Conference Agenda

Research studies in early childhood education (ECE) have accelerated over the past two decades (Ibrayeva et al., 2024). For decades, research in neuroscience, economics, and education highlights the long-term effects of high-quality ECE on child development, national economies, and society as a whole (Conkbayir, 2017; Garcia et al., 2021). Importantly, ECE benefits are consistent when it is a quality program, especially the process quality (Sylva et al., 2020; Ulferts et al., 2019). The international organisations like the UN (e.g., SDG goals on quality education), OECD (e.g., Starting Strong) and scholars strongly advocate for quality ECE, as it can have a substantial impact on children’s wellbeing. ECE here refers to formal education for children aged 1 to 6 years.

Kazakhstan is a post-Soviet country, which now has the highest preschool enrolment rate in its history. In 2023, the percentage increased to 99.6, whereas the enrolment rate of children aged 2-6 was 90.6% (TALDAU, 2025). However, low quality became a side effect of the accelerated expansion of ECE. A national research project using the international scale for quality assessment showed low quality of ECE in Kazakhstan (Kiikova et al., 2024). Recent initiatives in Kazakhstani ECE are emphasising quality improvement, yet the term “quality” remains undefined in the legislative context. Without understanding the meaning of quality, it is not possible to evaluate that quality (Sheridan, 2009). Therefore, this significant expansion in ECE and quality agenda brought me to question what means ECE quality from various perspectives.

The study had the purpose to understand how the quality of ECE was constructed from the perspectives of kindergarten leaders, teachers, parents, and children in Kazakhstan. In other words, from a constructive view it was investigated how key shareholders understood the nature and concept of ECE quality. There was no intention to measure or evaluate the quality of an ECE setting. Moreover, its aim was to explore what shapes that understanding of the construct of quality of ECE in Kazakhstan. For the study’s purpose, the following research questions were addressed: (1) How is the construct of the quality of ECE understood by kindergarten stakeholders in Kazakhstan – leaders, teachers, parents and children? (2) How does the local context and culture shape the understanding of the quality of ECE?

Despite the lack of a universal definition of ECE “quality”, most existing international literature adopts an objectivist approach that measures quality through specific indicators. In contrast, this study uses a relativist approach, viewing ECE quality as a complex, multifaceted, contextual, subjective, and socially constructed concept (Dahlberg et al., 2013). Additionally, the concept of quality is dynamic and can be influenced by various factors, values, and paradigms over time.

The study was driven by the social justice perspective, which is an alternative approach to discuss the quality construct compared to an input-process-outcome perspective (based on human capital theory) usually referred in the literature. Specifically, Tikly (2011) prioritised three main principles in developing his own model of quality education: education should be (1) inclusive, (2) relevant, and (3) participatory or democratic. Thus, the construct of quality cannot be universal. A standardised and normalised approach to quality could lead to the loss of authenticity and individuality. Souto-Manning and Rabadi-Raol (2018) criticise the idea of one-size-fits-all practices in ECE and advocate for culturally relevant and sustaining pedagogies, which are deconstructed “from the colonial matrix of power” (Mignolo, 2009, p. 20). Within this study, the universal idea of the quality of ECE was challenged, and the significance of listening to diverse voices was emphasised.

Global challenges such as social inequality, biodiversity loss, and climate change require profound societal transformation processes toward more sustainable ways of living. Since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (United Nations, 1993), the central role of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) has been emphasized as a means of supporting these transformations in an interdisciplinary manner. ESD equips learners with the knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes needed to make informed decisions and take responsible action for environmental integrity, economic viability, and a just society. It empowers people of all genders, both present and future generations, while respecting cultural diversity. (UNESCO, 2020). The aim is to promote critical judgment, reflection on individual courses of action, and engagement in shaping societal transformation processes toward sustainable development (Singer-Brodowski et al., 2026). There is a tendency for ESD to evolve into transformative learning (Mezirow, 1990), which aims to change consciousness (Wintersteiner et al., 2023). However, the potential of individual behavioral change alone to initiate socio-ecological transformation is limited. Instead, democratic learning and participatory spaces are required that enable individuals to critically reflect on power relations and decision-making structures, develop alternative future visions, and actively engage with others in societal transformation processes (Kenner, 2025). ESD is therefore closely linked to democracy education.

John Dewey (1916/2011) already emphasized the inseparable relationship between education and democracy, arguing that education must itself be organized democratically if society is to develop toward more just and desirable conditions. From this perspective, schools represent central experiential spaces in which democracy is not only taught theoretically but learned as a lived social practice. Empirical research demonstrates that democracy education strengthens young people’s political knowledge, critical judgment, and willingness to participate. Participatory school structures such as class councils, junior parliaments, and school parliaments create real decision-making spaces and enable authentic participation experiences (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).

In primary education, lived democracy is of particular importance. In age-appropriate settings, children experience self-determination and co-determination, thereby developing key competencies such as perspective-taking, conflict resolution skills, and a sense of responsibility (Hart, 1992). At the same time, schools are shaped by factors that restrict democracy, including administrative regulations, rigid time structures, and compulsory attendance. Even in formally participatory formats, the actual extent of student participation largely depends on the guidance and control exercised by teachers (Coelen & Wohnig, 2025). In a comparative case study conducted within the ERASMUS+ project SustainALL – Sustainability at all-day schools, an Austrian primary school identified its participatory structures, from school council, to the junior and school parliament, as a key example of the successful implementation of ESD (Dulle & Rauch, 2022). The school has gradually built up these structures since 1998 and firmly anchored them in the timetable to actively involve students in decision-making and the shaping of school life. The school is part of the Austrian ÖKOLOG school network, that aims at embedding ESD at schools and Universities of Teacher Education (whole institution approach) (www.ökolog.at). Building on this context, the study focuses on an in-depth analysis of participatory school structures with the aim of understanding their role in the practical implementation of democracy education within the framework of ESD. The guiding research question is: How are participatory decision-making processes and conflict resolution strategies acquired and practiced in everyday school life in the context of Education for Sustainable Development?