Literature Review

Appendix I

to the Final Report of the study

Early childhood education and care (ECEC) in promoting educationalattainment including social development of children from disadvantaged

backgrounds and in fostering social inclusion

Commissioned by the European CommissionSubmitted on 29 October 2012

European CommissionDirectorate – General for Education and Culture

1

Appendix I : Literature Review_____________________________________

Literature Review of the Participation of Disadvantaged Children andFamilies in ECEC Services in Europe

This Literature Review has been prepared by:

Dr. Arianna Lazzari

SOFRECO ECEC Researcher

Department of Education Science, Bologna University

Prof. Michel Vandenbroeck

SOFRECO Senior ECEC Researcher

Department of Social Welfare Studies, Ghent University

2

Table of Contents

Part A - Barriers and good practices

Introduction 3

A 1 - Studies dealing with barriers to participation 6

A 2 - Studies describing good practices 14

Conclusions 27

References 33

Annex A: Summary table of research on barriers and good practices 36

Part B - Literature review of ECEC outcomes

Introduction and limitations of the present review 40

B 1. Studies exploring the relationship between ECEC and children’s cognitiveoutcomes 44

B 2. Studies exploring the relationship between ECEC and children’s non-cognitiveoutcomes 49

B 3. Studies investigating the links between ECEC and successful transition into school 54

B 4. Studies investigating the contribution of ECEC to social inclusion 56

B 5. Studies focusing on pedagogical approaches and educational processes 61

B 6. Studies focussing on European research on policy for young children 71

Conclusions 76

References 81

Annex B: Summary tables of research on themes B1, B2, B3 and B4 83

3

Part A - Barriers and good practices

A literature review of existing studies from the EU Member States on barriers of,and best practice in, engaging disadvantaged children and families in ECECservices to enhance their social inclusion.

Introduction

This literature study explores the role of early childhood education and care inaddressing and promoting social inclusion. Complementing the review of evidenceon the effects of ECEC on children’s cognitive and socio-behavioural outcomes(Part B), this section (Part A) focuses specifically on the analysis of the contributionof ECEC to the social inclusion of disadvantaged groups. In recent times the EUhas shown an increasing concern for poverty and social exclusion (EuropeanCommission, 2008a) with policy priority being given to the reduction of childpoverty. Survey data indicates that that the risk of poverty among children is, ingeneral, higher than among the population as a whole in most of the MemberStates

1:

The European Council asks the Member States to take necessary measures torapidly and significantly reduce child poverty, giving all children equal opportunities,regardless of their social background. (Council of European Union, 2006, p. 24).

In recent years, the EU commitment toward the reduction of child poverty ratesacross Member States has been accompanied by a growing recognition of theimportant role that ECEC has to play in tackling disadvantage from an early stage,under the condition that quality provision is made available:

Member States should invest more in pre-primary education as an effective meansto establish the basis for further learning, preventing school drop-out, increasingequity of outcomes and overall skill levels. (EC Communication on Efficiency andEquity in European Education and Training Systems, 2006, p. 5)

The type of early childhood provision and the pedagogy to be used should beconsidered carefully. Programmes focusing on learning as well as personal andsocial competences tend to produce better outcomes and, consequently, greaterknock-on effects throughout life. Parental engagement is essential to the successof pre-primary education and, in the case of the disadvantaged, this can beencouraged through dedicated parental education and outreach programmes. (ECCommunication on Efficiency and Equity in European Education and TrainingSystems, 2006, p. 5)

Along the same lines, the Communication ‘An updated strategic framework forEuropean cooperation in education and training’ argued that priority should begiven to the promotion of ‘generalised equitable access to pre-primary educationand the reinforcement of quality provision and teacher support’ (EuropeanCommission, 2008b, p.10). In this framework, the European Commission funded anumber of cross-national research studies on ECEC services, focusing specificallyon the issue of childcare provision (Plantenga & Remery, 2009), quality (NESSE,2009), social inclusion (EACEA, 2009; CIS, 2011) and staff professionalization(Urban, Vandenbroeck et al., 2011; CIS, 2011). These developments led to theadoption of the Council Conclusions on ECEC, which advocate for the provision ofgeneralised equitable access to high quality ECEC in order to reduce early school

1Survey data show that more than 1 in 6 households with a child under six years is ‘at risk

of poverty’ with the highest levels in Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and the UK.

4

leaving and counter the risk of poverty and social exclusion (Council of theEuropean Union, 2011). In this regard the communication stresses that:

Providing high quality ECEC is just as important as ensuring its availability andaffordability, and attention needs to be devoted to issues such as environment andinfrastructure, staffing, the curriculum, governance and quality assurance (Councilof the European Union, 2011, p.5).

The Communication therefore advocates for a more systemic and integratedapproach to ECEC services at local, regional and national level, for theinvolvement of all relevant stakeholders –in particular, families – and for closercross-sectoral collaboration between different policy domains such as education,culture, social affairs, employment, health and justice.

The contribution made by ECEC to the improvement of educational and lifechances of young children has been further stressed in the recent European studycommissioned from the TARKI-Applica consortium (TARKI-Applica, 2010), whichidentified the provision of childcare and pre-primary education as indicators of childwell-being that should be monitored and taken into account in developing policiesaddressing poverty and social exclusion. In this sense, identifying barriers and key-success factors for engaging with disadvantaged children and families within ECECservices in Europe becomes crucial for the elaboration of a coherent, cross-national lifelong learning strategy committed to the social and cultural promotion ofgroups living in poverty within the EU area. This commitment has been furtherreinforced by the European Commission Communication ‘An EU agenda for theRights of the Child’ that endorses children’s participation in high quality ECECprovision as a way to overcome the threats posed by educational segregation andsocial exclusion:

Giving all children access to early childhood education and care is the foundationfor successful lifelong learning, social integration, personal development and lateremployability (European Commission, 2011, p.9)

The literature review provides substantive accounts of both quantitative andqualitative aspects associated with inclusive ECEC provision. Specifically, this partanalyses European research concerning the existing barriers and good practices inengaging disadvantaged children and families in ECEC services with the aim ofidentifying key success factors promoting equal educational opportunities andsocial inclusion. For the purpose of this study, disadvantaged children are definedas belonging to Category C of the OECD classification of special educationalneeds (REF):

Category C refers to the educational needs of students that are considered to ariseprimarily from socio-economic, cultural and/or linguistic factors. There is presentsome form of background, generally considered to be a disadvantage, for whicheducation seeks to compensate. The definition encompasses children living inpoverty; children living in areas where services are less accessible (e.g. ruralareas); children from low-income families; children with a migrant background; andchildren belonging to disadvantaged group, such as Roma. This is a large group inmany countries ranging from 15% to 30% in many European countries.

Two other categories are included in the OECD definition, viz. the educationalneeds of children with special needs, that is, needs arising from organic disordersrelated to sensory, motor or neurological defects (e.g. blind and partially sighted,deaf and partially hearing, severe and profound mental handicap, multiplehandicaps); and the educational needs of children with learning disabilities causedpossibly by a dysfunction of the nervous system that affects receiving, processing,or communicating information (e.g. children with ADHD, dyslexia…). The presentstudy does not examine literature or services for these children.

The studies relevant for the analysis were identified through a process thatconsisted of three stages:

A literature search through research databases, research portals andbooks,

5

A careful selection of the studies carried out according to the eligibilitycriteria presented below, and

An analysis of the empirical findings of the studies selected.

The tool used for the analysis and categorization of research findings is reported inthe annex (Table A). The findings from the studies that have been reviewed for thispart of the literature study have been categorised under two themes, focusingnamely on the barriers to (theme A1) and good practices (theme A2) concerningthe participation of disadvantaged children and families in ECEC programs. For thepurpose of the analysis both primary studies and literature reviews were taken intoaccount, under the condition that they were carried out in EU member states andpublished within the last ten years. A particular effort was directed toward themaximum representation of EU countries in the studies selected, with particularreference to different social welfare regimes (Esping-Andersen, 2002) and to thedifferent situations from which disadvantage might stem (e.g. living in poorneighbourhoods, coming from a migrant background, living in contexts of ethnicdivision, belonging to segregated groups such as Roma). Only peer-reviewedarticles, books and authoritative statements from the European Commission,national governments, universities/research centres and NGOs were taken intoaccount in the analysis.

Given the aim of this literature review, preference has been given to studies, whichprovided a thick description of outstanding programs, received research validation,were informed by a relevant theoretical background and included a punctualaccount of the context in which practices took shape and developed. It should benoted that there is not a unanimous definition of disadvantaged children within thelegislation of European member states (EACEA, 2009) and, as a consequence,policy and research approaches to social inclusion vary greatly according to eachcountry’s historical, cultural and political traditions. For example in countries likeItaly, where the compensatory model has always been rejected as stigmatizing(Mantovani, 2007), considering disadvantaged children as a separate category isnot considered appropriate. By acknowledging the different understandingsunderpinning educational policies directed toward the social inclusion ofdisadvantages children – which in turn generate a multitude of educationalapproaches - the term “best practices” should be used with caution. For this reasonwe decided to adopt in this literature review the term “good practices”, as it calls fora careful reflection on the wider social, cultural and political context in whichsuccessful educational practices have been generated, emphasising the aspect ofre-invention over that of replication (Moss & Urban, 2010).

It should also be noted that the findings of the country studies listed below aregeneralisable beyond national boundaries only with precaution as the history,traditions, organization and practices of early childhood services can differ widelyfrom one country to another.

6

A 1 - Studies dealing with barriers to participation

Boisson, M. 2008. La note de veille 107. Droit d’accueil du jeune enfant. Unedouble exigence qualitative et quantitative. Paris: Centre d’analysestratégique.

Brabant-Delannoy, L. & Sylvain Lemoine, S. 2009. La note de veille 157.Accueil de la petite enfance: comment continuer à assurer sondéveloppement dans le contexte actuel des finances sociales? Paris: Centred’analyse stratégique.

The statistical overviews, provided by governmental agencies2

in France do notprovide figures that are disaggregated along ethnic lines. Ethnicity is, in France, notregistered. However, policy documents do state:

“Ce sont les parents peu diplômés, pauvres, migrants, quiaccèdent/recourent le moins aux services d’accueil collectifs pourleurs enfants.” [Parents with low levels of education, parents living inpoverty and ethnic minority parents have less access or make lessuse of child care for their children.]

91 % des enfants de moins de 3 ans relevant de familles du premierquintile sont gardés principalement par leurs parents en 2007,contre 63 % pour l’ensemble de la population et 31 % pour lesfamilles du cinquième quintile. [91% of children under the age of 3,living in families of the first income quartile are mainly cared for bytheir parents in 2008. In contrast, this is 63% for the entirepopulation and only 31% for families belonging to the fifth incomequartile.]

Büchel, F. & Spiess, C. K. 2002. Form der Kinderbetreuung undArbeitsmarktverhal-ten von Müttern in West- und Ostdeutschland.Schriftenreihe des Bundesministe-riums für Familie, Senioren, Frauen undJugend. Band 220. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

This study discusses the low participation of immigrant children in early childhoodprovision in Germany.

Del Boca, D. 2010. Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union:policy overview and policy impact analysis. A case study: Italy. Budapest &Brussels: TARKI-Applica.

This study is part of a wider project carried out by a consortium formed by TARKISocial Research Institute (Budapest) and Applica (Brussels) and commissioned bythe DG Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities of the EuropeanCommission (www.tarki.hu/en/reserach/childpoverty/index.htlm). The case studyhighlights that, in spite of a reputation for high quality, childcare opportunities (0-3services) in Italy are limited in terms of availability and costs. Specifically it is notedthat such opportunities are even more limited for low income families: while 27% ofparents with income above the poverty line use services for children under 3, only17% of the family below the poverty line do so. The authors suggest this is aquestion of availability and costs, meaning that publicly subsidised childcarefacilities are less available where the poverty risk is relatively high. Furthermoreboth public and private childcare in Italy was found to be more expensive than in

2Boyer, D. (2011) (ed). L’accueil du jeune enfant en 2010. Données statistiques. Paris:

Observatoire Nationale de la petite enfance – CNAF.

7

other European countries (Del Boca, Locatelli & Vura, 2005)3, in a context in which

social expenditure for children and households is the lowest in the EU-15 (only4.4% of total social expenditure which is 1.1 of GDP). A mismatch betweenchildcare arrangements and mothers’ participation in the labour market was alsonoted, with public childcare system providing care for a limited number of hoursthat only part-time working mother find useful (Del Boca & Vuri, 2007)

4. To

summarise, the main obstacles to the participation of families ‘at risk’ of poverty inECEC services (0-3) are identified as follow:

a) limited number of publicly subsidised services in disadvantagedareas (availability and cost)

b) lack of flexibility in opening hours

c) insufficient public investment at macro-economic level.

Driessen, G. E. J. M. 2004. A large scale longitudinal study of the utilizationand effects of early childhood education and care in The Netherlands. EarlyChild Development and Care, 174 (7–8), 667–689.

This large scale longitudinal study aims to investigate the association betweenparents’ background and children’s participation in ECEC services. Specifically itwas examined whether a relation exists between the utilisation of ECEC services(day-care centres, pre-school and parent-child programmes) and a number ofbackground characteristics of the child and the family (e.g. parental education,ethnic origin...). The study draws on the data (1996-2000) of the cohort studyPRIMA carried out on a national scale in The Netherlands. Figures on a total of33,418 children from approx. 600 schools were available. Data were analysedusing statistical methods. The use of ECEC was found to relate to the followingbackground variables:

parental level of education (children of higher educated parents areattending day-care centre relatively more often whereas childrenfrom lower educated parents using none of the services relativelymore often)

paid employment (with children of working mothers making a greateruse of day-care centre)

parental ethnic origin (with immigrant mothers making relatively lessuse of pre-school) in combination with duration of residence, homelanguage and Dutch language mastery.

Overall it can be concluded that children from low-income and ethnic minorityfamilies tend to be less present in ECEC services in relation to the backgroundfactors presented above.

Felfe, C. and Lalive, R. 2011. How Does Early Childcare Affect ChildDevelopment? Learning from the Children of German Unification. CESifoArea Conference on Economics of Education: Center for Economics Studies.

Drawing on data set from national surveys (GSOEP and GCP) the study discussesthe incidence of expanding high quality care provision in German society. Theresearch is carried out in a context of funded provision that controls for costs (feesdepend on family income and do not vary strongly between German regions) andquality (tightly controlled), in which children and slots are matched through waitinglists. In centres’ waiting lists priority is usually given to children with working

3Del Boca, D., Locatelli, M. & Vuri D. 2005. ‘Childcare choices of Italian households.’

Review of Economics of the households, 3, 453-77.4

Del Boca, D. & Vuri D. 2007. ‘The mismatch between employment and childcare.’ Journalof Population Economics, 20 (4), page number not specified.

8

parents, to single mothers and to children whose siblings are already enrolled inthe childcare centre. The analysis specifically related to determinants of children’sattendance to formal care point out that parental education is one of the mostimportant factors: in comparison to a mother with no educational degree, a motherpossessing a secondary school degree is 20% more likely to use childcare while amother with university degree is even 29% more likely to use childcare. Thesefindings strengthen the claim that rationing favours children from more advantagedbackgrounds: this could be partly explained by the excess demand of childcare thatrequire parents to register very early on the waiting lists. The findings also highlightthat following the expansion of provision a positive trend in childcare attendancehas been noted. The authors conclude that empirical evidence from the studyindicates that universally accessible formal childcare can contribute to decreasinginequalities across children from different socio-economic backgrounds. Tosummarise, the main obstacles to the participation of low SES families in ECECservices (2 to compulsory school age) are identified as follows:

availability of provision (rationed rather than universal)

criteria adopted for distributing the places available that are decidedby centre managers and that in most cases give priority to theparents who are already working and that subscribed early onwaiting lists (‘first come first served’).

Ghysels, J. & Van Lanker, W. 2011. The unequal benefits of activation: ananalysis of the social distribution of family policies among families withyoung children. Journal of European Social Policies, 21, 472-85.

