Helping our Youngest to Learn and Grow

Chapter 1. Policies for early learning: Providing equitable access

 

Abstract

Research has shown that attendance at high-quality early childhood education and care programmes can have a significant impact on children’s cognitive, social and emotional development, and on their performance in school later on. This chapter discusses how these programmes can also help reduce social inequalities and be particularly beneficial to disadvantaged children.

Notes regarding Cyprus

Note by Turkey: The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Turkey recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Turkey shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”.

Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union: The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Turkey. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus.

A note regarding Israel

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

The first five years of a child’s life are critical to his or her development. During this period, children learn at a faster rate than at any other time in their lives, developing cognitive, and social and emotional skills that are fundamental to their achievements throughout childhood and as adults.

Some effects of quality early childhood education and care on children’s development and learning have been established in the literature, and there is a general consensus that the quality of education and care provided has a strong impact on children’s early development (Melhuish et al., 2015_[1]). The OECD Starting Strong reports (OECD, 2001_[2]; OECD, 2006_[3]; OECD, 2011_[4]; OECD, 2015_[5]; OECD, 2017_[6]) and other international research point out that high-quality early childhood education and care is beneficial for children’s early development and their subsequent school performance in language use and emerging academic skills, early literacy and numeracy, and socio-emotional skills (Burchinal, 2016_[7]; Cappella, Aber and Kim, 2016_[8]; Melhuish et al., 2015_[1]; Yoshikawa and Kabay, 2015_[9]). In addition, the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment, or PISA, shows that 15-year-old students who had attended early childhood education for one year or longer are significantly more likely than students who had attended such a programme for less than one year to attain the baseline level of proficiency in reading, mathematics and science (OECD, 2017_[10]).

Box 1.1. Definitions of terms used in this report

Early childhood education and care includes all arrangements providing care and education for children under compulsory school age, regardless of setting, funding, opening hours or programme content.

Pre-primary education refers to services for children to support early development in preparation for participation in school and society, accommodating children from age three to the start of primary education. It is also often referred to as “preschool” and it corresponds to ISCED level 0.2. For international comparability purposes, the term “early childhood education” is used to label ISCED level 0.

The benefits of high-quality early childhood education and care also extend to health and well-being, for example by helping instil the habits of eating healthily and doing regular physical activity (OECD, 2014_[11]). Evidence is growing that high-quality early childhood education and care services also help support children’s outcomes later in life, as manifested in greater labour market participation, a reduction in the incidence of poverty, greater inter-generational social mobility and better social integration (Sammons et al., 2008_[12]; Sylva et al., 2004_[13]).

An early learning environment that provides children with opportunities to engage in developmentally appropriate, stimulating and language-rich activities, and social interactions can compensate for the risks for children from disadvantaged backgrounds of falling behind or not reaching their full potential (Arnold and Doctoroff, 2003_[14]; Heckman, 2006_[15]). Research highlights the long-term benefits of investments in early childhood education and care programmes.

Effective early learning also predicts well-being in adulthood across a range of indicators, including general well-being, physical and mental health, educational attainment and employment. The areas of early learning that are of particular importance for many adult outcomes include: language and literacy; numeracy and other non-verbal cognitive skills; self-regulation; emotional health; social well-being; and social and emotional skills. During early learning, gains in one domain contribute to gains in others. This cycle of reinforcement across domains means that early learning programmes should be assessed using a whole-child approach, recognising the overlapping nature of outcomes for young children.

A key goal of most governments’ attempts to increase access to early childhood education and care is to improve equity in outcomes for older children and adults. This objective is also reflected in United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 4.2: “Ensure that all children have access to quality early childhood education and care so that they are ready for primary education.”

Box 1.2. Sustainable Development Goal 4.2

Sustainable Development Goal 4 has 10 targets encompassing many different aspects of education. Seven of these targets are expected outcomes; three are the means of achieving these targets. Goal 4.2 specifically focuses on early childhood.

SDG target 4.2 Early childhood development and universal pre-primary education

By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education.

