counsellors at preschool level in Brunei.

Finally, in regard to the issue of inclusion, Pereira (2016) makes an important point; he argues that while at one level, issues faced by Southeast Asian countries (with his exemplars being Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam) are common, solutions have to be tailored to the individual country in line with their differing contextual challenges: the place of religion within education in Indonesia; the tensions between the Malays and other ethnic groups in Malaysia; and issues around minority ethnic groups in Vietnam. He also notes that in Vietnam, three quarters of children attend preschool in urban areas but only about half of them do that in rural areas. Against that baseline, Thailand’s Songkhla Province is doing quite well, but the development of services for the excluded should remain a matter for future attention.

Methodology

This study sought to fulfil a perceived need to determine participating parents’ views of the activities of preschool childcare centres which their children attend. It forms part of an existing research and development project, “Preschool Centres Development in Songkhla: A Case Study of Local Curriculum and Integrated Lesson Plans for Early Childhood Development in the Pilot Preschool Centres” (Sornprasith et al., 2015). Instead of undertaking this research and development project separately, it was integrated into a wider work of the Arts and Cultural Centre (ACC), Prince of Songkhla University, based on the value and process of the Thai living culture as the main driving force to develop human potential, which is the main social capital for the sustainability of cultural evolution and inheritance. The second author, a project leader and director of ACC until 2014, has been working with these preschool teachers in the studied area since 2000. Results of this study were also used to enhance the service quality of each childcare centre for developing human potential in early childhood, which will help deliver equity and efficiency (Heckman, 2011).

As noted already, the overarching objective was to study parental expectations of and satisfaction with overall services of preschool centres and to determine factors which affect parents’ satisfaction with the preschool education provided in a part of one of Thailand’s southern provinces. To address this overall objective, we analysed five separate questions which consider parts of the overall picture. Those questions were as follows:

We now consider the nature of the data collection process and the type of analysis deployed to examine that data.

Findings from the analysis

Conclusion

Overall, given the location and non-compulsory nature of the childcare provision being assessed, it would seem fair to say that the answer to the overarching objective was fairly positive. Expectations were non-trivial; parents looked for more than “baby-minding” and expected there to be some appropriately qualified staff. The perceived satisfaction levels indicate that there is scope for improvement, but the picture is not unduly negative. In short, parents and guardians of the children attending the Songkhla facilities believed that their charges are being properly cared for by acceptable staff, are being helped to develop socially and are learning some important basic intellectual material (such as numeracy and reading). However, it should be noted that the official aims of the “Local Curriculum and Integrated Lesson Plans for Early Childhood Development” programme did not specifically focus on the acquisition of mathematical knowledge. Hence, we only report that parents perceived some knowledge acquisition in this field positively relative to their own expectations, distinct from the programme’s specified objectives.

In more detail, the results of the study showed that the majority of respondents were parents and had one child enrolled at a childcare centre. Most children were three-four years old and lived less than 1 km from each childcare centre. Although respondents were allowed to choose their expectation for more than two functions, the top three teachers’ duties of respondents’ expectation were taking care of children, allowing them to have their own development and potential; teaching children reading and writing skills and mathematics literacy; and regularly developing teaching methods for children. The study showed moderate to high level of respondents’ satisfaction with teachers’ knowledge and ability, services, activities and quality of childcare centre. Although expectations such as teaching assistants’ knowledge and ability and picking up children had the lowest average rating, they had high satisfaction of their child’s development, which were live with others and self-care. The respondents’ expectations about taking care of children to allow them to achieve their own development and potential affected the levels of satisfaction in respect of head teachers’ knowledge and ability. The respondent’s expectation on nannying children by feeding them, bathing them and looking after their security affected the levels of satisfaction in respects of both teacher and assistant teachers’ knowledge and ability and participating in activities at a childcare centre.