The study examines the impact of family policies on vertical redistribution inEuropean countries’ welfare states. This issue is addressed by focusing on theinteraction of three measures of family policies – namely child benefits, childcareand parental leave – and on their overall (horizontal and vertical) distributionaleffects in Europe, with the Belgian region of Flanders as the case in focus. Thestudy comprises a broad overview on the impact of family policies on socialdistribution in a large number of European countries and an in-depth analysis of thecase of Flanders. In regard to this specific case, the distributional effect of familypolicies is assessed through the collection of detailed data on governmentalspending (including tax deduction) for these policies along with its allocation amonghouseholds. Concerning specifically the childcare measure (provision of childcarefor children aged 0-2) the research findings highlight that overall patterns of careuse are socially stratified, meaning that in almost all countries (the only exceptionsare Denmark and Sweden where childcare provision is universal) higher incomehouseholds make far more use of formal care compared to lower incomehouseholds. The magnitude of this phenomenon is particular striking in Belgiumwhere, despite the overall high coverage of childcare, 60% of the households in thehighest income quintile make use of formal care compared to 15% of thehouseholds in the lowest income quintile. Similar patterns – high coverage ratesbut unequally distributed – are found in France, England (see studies presentedabove) and Ireland. By examining in more details the social distribution operated bychildcare measures in Flanders, it emerges that families in the highest quintileprofit more than twice as much from public support for childcare (public subsidiesto childcare providers, income-related enrolment fees, income tax deduction) thanfamilies from the lowest income quintile. According to the authors, this points to aproblem of childcare support biased against lower income, which confirms the

9

findings of previous research showing that low income mothers have problemsattaining childcare slots

5.

Leseman, P. 2002. Early childhood education and care for children from low-income and minority backgrounds. Paper presented to OECD, Oslo, June2002. Retrieved from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/15/1960663.pdf

The study reviews research evidences related to the function of ECEC for low-income and minority families with a specific focus on their social integration. Thispaper, presented within a thematic workshop at the Oslo OECD meeting in June2002 with the aim of complementing the report Starting Strong (OECD, 2001),draws both on European research carried out in Sweden, Germany, Belgium, TheNetherlands and on US studies. The main findings suggest that socio-economicclass and ethnic cultural differences in the use of ECEC can be explained by atleast four factors:

family-related socio-economic factors (family income, number ofchildren, mother’s employment and hourly wages, in relation to theenrolling fee required by the provisions and subsidies provided tothe family)

cultural and religious child rearing belief

degree of social and cultural integration along with the number ofyears of residence in the host country, and, more specifically trust inprofessional education and care provision

consideration of convenience in relation to location and openinghours (availability of informal care by relatives in the neighbourhoodplays an important role in this regards).

In order to overcome these obstacles the author suggests:

policy measures directed toward the implementation of largelypublicly funded and organised systems that integrate education andcare, and that are attractive and affordable to all families regardlessof their social class and minority status

organising ECEC provision that match more closely the families’goals and values including support for bilingual development (forexample by recruiting staff from ethnic minority or by involvingparents and their socio-linguistic communities)

providing flexible ECEC services that are supportive of thediversified needs of families .

Noailly, J., Visser, S., & Grout, P. 2007. The impact of market forces on theprovision of childcare: insights from the 2005 Childcare Act in theNetherlands. Den Haag: Centraal Planbureau.

The study investigates the impact of the introduction of market forces on theprovision of childcare in The Netherlands. The Childcare Act, introduced in 2005,replaced the former funding systems that had elements of both supply- anddemand-financing (public funding was partly distributed to suppliers in the form ofsubsidies granted by local municipalities) with a fully demand-financing system(now public funding is distributed exclusively to parents that are free to choose theirchildcare providers). The analysis presented in the study is carried out bycomparing the childcare provision under the old regime (over the period 1999-

5Market Analysis and Synthesis. 2007. Analyse van het zoekproces van ouders naar een

voorschoolse kinderopvangplaats [Analysis of Parents’ Search Process for a PreschoolChildcare Slot]. Leuven: Market Analysis and Synthesis.

10

2001) to the childcare provision after the introduction of the reform. To investigatechanging patterns in childcare provision data from the General Firm Registry (onthe location of facilities) and from the Chamber of Commerce (on the profit statusof childcare facilities

6) were analysed. The results highlight the following trends:

the overall childcare provision (total number of facilities) increasedby 10%

both the number and share of not-for-profit facilities declined (from80% in 1999-2001 to 50% in 2006) while the share of for-profitfacilities increased

growth of childcare provision has spread unevenly over differentlocations: the availability of for-profit facilities has increasedpredominantly in the areas with above average population, incomeand urbanisation while areas with lower than average income,population and urbanisation have witnessed a decline in the numberof not-for-profit facilities that in many cases constituted the onlyprovision in such locations.

To conclude the study showed that the marketisation of childcare has led to moreavailability in more affluent urban areas and to a decrease of availability in poorerand more rural areas. In this sense it could be said that marketisation of childcareprovision is a macro-systemic condition that might prevent the participation ofdisadvantaged families and children in ECEC, even when it is compensated withvouchers for low-income families.

OSCE. 2010. Mapping of participation of Roma and Sinti children in earlyeducation processes within the OSCE region. Retrieved from:http://www.osce.org/odihr/73874

The study was jointly conducted by OSCE and ODIHR within the framework of theOSCE Ministerial Council Decision ‘Enhancing OSCE Efforts to Implement theAction Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti within the OSCE Area’(MC.DEC/8/09). The aim of the study was to map the access of Roma and Sintichildren to early education within the 56 OSCE participating countries. Aquestionnaire aiming to identify main obstacles, challenges and existing goodpractices in relation to the participation of Roma ad Sinti children in ECEC was sentout to all OSCE member states. In addition, the same questionnaire was circulatedto civil society actors and organizations active in the field of Roma. The dataanalysed consist of the responses to the questionnaire that were received from 26participating states

7and 15 NGOs

8. As most of the replies provided fragmentary or

6The Netherlands stands out from other European countries as a state without public

provision of childcare. Only private providers operate in the Dutch childcare market: for-profitfacilities accounting for 60% of total provision; and not-for-profit private facilities accountingfor the remaining 40% (van der Kemp and Kloosterman, 2005).Van der Kemp, S. & M. Kloosterman. 2005. Het aanbod van kinderopvang per eind 2004 –Eindrapport. Research voor Beleid.7

Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, the former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Luxembourg,Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey.8UNICEF Belgrade, Centre for Interethnic Dialogue and Tolerance "Amalipe" (Bulgaria),

CeIS - Centro Italiano di Solidarietà di Roma – (Italy), CIP - Center for Interactive Pedagogy(Serbia), Central Council of German Sinti and Roma (Germany),Community Cohesion andTraveller Education (Bolton, UK), Cultural Center O Del Amenca (Romania),EducationLeeds Gypsy Roma Traveller Achievement Service (UK), Fundación Secretariado Gitano(Spain), ICE - Instituto das Comunidades Educativas (Portugal), Pedagogical Centre ofMontenegro (Montenegro), Pedagoški Inštitut (Slovenia), Roma Yag (Ukraine), Savez NVO

11

insufficient data, the study did not allow an accurate mapping of the situation: inthis regard one of the main findings pointed to the lack of data on the issue ofRoma and Sinti ECEC participation in many countries, that is currently jeopardisingthe development of effective, tailor-made policies for enhancing the access ofRoma and Sinti children to early education processes. Despite these shortcomings,the main obstacles identified by both states and NGO representative were relatedto:

adverse economic conditions at the family level (parentalunemployment, poor economic conditions making it difficult forRoma families to enrol and ensure regular attendance of theirchildren in ECEC services, deprived community environments suchas illegal settlements without infrastructures)

lack of trust of Roma families toward authorities and public servicesaccompanied by lack of awareness in regard to the importance ofearly education

discrimination and hostility encountered in the educationalenvironment (restrictive administrative procedures coupled with ashortage of places in early education services).

Sylva, K., Stein, A. Leach, P., Barnes, J. Malmberg, L.E. & the FCCC-team.2004. ‘Family and child factors related to the use of non-maternal infant care:An English study.’ Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22 (1), 118-136.

The study aimed at exploring factors related to the use, amount and type of non-maternal child care infants experience in their first year, reporting on a prospectivelongitudinal study of 1201 families recruited from two different regions in England.The study is underpinned by a socio-ecological model (Pungello & Kurtz-Costes,1999; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2008)

9. Therefore the selection and timing of non-

maternal childcare is investigated by taking into account child and familybackground characteristics (including family structure, ethnic background and SES)as well as maternal psychological factors. Data were collected throughquestionnaires and semi-structured interviews taking place during home visitswhen children were 3 and 10 months old. The data collected (measures of families’demographic characteristic, child characteristics, maternal psychologicalcharacteristics and dominant forms of childcare) were analysed through statisticalmultiple regression models. The findings reveal that family socio-demographicbackground (education, occupation and income level) was the most consistentpredictor of the amount and nature of non-maternal care infants received. Familieswho availed of non-maternal (familial) child care before children were 3 months ofage, were more likely to come from relatively disadvantaged families; in contrastwith the mothers of infants starting in child care between 4 and 10 months, whowere more advantaged. Disadvantaged families were more likely to use familialcare, while more advantaged families were likely to use purchased child care.Children who began non-maternal care later (3–10 months) and spent more hoursin care were more likely to be from ethnic minorities (Asian) and have mothers whobelieved that maternal employment had more benefits and fewer risks for theirchild. First-born children were also more likely to experience non-maternal careafter the age of 3 months. Infants rated by their mothers at 3 months as less

Roma RS (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Roma NGO “Romski Krug” (Montenegro), AVSI –

Associazione Volontari per il Servizio Internazionale (Italy).9

Pungello, E. P., & Kurtz-Costes, B. 1999. ‘Why and how working women choose childcare: A review with a focus on infancy’. Developmental Review, 19, 31–96.Bronfenbrenner, U.& Morris, P. A. 1998. ‘The ecology of developmental processes’. InW.Damon (Series Ed.)&R.M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1.Theoretical models of human development (pp. 993–1028). New York: Wiley.

12

‘adaptable’ in temperament and at 10 months as more ‘fussy’ spent more hours inchild care. Comparable with the results of US large scale National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development studies (NICHD, 1997 - 2001)

10, this research

found that factors related to socio-economic disadvantage are strongly related tothe type of child care used, with more advantaged families using more often non-familial care and lower-income families relaying more often on unpaid childcarearrangements provided by relatives. The authors conclude that although in recentyears considerable efforts have been made toward increasing availability ofregistered childcare for disadvantage families in England, both financial issues andfamilies’ beliefs about childrearing might have hindered the use of non-familial careamong disadvantage families.

Vandenbroeck, M., De Visscher S., van Nuffel, K. & Ferla J. 2008. ‘Mothers’search for infant child care: the dynamic relationship between availability anddesirability in a continental European welfare state’. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 23 (2), 245-58.

The study investigates the relationship between availability and accessibility ofchildcare by looking at access policies of 83 funded providers and by examiningthe search processes of 100 mothers in Brussels. The study was carried out in acontext that controlled for costs and structural quality (funded provision) that mightbe assumed as typical of ECEC provision in a continental European welfare state.Data on availability were obtained by the local authority responsible for qualitycontrol and funding (Kind en Gezin), data on accessibility were obtained through asurvey with childcare centres directors, data on the total population of childcareusers (including families’ and background factors) were obtained through interviewwith managers, data on parents’ search processes were obtained through aquestionnaire. Data analysis was carried out using statistical procedures (ANOVAand GLM). The findings highlight that, despite a context of structural availability offunded high quality provision, non-intentional exclusion of parents with low levels ofeducation, ethnic minority and – to a less clear extent – single-parents familiesexists. The main obstacles identified to participation of low SES, ethnic minorityfamilies in ECEC provision are:

unequal availability of provision (poor families have less access tochildcare in their neighbourhood)

criteria adopted for distributing the places available that are quiteautonomously decided by centre managers and that in most casesgive priority to the parents who are already working and thatsubscribed early on waiting lists (‘first come first served’).

The study findings point out that parent’s attitudes and preferences in their searchfor childcare are fundamentally shaped by availability: low SES and ethnic minorityparents, given the lack of choice, rank both practical (distance and opening hours)and child-specific criteria (staff qualifications, trust, infrastructure and play-materials) lower more often than better off parents do. These findings are in linewith previous studies in Flanders (Vanpée et al., 2000)

11.

10National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research

Network. 1997. Familial factors associated with the characteristics of non-maternal care forinfants. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 389–408.National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care ResearchNetwork. (2001). Non-maternal care and family factors in early development: An overview ofthe NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22,457–492.11

Vanpée, K., Sannen, L., & Hedebouw, G. 2000. Kinderopvang in Vlaanderen. Gebruik.keuze van de opvangvorm en evaluatie door de ouders. Leuven: Katholieke UniversiteitLeuven—HIVA.

13

Wall, K. & Josè S. J. 2004. ‘Managing work and care: a difficult task forimmigrant families.’ Social Policy administration, 38 (6), 591-621.[Project web-site: http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/sostut/soccare/index.htm]

The study reports the findings of a European Project (SOCCARE) investigating thestrategies used by immigrant families to reconcile work and care for young childrenin Finland, France, Italy and Portugal. The study draws upon 63 interviews –carried out in each of the countries mentioned above – with dual or single parentshaving children aged under 10. From the study, it emerged that different migrationpatterns (in terms of migration projects and trajectories, family structure andwork/life strategies) correspond to different needs, difficulties and resources tocope with managing work and care responsibilities. Among the categoriesidentified, those of unskilled worker migrant families and lone parents wereidentified as the most vulnerable. The findings highlight that weak regulatoryfunctions of different welfare state systems fail to meet the needs of these familieswho are often employed in low-paid atypical jobs with long working hours. Thedifficulties encountered by these groups consist specifically in the absence of closekin networks to support childcare (informal networks within labour migrantcommunities might exist but they fail to provide support for childcare), strongpressure to work and from work (long working hours, atypical timetables, workingleave rarely available) and various integration problems such as social isolation,lack of information on services and problems with housing. The main obstaclesidentified in relation to the participation of these children and families to ECECservices are: lack of availability of public or publicly subsidised childcare andinflexibility of childcare facilities in relation to opening hours. In order to support thesuccessful inclusion of these most vulnerable immigrant families the authorssuggest the implementation of integrated welfare state policies that addresscoherently all the difficulties encountered by these groups. Specifically, in relationto childcare, the authors stress the importance of providing low-cost responsiveservices that take into account family income as well as their atypical workingarrangements.

14

A 2 - Studies describing good practices

Children in Scotland. 2011. Working for inclusion: how early childhoodeducation and care and its workforce can help Europe’s youngest citizens.Retrieved from: http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/wfi/

The Working for Inclusion (WFI) study has been funded by the EuropeanCommunity Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity with the support ofthe Scottish Government and associated partners in nine countries

12. The research

programme aimed at strengthening understanding of how the early years workforcecan support social inclusion and address poverty. The study combined literatureoverviews, country profiles and research insights. The main findings of theresearch carried out within the WFI programme (Bennett and Moss, 2011) are asfollows:

Countries with the lowest levels of child poverty and inequalitiesoffer publicly-funded universal provision in which care and educationare integrated

Split services, that are found in countries which pay less attention tochild poverty and do not fully fund early childhood provision, oftenresult in less effective (in terms of structural and pedagogical quality)and less equitable (in terms of outreach to parents and community)provisions

Workforce plays a crucial role in the provision of effective ECECservices that contribute to better long-term outcomes for childrenand to the well-being of children, families and communities:therefore appropriate resources should be invested in thedevelopment of a valued, well qualified and appropriatelyremunerated workforce

Change toward more inclusive and equitable ECEC services –balancing quality with equality of access – can be realised even inchallenging economic times: in this sense, political will andleadership (at national, regional or local level) can make animportant contribution toward the provision of accessible integratedservices

ECEC services can make an important contribution in increasing social inclusionacross Europe only if they are embedded in equitable welfare systems:

‘without strong income redistribution policies and supportive,universal welfare system, the work of the best early years workforcewill not be enough to eradicate child poverty and achieve socialinclusion.’ (Summary of the WFI Final Report, p. 8)

Connolly, P. 2009. Developing programmes to promote ethnic diversity inearly childhood: lessons from Northern Ireland. The Hague: Bernard VanLeer. Retrievedfrom:http://www.bernardvanleer.org/Developing_programmes_to_promote_ethnic_diversity_in_early_childhood_Lessons_from_Northern_Ireland

12Children in Scotland (Scotland and UK), La bottega di Geppetto (Italy), Nordland

Research Institute (Norway), Comenious Foundation for Child Development (Poland). Otherpartner countries were Denmark (BUPL), France (Le Furet), Portugal (Association of EarlyEducation Professionals), Slovenia (Ministry of Education and Sport), Hungary (NationalInstitute for Families and Social Policies) and Sweden.