Indicator 4.2.1: The proportion of children under 5 years of age who are developmentally on track in health, learning and psychosocial well-being, by sex

Indicator 4.2.2: The participation rate in organised learning (one year before the official primary age), by sex

Attendance at early childhood education and care and learning outcomes

To reap the benefits of early childhood education and care, children must attend a programme. Many of the inequalities observed in school systems are already present when students first enter formal schooling and persist as students progress through education. Because research shows that inequalities tend to grow the longer students are enrolled in school, early childhood education and care can reduce inequalities in education – as long as participation is universal and the learning opportunities are consistently of high quality.

Access to early childhood education and care has risen sharply in OECD countries, and there is a growing awareness of the importance of educational and pedagogical programmes for very young children. Despite the increase in recent years, enrolment rates remain low for younger children, especially for those under the age of three. On average across OECD countries, about 35% of children under three were enrolled in early childhood education and care programmes in 2016, although participation at this age varies significantly across countries. By contrast, for the vast majority of OECD countries, more than 90% of five-year-olds are enrolled (Figure 1.1). These countries are already close to or have reached the Sustainable Development Goal’s target of universal participation in organised learning one year before the official age at entry into primary education.

Figure 1.1. Enrolment rates in early childhood education and primary education, by age

The increase in access is partly the result of extensions of legal entitlements to a place in such programmes for children under the age of three, and of efforts to ensure free access for 3-5 year-olds. However, significant differences persist across OECD countries in the quality of the programmes offered and in the usual number of hours per week that each child is enrolled. Access is not a guarantee of high-quality early childhood education and care. Therefore, in many countries, the curriculum framework for pre-primary education has been extended to enhance the quality of those programmes and to ensure a better transition between pre-primary and primary education.

PISA 2015 found that 15-year-old students score four points higher in science for every additional year they had spent in pre-primary education; but the association largely disappears after accounting for the socio-economic status of students and schools. One reason why the association is weak, even before accounting for the socio-economic profile of students and schools, is that the relation is curvilinear: students who had spent less than one year in pre-primary education score lower in science than students who had not attended at all or who had spent more than one year.

Equity in access to early childhood education and learning outcomes

While students who had attended early childhood education and care programmes for longer scored better in PISA, on average across countries, the benefits are significantly greater for socio-economically disadvantaged children (as shown in Figure 1.2 Figure 1.4). Failure to address these differences could mean that early childhood education and care exacerbates rather than mitigates inequity.

Figure 1.2. Age at starting early childhood education and care, and science proficiency at 15, by socio-economic status

Across OECD countries, the average duration of attendance at early childhood education and care programmes is associated with certain characteristics of the schools 15-year-old students attend. Specifically, schools that serve a larger proportion of socio-economically advantaged students, private schools and schools in urban areas tend to have students who participated in early childhood education and care for a longer time than schools that serve fewer advantaged students, public schools and schools in rural areas, respectively (Figure 1.3). This suggests that participation in early childhood education and care is associated with a number of factors – including characteristics of the secondary schools students attend later on – that can also contribute to students’ outcomes.

Figure 1.3. Differences in duration of attendance at early childhood education and care, by school characteristics

On average among 15-year-old students who remember their attendance at early childhood education (ISCED 0), 92% of them reported in PISA 2015 that they had attended early childhood education for “at least one year” and 77% of them reported they had attended for “at least two years”. However, as noted above, in most countries, advantaged 15-year-old students had more opportunities than disadvantaged students to attend early childhood education. For instance, an average of 72% of disadvantaged 15-year-old students compared to 82% of advantaged students had attended early childhood education for at least two years (Figure 1.4). Across OECD countries, the differences between the percentages of advantaged and disadvantaged students who had attended early childhood education and care for at least two years were larger than 18 percentage points in Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, Turkey and the United States. This means that the 15-years-old students who could have benefited the most from early childhood education – those from disadvantaged backgrounds – were less likely to have participated in those kinds of programmes when they were younger.

Figure 1.4. Percentage of 15-year-old students who had attended preschool for two years or more, by socio-economic status (2015)

Similar inequities are observed when rural schools and urban schools, or public and private schools are compared. Across OECD countries, 15-year-old students in urban schools had spent two months more in early childhood education than students enrolled in rural schools; 15-year-olds students enrolled in private schools had also spent two months more in early childhood education than students enrolled in public schools (OECD, 2016_[16]).

