Helping our Youngest to Learn and Grow

Chapter 2. Policies for early learning: Work organisation and staff qualifications

 

Abstract

This chapter examines two aspects of quality as the term relates to early childhood education and care: structural characteristics and process quality. Structural characteristics refer to the work organisation, including working hours, staff salaries and the ratio of children to staff, and staff qualifications in a given programme. Process quality is defined as children’s interactions with staff and with the other children in their group. The chapter discusses the research showing how the interplay of these various components can affect the quality of early childhood education and care.

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.

A growing body of research suggests that the magnitude of the benefits of early education and care for children depends on the quality of the services provided. Low-quality programmes have been associated with no benefits or even with detrimental effects on children’s development and learning (Britto, Yoshikawa and Boller, 2011_[1]; Howes et al., 2008_[2]). With mounting pressure to provide more affordable places in early childhood education and care programmes, in a sector that is often highly decentralised, it can be particularly daunting to improve quality – particularly when public budgets are being tightened. That makes it even more important to have a clear understanding of the dimensions of quality that matter most for child development.

Dimensions of “quality” in early childhood education and care

The definitions of quality in early childhood education and care often distinguish between structural characteristics and process quality (OECD, 2018_[3]).

Structural characteristics are more distal indicators of the quality of early childhood education and care. They refer to the infrastructure, i.e. the available physical, human and material resources. Structural characteristics tend to be aspects of the early childhood education and care system that are easier to regulate, such as child-staff ratio, group size and staff training/education. These characteristics can often be measured through surveys or interviews at the classroom, setting or system level.

Process quality concerns the more proximal aspects of children’s daily experience. It includes the social, emotional, physical and instructional aspects of children’s interactions with staff members and other children (peer interactions) while involved in play, more structured activities or routines. Staff-child interactions include: the emotional climate, including physical and emotional care and support; instructional quality or pedagogical practices, including the strategies and activities staff use to engage children in learning and development, and how they scaffold children’s learning; and the organisation of group routines and the management of children’s behaviour.

Additional aspects of process quality include the quality of children’s interactions with the space and materials available (Hamre et al., 2014_[4]; Mashburn et al., 2008_[5]; Slot et al., 2017_[6]; Slot, 2017_[7]). Interactions among children, among staff and with parents are also important. Children with involved parents tend to do better in reading and numeracy, have positive social and emotional social skills, and be more motivated to learn (OECD, 2017_[8]). In addition, supportive relationships that generate healthy attachments positively affect children’s understanding and regulation of emotions, their feelings of security and their taste for exploration and learning (OECD, 2015_[9]).

The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and many other studies show that children whose parents engage in certain activities, such as reading, writing words, telling stories and singing songs, not only tend to acquire better reading and numeracy skills, but are also more motivated to learn (Scottish Government, 2016_[10]; OECD, 2011_[11]; Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford and Taggart, 2003_[12]; van Voorhis et al., 2013_[13]). Differences in developmental outcomes related to gender and socio-economic status are observed early in life, before children start primary school (Bradbury et al., 2011_[14]; Feinstein, 2003_[15]; Sylva et al., 2004_[16]). The role of parents, early childhood education and care staff, and school teachers in identifying children’s individual need for support is thus vital.

Box 2.1. Starting Strong: Improving the impact of early childhood education and care

The benefits of early childhood education and care to children – and to society – depend greatly on the quality of those programmes. Traditionally, policies have focused on investments in structural quality, such as staff-child ratios, group size and staff qualifications. But research shows that the quality of early childhood environments is just as important for children’s development, learning and well-being. Policy makers face complex decisions in investing in affordable high-quality programmes. With limited budgets, is it more important to raise the qualifications of staff or reduce group size? How can countries and jurisdictions address quality issues and access issues at the same time? To ensure that policy makers are informed of the evidence base, the OECD is conducting a Policy Review on Quality beyond Regulations in Early Childhood Education and Care and the Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey.

Policy Review on Quality beyond Regulations in Early Childhood Education and Care (Starting Strong VI)

The Quality beyond Regulations review aims to help countries better understand the different quality dimensions of early childhood education and care programmes, focusing on policy interventions that enhance process quality and that can ensure better child development, learning and well-being. It will give countries the opportunity to participate in the first international comparative review of process quality and engage in peer-learning activities. It will also help countries monitor, collect and interpret system-, staff- and child-level data on the quality of early childhood education and care.

Going beyond regulations means focusing on the multiple facets of process quality that determine how these programmes shape children’s development, i.e. how children relate to their peers, the staff, parents, communities, and the space and materials available to them. The Quality beyond Regulations project seeks to identify how policy levers, such as curriculum, pedagogy and workforce development, can improve the quality of these interactions.

Next milestones: County survey and background reports on policies and practices to foster process quality (2019); multidimensional matrix/framework on quality (2020); international synthesis report Starting Strong VI (2021).

Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey

The first-ever international early childhood education and care staff survey builds on the established OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) to provide early childhood staff and centre leaders with an opportunity to share insights on their professional development; pedagogical beliefs and practices; and working conditions, as well as various other leadership, management and workplace issues.

The data on the quality of learning and well-being environments in early childhood settings, collected in nine OECD countries, will benefit policy makers in two ways: they will highlight differences between reported early childhood professional and pedagogical practices within and across countries and systems; and they will enrich the analysis of the impact of early childhood education and care policies on children’s learning and well-being environments. For instance, the project will investigate how the structural characteristics of these settings are linked to staff members’ beliefs, practices and interactions with colleagues and children.

Next milestones: International database and report (Vol. I) on ensuring quality learning and well-being environments in early childhood education and care centres (2019); thematic report on staff and centres for children under the age of three; report (Vol. II) on building a high-quality early childhood education and care workforce (2020).