15

The study explores the issues connected with the development of early childhoodprograms aimed to promote racial and ethnic diversity in context characterised bydeep division and conflict. The research draws on the case study of NorthernIreland– which has been affected by 30 years of armed conflict – to investigate theeffects of ethnic division on young children and how these can be mitigated throughECEC programs aiming at encouraging young children to understand and respectdiversity. The study adopts an ecological model and is grounded on ethnographicresearch investigating children’s perceptions (preferences and dispositions) ofethnic division in the specific context of NI (Connolly et al., 2002

13; Connolly &

Healy, 200414

). In this way, an in-depth understanding of how ethnic division affectschildren’s experiences and social constructions is gained. Insights on how ECECprograms fostering respect for ethnic diversity can be set up and implemented inpractices are gained through the analysing of the Media Initiative for ChildrenRespecting Differences Program (http://www.early-years.org/mifc/) jointlydeveloped by the organisation for young children Early Years (NI) and the PeaceInitiative Institute (USA). The lessons learnt through the evaluation of the programare:

focusing educational initiatives on widening children’s experiencesand awareness of a range of cultural events and symbols associatedwith a variety of communities vs partisan cultural awareness (e.g.Protestant or Catholic)

providing professional development opportunities that encouragedECEC staff (practitioners and leaders) to reflect upon their attitudesand believes

providing training that supports ECEC staff (practitioners andleaders) in using program resources and increases their confidencein building support for the program among parents and within localcommunities.

Building on the assumption that the lesson learnt from NI case study can have amuch wider relevance, the author identifies five key-elements that need to be takeninto account when developing ECEC programs aimed to promoting respect fordiversity in other contexts

15:

adopting a children’s right-based approach (UNCRC, 1989)16

to thedesign, delivery and evaluation of EC programs,

developing appropriate research methodologies to understand theeffects of ethnic division on children’s experiences,

learning from other existing research and programs,

develop robust methods for evaluating program effectiveness,

ensuring government support and buy-in for the programs.

13Connolly, P., Smith, A. & Kelly, B. 2002. Too Young to Notice? The Cultural and Political Awareness

of 3–6 Year Olds in Northern Ireland. Belfast, UK: Community Relations Council.14

Connolly, P. & Healy, J. 2004. Children and the Conflict in Northern Ireland: TheExperiences and Perspec- tives of 3–11 Year Olds. Belfast, UK: Office of the First Ministerand Deputy First Minister.15

The experience developed in Northern Ireland inspired the model designed by the JointLearning Initiative on Children and Ethinc Diversity (JLICED), a global network of earlychildhood researchers, practitioners and policy makers committed to building sociallyinclusive communities through the promotion of effective early childhood programs(http://www.jliced.org/en).16

UNCRC. 1989. United Nation Convention on the Right of the Child.

16

DECET. 2007. Making sense of good practices. Brussels. Retrieved from:http://www.decet.org/fileadmin/decet-media/publications/Diversity-and-Social-Inclusion.pdf

ISSA. 2010. Competent Educators of the 21st Century: ISSA Principles ofQuality Pedagogy. Amsterdam. Retrieved from:http://tandis.odihr.pl/documents/hre-compendium/rus/CD%20SECT%205%20EVAL/V_97_2_ENG.pdf

DECET & ISSA. 2011. Diversity and social inclusion: exploring competencesfor professional practices. Brussels and Budapest. Retrieved from:http://www.decet.org/fileadmin/decet-media/good-practice/Making-Sense-of-good-Practice_english.pdf

These publications are the results of a process of consultation taking place withintwo well-known expert networks operating in the field of early childhood educationand diversity: DECET (Diversity in Early Childhood Education and TrainingNetwork) and ISSA (International Step by Step Association). In particular, theDECET network advocates for the inclusion of diversity within ECEC services andlocal communities according to a participatory anti-bias approach, while the ISSAnetwork supports professional communities to develop a strong civil society thatinfluences decision makers in providing high quality care and educational servicesfor all children from birth through primary school (birth -10 years old), with a focuson the poorest and most disadvantaged. The good practices for engagingdisadvantaged children and families in ECEC services that are outlined in thesedocuments are framed by concerns shared by both educators and policy-makers:concerns regarding ECEC quality (understood as contextualised and value laden),regarding citizenship (expressed by civic engagement within local communities)and concerns about social inclusion (understood as a co-constructed process thatinvolve children, families and practitioners in democratic decision-making). Thegood practices identified through the researches carried out by these networks incollaboration with children, parents and practitioners living in contexts of diversityare:

ensuring equality of access to ECEC services through clear policiesand procedures

promoting a perceptible ethos in each centre, grounded in acommitment to social justice and respect of diversity

active involvement of diverse staff in issues that concern communitymembers (analysing and addressing responsively the changingneeds of local communities through active engagement in localconsultation/policy-making processes)

practitioners’ competence is sustained through continuousprofessional development that supports them in answering to thechanging needs of children, families, communities and society

creating democratic decision-making structures within the centrethat encourage all stakeholders to express divergent views and tonegotiate values and believes: involve parents as equal partners inpedagogical decision-making

educational practices are co-constructed by practitioners in dialoguewith children and parents through documentation and reflection: highquality care and education is co-constructed through purposefulreciprocal interaction rather than merely implemented

children’s needs, interests and experiences are assumed to be thefocal point of educational initiatives: child-centred pedagogy thatpromotes holistic development through children-initiated activities

17

practitioners support the development of children’s individual andgroup identities by nurturing their feeling of belonging in a positiveclimate that welcome diversity

staff composition, organisation of the setting and pedagogicalprocesses reflect societal diversity

special attention is given to outreaching to families belonging to lessvisible groups that might not be present in ECEC centres.

De Graaff, F. & Van Kuelen, A. 2008. Making the road as we go. Parents andprofessionals as partners managing diversity in early childhood education.The Hague: Bernard Van Leer. Retrieved from:http://www.bernardvanleer.org/Making_the_road_as_we_go

The study reports the findings of the research associated with the Parent andDiversity project that was run by the Bureau MUTANT

17between 2003 and 2005 in

The Netherlands. The aims of the project were twofold:

building partnerships between childcare providers and theirchildren’s parents

supporting childcare providers in meeting the differing needs of theincreasingly diverse population of parents and their children in orderto improve the quality of ECEC in the context of the new social andlegislative development recently occurring in The Netherland

18.

The program supported childcare providers in elaborating parental policies aimedat developing partnerships with parents by acknowledging and respecting theirdiversity. Partnership was defined within a conceptual model unfolding severaldimensions within which reciprocal relationships develops within community: ‘livingtogether’, ‘working together’, ‘thinking together’ and ‘making decisions together’. Inaddition, six diversity objectives taken from the DECET principles (see pag.13)framed the pedagogical approach to respect of diversity in the project: ‘fosteringfeelings of belonging’, ‘empowering the formation of diverse identities’, ‘sustainingmutual learning’, ‘promoting civic participation and citizenship’, ‘challengingdiscrimination and institutional prejudices’, ‘actively promote anti-bias policies’. Onthe basis of these principles and theoretical underpinnings, the project encouragedchildcare professionals to experiment with the innovative practices that wereproposed in the project and provided them support in the process of implementingthese practices. The good practices that emerged from this experimental processthat involved parents and ECEC professionals were:

participation of immigrant parents needs to be reconsidered within areciprocal dialogue that leaves space for questioning traditionaltaken-for-granted assumptions about child rearing: rather thanproviding one-side information to parents, it is necessary to engagein a reciprocal dialogue to find out what their diversified needs areand how they can be better addressed

co-constructing tools to reflect systematically on parents’participation in relation to diversity objectives (self-assessmentaimed at the improvement of practices)

17The Bureau MUTANT is a training and consultancy agency committed to the respect of

diversity in early childhood education and care practices: http://www.mutant.nl/en/home.htm18

In particular references are made to the recent law (Dutch Childcare Act, 2005) that givesparents advisory power over the provision of childcare and that define childcare quality as ajoint responsibility of the government, providers and parents.

18

rethinking parents’ meetings as a regular way of sharing informationrather than as a way to discuss a child’s problem only

explaining and exploring childcare centre’s policies and practiceswith parents

recognising parents as equal partners and being able to challengeeducational practices in the light of their insights (by welcoming andreflecting on parents’ views) rather than assuming an expert rolethat creates power hierarchies and reinforces parents’ exclusion

sustaining a mutual collaboration between coordinators,researchers, centres’ managers and practitioners for the elaborationand implementation of innovative policies raising quality of ECEC atlocal level and dissemination at national/international level for policyadvocacy.

EACEA. 2009. Tackling social and cultural inequalities through earlychildhood education and care in Europe. Brussels: EACEA Eurydice.

The study, commissioned by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture ExecutiveAgency of the European Commission, explores the available cross-national dataand national policies on ECEC in Europe. In particular the study aims to addressthe issue of efficiency and equity of ECEC system by placing emphasis on policygeared specifically for at risk children (OECD category C /Disadvantages). Thestudy covers 30 member countries of Eurydice Network and analyses dataconcerning only accredited and subsidised centre-based provision (pubic andsemi-private provision). The main research findings point out that the countries,which are more successful in achieving high participation rates of at risk children inECEC provision, are the countries that have adopted a unitary model as:

the entitlement to a place has been recognised as a right for allchildren

opening hours are generally extended to meet the flexible workinghours of parents

a coherent pedagogical approach that attributes the sameimportance to education, socialisation and care has beendeveloped.

Furthermore, the research findings also point at good practices for engaging withchildren and families at risk, namely:

increasing both availability and accessibility of ECEC provisionespecially for children under three is a necessary condition toincrease participation among children and families at risk

the impact of informal obstacles on the participation of at riskchildren in pre-school provision (3-6 services) deserve policyattention

centre-based ECEC (‘intensive, early starting, child-focused’) shouldbe combined with the provision of parental support (‘strong parentinvolvement, parent education, programmed educational homeactivities and measures of family support’) in order to produce long-term benefits for children and parents

improving the quality of ECEC provision through initial training andcontinuous professional development of staff is crucial for theeffectiveness of ECEC intervention (accompanied by favourablechild/adult ratio)

undertaking an universal approach rather than targeting ECECintervention to disadvantaged groups.

19

Favaro, G., Mantovani, S. & Musatti T. 2006. Nello stesso nido: famiglie ebambini stranieri nei servizi educativi. [In the same nido: migrant families andchildren in early years educational services.] Milano: Franco Angeli.

The study reports the findings of a research carried out in three Italian cities(Roma, Milano, Perugia) and jointly conducted by the CNR (National Centre ofCognitive Sciences) and two Universities (Milano-Bicocca and Perugia). Theresearch aimed at investigating the perceptions of educators and immigrantparents sharing daily experiences in multicultural nidi (ECEC services attended bychildren under 3). The study is carried out within the framework of interculturalpedagogy, in which the encounter with cultural diversity is seen as a dialogue thatinvolves both partners in reciprocal exchange creating new meanings. By focusingspecifically on how the pedagogical identity of early childhood educational services– that is rooted in a long standing tradition in Northern and Central Italy – can bere-defined in the light of the increasing diversified needs of children and parents incontemporary society, the study adopts at ethnographic approach to theinvestigation of practitioners’ and parents’ perceptions. The findings point out that ameaningful participation of immigrant parents and children in ECEC services canbe achieved through:

valuing children’s and parents’ cultural backgrounds

welcoming cultural diversity through inclusive educational practices.Welcoming diversity necessarily implies a reflective stance of ECECeducators, who need to be aware of pedagogical orientationsunderpinning their practices in order to be able to challenge them,negotiate them and enrich them in dialogue with ‘the other’

acknowledging the differences in childrearing practices acrosscultures: in this sense creating the conditions for an openconfrontation with parents becomes crucial (encouraging them toexpress their views and explain the meanings underpinningeducational practices in the services rather than just setting outrules)

engaging parents and professionals in common projects thatactivate reflectivity on values, meanings and understandings(regarding, for example, parental styles, childrearing practices andcivic engagement in local communities) creating a common groundfor re-thinking and re-constructing educational practices together.

Within this framework, good practices were identified in the ECEC services thatwere studied:

communicating with parents through a multiplicity of languages (e.g.documentation of daily activities through pictures, notice board withmessages written in different languages, use of cultural mediators atcrucial moments),

providing educational materials that reflect the diversity in the centreso that each child can see his culture recognised through familiarobjects (e.g. illustrated books, story-telling tapes, music...),

promoting exchanges among families through informal meetingopportunities (rather than formal report meetings),

encouraging the recruitment of staff from minority backgrounds,

providing integrated services on the ECEC site (e.g. parents andchildren centres – tempo per le famiglie – adult education courses,social services).

OSI, REF & UNICEF. 2012. The Roma Early Childhood Inclusion OverviewReport. UNICEF, Geneva.

20

The RECI Overview Report synthesizes information gathered in four nationalstudies conducted in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries: the CzechRepublic, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Romania. In thenational studies, Roma researchers and other experts built a detailed picture ofearly childhood policy and provision frameworks in each country, highlighting thebarriers and opportunities for improving the access of Roma children toappropriate, high-quality early childhood services. Recommendations for makingearly childhood services more comprehensive, intercultural and socially inclusiveare drawn from the findings and provide a clear agenda for action by governments.The key messages are:

Roma children are valuable: Europe cannot afford to neglect theirfuture.

In addition to legislation, governments need to invest incommunication and education to renew majority notions ofcitizenship and democracy.

The major responsibility for early childhood policies remains withnational governments. Their efforts will be more effective if closelylinked with EU Roma initiatives.

In contexts of extreme poverty and exclusion, developmentalreadiness for school requires a multi-dimensional concept of earlychildhood programming that places a strong emphasis on earlyintervention and women’s education.

In the early childhood sector, effective governance and consolidatedpolicies are critical.

Effective kindergartens and schools for excluded children need cleargoals, high quality, expanded services, and outreach to parents andcommunities.

Evidence-based policy in favour of Roma children is urgentlyneeded.

Peeters, J. 2010 ‘The role of ECEC services and professionals in addressingpoverty and promoting social inclusion in Early Childhood education andcare services in the European Union Countries’. Proceedings of theChildONE Europe Seminar and Review. Retrieved from:

http://www.childoneurope.org/issues/publications/ECEC_Report_rev.pdf

Drawing on the EUROSTAT figures showing the alarming extent of child poverty insome European countries, Peeters asks:

Is the wider social and economic context supportive? Or are earlychildhood services being asked to row upstream against powerfulcurrents of child poverty, and family-unfriendly policies in economyand the workplace?

What systems can make high quality services available to all andensure that disadvantaged and at-risk children are included?

He concludes that although ECEC institutions alone cannot resolves issues of childpoverty (OECD, 2006)

19, they can play an important role as part of a coherent

policy to combat poverty. Longitudinal studies are showing that there is a strongevidence that high quality ECE and more specific centres, with staff that have ahigh level of training, can make the difference for children from disadvantaged

19OECD. 2006. Starting Strong II.

21

groups (Sylva et al., 200420

; Fukkink & Lont, 200721

). Some conditions for this totake place are contained tin the Children in Europe Goals to strive for 2020

22, in

particular:

A universal entitlement for all children to free or affordable earlychildhood services from the end of parental leave;

A holistic and multi-purpose pedagogical approach in earlychildhood services. This is more likely to occur in unitary systems,that is, systems in which care and education are integrated

Participation as a dialogue: an essential value. The right ofparticipation of parents is not a reinforcement of the power of theeducator but must be seen as a dialogue: educators and parentsmust look together for solutions to questions and concrete problemsthat they are facing and together must construct new pedagogicalknowledge

Acceptance of diversity: a pitfall in the discussion on fighting povertyis that we see poor children as a separate category. An approachtowards children living in poverty is part of a wider democraticcondition that is based on recognition, respect and valuing of thediversity of language, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientationand disability, and challenge stereotypes and discrimination.

Democratic, participatory and transparent evaluation. The evaluationor the quality control of the organisation has to be open to allchildren and adults, providing the opportunity for everyone todiscuss real, concrete things

A strong and equal partnership with the school: childcare servicesmust make the link with kindergarten or primary school and theymust work together to better help the poor families.

OSI (2006) Roma Educational Initiative. Final report prepared for theEducation Support Program of the Open Society Institute. OSI Budapest.

The Roma Education Initiative (REI) began in 2002 as a joint initiative of the OpenSociety Institute’s Education Support Program in Budapest and Children and YouthPrograms in New York. REI made efforts to collaborate with Roma NGOs, parentsand local communities, other institutions and governments, as well as with otherOSI network programs. REI funded seven national level projects in Bulgaria,Hungary, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovakia, and Slovenia. 20,000+children and youth (aged 0 to 18) were affected by REI activities each year (2003-2004 & 2004-2005), of whom 5,000+ per year were Roma children and youth.1,000+ teachers and 120 Roma teaching assistants were involved each year in theprojects funded by REI.