Early childhood education and care programmes are especially important for students with an immigrant background. They can help develop the linguistic and social skills needed to integrate in a new country’s school system. Immigrant students who reported that they had attended early childhood education and care programmes scored 49 points higher, on average, on the PISA reading assessment than those who had not participated in such programmes – the equivalent of around one-and-a-half additional years of schooling. Moreover, PISA data show that immigrant students benefit more, academically, over the long term than native students when they enrol in early childhood education and care at a younger age. As 15-year-olds, they even score higher than native-born students on the PISA science assessment.

Addressing social inequality through early childhood education and care

The early childhood education and care literature has traditionally focused specifically on socio-economic differences and the potential of high-quality early childhood education and care to compensate for deprived home environments, see for recent overviews (Duncan and Magnuson, 2013_[17]; Leseman and Slot, 2014_[18]). For instance, preventing “intellectual disability” among poor children was the main focus of renown early-intervention studies, such as the Perry Preschool (Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997_[19]). The main idea, which remains dominant in both research papers and policy documents, is that if children are exposed to a safe, nurturing and enriching environment in early childhood education and care, their experiences in this environment will offset the negative effects associated with poverty. There is evidence from both randomised controlled trials and observational studies that early childhood education and care has the potential to improve the life chances of children from disadvantaged families (Barnett, 2011_[20]; Camilli et al., 2010_[21]; Dearing, McCartney and Taylor, 2009_[22]; Melhuish et al., 2008_[23]; Zachrisson and Dearing, 2014_[24]).

It is therefore a paradox that, with a few exceptions, across countries there is social selection into early childhood education and care, and differences in the quality of that education and care, with socio-economically disadvantaged children being the least likely to attend high-quality programmes (Petitclerc et al., 2017_[25]). This includes countries with market-based and targeted programmes, e.g. in the United States (Fuller, Holloway and Liang, 1996_[26]) and countries with subsidised universal access to early childhood education and care, such as Norway (Sibley et al., 2015_[27]; Zachrisson, Janson and Nærde, 2013_[28]).

Moreover, although the cited studies show that attending (compared to not attending) high-quality early childhood education and care programmes may benefit children’s development, well-being and learning, it remains an open question as to what constitutes the “active ingredients” or the quality features responsible for these outcomes (Duncan and Magnuson, 2013_[17]; Sim et al., 2018_[29]). For instance, two meta-analyses of the process quality of staff-child interactions failed to find that quality to be more beneficial for disadvantaged than for advantaged children (Keys et al., 2013_[30]). Identifying disparities related to socio-economic status in the quality of early childhood education and care (broadly defined) and disentangling the “active ingredients” involved in promoting equity in developmental opportunities should therefore be priorities in future research (Duncan and Magnuson, 2013_[17]; Sim et al., 2018_[29]).

Children from disadvantaged families, and from ethnically diverse families, often attend centres with other children from similar backgrounds (Becker and Schober, 2017_[31]). Merging evidence from the United States and Norway suggests that peers in early childhood education and care influence both language and socio-emotional development (Justice et al., 2011_[32]; Neidell and Waldfogel, 2010_[33]; Ribeiro and Zachrisson, 2017_[34]; Ribeiro, Zachrisson and Dearing, 2017_[35]). Thus, the composition of the peer group influences children’s development. For example, a study from the United States found children to develop better cognitive school-readiness skills when attending preschool with children of higher average socio-economic status, regardless of the child’s own background (Reid and Ready, 2013_[36]). Likewise, in the Netherlands, children from disadvantaged families who attended programmes with children from a variety of backgrounds gained more in literacy and reading skills than children in socio-economically homogeneous groups (de Haan, A. et al., 2013_[37]). In Germany, structural features and the availability of learning material was not associated with group composition (Becker and Schober, 2017_[31]); but evidence from the United States suggests that in some contexts, parents in disadvantaged families tend to choose centres of lower quality than those chosen by more affluent parents (Dowsett et al., 2008_[38]). It is therefore of high policy relevance to identify across countries the extent to which disadvantaged children are clustered together in early childhood education and care programmes, and whether and where centres with substantial numbers of disadvantaged children are of lower quality than centres attended by more affluent children.