Work organisation in early childhood education

In order to attract the most suitable candidates to the early childhood education and care workforce, countries need not only to offer adequate pay but also provide an environment where leaders and other staff are given the autonomy, and have the time and space to work as professionals. In this respect, statutory working hours and the child-to-staff ratio are two important system-level indicators to assess the quality of the early childhood centre environment.

Workload refers to the number of working hours, indicating the extent to which staff schedules are compatible with family life and the physical demands of the job. Large groups, low staff-child ratios and a heavy workload are potential stressors for staff. Some research findings show the effects of workload on the quality of early childhood education and care, indicating that practitioners with a heavy workload perform less well than colleagues with lighter schedules (de Schipper, Riksen-Walraven and Geurts, 2007_[17]).

Research has shown that staff members’ job satisfaction and retention – and therefore the quality of early childhood education and care – can be improved by: reducing both child-staff ratios and group size; providing competitive wages and other benefits; setting reasonable schedules/workloads; reducing staff turnover; providing a good physical environment; and employing a competent and supportive centre manager.

Common challenges that countries face in establishing a high-quality workforce include: raising the qualifications of staff; recruiting, retaining and diversifying a qualified workforce; continuously up-dating the skills of the workforce; and ensuring the quality of the workforce in the private sector. Various strategies have been undertaken to address these challenges using legal instruments, institutional rearrangements, financial incentives and data to inform policy makers and the public. The following sections examine some of these factors in greater detail. Most of the data in this chapter are taken from the OECD reports Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care (OECD, 2011_[11]), Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care (OECD, 2017_[18]) and Education at a Glance 2018 (OECD, 2018_[19]).

Working hours

Although statutory working hours and contact hours with children only partly determine teachers’ actual workload, they do offer valuable insights into the demands placed on teachers in different countries. Contact hours with children and the extent of non-teaching duties may also affect the attractiveness of the profession.

At the pre-primary level of education, countries vary considerably in the number of contact hours with children per year required of the average early childhood education and care teacher working in a public setting. Required contact time with children at this level in public programmes varies more across countries than it does at any other level of education. The number of teaching days per year ranges from 157 in the Flemish Community of Belgium to more than 220 in Germany and Iceland. Annual contact time of teachers with children ranges from less than 600 hours per year in Korea and Mexico to more than 1 600 hours in Germany and Iceland. On average across OECD countries, teachers at this level of education are required to be in contact with children 1 029 hours per year, spread over 40 weeks or 196 days of teaching (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1. Organisation of annual teachers’ contact time with children in pre-primary public institutions (2017)

Translated into hours per day, teachers are required to be in contact with children between 4 and 6 hours a day in 17 out of 28 countries with available data. The main exceptions are Germany, Iceland and Latvia, where teachers are in contact with children more than 6.5 hours per day in pre-primary education, and Korea and Mexico, where they are in contact with children less than 4 hours per day. There is no set rule on how contact time is distributed throughout the year across OECD countries. In Poland, for example, pre-primary teachers must teach 1 085 hours per year, about 56 hours more than the OECD average. However, those contact hours with children are spread over 21 more days of instruction than the OECD average. As a result, pre-primary teachers in Poland teach an average of 5 hours per day, which is around the same number of hours per day as the OECD average (Figure 2.1).

Child-to-staff ratios

In addition to working hours, workload and salary, a low child-to-staff ratio affects working conditions, which, in turn, have an impact on job satisfaction and retention, and through these, contributes to the quality of early childhood education and care services (Clarke-Stewart et al., 2002_[20]; Burchinal et al., 2002_[21]; Huntsman, 2008_[22]). Smaller ratios are often seen as beneficial because they allow staff to focus more on the needs of individual pupils and reduce the amount of class time needed to deal with disruptions. Staff effectiveness is also affected by the size of the groups: smaller groups are beneficial for enhancing process quality (de Schipper, Riksen-Walraven and Geurts, 2007_[17]; Burchinal et al., 2002_[21]; Huntsman, 2008_[22]).

The child-staff ratio is one of the key variables that policy makers can use to control spending on education. It is therefore an important indicator of the resources invested in early childhood education and care, and of the quality of these services. At the pre-primary level, there are 14 children for every teacher, on average across OECD countries. This number varies widely across countries with available data, ranging from more than 20 children per teacher in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, France, Mexico and South Africa to fewer than 10 children for every teacher in Iceland and Slovenia.

However, some countries make extensive use of teaching assistants at the pre-primary level. Ten OECD countries (and one partner country) reported smaller child-to-staff ratios than child-to-teacher ratios. Few of these countries employ large numbers of teaching assistants. As a result, the child-to-staff ratios are substantially lower than child-to-teacher ratios (three children or fewer) only in Austria, Brazil, Chile, France, Lithuania and Norway (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2. Ratio of children to teaching staff in early childhood education (2016)

Wide variations are also observed between early childhood development programmes (ISCED 01) and pre-primary education (ISCED 02), although a common pattern has emerged. In most countries with available data for both programmes, the ratios of children to contact staff (and of children to teacher) are smaller in early childhood development programmes (ISCED 01) than in pre-primary education (ISCED 02). On average across OECD countries, there are 14 children for each teacher working in pre-primary education, while the ratio is only 8 children per teacher in early childhood development programmes. When other staff are taken into account, the ratio of children to contact staff in early childhood development programmes is equal to or exceeds 7 only in Brazil, Costa Rica, Hungary and Lithuania.

Staff salaries

Salaries affect job satisfaction and teachers’ effectiveness (Huntsman, 2008_[22]; Moon and Burbank, 2004_[23]; Murnane et al., 1990_[24]). There is some evidence that low salaries influence staff behaviour towards children and increase turnover rates (Huntsman, 2008_[22]). Furthermore, low salaries may deter skilled professionals from choosing to work in early childhood education and care (Manlove and Guzell, 1997_[25]).