REI worked towards desegregation through the empowerment of Roma NGOs towork with communities and schools and through the support of good pedagogicalpractices. These elements ensured that Roma children have access to integrated,high quality educational settings. The key-factors of REI success were:

Provision of early childhood learning opportunities facilitatingchildren’s transitions and academic success in compulsory school

20Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B. 2004. The

Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project. Effective Pre-School Education.London: DfES / Institute of Education, University of London.21

Fukkink, R.G. & Lont, A. 2007. Does training matter? A meta-analysis and review ofcaregiver training studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 294-311.22

Retrieved from: http://www.childrenineurope.org/docs/PolicyDocument_000.pdf

22

(strong partnerships between pre-school programs and school,emphasis on language acquisition and on pre-literacy/numeracyskills, support of community-based learning opportunities providedby Roma NGO’s)

Adoption of an interactive child-centred pedagogical approach(implementation of Step by Step methodology)

Connections to Roma communities (Roma NGO’s have taken on astrong role particularly in helping to address school attendanceproblems by visiting parents who were not sending their children toschool and encouraging them to do so, as well as by providing out ofschool support to school-aged children through homeworkassistance, extra-curricular activities, and encouragement forchildren to attend and achieve in school. REI teams have alsoresponded to their local contexts by implementing additionalprograms and services in cooperation with the Roma community –e.g. adult literacy programs).

Teacher training (Roma partner NGO’s were involved in training,including training of Roma teaching assistants

23who were frequently

affiliated with Roma NGO’s and who were a key component of REIclassrooms and schools. They assisted in classrooms, acted as rolemodels for children, integrated Roma language, culture, and historyinto the curriculum, and served as a liaison between the family andthe school).

Skolverket (2007) Five years with the maximum fee National Agency forEducation, Stockholm. Retrievedfrom:http://www.skolverket.se/2.3894/in_english/publications

The study, carried out by the Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket),aims at evaluating the effects of the childcare reform that was carried out inSweden between 2001 and 2003. This reform entailed:

a regulation of childcare fees: a maximum fee that municipalities24

could charge parents was set (less than 100$ a month). Theseschemes, designed to be voluntarily applied by municipalities,entitled those municipalities that joined it to a special centralgovernment grant to compensate their loss of income.

an obligation for municipalities to offer pre-school activities to certaingroups of children (whose parents are unemployed or on parentalleave for younger siblings) for at least 15 hours per week

universal pre-school provision for all 4-and-5 years old(municipalities were obliged to offer at least 3 hours a day freepreschool activities).

The findings of the reform evaluation study show that the extended entitlement topre-school activities and the free period of attendance increased significantlyoverall ECEC participation and reduced inequalities in participation rates:

23Tankersley D. 2002. ‘Transforming the role of teaching assistants in Slovakia.’ Classroom

practices, 3: 25-28.Vonta, T., Balič, F., Jager, J. & Rutar, S. 2011. Inter-professional collaboration in pre-school and primary school contexts in Slovenia. Case study report compiled for the CoRe project.(http://ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/doc/2011/coreannex_en.pdf)

24Since 1990 the responsibility for ECEC services has been transferred to Municipality.

23

Before the reform (1998) a gap of 20% in ECEC attendance ratesexisted between rural and urban areas (50% vs 70%), after thereform (2004) this gap reduced by half (70% vs 80%)

Before the reform (1998) a significant difference in ECECparticipation rates was noted between children of well-educatedparents and other children, after the reform (2004) this differenceamong social categories has almost disappeared.

A similar reduction has been noted in the impact of backgroundfactors – such as parental occupation and immigrant background -on children participation in ECEC services.

Vandenbroeck, M. & Geens, N. (2011). Cartografie van de BrusselseNederlandstalige kinderopvang. Evoluties 2005-2010. Gent: UGent.

The study analyses the relationships between policy and practices regarding ECECavailability, accessibility and enrolment rates of very young children (0-3) in acontext of European continental welfare state that controls for quality and cost (cityof Brussels). Specifically this study compares the findings of a previous studycarried out in 2005 – that documented the non-intentional exclusion of low-educated, ethnic minority and single parents (Vandenbroeck et al., 2008; see table1) – with the results produced by the analysis of current data (2010) that werecollected after policy changes were introduced to overcome such unintentionalexclusion. These changes consisted both of policy measures and practiceintervention:

at least 20% of childcare places in funded facilities has to bereserved for children of families belonging to the excluded groups(see above)

funding priority is given to ECEC centres that developed equalaccess policies

a comprehensive support program for centre directors was providedby VBJK

25on issues regarding accessibility (participation on

voluntary basis that made them eligible for priority funding, see pointabove).

This follow up study – aiming to evaluate the impact of such policy measures andintervention program – collects data from the same funded ECEC centres as 2005through the same questionnaire and from 150 mothers of children aged 3 recruitedthrough 16 kindergarten located in geographically representative regions ofBrussels. Data analysis was carried out using correlation analysis. Finally two focusgroups (semi-structured interviews) of centres directors were organised and theresults were interpreted through qualitative data analysis. The findings highlightthat:

changes in funding priority did not influence geographicalinequalities in the availability of childcare: on the contrary policiesthat expand existing provision tend to widen the gap between richerand poorer areas

the presence of children from excluded groups (low-income, ethnicminority and single parents) nearly doubled suggesting that policymeasures combined with support can lead centre directors todevelop more equal access policies (priority given to ‘social criteria’rather than ‘practical criteria’- see previous study).

25Flemish Research and Resource Centre for Early Childhood Care and Education

(www.vbjk.be)

24

The authors conclude with the implications for policy-makers that suggest goodpractices in enhancing ECEC participation of disadvantaged children and families:

considering accessibility as structural quality criteria that encouragecentre managers to rethink access policies

concentrating funding to expand ECEC supply in a more targetedway (advantaging poorer areas)

providing centres managers with support in this process throughpeer groups for exchanging good practices.

25

Whalley M. and the Pen Green Centre Team. 2007. Involving parents in theirchildren’s learning. London: Sage.

Broadhead, P., Meleady, C. & Delgato M.A. 2008. Children, families andcommunities. Creating and sustaining integrated services. Maidenhead:Open University Press.

These contributions describe – in the form of case studies – the good practicesdeveloped by ECEC integrated centres in England for engaging with children andfamilies living in deprived communities. In this sense, the two studies provide areliable description of outstanding ECEC programmes that over the years havegained international research recognition: the Pen Green Centre located in Corbyand the Sheffield Children’s Centre. In both cases the cultural identity of ECECservices was forged by experience of resistance, civic engagement and socialsolidarity that arose out of local communities:

When the Penn Green Centre was first established by localauthorities, it encountered the hostility of the strongest voluntarygroup in the local community: a parent action group that refused thevision of a day-care centre for vulnerable families and deplored thelack of consultation between those who set up the centre and thosewho were expected to use it. Out of this conflict the vision andprinciples underpinning educational work at the centre werenegotiated.

The work at Sheffield’s Children Centre grew out of resistance toculturally inappropriate practices aimed at vulnerable children andfamilies from which a project identity emerged and took the form of acommunity cooperative that fostered democratic practices andpromoted social change within the local community

In both cases, the educational practices developed within the ECEC centres haveproved to be very successful in engaging with children and families from the mostdiverse background (including those so called ‘hard to reach’) and in providinganswers to changing demands of local communities. The good practices that canbe identified through the analysis of these two cases are:

the provision of integrated services that combine: a) care andeducation, b) early years provision and family support services(included adult community education), c) special needs andmainstream provision through inter-agency work

ethical and political commitment to diversity (mixed workforce interm of gender, ethnicity, language...) and social justice

democratic and inclusive pedagogical approaches that are co-constructed with children and families (promotion of children-initiatedactivities, responsive interactions that take into account diversifiedneeds, engagement with parents based on reciprocity and mutualrecognition) within local communities

enhancing parents’ sense of agency, involving them in decision-making and practice-based research (participatory research projectsinvolving parents and practitioners ) as a resource for staffprofessionalisation (reflective practices)

providing ongoing support to staff through supervision, professionaldevelopment and opportunities for collective reflection oneducational practices

staff should be committed to work with children and parents forcommunity regeneration (ECEC as a community project) incooperation with local voluntary organisations

26

developing policy-making capacity that catalyse social change withinlocal communities and beyond (networking).

Zylicz, P. O. 2010. ‘Where There Are No Pre-schools (WTANP): an educationalprogram fostering self-efficacy in Polish rural areas.’ In Tuna, A. & Hayden J.Early Childhood programs as the doorway to social cohesion. CambridgeScholars Publishing: ISSA.

This study builds upon the evaluation of a pre-school program (attended bychildren aged 3 to 5) developed by the Comenius Foundation for ChildDevelopment, a Polish NGO that aims at equalising life opportunities for childrenaged 0 to 10 living in rural areas. In fact in Poland, as in many other Post-Communist countries in the Eastern European region, low-income household arepredominant in rural areas where early educational opportunities for young childrenare particularly scarce

26. The WTANP program draws on child-centred approaches

to early childhood education through the promotion of learning through exploration,play and creating activities (experiential learning), through a specific focus placedupon adult-child responsive interactions and through the promotion of families andcommunity involvement. The findings of the WTANP program evaluation identifythe following as good practices in promoting the participation of children andfamilies from disadvantaged areas in ECEC programs:

tailoring the program on the needs of local rural communities

providing training and on-going professional developmentopportunities, along with educational supervision and advice, to pre-school teachers involved in the program in order to sustain reflectivepractices (building educational curriculum in relation to the needs ofchildren, families and local communities)

designing ECEC programs based on clear pedagogical assumptions

designing and disseminating educational materials for teachers andparents

involving parents in classroom activities and fostering theirawareness of how child development could be sustained throughadult-child interaction and engagement in shared activities

encouraging parents to take up a proactive role in sustainingchildren’s services within local communities

advocate for ECEC policy-making at local level with LA (ruralmunicipalities) and engaging in political consultation at national levelby building a broad coalition of supporters (e.g. coalition of non-governmental organisations, academics, local municipalitiesrepresentatives).

The findings of the study also highlight the need for an improved cooperationbetween the WTANP ECEC centres and state-run primary schools whose teachingapproaches are still relying on traditional methods. In this sense, a closer exchangebetween more traditional educational institutions and more experimental onesmight contribute to ease children’s transition between the two systems.

26Official statistics (FRD, 2009) show that in 2006 pre-school attendance was lower among

children living in disadvantaged areas (rural communities) than among children living inmore socio-economically advantaged areas (urban communities): in both cases preschoolattendance rates are extremely low (16 % in rural areas vs 34% in urban areas).

27

Conclusions

Nearly all studies among those analysed highlight that overall children with adisadvantaged background tend to be under-represented in ECEC services andparticularly in childcare services (0-3) where availability is generally lower andrationing tend to be higher. The background factors that are more frequentlyassociated with low participation in ECEC provision are the following:

low socio-economic status including low level of parental education,low family income or parental unemployment (Ghysels & VanLanker, 2011; Felfe & Lalive, 2011; Del Boca, 2010; OSCE, 2010;Boisson, 2008; Vandenbroeck, 2008; Driessen, 2004; Sylva et al.,2004; Wall & Josè, 2004; Leseman, 2002)

ethnic minority background (Boisson, 2008; Vandenbroeck, 2008;Wall & Josè, 2004), in combination with length of time parents havebeen residing in the host country (Driessen, 2004; Leseman, 2002)and with their ability to master the host country language (Driessen,2004)

living in poor neighbourhoods/rural areas/marginalised settlements(OSCE, 2010; Vandenbroeck, 2008; Noally at al. 2007).

Against this background research findings attest that in social-democratic welfarestates, enrolment rates are generally high for the overall population (Ghysels & VanLanker, 2011) while levels of child poverty and inequalities are lower than in otherEuropean countries (CIS, 2011). This leads us to consider that universalentitlements to publicly funded ECEC provision within integrated systems thatcombine care and education – along with a flexible allocation of funds that targetadditional resources toward children and families experiencing disadvantage – maycontribute to overcome the social stratification in the use of early childhoodservices with most benefit for disadvantaged groups (EACEA, 2009; Unicef-Innocenti, 2008; Leseman, 2002). Comprehensive ECEC policies will succeed intackling inequalities only if they are supported by a broader welfare system thatlinks policies across many sectors – labour, health and social services – that is, acultural and political commitment to democracy, rights, solidarity and equality(Unicef-Innocenti, 2008; OECD, 2006).

The analysis of the articles listed under the first theme ‘Barriers to engagingdisadvantaged children and families in ECEC services’ reported in the annex (tableA1) identifies five main factors hindering ECEC participation: availability,affordability, accessibility, usefulness and comprehensibility. This categorisationdraws on the conceptual framework elaborated by Parmentier (1998) and Roose &De Bie (2003) for describing the legal nature of social services. Such a conceptualframework is built upon an inter-subjective notion of the welfare state that stressesthe importance of differentiating service supply in order to provide all individualswith the opportunity to develop their full potential according to their diverse needs,in a diversity of situations (Roose & De Bie, 2003).

28

Factors hindering ECEC participation

Availability of ECEC services in local areas

From the studies analysed, it emerges that services in the childcare sector - forchildren under-three - are generally less widely available and more unevenlydistributed than those in the education sector (Del Boca, 2010), as has beenpreviously attested by many international reviews (OECD, 2006; CIS, 2011). It hasalso been noted that in contexts where the ECEC sector is largely marketised,overall provision (0-6 services) tends to concentrate in affluent urbanneighbourhoods and to be less available in rural areas or in poor neighbourhoods(Noally et al., 2007), widening the gap between more advantaged and lessadvantaged families in regard to ECEC access. The same dynamic occurs incontexts where laisser-faire policies invest in expanding already existing provisionrather than targeting funding toward more disadvantaged areas (Vandenbroeck etal., 2010).

Affordability

In systems where entitlement to a place is not grounded on the fulfilment ofchildren’s rights (universal provision), the access to publicly subsidised ECECprovision – when available in the local area – is restricted. In cases in whichpublicly subsidised provision is not available in the local area, childcare servicesare fee-paying and it is more difficult for disadvantage families to access them forreason of costs (Del Boca, 2010). In cases in which publicly subsidised provision isavailable but the access is restricted, families may encounter other ‘costs’ such asgiving up one’s privacy or the negative social and psychological consequences ofan intervention, e.g. being labelled as “in need” (Roose & De Bie, 2003). For thesereasons universal provision that are free of cost or where fees are linked to family-income tend to be more efficient and have higher equalising potential than systemsin which entitlement is rationed or targeted to the poor (CIS, 2011; Moss, 2009). Allthe studies reviewed on the issue converged to say that rationed access tends tofavour advantaged families (Felfe & Lalive, 2011; Del Boca, 2010; Havnes &Mogstad, 2009).

Accessibility

Accessibility refers to problems concerning access to services for diverse parents,caused by explicit or implicit barriers, such as inadequate knowledge of parentsconcerning the existence and the functioning of services, bureaucratic enrolmentprocedures, waiting lists, language barriers etc. In this regard the studies analysedrevealed that – even in cases of high ECEC coverage – places are unequallydistributed due to priority enrolment criteria set by service management: forexample giving priority to working parents or to those who enrol first mightunintentionally prevent disadvantaged parents from attaining a slot for their child(Vandenbroeck et al. 2008). ECEC accessibility policies might also be consideredin the broader context of income-related enrolment fees and income tax deductionthat, in some cases, might involuntarily produce higher benefits for moreadvantaged families and fail to operate as a redistributive measure (Ghysels & VanLanker, 2011).

Usefulness

Usefulness refers to the extent to which families experience ECEC as supportiveand attuned to their demands. The main concern highlighted by the researchfindings – many of which draw on parents’ interviews or questionnaire – was thelack of flexibility of ECEC services in regard to opening hours and attendancerequirements (Del Boca, 2010; Wall & Josè, 2004; Leseman, 2002) and enrolmentbureaucracy (OSCE, 2010). In particular, the inflexibility of opening hours oftenfails to meet the needs of families who are obliged to face precarious living andworking conditions (employed in low-skill, low-paid, atypical jobs). This is moreoften the case in immigrant families

29

Desirability by excluded groups

Desirability refers to the extent to which parents are aware why ECEC is importantand share a positive understanding of the practices and approaches adopted withinthe service. In this regards the research findings highlight that the values, goalsand childrearing beliefs of ethnic minority families are sometime very distant fromthe values, goals and childrearing believes traditionally adopted by mainstreamECEC provision. In this sense a mono-cultural organisation of the service that doesnot recognise or practise diversity generally fails to gain the trust of ethnic minoritygroups (Driessen, 2004; Sylva et al., 2004; Leseman, 2002) while, in the worsecases, it generates segregation and reinforces discrimination (RECI, 2012). Manystudies – included those analysed in this literature study – suggest that suchobstacles might be overcome by involving parents and local migrant communitiesin democratic decision-making processes regarding the management of ECECservices and by recruiting personnel from ethnic minority groups (CIS, 2011). Inthis way, the basis for a dialogic process that deculturalises social inclusion andreculturalises outcomes could be set:

Any framework based on social inclusion and diversity shouldacknowledge that the two are inextricably linked and avoid the pitfallof making structural discriminations into issues of cultural diversity.The concept can be understood as a plea for de-culturalising socialinclusion. Conversely, when focusing on evidence-based policies,researchers should be careful to include the views of the targetfamilies. This includes taking account of what they consider to bedesirable outcomes and their motivation for participation or non-participation. This may be understood as a reculturalisation ofoutcomes. (Vandenbroeck, 2007)

It is the combination of usefulness and comprehensibility – which Vandenbroeck(forthcoming) defines in terms of ECEC desirability – that lays the ground forprocesses of negotiation of meanings, values and purposes from which trulyinclusive practice can be elaborated in a co-constructive way. In order to provide asubstantial contribution to the educational opportunities and life chances ofdisadvantaged children – and therefore to social inclusion – ECEC needs not onlyto be available, affordable and accessible but also desirable. The analysis reportedin the next section provides insights on how to translate this process into everydaypractices within ECEC institutions.

