Until 1973, when the first act on day care was passed, the day-care system was characterized by voluntary organizations operating the majority of day-care institutions and staff training, with relatively little state support (Broddadóttir et al., 1997). In many ways, the modern ECEC in Iceland was established in 1973 when this first act was passed. From then, municipalities gradually took control of the provision as the coverage expanded.
From 1973–1984, only minor amendments were made to this act. Although the first act was not passed until 1973, bills had been proposed in parliament in the 1940s and 1960s on the operation of day care, although they were never fully discussed. The first such bill in 1946 emphasized that because of urbanization and industrialization, childcare was becoming a social problem and that it was the responsibility of the state to provide day care as a solution. Therefore, the safety and well-being of children was the main ideology behind this bill, not as a means for mothers to be able to work outside the home. Later, two bills were presented in 1963 and 1965 emphasizing the operation of day-care centers for the public and for the establishment of a school to train preschool teachers. In these bills, the emphasis had shifted from the interest of the child to labor market policies and the need for women to participate in the labor market (Eydal, 2005).
In the first legislative act, several reasons were advanced regarding children’s need for day care, such as the child’s development and safety and when both parents’participate in the labor market. These arguments were very similar to those from 1946. There was a political consensus on the legislation, and there were several reasons for its timing, such as changing living conditions, public acceptance of the importance of day care for the well-being and development of the child, the need for women to participate in the labor market, and the demand by women for equality (Broddadóttir et al., 1997). In the first act, the term “day home care” (i. dagvist) was used, and the services were divided into day-care nurseries, kindergartens, and school day-care centers. In the legislation, special emphasis was placed on the pedagogical value of day-care institutions and the education of qualified pedagogues. At the time, the government also accepted responsibility for providing training and funding for ECEC and incontrovertibly took over schools owned by charitable organizations (Gunnarsdóttir, 2014).
In sum, the rationale for public day care was not debated, and day-care institu-tions were recognized as a public issue and public responsibility (Eydal, 2005).
This is reflected in statistics about the expansion of day care between 1973 and
1984, although the volumes were low, and only part-time care for children three years and older was usually available. In 1984, 34 percent of three- to six-year-olds were enrolled in part-time day care (Broddadóttir et al., 1997; Eydal, 2005).
Interestingly, although women’s labor market participation and equality were mentioned in the debates in parliament, the main emphasis was on children’s rights. There were no controversies regarding who should provide the services.
A new legislation was passed in 1976, but it was not until 1981 that it was required that the Ministry of Education develop a national curriculum frame-work for ECEC (Law on Government Building and Running of Day-care Homes, 40/1981). According to Jónasson (2006), this change was in line with developments in Northern Europe and the United States.
In 1991, when a new act was passed, the term day care was changed to play-school. The argument for this change was that playschools were educational organizations. There was a debate in parliament because of different opinions about the purpose of preschool at this time. The debate revolved around whether the main purpose of playschool should be educational and for all children or as a social service for parents who wanted it (Alþingi, 1990, 1991).
This act represented the first instance in which it was recognized that all chil-dren should have the right to attend preschool. Later, in an act passed in 1994, municipalities were obliged to take the initiative in ensuring places for children.
Additionally, it was clearly stated that preschools were the first level of the edu-cational system (Gunnarsdóttir, 2014). The running and operation of preschools were moved from the state to the municipalities, while regulation and inspection remained at the state level (Broddadóttir et al. 1997).
In 1997, the training of ECEC staff was amalgamated with the Teachers College of Iceland, thereby moving their education to the university level (Gunnars-dóttir, 2014). In 2008, a milestone was reached when legislation on the whole Icelandic school system was passed. There were several fundamental changes in this legislation, such as enabling the further privatization of playschools in Iceland. The legislation specified that “municipal councils may authorize third parties to build and operate preschools using the form of non-profit organiza-tion, a company limited by shares or any other legal form.” In general, the emphasis was on deregulation and, accordingly, opportunities to write a new national curriculum for the whole school system. Each school was supposed to write its own curriculum based on its philosophy and methods. The emphasis
was much in the spirit of New Public Management, that is, a focus on measure-ments and goals (Magnúsdóttir & Dýrfjörð, 2016).
Another milestone was reached in 2008 with the act requiring that teachers at all levels hold a master’s degree (Gunnarsdóttir, 2014). The preschool act also stated that two-thirds of employees should be qualified as playschool teachers.
However, this goal has not been reached (Eurydice, 2019). Furthermore, a regu-lation on the working environment of preschools (655/2009) stated that each municipality, in cooperation with the head of the preschool, should make deci-sions about the number of children admitted to the preschool based on factors such as the age distribution and special needs of children, length of stay, size of the space used for play and instruction, and the composition of staff. However, there was no regulation regarding staff–child ratios.
Shortly after the legislation was passed, Iceland experienced a huge financial crash, forcing the then government to resign. After this crash, some preschools merged, and some were merged with compulsory schools. A report by the Min-istry of Education to parliament stated that, in 2014, 15 preschools were run jointly with compulsory schools (Skýrsla Mennta og menningarmálaráðerra, 2018).
The national curriculum for preschools was last updated in 2011. It continued to underscore pedagogy and the best interests of the child as well as ensuring con-sistency and continuity in education from preschool to university (National Core Curricula, 2011). Gunnarsdóttir (2014) appraised the document as very progres-sive. The first three chapters in the curriculum are the same for all educational levels, with the remaining chapters dedicated to each school level. The ideology is based on six pillars: democracy, sustainability, equal opportunities, reading, creativity, and health and welfare. Every school is supposed to base its curricula on these six pillars. Although the emphasis is still on learning through play, there appears to be a greater focus on integrating playschools with compulsory schools. The document did not explicitly state that preschools should constitute preparation for formal education. However, it specified that preschool learning should form a basis for compulsory school (Menntamálaráðuneytið, 2011a).
This was confirmed in research by Einarsdóttir (2007, 2015), which concluded that the gap between preschool and compulsory school seemed to have nar-rowed. This is also in line with discussions by labor unions that have proposed transfers of five-year-old children to primary school, which is thought to give the children an advantage as they would spend more time in formal education.
The same points have been observed in policy discussions about preschools.
According to Gunnarsdóttir (2014), some preschools might have adapted their
terminology toward more teaching instead of play, although the emphasis is still on learning by play and pedagogy. Some municipalities have expressed support to move the emphasis more toward formal education preschools by moving five-year-olds into primary schools and conducting assessments on children in the last year of preschool. This development is in line with international forces advocating for more measurements, standardized tests, assessments, etc. These trends have also had an influence in Iceland, as in the other Nordic countries.
However, findings by Einarsdóttir (2019) on the views of parents of schoolers indicated that parents were satisfied with the social emphasis of pre-schools and did not want to focus on education. This is perhaps a sign of a mis-match between the regulative environment of municipalities and the traditional view that learning through play should be in the forefront.
Coverage
Figure 6.1 presents a historic point of view on the share of children attending preschool. The figure demonstrates the development from 1990–2018. It shows that full coverage was reached just after 2007. The older the children got, the more common it was for parents to use ECEC services.
Figure 6.1. Children in day care by age and time in Iceland (percentage of age groups)
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201
1
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
1 year 2 years 3-5 years
Notes: Compulsory school starts at the age of 6. Only children in day-care included, not children in after school arrangements.
Source: Nordic Statistics CHIL03