Positive associations are found between salaries, a centre’s organisational climate, and staff-child interactions, but the number of studies that have included these aspects is somewhat limited. Preliminary evidence suggests when staff are better paid and collaborate more with each other, centres catering to children from 3 to 6 years, and those catering to children under the age of 3 provided higher-quality staff-child interactions.

However, in early childhood education and care, there are large variations across countries in teachers’ salaries, both in absolute terms and relative to national income. For instance, the annual statutory salary of pre-primary school teachers with 15 years of experience (before taxes and converted into USD using purchasing power parity) ranges from less than USD 15 000 in Lithuania and the Slovak Republic, to more than USD 50 000 in Australia, the Flemish Community of Belgium, Korea, the Netherlands and the United States, and exceeds USD 100 000 in Luxembourg (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3. Annual statutory teachers’ salaries in pre-primary education (2017)

Pre-primary systems differ not only in how much they pay teachers, but in the structure of their pay scale. On average, salaries increase by 63% from starting pay to the top of the salary scale, but there are wide variations across countries. For instance, some countries, such as the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden, offer small salary increases over a teacher’s career. Others, such as Israel, Korea and Mexico, offer greater rewards to more experienced teachers, who salaries can more than double between starting pay and the salary at the top of the scale (Figure 2.3).

Staff qualifications

Although research emphasises the importance of adequate initial education and continuous professional development opportunities for staff, countries differ widely in the qualifications they demand of their early childhood education and care practitioners. Opportunities to participate in professional development and in-service training also vary greatly across countries, and between education and child care in split systems. The qualification requirements vary from no formal education at all to a specialised bachelor’s or even master’s degree; professional development and training ranges from being compulsory to optional, sometimes with no additional funding for training (OECD, 2006_[26]).

In 16 out of 22 countries with available data in 2017, more than three in four pre-primary teachers had completed a bachelor’s degree or equivalent (ISCED level 6). In the Czech Republic, 77% of pre-primary teachers had not completed ISCED 6; this is by far the largest share among OECD countries with available data. The other countries where at least one in four teachers had not attained that level of education are Brazil, Estonia, Finland, Slovenia and Sweden. By contrast, in Poland and Portugal, 88% of pre-primary teachers had completed at least a master’s degree or a doctoral or equivalent degree (ISCED 7 or 8). In the United States, 51% of pre-primary teachers had attained this level of education.

These data show that the duration of initial teacher training for pre-primary teachers ranges widely across OECD countries (OECD, 2018_[19]).

The qualifications required indicate what knowledge and skills are recognised as important for working with young children. The competencies identified as particularly important for providing high-quality services are:

• good understanding of child development and learning

• ability to develop children’s perspectives

• ability to praise, comfort, question and be responsive to children

• leadership skills, problem solving and development of targeted lesson plans

• good vocabulary and ability to elicit children’s ideas.

Staff with higher qualifications can create a more stimulating environment and use more appropriate pedagogical practices, which boost children’s well-being and learning outcomes (Litjens and Taguma, 2010_[27]; Early et al., 2007_[28]; Fontaine et al., 2006_[29]; Phillipsen et al., 1997_[30]). It is not the qualification per se that has an impact on child outcomes but the ability of better-qualified staff members to create a high-quality pedagogic environment that makes the difference (Elliott, 2006_[31]; Sheridan et al., 2009_[32]). There is strong evidence that enriching and stimulating environments and high-quality pedagogy are fostered by better-qualified staff; and better-quality pedagogy leads to better learning outcomes (Litjens and Taguma, 2010_[27]). Key indicators of the quality of staff are the way staff involve children and stimulate interaction with and among children, and staff members’ scaffolding strategies, such as guiding, modelling and questioning. Having more specialised staff is associated with stable, sensitive and stimulating interactions (Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000_[33]). Other indicators include staff members’ content (curriculum) knowledge and their ability to create a multi-disciplinary learning environment.

However, not all studies support the general conclusion that higher qualifications among the staff of early childhood education and care programmes lead to better pedagogical quality and, therefore, to better child outcomes. Early et al. emphasise that teacher quality is a complex issue (Early et al., 2007_[28]). There is no simple relationship between the level of education of staff and classroom quality or learning outcomes. Early et al. studied the relationship between child outcomes and staff qualifications and found no, or contradictory, associations between the two.

Improving the effectiveness of early childhood education will likely require a broad range of professional development activities and support for the staff’s interactions with children. One way to improve pedagogical practices used in these programmes is to enhance the staff’s competence to communicate and interact with children in a shared and sustainable manner (Sheridan et al., 2009_[32]). Research also finds that it is not necessary for all staff to have attained high levels of education. Highly qualified staff can have a positive influence on those who work with them but do not have the same high qualifications. The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education study finds that the observed behaviour of lower-qualified staff turns out to be positively influenced when these staff members work alongside highly trained colleagues (Sammons, 2010_[34]).

Most countries have a wide range of qualifications for staff working in the early childhood education and care sector. Kindergarten/preschool teachers generally have higher initial education requirements than care centre staff or family care staff; some countries have a single qualification for all workers. Initial education for kindergarten/preschool teachers is often integrated with that of primary school teachers to ensure a smooth transition for children. More professional development opportunities are available for kindergarten/preschool staff than for care centre staff, with only limited opportunities for family childcare staff. Professional development tends to focus on: pedagogies and instructional practices; curriculum implementation; language and subject matter; monitoring and assessment; and communication and management (OECD, 2011_[11]).