A framework for successful inclusive practice

The analysis of the studies reviewed in this literature study indicates thatsuccessful inclusive practices for engaging disadvantaged children and families inECEC services need to be framed by certain structural conditions. As indicated bythe case studies analysed, actions toward the implementation of such structuralconditions can be undertaken at several levels: through legislative support ofnational governments or within the framework of regional and local administrations,as well as in the wider context of international cooperation. In this sense, a veryimportant role can be played by the European Commission in providing a strategicpolicy framework for action, in supporting international cooperation among memberstates through the Open Method of Coordination and in encouraging theexperimentation of innovative approaches through EU Structural Funds. There is aconsensus among researchers and policy-makers that the structural conditionspromoting successful inclusive practices encompass:

30

universal entitlement to publicly funded ECEC provision from theend of parental leave

integration of ECEC systems (regulation, administration andfunding) that promote a more equitable access and a more unitaryapproach to 0-6 provision (‘educare’)

flexible organisation of ECEC services (enrolment bureaucracy,attendance requirements, opening hours arrangements)

combination of high quality ECEC centre-based provision and parentsupport programs (adult education, counselling,...)

a valued, well qualified and adequately supported workforce

inter-agency cooperation between ECEC centres, health and socialservices, local authorities

strong and equal partnership between ECEC and compulsory schooleducation

political commitment toward democracy, equality and civil rights.

Within this framework, the research studies analysed above show that goodpractice for engaging with disadvantaged children and parents are rooted asfollows.

Good practices in engaging disadvantaged children and families inECEC services to enhance their social inclusion

A commitment to social justice and a positive emotional climate

Inclusive practices are grounded on an ethical commitment to social justice andrespect of diversity that become concrete expression of values such as citizenship,democracy and social solidarity. The child, as a citizen subject of rights, needs tobe placed at the core of any educational initiative. Children’s identities need to benurtured by feelings of belonging that are developed through meaningfulrelationships with adults and peers and through the interaction with a welcomingenvironment that values their languages and cultural backgrounds (Brooker &Woodhead, 2008). In this senses elaborating welcoming practices – together withchildren’s families – for smoothing transition from the home environment to theECEC settings becomes a priority. In ECEC settings children’s learning needs tobe sustained through responsive relationships with educators who are able to takeinto account both the needs of each individual child and the needs of the group ofchildren as whole. Therefore the creation of a positive emotional climate in whichgroup interactions are actively sustained and exploration of the environment isactively encouraged become an essential precondition for promoting childrendevelopment. In this sense research findings concur to say that an holisticapproach – combining care and education – grounded in inter-cultural awarenesscan successfully promote children’s development across different domains(cognitive and socio-emotional) and according to their diversified needs.

Responsiveness to children and parents

In order to be responsive, educational practices need to be co-constructed withchildren and their families. Co-constructing practices with children might mean tocreate an educational environment that encourages play-based learning, thatpromotes children self-initiated activities and that enriches them through projectwork and teacher-initiated activities: observation and documentation becomeessential components of this process as they allow educators to reflect andimprove their practices in the light of children’s needs. Co-constructing practiceswith parents might mean to engage them in decision-making about the education oftheir children, to encourage them to express their views on childrearing and to takeinto account their perceptions as valuable knowledge (Vandenbroeck, 2009). Thestudies analysed have highlighted that such co-constructive processes are better

31

fostered in the context of informal meetings, practitioners-parents workshops, andparticipatory research projects rather than in the context of formal report meetings.Another interesting possibility is to engage parents in voluntary activities within theECEC settings. All the initiatives mentioned above should aim primarily atincreasing parents’ sense of agency and participation within ECEC services.Furthermore research findings suggest that continuity of pedagogical approachesand exchange of educational practices should be promoted between ECECservices and primary school with the aim of supporting children and parents duringtransitions. The provision of extended school day programmes in primary school(such as leisure time or after school care facilities) should also be considered as amore integrated approach to education as this seems to extend the benefits ofECEC during the compulsory school years and to better address the needs ofdisadvantaged families.

Parent involvement and outreach

One of the main findings emerging from the studies analysed in this literature studyis the under-representation of disadvantaged children and families in ECECservices. Therefore the issue of parents’ involvement underpins another issue thatis, outreach to families who are not attending ECEC services and whose presencetend to be less visible in the local community. Outreaching activities are the firststep toward building bridges of trust between marginalised groups and ECECservices: for this reason linking outreach activities to the work of locally establishedvoluntary organisations that might have already developed trustful relationship withsuch marginalised groups turns out to be more effective (as in the case of Romacommunities for example).

The second step is to set the basis for the development of an equal partnershipbetween parents and ECEC providers: partnerships within which reciprocaldialogue can be facilitated and responsive practices can be fostered. From theresearch findings it emerges that two essential conditions for establishing mutualrelationships between parents and professional are:

a) the presence of democratic decision-making structures (e.g. parental committee)for the management of ECEC services and,

b) an open-minded disposition of the staff toward challenging traditional practices.

The fact that parents might present differing needs has to be taken into account aswell. For this reason, ECEC services should be committed to constantly negotiatingpractices and values in ever changing contexts where contrasting values andbeliefs might emerge.

A third way in which parental partnership can evolve, if appropriately sustained, isthe creation of networks of solidarity at local level. In this sense, the commitment ofECEC services toward parental involvement should not be limited to theirparticipation within the setting, but rather should be extended to the creation ofsolidarity networks that foster civic engagement and catalyse social change fromwithin local communities (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005).

Staff competence

All studies analysed highlight the crucial role played by a valued, well qualified andadequately supported early years workforce in shaping competent practices forengaging with children and parents in ECEC services. Many studies also highlightthe importance of a mixed workforce that reflects the social and cultural diversitypresent in local communities (e.g. ethnic minority, Roma assistant). Mostinterestingly, the studies also discuss the salient elements that characterise theprofessional competence of educators working with children and families incontexts of diversity. It seems that traditional conceptualisations of the ECECprofession – focused on the work with children within early childhood settings –needs to be redefined in order to encompass more broadly the work with parentsand local communities (Urban, Vandenbroeck et al., 2011). Competent educatorsin this sense need to be aware of the broader socio-cultural and political contexts inwhich ECEC services are operating, committing themselves to work cooperatively

32

with children and families for community regeneration. Competent educators arereflective practitioners that constantly question their practices in dialogue withchildren and families, in a responsive and proactive way.

From the studies analysed it emerges that educators need to be supported infulfilling such demanding tasks through on-going pedagogical guidance(supervision, counselling...) and professional development that encourages them toreflect critically on their attitudes and beliefs and – at the same time – provide themwith new insights into educational practices. In this regard, some very interestingexamples were offered by the case studies reported in section B.1, whereprofessional development opportunities were organised to research local needsthat ECEC services had to address within their community (e.g. ethnic division inNorthern Ireland, lack of infrastructure in rural Poland, outreaching Romacommunities in Eastern Europe) or from participatory research projects (engagingparents, professional and researchers).

Research

Successful inclusive ECEC programs are grounded in practice-based research thatexplores needs and potentialities of local contexts within an ecological framework.In this sense ethnographic research methodologies – that allow a culturally-situatedinvestigation of children and parents’ perspectives – have made a substantialcontribution to this field (Tobin, Mantovani & Bove, 2010). The studies analysedalso highlight the importance of involving parents and professionals in participatoryresearch projects in which meanings and values are negotiated and newpedagogical knowledge is co-constructed. Collective participatory research projectsencourage educational experimentation and sustain innovation within ECECsettings (Whalley et al., 2007).

Policy advocacy

ECEC providers should be actively involved in local policy-making consultationprocesses and engaged in issues that concern the civic life of their communities.By developing policy-making capacity and by linking their initiatives to those ofother public agencies or NGOs, ECEC centres have the potential to catalysecultural and political change in regard to social policies at local level. Through theactivation of inter-agency cooperation and the promotion of solidarity networksECEC services can make a substantial contribution to social cohesion: howeveronly within a shared vision of ECEC as a public good this can be concretelyrealised.

In summary, the findings of this literature review indicate that ECEC services cansubstantially contribute to foster social inclusion across Europe only if they areembedded in a system of public governance that addresses poverty and inequalityas multidimensional phenomena. In fact without a supportive universal welfaresystem, ECEC services of the highest quality will not be sufficient to eradicate childpoverty and achieve social inclusion. As stressed by the Council Conclusions

‘Tackling child poverty and promoting child well-being’, child poverty is amultidimensional phenomenon that can be faced only through a comprehensiveapproach that combines employment for parents, income support and access tosocial services, including early childhood education and care, as well as healthcare services and education: as such it involves adequate human and financialresources (Council of the European Union, 2011b).

33

References

Brooker, L. & Woodhead, M. (Ed.) 2008. Developing positive identities. Milton Keynes: TheOpen University. Retrieved from: http://www.ecdgroup.com/docs/lib_005464256.pdf

Children in Scotland. 2011. Working for inclusion: how early childhood education and careand its workforce can help Europe’s youngest citizens. Retrieved from:http://www.childreninscotland.org.uk/wfi/

Commission of the European Communities. 2006. Communication on efficiency and equityin European education and training systems. Retrieved from:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0481:FIN:EN:PDF

Council of the European Union. 2006. Presidency Conclusion of the Brussels EuropeanCouncil (23-24 March 2006). Retrieved from:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/89013.pdf

Council of the European Union. 2011. Council conclusions on early childhood education andcare. Retrieved from: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st09/st09424.en11.pdf

Council of the European Union. 2011b. ‘Tackling child poverty and promoting child well-being’. Retrieved from:http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/122878.pdf

Dahlberg, G. & Moss, P. 2005. Ethic and politics in early childhood education. London &New York: Routledge.

EACEA. 2009. Tackling social and cultural inequalities through early childhood educationand care in Europe. Brussels: EACEA Eurydice.

European Commission. 2008a. European Year for Combating Poverty and Social Exclusion2010. Strategic Framework Document. Retrieved from:

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=637&langId=en&moreDocuments=yes

European Commission. 2008b. An Updated strategic framework for European cooperation ineducation and training. Retrieved from:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0865:FIN:EN:PDF

European Commission. 2011. An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/children/docs/com_2011_60_en.pdf

Havnes, T. & Mogstad, M. 2011. No Child Left Behind: Subsidized Child Care and Children'sLong-Run Outcomes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2): 97–129.

Mantovani, S. 2007. Early Childhood Education in Italy. In R. S. New, and M. Cochran EarlyChildhood Education: An International Encyclopedia. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers,1110 – 1115.

Moss, P. There are alternatives. Markets and democratic experimentalismin early childhoodeducation and care. The Hague: Bernard Van Leer.

Moss, P. & Urban, M. 2011. Democracy and experimentation: two fundamental values foreducation. Bertelsmann Foundation. Retrieved from:

http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/bst/de/media/xcms_bst_dms_32994__2.pdf

NESSE. 2009. Early childhood education and care. Key lessons from research for policymakers. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news1697_en.htm

OECD. 2006. Starting Strong II.

Parmentier, S. 1998. Kansarmoede en rechtshulp. Drie uitdagingen op de drempel van devolgendeeeuw. Alert, 24, 24-31.

Plantenga, J. & Remery, C. 2009. The provision of childcare services: a comparative reviewof 30 European Countries. Retrieved from:

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?pager.offset=100&catId=738&langId=en&furtherPubs=no

34

Roose, R. & De Bie, M. 2003. From participative research to participative practices. A studyin youth care. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 13: 475-485.

TÁRKI-Applica Report. 2010. Child well-being in the European Union: better monitoringinstruments for better policies. Budapest: TÁRKI Social Research Institute.

Tobin J. J., Mantovani S. & Bove, C. 2010. Methodological Issues in Video-Based researchon Immigrant Children and Parents in ECEC. In Tarozzi M., Mortari L., (Ed.),Phenomenology and Human Science Research Today. Bucarest: Zeta Books.

Unicef – Innocenti Research Centre. 2008. Early Childhood Services in OECD Countries.Review of the literature and Current Policies in the Early Childhood Field. Retrieved from:http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/502

Urban, M., Vandenbroeck, M., Peeters, J., Lazzari, A. & Van Laere, K. 2011. Competencerequirements for early childhood care and education. London - Ghent: UEL - UGent.Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/doc/2011/core_en.pdf

Vandenbroeck, M. 2007. De-culturalising social inclusion and re-culturalising outcomes. InPromoting social inclusion and respect for diversity in the early years. Bernard Van LeerFundantion. Retrieved from:www.bernardvanleer.org/Promoting_social_inclusion_and_respect_for_diversity_in_the_early_years

Vandenbroeck, M. 2009. Let us disagree. European Early Childhood Education ResearchJournal, 17, n. 2: 165 – 170.

Vandenbroeck, M. Forthcoming. Ethnic diversity and social inclusion in ECCE in Europe. InUNICEF. Forthcoming. Early Childhood Care and Education: Building the Wealth of Nations.

Vandenbroeck, M/ & Geens, N. (2011). Cartografie van de Brusselse Nederlandstaligekinderopvang. Evoluties 2005-2010. Gent: UGent

35

36

Annex A: Summary table of research on barriers and good practices

Studies carried out in countries characterised by a RESIDUAL WELFARE REGIME (English-speaking countries)27

Studies carried out in countries characterised by a SOCIAL INSURANCE WELFARE REGIME (continental European countries)

Studies carried out in countries characterised by a UNIVERSAL WELFARE REGIME (Nordic countries)

International reviews

Box 1 Study reference Box 2 Availability

Box 3 Accessibility Box 4 Affordability

Box 5 Usefulness Box 6 Desirability Box 7 Macro-structuralfactors

Box 8 Note on welfaresystem

Box 9 Sylva, K., Stein, A.Leach, P., Barnes, J.Malmberg, L.E. & theFCCC-team. 2004. Familyand child factors related tothe use of non-maternalinfant care*: An Englishstudy.Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 22 (1), 118-136.

Box 10*during the first year oflife of the child

Box 11 Box 12 Box 13 Box 14 Box 15families’beliefs aboutchildrearing

Box 16Despite the factthat in recent yearsconsiderable effortshave been made inEngland towardincreasing availabilityof registered childcarefor disadvantagedfamilies its use remainscarce.

Box 17

27 This categorisation draws on the explicatory model of social welfare organisation elaborated by Gosta Esping-Andersen (2002).

37

Box 18Driessen, G.. 2004. A large scale longitudinal study of the utilization and effects of early childhood educationand care in The Netherlands. Early Child Development and Care, 174 (7–8), 667–689.

Box 19To be quoted only in relation to the background factors that areassociated with low attendance of ECEC services (daycare centres,preschool and parent-child programmes)

Box 20Vandenbroeck, M., DeVisscher S., van Nuffel, K. &Ferla J. 2008. ‘Mothers’search for infant child care:the dynamic relationshipbetween availability anddesirability in a continentalEuropean welfare state’.Early childhood ResearchQuarterly, 23 (2), 245-58.

Box 21unequalavailability:services areless availablein poorneighborood

Box 22despite highcoverage rates,the criteria fordistributing theplaces availablegive priority toworking parentsand to those thatenrol firstexcludingdisadvantagedfamilies

Box 23 Box 24 Box 25 Box 26 Box 27Continental Europeanwelfare state that controlsECEC cost and quality,providing structuralavailability of funded highquality services

Box 28Boisson, M. 2008. La note de veille 107. Droit d’accueil du jeune enfant. Unedouble exigence qualitative et quantitative. Paris: Centre d’analyse stratégique

Box 29

Box 30Brabant-Delannoy, L. & Sylvain Lemoine, S. 2009. La note de veille 157. Accueilde la petite enfance: comment continuer à assurer son développement dans lecontexte actuel des finances sociales? Paris: Centre d’analyse stratégique.