Box 1.3. International Early Learning and Child Well-being Study

The International Early Learning and Child Well-being Study is designed to help countries improve children’s early learning experiences in order to better support children’s development and overall well-being. The study provides countries with a common language and framework to foster growing interest in and commitments to early childhood development. By collecting robust empirical information on children’s early learning environments at home and on their early childhood education and care experiences, countries can identify factors that promote or hinder children’s early learning. The knowledge generated by the study will be shared across countries and encourage countries to take action with the aim of improving children’s outcomes and overall well-being. The study is led by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) with support from member governments and an international consortium of early childhood and research experts.

 

The study involves five-year-old children, their parents and teachers from early childhood education and care centres or schools, as well as trained study administrators. Ensuring the well-being of the children is the first priority of the study. For this reason, new tools for data collection were developed specifically with children in mind. Custom-made activities were created involving stories and games that are interesting, fun and developmentally appropriate for five-year-olds. The study takes a holistic approach and includes multiple domains of early learning: emergent cognitive skills, such as literacy and numeracy; social and emotional skills, such as empathy and trust; and skills that draw from both cognitive and non-cognitive capacities, such as self-regulation. In addition to including a comprehensive set of learning domains, the study collects information from a wide range of sources; children, parents, staff and study administrators provide information about children’s emergent skills.

Launched in 2016, the study is one of the most ambitious international efforts to develop a comprehensive set of metrics around children’s early learning. The results from the field trial in 2017 showed that children enjoy the animated stories and games, and that teachers and centre staff support an international focus on children’s development at this age. Results from the study will be available in early 2020.

 

Conclusions

During the first five years of their life, children learn at a faster rate than at any other time, developing the cognitive, and social and emotional skills that are fundamental to their achievements throughout childhood and as adults. Early childhood education and care is thus a powerful lever to help children realise their potential.

Moreover, if children are exposed to a safe, nurturing and enriching environment in early childhood education and care, their experiences in these programmes can offset the negative consequences associated with disadvantage. There is evidence from both randomised controlled trials and observational studies that early childhood education and care has the potential to improve the life chances of children from disadvantaged families.

It is therefore a paradox that, across countries, there is consistent social selection into early childhood education and care, and differences in the quality of that education and care. Failure to address these differences could mean that early childhood education and care exacerbates rather than mitigates inequity. The next two chapters will examine policy options to address this issue.

References

Arnold, D. and G. Doctoroff (2003), “The early education of socioeconomically disadvantaged children”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 54/1, pp. 517-545, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.111301.145442. [14]

Barnett, W. (2011), “Effectiveness of Early Educational Intervention”, Science, Vol. 333/6045, pp. 975-978, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1204534. [20]

Becker, B. and P. Schober (2017), “Not Just Any Child Care Center? Social and Ethnic Disparities in the Use of Early Education Institutions With a Beneficial Learning Environment”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 28/8, pp. 1011-1034, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1320900. [31]

Burchinal, E. (2016), “Quality, thresholds, features and dosage in early care and education: Secondary data analyses of child outcomes”, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 81/2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mono.12248. [7]

Camilli, G. et al. (2010), “Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 112/3, pp. 579–620. [21]

Cappella, E., J. Aber and H. Kim (2016), Teaching Beyond Achievement Tests: Perspectives From Developmental and Education Science, American Educational Research Association, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/978-0-935302-48-6_4. [8]

de Haan, A. et al. (2013), “Targeted versus mixed preschools and kindergartens: Effects of class composition and teacher-managed activities on disadvanged children’s emergent academic skills”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, Vol. 24/2, pp. 177-194, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2012.749792. [37]

Dearing, E., K. McCartney and B. Taylor (2009), “Does Higher Quality Early Child Care Promote Low-Income Children’s Math and Reading Achievement in Middle Childhood?”, Child Development, Vol. 80/5, pp. 1329-1349, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01336.x. [22]

Dowsett, C. et al. (2008), “Structural and process features in three types of child care for children from high and low income families”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 23/1, pp. 69-93, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.06.003. [38]

Duncan, G. and K. Magnuson (2013), “Investing in Preschool Programs”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 27/2, pp. 109-132, http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.27.2.109. [17]

Fuller, B., S. Holloway and X. Liang (1996), “Family Selection of Child-Care Centers: The Influence of Household Support, Ethnicity, and Parental Practices”, Child Development, Vol. 67/6, p. 3320, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131781. [26]