However, no matter how high the quality of pre-service training, initial training cannot be expected to prepare teachers for all the challenges they will face throughout their careers. Given the changes in student demographics, the length of most teachers’ careers, and the need to update knowledge and competencies, initial teacher education must be viewed as only the starting point for teachers’ ongoing development. Recent research also shows that in pre-primary education, the effects of specialised in-service training on process quality are larger than those of pre-service training, particularly when it comes to collaborative work, support for play, and support for early literacy, mathematics and science (Assel et al., 2006_[35]; de Haan et al., 2013_[36]).

In-service (ongoing) education and training can be conducted “on the job” or provided by an external source, such as a training institute or college. It can be provided through, for instance, staff meetings, workshops, conferences, subject training, field-based consultation training, supervised practices and mentoring. The key to effective professional development is identifying the right training strategies to help early childhood education and care practitioners stay up-to-date on scientifically based methods and curriculum subject knowledge so as to be able to apply this knowledge in their work (Litjens and Taguma, 2010_[27]). This type of training should continue over a longer period of time, and staff should have long-term or regular opportunities for training (Sheridan, 2001_[37]). Only when learning experiences are targeted to the needs of staff can professional development have favourable outcomes (Mitchell and Cubey, 2003_[38]).

Field-based consultation can also be effective, as it provides early childhood education and care staff with the possibility to receive feedback on their practices. Practitioners who do not hold a degree, but who attend relevant professional workshops are found to provide higher-quality care than colleagues who do not attend such workshops (Burchinal et al., 2002_[21]). However, in general, there is little clarity about what forms of professional development are most effective. One reason is that staff have different needs and training backgrounds. Effective training should address these differences (Elliott, 2006_[31]).

Despite the evidence of the benefits of having well-trained early education and care staff, governments often fear the financial consequences of raising staff qualifications. Higher qualifications may be followed by demands for higher wages, which, in turn, contribute significantly to the cost of services. Although the evidence is strong that improved training and qualifications raise the quality of early childhood education and care services, governments often choose not to invest in raising qualifications or staff training (OECD, 2006_[26]). This might affect the quality of early childhood education and care, and with this, child development outcomes, since staff are not being optimally trained to stimulate early learning and development.

Using work organisation and staff qualifications as “quality drivers”

Policy makers face complex decisions on spending for early childhood education and care. They need to consider trade-offs between structural investments and investments that improve the quality of the interactions between staff and children. In order to make informed decisions, policy makers need to consult the evidence base so that they can examine how certain policy options apply to their context or jurisdiction. The following sections summarise research findings concerning how work organisation and staff qualifications affect structural and process quality. The information is taken from the OECD report, Engaging Young Children, prepared as part of the Quality beyond Regulations project (OECD, 2018_[3]).

The quality of child-staff interactions

The meta-analysis conducted for the Quality beyond Regulations project indicate a consistent positive association between the quality of staff-child interactions and children’s literacy and numeracy learning (Figure 2.4) (von Suchodoletz et al., 2017_[39]). This association is observed when considering an overall staff-child interactions index (Panel A), and also a combined score of staff emotional, instructional and organisational interactions with the children (Panel B).

Figure 2.4. More positive staff-child interactions are associated with higher levels of child emerging academic skills

Conversely, no associations were found between the quality of staff-child interactions and children’s behavioural/social skills using the overall staff-child interactions index (von Suchodoletz et al., 2017_[39]).

Exposure to developmental and educational activities

The meta-analysis conducted for the Quality beyond Regulations project also examined the association between staff implementing developmental and educational activities, a process-quality indicator of the workforce, and children’s emerging academic skills The results show that children have slightly higher levels of emerging literacy and numeracy skills, and better behavioural and social skills, in early childhood education and care centres where staff provide higher quality or more exposure to developmental and educational activities (OECD, 2018_[3]).

Child-staff ratios

Low child-staff ratios were found to enhance positive staff-child relationships across all types of settings, and early childhood education and care age groups. Multiple studies of individual countries, including China, Portugal and the United States, and a meta-analysis of 17 studies from Europe and North America suggest that a smaller number of children per staff member tends to be associated with higher process quality for centres catering to children aged 3 to 5. While the association was not found everywhere, there is no evidence of any negative effects.

Figure 2.5. Greater exposure to developmental and educational activities is associated with higher levels of children’s skills

Lower child-staff ratios were also associated with more positive interactions for children aged zero to 3 in the Flemish Community of Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United States. These findings were more conclusive for centre-based settings than for family childcare, where groups are usually much smaller (OECD, 2018_[3]).

Group size

Some supporting evidence suggests that smaller groups improve staff-child interactions in settings for younger children. In looking at services for children aged 0 to 2, both group size and staff-child ratios were found to affect the quality of staff-child interactions, even though a few studies did not find associations. These findings were more conclusive for centre-based settings than for family daycare, where groups are usually much smaller. For the older age group, evidence can be found in both directions, which does not indicate that having smaller groups presents a clear benefit. No research on potential direct associations of group size with child development was available for this report (Barros et al., 2016_[40]; Hulpia et al., 2016_[41]; OECD, 2018_[3]).

Relationships between quality indicators

Despite some evidence from the United States showing an association between child-staff ratios and children’s pre-reading scores in preschool (Bigras, Lemay and Tremblay, 2012_[42]; Cardon et al., 2008_[43]; Howes, 1997_[44]), there seems no solid evidence of direct links to child development and learning across age groups. Tentative results suggest that those structures for processing relationships could be non-linear, i.e. that reducing the size of a small group may have effects that are different from reducing the size of a large group (Bowne et al., 2017_[45]).

A review of the literature indicated a mixed pattern of associations across age groups, and there was no relationship between low child-staff ratios and emerging academic skills, i.e. early literacy and numeracy (OECD, 2018_[3]). There is, however, some preliminary evidence of indirect paths from ratios through staff-child interactions to children’s development, but the associations are weak and need further confirmation (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2002_[46]).