Box 31To be quoted only in relation to the background factors that are associated with lowchildcare attendance (0-3). In addition make relation to WFI report to 0-3 pre-schoolattendance: ‘immigrant families are more likely to accept services that are free of chargeand educational: […] in France they are among the first to enrol their children in earlyeducation services from the age of 2.5 or 3 years’. (CIS, p.47)

Box 32high coverage rate but unequally distributed (Ghysels & Van Lanker, 2011)

Box 33 Del Boca, D.2010. Child poverty andchild well-being in theEuropean Union: policyoverview and policy impactanalysis. A case study: Italy.Budapest & Brussels:TARKI-Applica.

Box 34Limitednumber ofpubliclysubsidisedservices indisadvantaged areas

Box 35 Box 36Both publicand privatechildcare ismoreexpensivethan in otherEU countries

Box 37Lack offlexibility inopening hoursexcludingespecially low-skilled parentswith low-paidatypical jobarrangements

Box 38 Box 39Insufficientpublic investment atmacro level: socialexpenditure forchildren andhousehold is thelowest in the EU-15(only 4.4% of totalsocial expenditurewhich is 1.1 ofGDP)

Box 40

Box 41Felfe, C. and Lalive, R.2011. How Does Early

Box 42

Box 43

Box 44Rationingcriteria give priority

Box 45 Box 46 Box 47 Box 48 Box 49Residual welfarestate:

38

Childcare Affect ChildDevelopment? Learningfrom the Children ofGerman Unification. CESifoArea Conference onEconomics of Education:Center for EconomicsStudies.

to working parentsand to those thatenrol first:expansion ofprovision hasincreased ECECparticipation ofdisadvantagedchildren

Box 50> relatively highfamily/child socialexpenditure 3.3 GPD

Box 51> high participationrate in 3-6 ECECservices (meeting theBarcellona target) butrelatively unequallydistributed

Box 52

Box 53Büchel, F. & Spiess, C. K. 2002 > discussing the low participation of immigrantchildren in early childhood provision in Germany.

Box 54To be quoted only in relation to the background factors that are associated with lowECEC childcare attendance.

Box 55Noailly, J., Visser, S., &Grout, P. (2007). Theimpact of market forces onthe provision of childcare:insights from the 2005Childcare Act in theNetherlands. Den Haag:Centraal Planbureau.

Box 56ECECprovisionhas becomelessavailable indisadvantaged areas asconsequence ofmarketisation

Box 57 Box 58 Box 59 Box 60 Box 61 Box 62- Childcare Act in2005 introducedmarketisation ofchildcare: fully demandfinancing system (publicfunding distributedexclusively to parents)

Box 63- highly fragmentedECEC system(administrativeresponsibility and type ofprovision)

Box 64Ghysels, J. & VanLanker, W. 2011. ‘Theunequal benefits ofactivation: an analysis of thesocial distribution of familypolicies among families withyoung children. Journal ofEuropean Social Policies,21, 472-85

Box 65 Box 66Despite highcoverage rates, thecriteria fordistributing theplaces availablegive priority toworking parents andto those that enrolfirst excludingdisadvantagedfamilies

Box 67 Box 68 Box 69 Box 70The system ofpublic subsidies tochildcare providers,income-relatedenrolment fees andincome taxdeduction producehighest benefit forhigh-incomefamilies then low-income families

Box 71

39

Box 72Leseman, P. (2002)Early childhood educationand care for children fromlow-income and minoritybackgrounds. Paperpresented to OECD, Oslo,June 2002.

Box 73 Box 74 Box 75 Box 76Lack offlexibility inopening hours /

Box 77attendancerequirements

Box 78ECECprovision oftendo not matchfamilies goalsand values (lackof trust)

Box 79 Box 80

Box 81OSCE. 2010. Mappingof participation of Roma andSinti children in earlyeducation processes withinthe OSCE region.

Box 82 Box 83 Box 84 Box 85lack offlexibility in regardto enrolmentbureaucracy

Box 86Lack of trust;discriminationand hostilityencountered inthe educationalenvironment

Box 87 Box 88

Box 89Wall, K. & Josè S. J.2004. ‘Mangaging work andcare: a difficult task forimmigrant families.’ SocialPolicy administration, 38(6), 591-621.

Box 90

Box 91X

Box 92

Box 93

Box 94

Box 95X

Box 96Inflexibility inopening hours/attendanceexcluding parentswith atypical jobs

Box 97 Box 98 Box 99

40

Part B - Literature review of ECEC outcomes

A literature review of existing studies on children’s acquisition of cognitive and non-cognitive (including social skills) through participation in ECEC services and theirimportance to social development, successful transition to school and socialinclusion

Introduction and limitations of the present review

Early childhood education and care has gained, since the CouncilRecommendations on Childcare in 1992 (92/241/EEC), an increasingly prominentposition on European policy agendas. The increasing attention of the EuropeanCommission toward ECEC has been driven by a series of policy concerns thatchanged over time. Initially the main rationale for investing in ECEC was mostlydriven by socio-economic concerns about employment, competitiveness andgender equality (enabling mothers to participate in the labour market): in this sensegreater attention was focused on increasing the quantity of childcare places as ameasure to allow the reconciliation between employment and family responsibilitiesfor women as attested by the Barcelona Council Conclusion.

Member States should remove disincentives to female labour forceparticipation and strive, taking into account the demand for childcarefacilities and in line with national patterns of provision, to providechildcare by 2010 to at least 90% of children between3 years oldand the mandatory school age and at least 33% of children under 3years of age (Council of the European Union, 2002).

In more recent times, a growing awareness toward the issues of children rights(Commission of the European Communities, 2006a; European Commission,2011a), accompanied by a concern for equality of educational opportunities andsocial inclusion (Commission of the European Communities, 2006b; Council of theEuropean Union, 2010) has contributed to shape an innovative approach to EUpolicies in ECEC. Not only the role of ECEC in promoting social inclusion has beenincreasingly recognised within European policy initiatives (Council of the EuropeanUnion, 2011a) but also its educational role has been drawing the attention ofpolicy-makers as attested by the recent communication of the EuropeanCommission:

Europe's future will be based on smart, sustainable and inclusivegrowth. Improving the quality and effectiveness of educationsystems across the EU is essential to all three growth dimensions.In this context, Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) is theessential foundation for successful lifelong learning, socialintegration, personal development and later employability.Complementing the central role of the family, ECEC has a profoundand long lasting impact, which measures taken at a later stagecannot achieve. (European Commission, 2011b)

Such policy approach moves beyond the quantitative benchmark of ECECprovision to encompass at its core the issue of quality of ECEC services as anecessary condition for the promotion of children’s learning, personal fulfilment andsocial development which stand at the basis of educational achievement and socialcohesion. There is a consensus, among European policy-makers, that ageneralised equitable access to high quality ECEC services can make a substantialcontribution to the success of the EU 2020 strategy (European Commission, 2010)with particular reference to the achievement of the EU headline targets concerningthe reduction of early school leaving and of the number of people living at risk ofpoverty and social exclusion (Council of the European Union, 2011b). Thisconsensus is grounded on research evidence from studies carried out in the U.S.,suggesting that investing in high quality pre-primary education is expected to bring

41

about the highest rates of returns over the whole lifelong learning cycle, especiallyto those children who are the most disadvantaged (Heckman & Masterov, 2007).However, in more recent times many experts carrying out research either in thefield of education or economy (Penn, 2011; Havnes & Mogstad, 2011;Vandenbroeck et al., forthcoming) have criticised the way in which U.S. studieshave been generalised to European contexts. They argued that in the U.S. contextECEC is provided in the form of early intervention programmes targeted toparticularly disadvantaged children and that generalisations are highly contestableas results from U.S. research might tell us little about the effects of ECECprograms carried out in a European context, where publicly funded large scaleprovision is more generally available. Furthermore it has been noted that policydiscourses supporting an increased investment in ECEC underpin a variety ofoverlapping rationales, which emphasise largely economic, social and educationaladvantages (for a detailed discussion see NESSE, 2009; p. 23). However, not allthe aspects that justify an increased investment in ECEC – economiccompetitiveness, educational achievement and social cohesion – are equallycovered by existing research. Research evidence produced in this field isincreasingly affected by economic rationales driven by human capital theories. As aresult of these rationales, certain aspects – such as children’s academic attainment– are more present in evidence-based research while others aspects – such aschildren’s right to participation – tend to be overlooked.

These considerations call for a careful contextualization of research findingsdiscussed within this literature review but they also demand for rigorous analyticalprocedures (EPPI-Centre, 2004). Acknowledging that systematic reviews andevidence-based conclusions are increasingly important for policy decision making(Burger, 2010), the methodological approach adopted in the present analysisdraws on the procedures elaborated by Helen Penn and colleagues at the EPPICentre for carrying out systematic review for evidence based policy-making in thefield of early childhood education (Penn & Lloyd, 2007).

The present literature review covers European research concerning the effects ofECEC on children’s cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes by focusing in particularon the issues of school transition and social inclusion. The analysis presented inthis review attempts to draw on both a qualitative approach and statistical findingswithin a well defined conceptual framework that makes the interpretationtransparent to the reader. The framework for the review consisted of: a) a literaturesearch through research databases, research portals and books; b) a carefulselection of the studies carried out according the eligibility criteria presented below;c) a summary of evidence that draws on the categorisation of the empirical findingsof the studies selected. The tool used for the analysis and categorisation ofresearch findings is reported in the annex (table B). The findings of the studies thathave been reviewed for this literature have been categorised across four themes:

Research exploring possible relations between ECEC andacquisition of cognitive skills and competences (table B1);

Research exploring possible relations between ECEC andacquisition of non-cognitive skills and competences (table B2)

Research investigating the links between ECEC and successfultransition into school (table B3)

Research investigating the contribution made by ECEC to socialinclusion (table B4).

42

The inclusion criteria for the review were the following:

Only primary studies were analysed, literature reviews wereexcluded

Only studies carried out in EU member states published in the last20 years. A particular effort was directed toward the maximumrepresentation of EU countries in the studies selected, withparticular attention to the different social regimes in which suchstudies were taking places (Esping-Andersen, 2002)

Only peer-reviewed / books / authoritative statements from EC,national governments, universities/research centres, and NGOswere taken into account.

Preference has been accorded to longitudinal studies and studiesusing a quasi experimental design although it needs to beacknowledged that this type of research is relative scarce in Europe.In fact countries where the education and care of young children hasbeen traditionally supported by consistent public investments – bothin financial and cultural terms – research has tended to focus moreon educational processes fostering children’s participation (Pramling& Pramling Samuelsson, 2011; Bae, 2009; Mantovani, 2007;Einarsdottir & Wagner, 2006; Rinaldi, 2005) rather than on theevaluation of children’s outcomes.

Considering the above limitations, a sample of qualitative studies and policy reportshas been included. Although this necessarily limited sample cannot represent thetotality of the European research and policy in the ECEC field, it is illustrative of theway in which qualitative studies might shed light on

The reasons why ECEC might have beneficial effects on children(the pedagogical process)

The debates on what are expected outcomes or what is themeaning of ECEC in society

The social and political contexts in which these debates takes place

The necessity to broaden the human capital paradigm.

A re-thinking of the human capital paradigm seem important, as this particularparadigm predominates government-sponsored studies carried out in the last tenyears in the liberal economies. This paradigm looks at ECEC from the perspectiveof investments to be made in early childhood in order to enhance human capitallater in life, which is rooted in ECEC policy agendas typical of English-speakingcountries with a liberal welfare state. However, much of the educational researchgenerated within European countries where ECEC has been conceived as a publicgood within a right-based framework focused on pedagogical approaches andparticipatory processes rather than on the evaluation of children’s outcomes.

Limitations of the present review

The present literature review discussed the findings of existing studies from EUmember states on children’s acquisition of cognitive and non-cognitivecompetences through participation in ECEC services, focusing in particular on thecontribution made by such services to successful school transition and socialinclusion. The research analysed in this review originated from a variety ofdisciplinary fields – education, psychology, economy, and sociology.

Quantitative longitudinal studies tend to rely predominantly on the paradigm ofhuman capital. Such paradigm is rooted in ECEC policy agendas typical of English-speaking countries with a liberal welfare state and so are the research perspectivesexplored by these studies presented in this review. The majority of educationalresearch generated in other European countries has a more qualitative framework,

43

focusing on processes, rather than outcomes. It is to deplore that only very fewstudies combine both perspectives, and therefore the literature risks to bedominated by too narrow paradigms. One of the many consequences of this lack ofmore comprehensive multi-paradigmatic approaches is the omission of politicalcontexts. Yet, the findings of this literature review suggest that the children living incountries where ECEC is part of a more comprehensive social policy with a strongfocus on public responsibilities towards ECEC, gain the most from participating inECEC programs due to their high quality grounded in participatory pedagogicalapproaches.

The dominance of the human capital paradigm and the lack of multi-paradigmaticstudies risks constructing children in instrumentalist terms as profitable assets(Lister, 2007), rather than considering them as citizens subjects of rights (UNCRC,1989). Social inclusion studies are more concerned with considering children asmembers of society and showing commitment toward their participation indemocratic decision-making processes (Dalhberg & Moss, 2005; Moss, 2007;Vandenbroeck & Bouverne De Bie, 2006). Therefore the risk of using humancapital arguments underpinning economic rationales for investing in ECEC is todismiss important elements that are essential conditions for ECEC quality in manyEuropean countries – such as early childhood pedagogical approaches andchildren’s democratic participation. This might in turn induce counter-productiveeffects such as, for example, the schoolification of ECEC (Pramling Samuelsson &Sheridan, 2010; Jensen, Brostrom & Hensen, 2010) and the marginalisation ofthose children and families that are most at risk of social exclusion (Hübenthal &Ifland, 2011). As a recent study from Norway highlights:

‘A central question to be addressed is whether an emphasis onchildren as coming adults and human becoming is irreconcilablewith a recognition of children as competent human beings ‘here andnow’. [As the different chapters in this book reveal], the solutionbetween these two different discourses seems to go in onedirection, representing a threat to the recognition of children ascompetent human beings here and now and early childhood as aperiod for play, care and learning connected to social processes anda child-centred curriculum.’ (Kjørholt and Qvortrup, 2012)

Another pitfall of human capital approaches is to consider that ECEC might be, onits own, a solution to the poverty that stands at the basis of children’sdisadvantage. As showed by many studies, ECEC has an important role to play inthese regards, but only if it is embedded in strong welfare state policies acrossmany sectors and if it is accompanied by a wider cultural and political commitmentto democracy, children’s rights, solidarity and equality (OECD, 2006).

Finally, it should be noted that, like other literature reviews, this review may also besubject to publication bias, often referred to as the as the file-drawer problem(Rosenthal, 1979). This refers to the fact that studies yielding positive effects findpublication more easily while studies in which no effects are shown tend more oftento remain in the drawers of researchers.

Despite these shortcomings and limitations, it is clear that several Europeanstudies yield robust evidence, showing that ECEC matters for cognitive and socialdevelopment, and has potentially long lasting effects on children’s school careers,but only when ECEC is of the highest quality.

44

B 1. Studies exploring the relationship between ECEC and children’scognitive outcomes

Note: The findings of the country studies listed below can be generalised beyond

national boundaries only with precaution as the history, traditions, organization and

practices of early childhood services differ widely from one country to another.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B.2004. The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project.Effective Pre-School Education. London: DfES / Institute of Education,University of London.

The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project is a Britishlongitudinal study of a regional sample (England) of young children’s development(intellectual and social/behavioural) between the ages of 3 and 7 years. Funded byDfES with the purpose of producing research evidences for policy-making, theEPPE study involved 3,000 children recruited at age 3+ and studied longitudinallyuntil the end of Key-Stage 1. A sample of home children was recruited at schoolentry for comparison with the pre-school group. Data were collected in relation to:a) children’s cognitive attainment at 3, 4/5, 6 and 7 years of age, b) the backgroundcharacteristic of the parents, c) home learning environment, d) quality of pre-school settings. The data were analysed using a statistical multilevel model toexplore the value added by pre-school after taking account of child, parents, andhome background factors The main findings highlight that:

Pre-school attendance, compared to none, enhances children’s allround development

Duration of attendance (months) and quality of pre-school settingsmatters: an earlier start (under 3) and higher quality are related tobetter intellectual development that has long-lasting effects inprimary school: better academic attainment in KS1. Duration hasmore impact than the number of hours per week (full time versushalf time).

High quality is associated with staff qualification, warm responsiveinteraction to children’s individual needs and effective pedagogywhich includes a balanced curriculum (promoting education andsocial development as complementary) and a good mix of teacher-initiated and child-initiated activities sustaining shared thinking.

Centres integrating education and care, combining flexible hours forchildcare along with substantial health and family supports serviceshave the highest scores on pre-school quality.