Heckman, J. (2006), “Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children”, Science, Vol. 312/5782, pp. 1900-1902, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1128898. [15]

Justice, L. et al. (2011), “Peer Effects in Preschool Classrooms: Is Children’s Language Growth Associated With Their Classmates’ Skills?”, Child Development, Vol. 82/6, pp. 1768-1777, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41289881. [32]

Keys, T. et al. (2013), “Preschool Center Quality and School Readiness: Quality Effects and Variation by Demographic and Child Characteristics”, Child Development, Vol. 84/4, pp. 1171-1190, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12048. [30]

Leseman, P. and P. Slot (2014), “Breaking the cycle of poverty: challenges for European early childhood education and care”, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, Vol. 22/3, pp. 314-326, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293x.2014.912894. [18]

Melhuish, E. et al. (2015), A review of research on the effects of early childhood education and care (ECEC) upon child development. WP4.1 Curriculum and quality analysis impact review, CARE, http://ecec-care.org/fileadmin/careproject/Publications/reports/. [1]

Melhuish, E. et al. (2008), “THE EARLY YEARS: Preschool Influences on Mathematics Achievement”, Science, Vol. 321/5893, pp. 1161-1162, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1158808. [23]

Neidell, M. and J. Waldfogel (2010), “Cognitive and Noncognitive Peer Effects in Early Education”, Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 92/3, pp. 562-576, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00012. [33]

OECD (2017), Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-3-en. [10]

OECD (2017), Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en. [6]

OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en. [16]

OECD (2015), Starting Strong IV: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264233515-en. [5]

OECD (2014), New Insights from TALIS 2013: Teaching and Learning in Primary and Upper Secondary Education, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264226319-en. [11]

OECD (2011), Starting strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264123564-en. [4]

OECD (2006), Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264035461-en. [3]

OECD (2001), Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264192829-en. [2]

Petitclerc, A. et al. (2017), “Who uses early childhood education and care services? Comparing socioeconomic selection across five western policy contexts”, International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, Vol. 11/1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40723-017-0028-8. [25]

Reid, J. and D. Ready (2013), “High-Quality Preschool: The Socioeconomic Composition of Preschool Classrooms and Children’s Learning”, Early Education & Development, Vol. 24/8, pp. 1082-1111, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.757519. [36]

Ribeiro, L. and H. Zachrisson (2017), “Peer Effects on Aggressive Behavior in Norwegian Child Care Centers”, Child Development, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12953. [34]

Ribeiro, L., H. Zachrisson and E. Dearing (2017), “Peer effects on the development of language skills in Norwegian childcare centers”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 41, pp. 1-12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.05.003. [35]

Sammons, P. et al. (2008), Children’s Cognitive Attainment and Progress in English Primary Schools During Key Stage 2: Investigating the potential continuing influences of pre-school education, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91452-7_12. [12]

Schweinhart, L. and D. Weikart (1997), “The high/scope preschool curriculum comparison study through age 23”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 12/2, pp. 117-143, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0885-2006(97)90009-0. [19]

Sibley, E. et al. (2015), “Do increased availability and reduced cost of early childhood care and education narrow social inequality gaps in utilization? Evidence from Norway”, International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, Vol. 9/1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40723-014-0004-5. [27]

Sim, M. et al. (2018), Teaching, Pedagogy and Practice in Early Years Childcare: An Evidence Review, Early Intervention Foundation. [29]

Sylva, K. et al. (2004), The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project: Final Report - A longitudinal study funded by the DfES 1997-2004, Institute of Education, University of London/Department for Education and Skills/Sure Start, London. [13]

Yoshikawa, H. and S. Kabay (2015), The Evidence Base on Early Childhood Care and Education in Global Contexts, UNESCO, Paris, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002324/232456e.pdf. [9]

Zachrisson, H. and E. Dearing (2014), “Family Income Dynamics, Early Childhood Education and Care, and Early Child Behavior Problems in Norway”, Child Development, Vol. 86/2, pp. 425-440, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12306. [24]

Zachrisson, H., H. Janson and A. Nærde (2013), “Predicting early center care utilization in a context of universal access”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 28/1, pp. 74-82, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.06.004. [28]