In a couple of studies, the relationship between organisational climate and quality has been found to be even stronger than other classroom characteristics, such as the child-staff ratio (Biersteker et al., 2016_[47]; Dennis and O’Connor, 2013_[48]), and staff characteristics, including qualifications and work experience (Biersteker et al., 2016_[47]). However, organisational climate itself is also associated with other centre characteristics (Ho, Lee and Teng, 2016_[49]).

Pre-service training

Overall, higher pre-service qualifications were found to be related to better staff-child interactions in Germany, Denmark, Portugal and the United States. Across the age groups in early childhood education and care, in home- and in centre-based settings, more pre-service training is associated with higher levels of staff’s emotional, instructional and organisational interactions, especially if the training includes content on early childhood education and care. Pre-service training specifically enhances emotionally supportive interactions, and more educational and developmental interactions (OECD, 2018_[3]).

The evidence has also shown a strong association between pre-service qualifications and staff-child interactions for children aged 0 to 2 in Quebec, the Flemish Community of Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United States (Barros et al., 2016_[40]; Bigras et al., 2010_[50]; Castle et al., 2016_[51]; Hulpia et al., 2016_[41]; King et al., 2016_[52]; Slot et al., 2015_[53]; Thomason and La Paro, 2009_[54]; Vogel et al., 2015_[55]; Vogel et al., 2015_[56]).

However, evidence shows a weak or unclear direct link between pre-service qualifications and the learning and development of 3-5 year-old children (von Suchodoletz et al., 2017_[39]). Higher staff qualifications were not associated with emerging academic skills, or behavioural/social skills (Early et al., 2006_[57]; Mashburn et al., 2008_[5]).

Licensing family childcare

The limited available evidence on family childcare suggests that, for the youngest children, licensed providers with higher pre-service qualifications offer more diverse learning experiences and activities. In the United States and the Flemish Community of Belgium, they also demonstrate more active involvement and guidance in these activities than less-educated family childcare providers (Colwell et al., 2013_[58]; Doherty et al., 2006_[59]; Raikes, Raikes and Wilcox, 2005_[60]; Schaack, Le and Setodji, 2017_[61]) (Hulpia et al., 2016_[41]; Vandenbroeck et al., 2018_[62]).

However, there is no evidence for direct links between pre-service training of family childcare providers and child development.

In-service training

In a variety of countries, including China, Denmark, Portugal and the United States, in-service training (or professional development) was consistently and positively associated with staff interactions with children – in all settings and for all age groups examined (Fukkink and Lont, 2007_[63]; Hamre et al., 2012_[64]; Justice et al., 2008_[65]; LoCassale-Crouch et al., 2011_[66]; Slot et al., 2018_[67]; Slot, Lerkkanen and Leseman, 2015_[68]; Zaslow et al., 2010_[69]), especially if the training included early childhood education and care content, for instance related to staff-child interactions (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2005_[70]; Zaslow et al., 2004_[71]). Staff participating in in-service training have consistently been found to score higher on language and literacy-specific quality (Egert, 2015_[72]); but evidence on the links to overall quality of early childhood education and care or staff-child interactions is mixed.

There is also consistent evidence, across all age groups, of a positive link between in-service training and children’s development and learning, with the evidence particularly strong for children’s language and literacy skills. The number of studies available involving children aged zero to 3 is more limited, but the pattern of results is largely consistent (OECD, 2018_[3]).

Staff practices and engagement with children

Children in early childhood education and care centres with better staff-child interactions, or with staff who provide higher-quality or more exposure to developmental and educational activities were found to have higher levels of emerging literacy and numeracy skills, and better behavioural and social skills (von Suchodoletz et al., 2017_[39]).

Positive associations were found between staff-child interactions, including higher-quality educational and developmental activities, with staff well-being, salaries and with centre organisational climate. Higher-quality organisational climate includes environments where staff believe that they enjoyed more autonomy and support for showing leadership, exchange their visions with colleagues more often, and report more opportunities for participating in decision-making related to the curriculum (OECD, 2018_[3]).

While the number of studies that have included these structural aspects is somewhat limited, and research does not find evidence for effects of staff work experience (von Suchodoletz et al., 2017_[39]), emerging evidence indicates that centres where staff reported greater well-being (including job satisfaction and lack of symptoms of depression), higher salaries and more team collaboration show better staff-child interactions across all age groups served (OECD, 2018_[3]).

The early childhood education and care sector, especially that catering to the youngest children, suffers from staff shortages, high turnover and low status in many countries (Moon and Burbank, 2004_[23]). When staff members regularly change, staff and children are less able to develop stable relationships and the frequency of nurturing, stimulating interactions is reduced (Canadian Council on Learning, 2006_[73]). Political concerns about the quality of interactions thus support the case for improving working conditions – in the best interests of the children’s learning experience and staff members’ job satisfaction.

The research reviewed for the OECD report, Engaging Young Children: Lessons from Research about Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care (OECD, 2018_[3]), did not examine links between working conditions and child development because research on those associations is neither extensive nor conclusive. There is a complex inter-relationship between child-staff ratios, staff qualifications, quality and types of settings. For instance, ratios relate to working conditions for staff and to learning and well-being environments for children. This makes it difficult to single out the effect of a particular characteristic of working conditions on process quality (Sammons, 2010_[34]).

Sorting children

Targeting early childhood education and care to disadvantaged groups may seem a cost-effective way to ensure that services reach those who need them most, but concerns about quality need to be considered. The OECD study, Engaging Young Children: Lessons from Research about Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, provides an overview of research suggesting that in playrooms or classrooms in Denmark, Germany and the United States, the quality of staff-child interactions was lower in those that had a high percentage of immigrant or bilingual children than in playrooms or classrooms with a more balanced or mixed-group composition (OECD, 2018_[3]).