There is a strong relationship between family backgroundcharacteristics and children’s intellectual development, however thequality of home learning environment is more important than SES

The centres that encouraged high levels of parents engagement intheir children’s learning and involved them in decision-making aboutchildren’s learning program lead to better intellectual gains forchildren.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Grabbe,Y. and Barreau, S. 2007. The Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11Project (EPPE 3-11). Influences on Children’s Attainment and Progress in KeyStage 2: Cognitive Outcomes in Year 5. London: DfES / Institute ofEducation, University of London.

45

This study is the follow up of the EPPE project and investigates the on-goingeffects of pre-school attendance on children’s cognitive development throughoutKey Stage 2 of primary education (attended by children aged 7 to 10). 2,500children of the original sample were studied longitudinally until the end of KS2. Asample of home children was recruited for comparison with the pre-school group.Data were collected in relation to children’s cognitive outcomes at age 10 and inrelation to background characteristics of the parents and home learningenvironment (HLE). Statistical analyses based on a contextualised multi-levelmodel were used to analyse the combined effects of pre-school and primary schooleffectiveness on children cognitive attainment (controlling backgroundcharacteristics). The main findings highlight that pre-school quality andeffectiveness still matters for children’s social / behavioural developmentaloutcomes at age 10. In particular, attending higher quality or more effective pre-school has a continuing positive effect on children’s outcomes in Reading andMathematics at age 10. By contrast, attending low quality pre-school no longershowed cognitive benefits at the end of KS2 (pre-school children’s cognitiveoutcomes in that case do not significantly differ from those of home children).Furthermore, findings indicated that no single factor – quality of pre-school, HLE orschool effectiveness – was key in shaping children’s cognitive outcomesthroughout KS2. Rather, it is the combination of experiences over time thatmatters.

Melhuish, E., Quinn, L., Hanna, K., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I.and Taggart, B. 2006. The Effective Pre-School Provision in Northern Ireland(EPPNI) Project. Summary report. Belfast: Department of Education,Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and Social SteeringGroup.

The Effective Provision of Pre-school in Northern Ireland (EPPNI) project is alongitudinal study of a regional sample (Northern Ireland) of young children’sdevelopment (intellectual and social/behavioural) between the ages of 3 and 7years. Funded by DE, DHSSPS and SSG with the purpose of producing researchevidence for policy-making, the study involved 800 children recruited at age 3+ andstudied longitudinally until the end of Key-Stage 1. A sample of home children wasrecruited at school entry for comparison with pre-school group. Data were collectedin relation to: a) children intellectual attainment at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 years of age,b) background characteristic of the parents, c) home learning environment and d)quality of pre-school settings. Data were analysed using a statistical multilevelmodel to explore the value added by pre-school after taking account of child,parents, home background factors. The main findings highlight that:

Pre-school attendance enhances all round (cognitive and social)development of all children

Attendance of high quality pre-school is related to better intellectualoutcomes

High quality is associated with staff qualification and professionaldevelopment, strong leadership and strong philosophy for thesetting shared by all staff, ethos and emotional climate of the setting(warm and responsive interaction with the children, parentalpartnership, pedagogy that provides opportunities to extend childrenlearning through play and self-directed activities

Nursery schools/classes have the highest scores on pre-schoolquality

For all children the quality of the home learning environment is moreimportant for children’s intellectual and social development thanparental occupation, education and income therefore fosteringactive parental engagement with children are likely to benefitchildren cognitive development and attainment at school

46

Vulnerable children who attend pre-school tend to be less ‘at risk’ ofdeveloping SEN even after taking into account background factors.

Driessen, G. E. J. M. 2004. A large scale longitudinal study of the utilizationand effects of early childhood education and care in The Netherlands. EarlyChild Development and Care, 174 (7–8), 667–689.

This is a longitudinal study drawing on a data set from a national survey (PRIMA)aiming at investigating the effects of ECEC participation on children’s cognitivecompetencies in The Netherland. Drawing on the cohort data from 1996 to 2000, anational sample of children was studied longitudinally until the end of Grade 2. Asample of home children was recruited at school entry for comparison with pre-school group. Data were collected in relation to: a) children cognitive attainment(language and mathematics skills) assessed in Kindergarten, Grade 2 and Grade 4of primary school, b) background characteristic of the parents, c) type of ECECservice /program attended by the children. The methodology used for data analysisconsisted of both cross-sectional and longitudinal statistical analyses. Only weakrelations were found between ECEC participation and children’s cognitivecompetencies. Moreover, when relevant child and families characteristic are takeninto account no difference could be noted between children who participated toECEC and ‘home’ children in relation to their cognitive attainment in primaryschool: these findings hold for different ECEC types of provision considered bothseparately and in combination.

Note: the findings of this study might not be generalized beyond The Netherlandswhere ECEC provision tends to be very diverse and highly fragmented (type ofprovision, availability and accessibility, administrative responsibility for regulationand funding, care/educational purposes). In the context studied not all services aredesigned to promote cognitive, linguistic or social-emotional development ofchildren (eg. day care centres are intended to provide only childcare in connectionto parents’ participation in the workforce) and not all services / programs meet thenecessary quality standard (deterioration in the quality of day-care centres hasbeen observed in previous studies

28). In this regards, the author calls for a careful

contextualisation of these research findings that cannot be generalised to othercontexts in which ECEC present different characteristics.

Felfe, C. and Lalive, R. 2011. How Does Early Childcare29

Affect ChildDevelopment? Learning from the Children of German Unification. CESifoArea Conference on Economics of Education: Center for Economics Studies.Retrieved from: http://www.sole-jole.org/11122.pdf

This is a longitudinal study, drawing on a data set from national surveys (GSOEPand GCP) of West and East Germany. The examines the impact of ECEC onchildren’s short and medium run development in relation to cognitive outcomes inorder to discuss the incidence of expanding high quality ECEC in society. Drawingon data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) and the German ChildPanel (GCP), the study evaluates the impact of increased accessibility of centre-based childcare (triggered by German Unification) on children’s later development.Data on children’s cognitive development were drawn from large national datasets.The sample consisted of 800+ children who were studied longitudinally from age 2to 10. Statistical analysis of survey data covering a broad range of indicators on

28Gevers Deynoot-Schaub, M. & Riksen-Walraven, M. 2002. Kwaliteit onder druk: de

kwaliteit van opvang in Nederlandse kinderdagverblijven in 1995 en 2001. Pedagogiek, 22,109–124. This study has been conducted in 2002, before the marketization of child care inThe Netherlands: later studies have documented that the quality of provisions has gonedown since then (de Kruif et al, 2009). This might imply that the remark on the limited impactof ECEC in The Netherlands due to irregularity of quality may be even truer today.29

Although the term childcare is used in the title, the content of the article actually refer tokindergarten provision.

47

child development and background characteristics was used as researchmethodology. The main findings highlight that children enrolled in ECEC centreshave a clear advantage in all developmental dimensions, in relation to bothcognitive and non-cognitive outcomes. It was also found that the positive impact ofECEC attendance was greater for children who started to attend formal care onlyafter supply increased, who are children from low socio-economic background:children who entered ECEC only once it became more accessible seem to benefitsubstantially from it even several years later (better results in school and bettersocial skills in the medium term). Along with the previous study, these findingsindicate that ECEC attendance marginally promotes the cognitive development of‘average children’ while it has a strong impact on cognitive development ofdisadvantaged children on the long term.

Brilli, Y., Del Boca, D., Pronzato, C. 2011. Exploring the Impacts of PublicChildcare on Mothers and Children in Italy: Does Rationing Play a Role?Bonn: IZA (Institute for the Study of Labour). Retrieved from:http://ftp.iza.org/dp5918.pdf

The study investigates the effects of public childcare (0-3 services) coverage onchildren scholastic achievements in the Italian context where childcareopportunities are limited both in terms of availability (which varies greatly amongregions) and costs. The study draws on the datasets of INVALSI (Italian Institutefor Evaluation of the Education System) and of Cittadinanza Attiva (data on publicchild care coverage at the provincial level). A national sample of children assessedat age 7 (2

ndgrade of primary school) for cognitive outcomes was studied using

statistical regression analysis of survey data covering a broad range of indicatorson child, family and environmental characteristics. The data (children’s schooloutcomes, family and environmental characteristics, child care coverage in thearea) were analysed through statistical estimations within an econometric model.The findings indicated that childcare rationing plays a role in children’s schooloutcomes but given the lack of information on eligibility criteria (eg. priority given tochildren with working mothers or to disadvantaged children) the effects of rationingcannot be disentangled. Furthermore the findings point out that the impact ofchildcare availability on children’s cognitive development is higher for children withlow educated mothers living in low-income areas: this stresses the importance ofrationing childcare according to family SES criteria and to increase childcareavailability especially in disadvantaged areas. The results of this study areconsistent with the findings of previous studies showing that public childcare mayenhance educational opportunities of children from a disadvantage background.

Andersson, B. E. 1992. Effects of day care on cognitive and socio-emotionalcompetence in thirteen-year-old Swedish school children. ChildDevelopment, 63, 20–36.

The study looked at the long-term effects of day care on children’s cognitivedevelopment in Sweden. A sample of 128 children and their families living in 8 low-and middle-resource neighborhoods in Stockholm and Goteborg were studiedlongitudinally from 16 months – when they were not attending out-of-home care yet– up to age 13. Data were collected on a) children’s cognitive outcomes, b) familybackground, c) day care attendance and analyzed through hierarchical regressionanalysis. The main findings highlighted that children entering day care at an earlystage (before age1) performed significantly better on cognitive tests and receivedmore positive ratings from their teachers in terms of school achievement at age13(at age 13 school performance is rated lowest among children without out-of-homecare) indicating that an early start matters. In fact, age of entry in daycare seemedto have significant direct effects on children’s cognitive competences even whenbackground variables were controlled. Centre-based care was associated withbetter cognitive development (although effects were less clear and extensive),suggesting that the overall high quality of Swedish day-care centers, the training ofits personnel and the availability of paid parental leave during the first 6/7 monthsmight account for the repetitive differences in the effects of day care cross-nationally. As in this study positive and long lasting effects of childcare on

48

children’s cognitive development were found, it can be hypothesized that attendinghigh quality settings might allow children to enter a positive trajectory that promotetheir cognitive development over the years.

Broberg, A. G., Wessels, H., Lamb, M. E. and Hwang, C.P. 1997. Effects ofday care on the development of cognitive abilities in eight-year-olds: alongitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 33, 62-69.

The study, carried out in Sweden, investigates the long-term effects of day care onchildren’s cognitive development (attainment at age 8 in 2

ndgrade of primary

school). A sample of 146 children and their families living in low- and middle-resource neighborhoods in Goteborg were followed longitudinally from 16 months –when they were not attending out-of-home care yet – up to age 8. Before 20months of age, 54 children entered center care, 33 entered family day care while59 did not attend any form of out-of-home care (home care group). Data werecollected in regard to a) children cognitive outcomes (measured at age 28, 40, 80and 101 months), child background characteristics, b) family backgroundcharacteristic, c) quality of home environment, d) quality out-of-home careenvironment. The main findings highlighted that:

An early start matters: tested ability was related to the number ofmonths children had spent in centre-based day care before 3.5years of age

Child care quality predicted cognitive abilities among children whohad spent at least 36 months in out-of-home care during theirpreschool years: children who attended centre-based careconsistently performed better than other children on cognitiveabilities tests (once controlled for background variables)

Dynamic measures of quality (adult-child interaction) predictedverbal abilities while structural measures (child-staff ratio, group sizeand age range) predicted mathematical abilities

Quality of home environment predicted verbal abilities only in earlierphases and was no longer predictive when children were in 2

nd

grade

Family SES (maternal and paternal occupation) did not predictchildren’s performance of cognitive abilities in 2

ndgrade.

The study concluded that high quality out-of-home care had positive and lostlasting effects on children’s cognitive development

Havnes, T., and Mogstad, M. 2009. No Child Left Behind: Universal Child Careand Children's Long-Run Outcomes. Bonn: IZA (Institute for the Study ofLabour). Retrieved from:http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/36326/1/616201729.pdf

The aim of this study was to analyze the introduction of subsidized, universallyaccessible childcare in Norway addressing its impact on children’s long-termoutcomes (educational attainment). To elicit causal relationship between childcareand children’s long-term educational attainment a difference-in-difference modelthat exploited a childcare reform from 1975 in Norway was used for carrying out theestimations. Drawing on a national sample of children distributed across 3 cohorts(pre-reform, phase-in, post-reform), adults’ outcomes – in terms of years spent ineducation – were examined at age 30-33 by using a statistical regression model fordata analysis. Research findings indicated that childcare attendance substantiallyimproved children’s educational attainment in the long term (in aggregated termsadditional 17.500 childcare places produced 6.200 years of education) and raisedtheir chances to complete high school and attend college. Subsample analysisindicated the greatest effects on education stemmed from children with loweducated mothers. Overall, the findings of the estimates indicated that universal

49

access to subsidised childcare levels the playing field by increasingintergenerational mobility.

B 2. Studies exploring the relationship between ECEC and children’snon-cognitive outcomes

Worldwide, research on social and emotional outcomes of ECEC is scarcer than oncognitive development or school readiness. Moreover, most studies in this field arelocated in English language countries in general and in the U.S. in particular.These studies have consistently showed beneficial effects on children’s social andemotional development, including negative associations with externalising andinternalising behaviour and positive associations with pro-social behaviour. AsHeckman puts it in his famous overview: “non-cognitive skills such as motivation,perseverance, and tenacity are also important for success in life”.

Some landmark publications and overviews that highly influenced the publicthoughts about cognitive as well as non-cognitive beneficial effects of early childcare and education include:

Shonkoff, J.P. & Phillips, D. (2000). From Neurons toNeighbourhoods: The Science of Early Child Development.Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Schweinhart L.J. et al. (2005). Lifetime Effects: The High/ScopePerry Preschool Study Through Age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope.

Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics ofinvesting in disadvantaged children. Science, 312(5782), 1900-1902.

Masse, L.N. & Barnett, W.S. (2002). A Benefit Cost Analysis of theAbecedarian Early Childhood Intervention. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University National Institute for Early Education Research.

Besides the general agreement on the beneficial effects of ECEC on non cognitiveoutcomes, the literature in this vein also caused some debates, as the NICHDstudy revealed that children enrolled in non maternal care (before one year) forseveral years seem to manifest slightly more non-compliant behaviour,independent of the quality of the care. This discussion is to be found in:

Belsky, J. (2001). Developmental risks (still) associated with early child care.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 845-860.

As several authors have discussed (e.g. de Kruif et al, 2009), these and otherresults from US studies cannot be generalized in Europe. At the same time, thepaucity of studies that explore the effects of early childhood services in Europe onnon-cognitive aspects of development is to be deplored. Some scarce studies, aslisted below, have in part taken up this challenge.

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B.2004. The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project.Effective Pre-School Education. London: DfES / Institute of Education,University of London.

The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) project is a Britishlongitudinal study of a regional sample (England) of young children’s development(intellectual and social/behavioural) between the ages of 3 and 7 years. In relationto non-cognitive outcomes the main findings of the study highlight that:

Quality of pre-school settings matters: higher quality is related tobetter social/behavioural development and effects are lastingthroughout KS1 (social behavioural development at age 6).

50

High quality is associated with staff qualification, warm andresponsive interaction to children’s individual needs and effectivepedagogy, including a balanced curriculum (promoting educationand social development as complementary), a good mix of teacher-initiated and child-initiated activities and behaviour policies in whichstaff support children in rationalising their conflicts.

There is a strong relationship between families’ backgroundcharacteristics and children’s social/behavioural development.However, the quality of the home learning environment (HLE) ismore important than SES: when ECEC centres encouraged highlevels of parents engagement in their children learning and involvedthem in decision-making about children learning, better gains forchildren were achieved.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B.,Barreau, S. and Grabbe, Y. 2007. The Effective Pre-School and PrimaryEducation 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11). Influences on Children’s Developmentand Progress in Key Stage 2: Social/ behavioural outcomes in Year 5.London: DfES / Institute of Education, University of London.

The findings of the follow up of the EPPE project aiming to investigate thecontinuing effects of pre-school attendance on children’s social-behaviouraldevelopment throughout Key Stage 2 of primary education (attended by childrenaged 7 to 10) indicate that pre-school quality and effectiveness still matter forchildren’s social / behavioural developmental outcomes at age 10. In particular,attending pre-school still has a positive effect on children’s ‘pro-social behaviour’.By contrast, attending a low quality pre-school does not lead to longer termbenefits on children’s social / behavioural development. Furthermore, findingsemphasise that no single factor – quality of pre-school, HLE or school effectiveness– is the key in enhancing social / behavioural outcomes throughout KS2. Rather, itis the combination of experiences over time that matters.

Melhuish, E., Quinn, L., Hanna, K., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I.and Taggart, B. 2006. The Effective Pre-School Provision in Northern Ireland(EPPNI) Project. Summary report. Belfast: Department of Education,Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and Social SteeringGroup.