Expectations of respondents about taking care of children such that they have their own development path and potential were not highly correlated with perceptions of satisfaction in respect to the nannying of children, by feeding, bathing and looking after their security. This suggested some element of conflict of perspectives around the teacher’s role in the infant/toddler classroom. It inevitably denies that such perspectives relate to the relationship between parent and teacher. Many research works have clearly shown that parent–teacher relationships lead to increased parental involvement, which has been shown to have a significant and lasting impact on children’s academic achievement (for more details, see Knopf and Swick, 2007). One result was to show that different expectations affected levels of satisfaction in respects to different dimensions. Parents who expected a teacher’s duty to focus on child development were more likely to be more satisfied with the knowledge and ability of a head teacher of a childcare centre, whereas parents who expected a teacher’s duty to focus on factors such as feeding tended to have more satisfaction with the knowledge and ability of teachers and assistant teachers and participating in activities at a childcare centre. These results implied that the teaching direction (or focus) of a head teacher may concentrate on child development issues, while teachers and teaching assistants may concentrate more on the nanny role. Although both these aspects of a teacher’s duties fall within their job description and responsibility to provide a good service in a childcare centre, other components such as parental involvement are needed to bring about good-quality or effective education with full potential for children’s development in all ways. Therefore, to build a parent–school partnership into the life of a childcare centre with space for providing parent feedback and involvement, as well as exchanging views of their expectations between parents and all staff, is what is truly required to deliver a vision of their (mutually understood) ideal childcare centre.

Implications and utility of the study findings

As noted, this study began with the need for parents’ views in evaluating the childcare service of centres in a Thai province, which forms part of a sponsored research and development project, “Preschool Centres Development in Songkhla: A Case Study of Local Curriculum and Integrated Lesson Plans for Early Childhood Development in the Pilot Preschool Centres” (Sornprasit et al., 2015). After conducting data analysis, a workshop for discussion of these results with head teachers or representatives of childcare centres and local public administration was held. This two-way communication brought about a useful and direct implication because teachers and representatives of a childcare centre were allowed to ask questions and make comments to help them understand it and to use the results of this study in each centre to improve their service. The results of this project were not a direct output of a unified local curriculum, with associated integrated lesson plans such as those observed in the project and used in the childcare centres, because they use various curricula, including a National Curriculum and various teaching methods advised by other institutions and the local public administration. Nevertheless, the researchers can use these results and their feedback as a valuable part of the larger project.

One interesting outcome, as noted before, was the dissonance between perceptions of importance of what may be seen as early-stage academic development of and the care-giving and social nurture of the children attending the kind of Thai preschool centres studied. This suggests that it would likely be beneficial for an enhanced explanation to the parents of existing and potential students of the benefits of a holistic approach to the development of their children. Social, health and academic development are all important for the child, and all of them should be moulded into an attractive, unified experience. Finally, lessons learnt in the southern province of Songkhla are likely to be equally applicable across the rest of Thailand, even in Bangkok, albeit the “metropolitan elite” may feel themselves to be special. It may also be reasonable to speculate that many findings may also apply to other countries in the region. After all, why should good-quality preschool provision be fundamentally different in Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei or wherever? To take a very particular case in point, Southern Thailand and the northern states of Malaysia have much in common. Indeed, the border between the two countries, as they now are, was adjusted as recently as 1909 under a treaty between Siam (Thailand) and Britain.

The reported study’s usefulness or utility could be further enhanced if some of the factors related to the inclusion/exclusion issue were to be addressed in a future phase of work. The most basic issue would probably be to explore why those children not participating in preschool provision in Songkhla are absent. If possible, it would be helpful to also compare that position with that of other provinces in Thailand. Pereira’s (2016) comment that solutions must be crafted to best fit contexts perhaps raises the issue of the Buddhist/Muslim mix in Songkhla (as the province is located in the South of Thailand, there are many more Muslims there than in the rest of the country). Pereira with reference to Indonesia and Young et al. (2017) in the Brunei context make explicit reference to the potential tensions between modern, educational thinking and the perceived needs of Islam in school, and presumably also preschool, education.

Finally, one would speculate that, sadly, the opportunities and needs of disabled children, be they physical or mental disabilities, are likely to be rather low down the priorities list of many funders and providers, in a setting of intrinsic shortage. Any evidence to the contrary would be both interesting and a source of hope.