Classrooms with a high percentage of immigrant or bilingual children are also associated with lower scores in children’s language and literacy skills. The evidence is more consistent for children aged 3 to 5 than for centres with younger children, which may be related to the targeted high-quality services for the youngest children in some countries. Negative associations between the percentage of immigrant or bilingual children and the quality of child-staff interactions were also observed in family childcare (OECD, 2018_[3]).

Some preliminary evidence shows that lower levels of staff emotional support and classroom organisation may be the key to this relationship (Slot et al., 2018_[67]). The associations between staff-child interactions and children’s development and learning, however, do not seem to differ significantly for children from predominantly disadvantaged backgrounds compared to those in a mixed group of children.

Monitoring systems

In the United States, quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS) are found to be associated with higher levels of staff-child interactions in centres for all age groups (Jeon, Buettner and Hur, 2014_[74]), while the linkage between QRIS and staff-child interactions in family childcare is less clear (Lahti et al., 2015_[75]; Lipscomb et al., 2017_[76]). Where evidence exists, there is an indication that positive feedback loops between monitoring systems and staff practices may be associated with gains in children’s language development (OECD, 2015_[9]). A key target of policy efforts might thus be to ensure that information on staff-child interactions in centres is collected not simply for the purpose of accountability, but used to inform improvements in quality.

Locating early childhood education and care centres within schools

In Finland, Portugal and the United States, the physical location of a preschool may also be related to process quality. Higher-quality staff-child relationships were observed in preschools located in schools, compared with preschools situated outside school grounds or in independent centres (Pianta et al., 2005_[77]; Slot, 2017_[7]; Slot, Lerkkanen and Leseman, 2015_[68]). There is also evidence that staff working in classrooms located in schools are more educated, are paid more and show a stronger educational orientation than staff working in independent centres (Clifford et al., 2005_[78]; Pianta et al., 2005_[77]).

Conclusions

Policy makers need to make trade-offs between structural investments and investments that improve the quality of the interactions between early childhood education and care staff and children. However, the evidence base in this field is still limited and often narrow. Research on structural characteristics of early childhood education and care settings has often been dominated by a focus on the so-called “iron triangle” characteristics (i.e. child-staff ratio, group size and teachers’ pre-service qualifications) (Slot, 2017_[7]). To date, the vast majority of studies investigating associations between structural characteristics and process quality focused on only one indicator of process quality: the quality of teacher-child interactions. The research has also largely overlooked many other aspects of process quality, such as child-to-child (peer) interactions. This chapter identifies a number of research findings concerning how work organisation and staff qualifications can be used to improve structural and process quality, namely:

• Lower child-staff ratios alone will not guarantee better child development; but they are associated with more positive staff-child relations across all age groups.

• Group size matters for staff-child interactions, but the association is stronger for interactions with the youngest children than with children aged 3 to 5.

• Relationships between quality indicators can be indirect, such as between ratios, group size, organisational climate, quality of staff-child interactions, and child development and learning.

• Pre-service training, when focusing on early childhood education and care content, is associated with better staff emotional, educational and developmental support for children, with a stronger relationship found when working with the youngest children. In contrast, the evidence on its association with learning outcomes is inconclusive.

• Licensing family childcare, when regulated with pre-service qualifications, can be a tool to ensure better interactions for children.

• In-service training that includes early childhood education and care-specific content is associated with better staff-child interactions, and better child development and learning outcomes, especially literacy skills, for all groups of children.

• Staff engagement with children in quality developmental activities may depend on team collaboration, and benefit from improved working conditions and well-being.

• Separate classrooms or playrooms for disadvantaged, immigrant or bilingual children are associated with a risk of inequity and poor quality of early childhood education and care.

• Monitoring systems, if they are used to inform quality improvements, are linked to greater support to children’s development and learning in all early childhood education and care settings.

• Locating early childhood education and care centres within schools is associated with differences in staff members’ relationships with children.

 

References

Assel, M. et al. (2006), “An evaluation of curriculum, setting, and mentoring on the performance of children enrolled in pre-kindergarten”, Reading and Writing, Vol. 20/5, pp. 463-494, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9039-5. [35]

Barros, S. et al. (2016), “Infant child care in Portugal: Associations with structural characteristics”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 37/1, pp. 118-130, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.05.003. [40]

Biersteker, L. et al. (2016), “Center-based early childhood care and education program quality: A South- African study”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 334-344, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.01.004. [47]

Bigras, N. et al. (2010), “A comparative study of structural and process quality in center-based and family-based child care services”, Child Youth Care Forum, Vol. 39/3, pp. 129-150, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10566-009-9088-4. [50]

Bigras, N., L. Lemay and M. Tremblay (2012), Petite enfance, services de garde éducatifs et développement des enfants: état des connaissances., Presses de l’Université du Québec, Montréal. [42]

Bowne, J. et al. (2017), “A meta-analysis of class size and ratios in early childhood programs: Are thresholds of quality associated with greater impacts on cognitive, achievement, and socioemotional outcomes?”, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, advanced online publication, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0162373716689489. [45]

Bradbury, B. et al. (2011), “Inequality during the Early Years: Child Outcomes and Readiness to Learn in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and United States”, http://ftp.iza.org/dp6120.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2018). [14]

Britto, P., H. Yoshikawa and K. Boller (2011), “Quality of early childhood development programs and policies in global contexts: Rationale for investment, conceptual framework and implications for equity”, Social Policy Report, Vol. 25/2, pp. 1-31. [1]

Burchinal, M. et al. (2002), “Caregiver training and classroom quality in child care centers”, Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 6/1, pp. 2-11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_01. [21]

Canadian Council on Learning (2006), “Why is High-Quality Child Care Essential? The Link between Quality Child Care and Early Learning”, Lessons in Learning. [73]

Cardon, G. et al. (2008), “The contribution of preschool playground factors in explaining children’s physical activity during recess”, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Vol. 5/1, p. 11, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-5-11. [43]

Castle, S. et al. (2016), “Teacher-child interactions in early Head Start classrooms: Associations with teacher characteristics”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 27/2, pp. 259-274, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1102017. [51]

Clarke-Stewart, K. et al. (2002), “Do regulable features of child-care homes affect children’s development?”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 17/1, pp. 52-86, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0885-2006(02)00133-3. [20]

Clifford, R. et al. (2005), “What is pre-kindergarten? Characteristics of public pre-kindergarten programs”, Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 9/3, pp. 126-143, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0903_1. [78]

Colwell, N. et al. (2013), “New evidence on the validity of the Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale: Results from the early childhood longitudinal study-birth cohort”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 28/2, pp. 218-233, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.12.004. [58]

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. [36]

de Schipper, E., J. Riksen-Walraven and S. Geurts (2007), “Multiple determinants of caregiver behavior in child care centers”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 22/3, pp. 312-326, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.04.004. [17]

Dennis, S. and E. O’Connor (2013), “Reexamining Quality in Early Childhood Education: Exploring the Relationship Between the Organizational Climate and the Classroom”, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, Vol. 27/1, pp. 74-92, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2012.739589. [48]

Doherty, G. et al. (2006), “Predictors of quality in family child care”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 21/3, pp. 296-312, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.07.006. [59]

Early, D. et al. (2006), “Are teachers’ education, major, and credentials related to classroom quality and children’s academic gains in pre-kindergarten?”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 21/2, pp. 174-195, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.04.004. [57]

Early, D. et al. (2007), “Teachers’ education, classroom quality, and young children’s academic skills: Results from seven studies of preschool programs”, Child Development, Vol. 78/2, pp. 558-580, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01014.x. [28]

Egert, F. (2015), Meta-analysis on the impact of in-service professionals development programs for preschool teachers on quality ratings and child outcomes, doctoral dissertation, Bamberg, Germany. [72]

Elliott, A. (2006), “Early Childhood Education: Pathways to quality and equity for all children”, Australian Education Review, Vol. 50. [31]

Feinstein, L. (2003), “Inequality in the early cognitive development of British children in the 1970 cohort”, Economica, Vol. 70/277, pp. 73-97, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0335.t01-1-00272. [15]

Fontaine, N. et al. (2006), “Increasing quality in early care and learning environments”, Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 176/2, pp. 157-169, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443042000302690. [29]

Fukkink, R. and A. Lont (2007), “Does training matter? A meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 294-311, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.04.005. [63]

Hamre, B. et al. (2014), Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) manual, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. [4]

Hamre, B. et al. (2012), “A course on effective teacher-child interactions: Effects on teacher beliefs, knowledge, and observed practice”, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 49/1, pp. 88-123, http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0002831211434596. [64]

Ho, D., M. Lee and Y. Teng (2016), “Size matters: The link between staff size and perceived organizational support in early childhood education”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30/6, pp. 1104-1122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2015-0125. [49]

Howes, C. (1997), “Children’s experiences in center-based child care as a function of teacher background and adult:child ratio.”, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 404-425. [44]

Howes, C. et al. (2008), “Ready to learn? Children’s pre-academic achievement in pre-Kindergarten programs”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 23/1, pp. 27-50, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.05.002. [2]

Hulpia, H. et al. (2016), MeMoQ Deelrapport 10. Emotionele en educatieve ondersteuning in de nulmeting, Kind en Gezin, Ugent, KU Leuven. [41]

Huntsman, L. (2008), Determinants of quality in child care: A review of the research evidence, Centre for Parenting and Research, Ashfield, NSW, http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/321617/research_qualitychildcare.pdf. [22]

Jeon, L., C. Buettner and E. Hur (2014), “Examining pre-school classroom quality in a statewide quality rating and improvement system”, Child & Youth Care Forum, Vol. 43/4, pp. 469-487, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10566-014-9248-z. [74]

Justice, L. et al. (2008), “Quality of language and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 23/1, pp. 51-68, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.09.004. [65]

King, E. et al. (2016), “Classroom quality in infant and toddler classrooms: impact of age and programme type”, Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 186/11, pp. 1821-1835, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1134521. [52]

Lahti, M. et al. (2015), “Approaches to validating child care quality rating and improvement systems (QRIS): Results from two states with similar QRIS type”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 30, pp. 280-290, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.04.005. [75]

Lipscomb, S. et al. (2017), Oregon’s quality rating improvement system (QRIS) validation study one: Associations with observed program quality, Portland State University and Oregon State University. [76]

Litjens, I. and M. Taguma (2010), Literature overview for the 7th meeting of the OECD network on early childhood education and care, OECD, Paris. [27]

LoCassale-Crouch, J. et al. (2011), “Implementing an early childhood professional development course across 10 sites and 15 sections: Lessons learned”, NHSA Dialog: A Research-to-Practice Journal for the Early Childhood Field, Vol. 14/4, pp. 275-292, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15240754.2011.617527. [66]

Manlove, E. and J. Guzell (1997), “Intention to Leave, Anticipated Reasons for Leaving, and I2-Month Turnover of Child Care Center Staff”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 145-167, http://10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90010-7 (accessed on 2 February 2018). [25]

Mashburn, A. et al. (2008), “Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, language, and social skills”, Child Development, Vol. 79/3, pp. 732-749, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01154.x. [5]

Mitchell, L. and P. Cubey (2003), Characteristics of professional development linked to enhanced pedagogy and children’s learning in early childhood settings, NCER. [38]

Moon, J. and J. Burbank (2004), “The Early Childhood Education Career and Wage Ladder: A Model for Improving Quality in Early Learning and Care Programs”, http://www.eoionline.org (accessed on 2 February 2018). [23]

Murnane, R. et al. (1990), “The effects of salaries and opportunity costs on length of stay in teaching: Evidence from North Carolina”, Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 25/1, pp. 106-124, https://econpapers.repec.org/article/uwpjhriss/v_3a25_3ay_3a1990_3ai_3a1_3ap_3a106-124.htm (accessed on 2 February 2018). [24]

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2002), “Child-care structure → process → outcome: Direct and indirect effects of child-care quality on young children’s development”, Psychological Science, Vol. 13/3, pp. 199-206, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00438. [46]

OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en. [19]

OECD (2018), Engaging Young Children: Lessons from Research about Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-en. [3]

OECD (2017), Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-en. [18]

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. [8]

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. [9]

OECD (2011), Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264123564-en. [11]

OECD (2006), Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264035461-en. [26]

Phillipsen, L. et al. (1997), “The prediction of process quality from structural features of child care”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 281-303, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90004-1. [30]

Pianta, R. et al. (2005), “Features of Pre-Kindergarten programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed classroom quality and child-teacher interactions?”, Applied Developmental Science, Vol. 9/3, pp. 144-159. [77]

Raikes, H., H. Raikes and B. Wilcox (2005), “Regulation, subsidy receipt and provide characteristics: What predicts quality in child care homes?”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 20/2, pp. 164-184, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.04.006. [60]

Sammons, P. (2010), The EPPE Research Design: an educational effectiveness focus, Routledge, London/New York. [34]

Schaack, D., V. Le and C. Setodji (2017), “Home-based child care provider education and specialized training: Associations with caregiving quality and toddler social-emotional and cognitive outcomes”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 28/6, pp. 655-668, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1321927. [61]

Scottish Government (2016), “Growing up in Scotland”, http://hub.careinspectorate.com/media/355563/language-development-and-enjoyment-of-reading-impacts-of-early-parent-child-activities-in-two-growing-up-in-scotland-cohorts.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2018). [10]

Sheridan, S. (2001), “Quality Evaluation and Quality Enhancement in Preschool - A Model of Competence Development”, Early Child Development and Care, Vol. 166, pp. 7-27. [37]

Sheridan, S. et al. (2009), “A cross-cultural study of preschool quality in South Korea and Sweden: ECERS evaluations”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 24/2, pp. 142-156, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.03.004. [32]

Shonkoff, J. and D. Phillips (2000), From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development, National Academy Press. [33]

Siraj-Blatchford, I. et al. (2005), “Technical Paper 10 “Intensive Case Studies of Practice Across Foundation Stage”, http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003934.htm (accessed on 19 February 2018). [70]

Slot, P. (2017), Literature review on Early Childhood Education and Care quality: Relations between structural characteristics at different levels and process quality, Internal document, OECD, Paris. [7]

Slot, P. et al. (2018), “Structural and Process Quality of Danish Preschools: Direct and Indirect Associations With Children’s Growth in Language and Preliteracy Skills”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 29/4, pp. 581-602, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2018.1452494. [67]

Slot, P. et al. (2017), “Measurement properties of the CLASS Toddler in ECEC in the Netherlands”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 48, pp. 79-91, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.11.008. [6]

Slot, P., M. Lerkkanen and P. Leseman (2015), The relations between structural quality and process quality in European early childhood education and care provisions: Secondary data analyses of large scale studies in five countries, CARE, http://ecec-care.org/fileadmin/careproject/Publications/reports/CARE_WP2_D2__2_Secondary_data_analyses.pdf. [68]

Slot, P. et al. (2015), “Associations between structural quality aspects and process quality in Dutch early childhood education and care settings”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 33, pp. 64-76, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.06.001. [53]

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. [16]

Sylva, K., I. Siraj-Blatchford and B. Taggart (2003), Assessing quality in the early years: Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale Extension (ECERS-E) four curricular subscales, Trentham Books, London. [12]

Thomason, A. and K. La Paro (2009), “Measuring the quality of teacher–child interactions in toddler child care”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 20, pp. 285-304, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280902773351. [54]

van Voorhis, F. et al. (2013), “The Impact of Family Involvement on the Education of Children Ages 3 to 8: A Focus on Literacy and Math Achievement Outcomes and Social-Emotional Skills - Executive Summary”, https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/The_Impact_of_Family_Imvolvement_ES.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2018). [13]

Vandenbroeck, M. et al. (2018), Quality in family child care providers: A study of variations in process quality of home-based childcare, Submitted for publication in European Early Childhood Education Journal. [62]

Vogel, C. et al. (2015), Toddlers in early Head Start: A portrait of 2-years-olds, their families, and the program serving them, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. [55]

Vogel, C. et al. (2015), Toddlers in early Head Start: A portrait of 3-years-olds, their families, and the program serving them, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. [56]

von Suchodoletz, A. et al. (2017), ’’Associations among quality indicators in early childhood education and care (ECEC) and relations with child development and learning: A meta-analysis’’, Internal document, OECD, Paris. [39]

Zaslow, M. et al. (2010), Quality, dosage, thresholds, and features in early childhood settings: A review of the literature, Mathematica Policy Research, Washington, DC. [69]

Zaslow, M. et al. (2004), “The role of professional development in creating high quality preschool education”, Welfare Reform & Beyond Working Paper, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/200411Zaslow.pdf (accessed on 19 February 2018). [71]