The Effective Provision of Pre-school in Northern Ireland (EPPNI) project is alongitudinal study of a regional sample (Northern Ireland) of young children’sdevelopment (intellectual and social/behavioural) between the ages of 3 and 7years (until the end of Key-Stage 1). In relation to children’s non-cognitiveoutcomes the study findings suggest that attendance of high quality pre-schoolenhances children’s social/behavioural competencies on the long term. In thestudy, high quality pre-school is associated with staff qualification and professionaldevelopment; strong leadership and strong philosophy for the setting shared by allstaff; ethos and emotional climate of the setting (warm and responsive interactionwith the children); parental partnership; and a pedagogy that provides opportunitiesto extend children learning through play and self-directed activities. Moreover,research findings emphasise that the quality of the home learning environment ismore important for children’s social/behavioural development than parentaloccupation, education and income, suggesting that fostering active parentalengagement through pre-school is likely to benefit children attainment on the longterm.

Veen, A., Roeleveld, J. en Leseman, P. (2000). Evaluatie van Kaleidoscoop enPiramide. Eindrapportage. Amsterdam: SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.

Kaleidoscoop and Piramide are both programs, designed to stimulate thedevelopment of children aged 3 to 6 years, implemented in The Netherlands in1996 / 1997. Kaleidoscoop is an adaptation of the High/Scope program, developedby Averoès. Piramide is a similar program developed by CITO. While both

51

programs have a broad educational curriculum aiming at cognitive as well as socialand emotional development, they differ in regard to implementation strategies andmonitoring. Piramide has a more explicit curriculum (more detailed list of whatchildren should learn) and is more teacher-centred, while Kaleidoscoop stressesthe more informal learning and the emergent curriculum. Piramide uses formaltesting to evaluate children’s learning (and to remediate if necessary),Kaleidoscoop makes use of informal daily observations in natural situations. Theeffectiveness study consisted of 2 experimental groups (108 children in theKaleidoscoop group and 115 in Piramide), one comparable control group (n = 104)at the start of the project and a second control group (n = 80) at the end of thethree years experiment. The first control group attended ECEC without any specificprogram; the second control group consisted of children who did not attend ECEC.Cognitive and non-cognitive development (extraversion, working attitude, emotionalstability, prosocial behaviour and externalising behaviour) was measured at theend of each year (1997, 1998 and 1999). Data analysis consisted of both cross-sectional and longitudinal statistical analyses, using multiple regression analyses.Cognitive development of children in both experimental groups progressed morethan in the control groups (language results are better in Kaleidoscoop than inPiramide, while ordering skills are slightly – albeit not significantly – better inPiramide), but effects are modest and not always significant. Regarding non-cognitive outcomes, results are inconsistent and no significant differences could benoted, with one small exception: Kaleidoscoop children progressed slightly better inemotional stability. The researchers note that while individual children werecomparable across groups, school populations were not: children in theexperimental groups attended schools with higher percentages of ethnic minoritychildren than children in the control groups and this might have mediated theeffects.

Veen, A., Derriks, M. & Roeleveld, J. (2002). Een jaar later. Vervolgonderzoekevaluatie van Kaleidoscoop en Piramide. Amsterdam: SCO-KohnstammInstituut.

It is a follow-up study of the effect studies on Kaleidoscoop and Piramide in TheNetherlands, one year later, through an additional measurement in 2000. Ingeneral, all results, and in particular the results of non-cognitive development areinconsistent and the modest effects that were reported one year earlier are notsustained.

Driessen, G. E. J. M. 2004. A large scale longitudinal study of the utilizationand effects of early childhood education and care in The Netherlands. EarlyChild Development and Care, 174 (7–8), 667–689.

This longitudinal study, drawing on a data set from a national survey (PRIMA),investigates the effects of ECEC participation on children’s non-cognitivecompetencies in The Netherland. Drawing on the cohort data from 1996 to 2000, anational sample of children was studied longitudinally until the end of Grade 2. Asample of home children was recruited at school entry for comparison with pre-school group. Data were collected in relation to: a) children’s non-cognitiveattainment (social behaviour, self-confidence, work attitude, well being) assessedin Kindergarten, Grade 2 and Grade 4 of primary school, b) backgroundcharacteristic of the parents, c) type of ECEC service / program attended bychildren. The methodology used for data analysis consisted of both cross-sectionaland longitudinal statistical analyses. Only weak relations were found betweenECEC participation and children’s non-cognitive competencies. When relevantchild and families characteristic were taken into account, no difference could benoted between children who participated to ECEC and ‘home’ children in relation totheir cognitive attainment in primary school. These findings hold for different ECECtypes of provision considered both separately and in combination. However, theauthor draws attention to the very diverse and highly fragmented nature of Dutchchildcare, where not all services / programs meet the necessary quality standard.In this regards the author calls for a careful contextualisation of these researchfindings.

52

Felfe, C. and Lalive, R. 2011. How Does Early Childcare30 Affect ChildDevelopment? Learning from the Children of German Unification. CESifoArea Conference on Economics of Education: Center for Economics Studies.Retrieved from: http://www.sole-jole.org/11122.pdf

This is a longitudinal study drawing on data set from national surveys (GSOEP andGCP) of West and East Germany. The study examines the impact of ECEC onchildren’s short and medium run development in relation to non-cognitive outcomesin order to discuss the incidence of expanding high quality ECEC on society.Drawing on the data of the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) and GermanChild Panel (GCP), the study evaluated the impact of increased accessibility ofcentre-based childcare (triggered by German Unification) on children’s laterdevelopment. Data on children’s non-cognitive development were drawn from largenational datasets. The sample consisted of 800+ children who were studiedlongitudinally from age 2 to 10. Statistical analysis of survey data covering a broadrange of indicators on child development and background characteristics was usedas research methodology. The main findings highlight that children enrolled inECEC centres had a clear advantage in all developmental dimensions, in relationto both cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes. It was also found that the positiveimpact of ECEC attendance was greater for children who started to attend formalcare only after supply increased, and these were children from lower socio-economic backgrounds. These children who entered ECEC after it became moreaccessible, seem to have gained better social skills in the medium-long term. Alongwith the previous study, these findings indicate that ECEC attendance marginallypromotes the development of ‘average children’ while it has a strong impact onsocial/behavioural development of disadvantaged children on the long term.

Del Boca, D. & Pasqua, S. 2010. Esiti scolastici e comportamentali, famiglia eservizi per l’infanzia. (Cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes, family andchildcare services)Torino: Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli.

The study looked at the effects of childcare attendance (0-3 services) on children’snon-cognitive outcomes, using statistical estimations within an econometric model.The study used the dataset elaborated by the Psychology Department of TurinUniversity (2008-2009). A sample of over 1,000 primary school children living in theTurin area were assessed for non-cognitive outcomes in primary school (1

stto 4

th

grade). In addition, data on children’s characteristics, family characteristics(parents’ working status and education) and children’s childcare attendance (0-3services) were also collected. Statistical regressions were used for data analysis.The research findings indicated that attendance of formal childcare had a positiveand significant impact on all non-cognitive indicators considered in the study. Thefindings confirmed the importance of early socialising experiences for the non-cognitive development of children.

Andersson, B. E. 1992. Effects of day care on cognitive and socio-emotionalcompetence in thirteen-year-old Swedish school children. ChildDevelopment, 63, 20–36.

The study investigated the long-term effects of day care on children’s socio-emotional development in Sweden. A sample of 128 children and their familiesliving in 8 low- and middle-resource neighborhoods in Stockholm and Goteborgwere studied longitudinally from 16 months – when they were not attending out-of-home care yet – up to age 13. Data were collected on a) children’s non-cognitiveoutcomes, b) family background, c) day care attendance and analysed throughhierarchical regression analysis. The main findings indicated that children enteringday care at an early stage (before age 1) received more positive ratings from their

30Although the term childcare is used in the title, the content of the article actually refer to

kindergarten provision.

53

teachers in terms of their socio-emotional development at age 13, compared tothose entering day-care at a later age or those in home-care. The study suggestedthat the age of entry in day care has a significant effect on children’s socialcompetences even when background variables were controlled. No adverse effectsof early entry into day-care on children’s socio-emotional development were found.Given these findings it can be hypothesized that negative effects of early day-caremay occur only when day-care begins before 6 months and when it is of poorquality. The overall high quality of Swedish day-care centers, staff qualifications,training for family day-care providers and the availability of paid parental leaveduring the first 6/7 months might account for the repetitive differences of positiveeffects of day care cross-nationally.

Datta Gupta, N. and Simonsen, M. 2007. Non-cognitive Child Outcomes andUniversal High Quality Child Care. Bonn: IZA (Institute for the Study ofLabour). Retrieved from: http://ftp.iza.org/dp3188.pdf

The study looked at the effects on children’s non-cognitive outcomes of enrolmentin universal publicly subsidized high quality center-based child care and family daycare for three-year-olds in Denmark vis-à-vis home care. The study was carried outthrough a statistical estimation exploiting a large scale dataset on children’soutcomes (Danish Longitudinal Survey of Children) merged with administrativerecords along with pseudo-experimentally generated variation in pre-school take upacross Danish municipalities. The sample consisted of 6.000 children bornbetween Sep-Oct 1995 whose outcomes were surveyed at age 6 months, 3.5 and7.5 years old (1

stgrade primary school). Data were collected in relation to a)

children’s non-cognitive outcomes, b) child background characteristics, c) childcareenrolment, d) mode of care and number of hours in care, e) parental background.Research findings indicated that, on average, pre-school attendance at 3 years,compared to home care, does not lead to significant differences in children’s non-cognitive outcomes at age 7. In contrast with previous studies, no negative effectsof centre-based care on children social and behavioral outcomes were found. Thismight be explained by the fact that Danish pre-school are less teacher-directed andmore oriented toward socialization than pre-K programs in the US, were thesenegative effects were found. Research findings furthermore highlighted that familyday care seemed to deteriorate behavioral outcomes for boys whose mothers havea lower level of education, suggesting that centre-based ECEC outperforms familyday care for the overall population. Finally it was also found that longer hours incare – over 40-50 hours per week – lead to poorer children’s outcomes.

54

B 3. Studies investigating the links between ECEC and successfultransition into school

Caille, J.-P. 2001. Scolarisation à 2 ans et réussite de la carrière scolaire audébut de l'école élémentaire [School enrolment at 2 years and schoolsuccess at the beginning of elementary school]. Éducation & formations, 60,7-18.

This is a longitudinal study focusing on the effects of pre-school provision onchildren’s later school career in France. Based on a panel study from 1997, asample cohort of 8.661 children born in 1991 who entered in primary school at age6 – 31% of whom entered preschool at age 2 – was examined. The researchmethodology consisted of logistic regression controlling for the characteristics ofthe child, of the family and of the neighbourhood. The main research findingshighlighted that:

Early attendance positively influenced school career at CE2 (secondyear of primary school), meaning that the number of children whohave doubled one year diminished significantly when childrenenrolled at a younger age in preschool

Immigrant children benefited more from early enrolment thanmajority children although they tended to be underrepresented inpreschool at age 2

Once controlled for child and background characteristics earlyenrolment in preschool (at age 2, rather than age 3) did hardlyinfluence the inequalities in school career, suggesting thatdifferences in school carrier were explained by family andneighborhood characteristics, rather than by preschool attendanceat an earlier age.

Therefore the author concludes that social inequalities in school career (in the firsttwo years of primary school) are not (or almost not) moulded by early entry inpreschool. In this sense, the study confirms earlier studies of the 1990’s in France,showing that early entry in the French preschool (at age 2) is associated with betterschool career, but this association is entirely mediated by family characteristics, assuggested by:

Jarousse J.P., Mingat A., Richard M. (1992), «La scolarisationmaternelle à 2 ans: effets pédagogiques et sociaux». Education etformations, n° 31, avri-juin 1992 pp. 3-9.

Duru-Bellat M, Moreau J, Etre gardé ou non par la mère, quellesincidences scolaires chez les enfants de grande section ? Revue dePsychologie de l’Education, 1, 1997

Florin. A, Modes d’accueil et développement du jeune enfant,Laboratoire cognition et communication, Université de Nantes,rapport de recherche pour la CNAF, février 1999.

Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Smees, R., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford,I., & Elliot, K. 2003. The Early Years Transition & Special Educational Needs(EYTSEN) Project. London: DfES / Institute of Education, University ofLondon.

This study builds on the data collected as part of the EPPI project (3-7). Children ofthe EPPI original sample identified as ‘at risk’ of special educational needs – forboth cognitive and social/behavioural development – were studied longitudinallyuntil the end of Year 1 in primary school. A sample of home children was recruitedfor comparison with the pre-school group. The aim of the study was to investigatethe influence of pre-school attendance on ‘at risk’ children’s outcomes at entry in

55

primary school. The research findings indicated that pre-school attendance –especially in high quality settings – provided all young children with a better start toprimary school (more independence and reduced anti-social / worried behaviour)but particularly those ‘at risk’ of developing special educational needs. In thisregard, attendance of high quality pre-school helped to promote both cognitivedevelopment and peers sociability especially for vulnerable children, easing theirtransition to school. Research findings also highlighted that the positive effects ofpre-school attendance on ‘at risk’ children’s cognitive and non-cognitivedevelopment was still evident at the end of Year 1 of primary school. The authorsconcluded that high quality pre-school centres may be seen as an effectiveintervention for providing more vulnerable children with a better start to primaryschool.

Note: this study was carried out in a context in which the perspectives on schoolreadiness and early intervention are still dominant in the debates on ECEC. In suchcontext, the education of young children is mostly seen as preparatory for schoolwithin a compensatory paradigm. These positions do not necessary reflect theunderstandings of many Continental and Scandinavian European countries wherepublic investment in the education of young children has been driven by a rights-based approach and ECEC services conceptualised as a value for localcommunities.

Lanfranchi, A. 2002. Schulerfolg von Migrationskindern. Die Bedeutungfamilienergänzender Betreuung im Vorschulalter. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Lanfranchi, A., Gruber, J. & Gay, D. 2003. Schulerfolg von Migrationskinderndank transitorischer Räume im Vorschulbereich. In H.-R. Wicker, R. Fibbi &W. Haug (Hrsg.) Migration und die Schweiz. Ergebnisse des NationalenForschungsprogramms "Migration und interkulturelle Beziehungen" (S. 481-506). Zürich: Seismo.

Within the framework of a national research programme carried out in the field ofmigration, the research team of Lanfranchi et al. investigated the supportivemeasures implemented in aid of four- and six- year old children in three Swisstowns. A preliminary survey consisting of a spot check of 876 Swiss, Albanian,Turkish, Portuguese and Italian children took place in Winterthur, Neuchâtel andLocarno in 1998. One year later – the younger children were in kindergarten andthe older ones in the primary school – the teachers were questioned about theperformance of the children in question. Their results were compared to those ofchildren who did not attend kindergarten (children staying at home with theirmothers, relatives, neighbors or childminders). The main findings of the studyindicated that children who attended ECEC were significantly better assessed bytheir kindergarten and primary school teachers in first class in terms of theirlinguistic, cognitive and special skills than children who grew up exclusively in thecircle of their own family: in particular it emerged that children from migrant familiesmanaged the transition to school significantly better.

56

B 4. Studies investigating the contribution of ECEC to social inclusion

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B.2004. The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project.Effective Pre-School Education. London: DfES / Institute of Education,University of London.

Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Smees, R., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford,I., & Elliot, K. 2003. The Early Years Transition & Special Educational Needs(EYTSEN) Project. London: DfES / Institute of Education, University ofLondon.

The Effective Provision of Pre-school Education (EPPE) study found thatdisadvantaged children benefitted significantly from good quality pre-schoolexperiences, especially when conditions of social mix (mixture of children fromdifferent social backgrounds) were provided within the setting. The Early YearsTransition & Special Educational Needs (EYTSEN) study found that the vulnerablechildren who attend pre-school tended to be less ‘at risk’ of developing specialeducational needs even after taking into account background factors. The studytherefore concluded that pre-school could be viewed as an effective earlyintervention. Research findings from both studies indicate that specialized supportin pre-school provided in relation to the different needs of different groups ofchildren can buffer the effects of social disadvantage and provide children with abetter start to school. Therefore investing in high quality pre-school provision canbe seen as an effective means to achieve social inclusion and breaking cycles ofdisadvantage. In this regard the best results were attained by ECEC centres thatintegrate education and care, that combine flexible hours for childcare along withsubstantial health and family supports services and that encourage high levels ofparents engagement in their children learning by involving them in educationaldecision-making.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Grabbe,Y. and Barreau, S. 2007. The Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11Project (EPPE 3-11). Influences on Children’s Attainment and Progress in KeyStage 2: Cognitive Outcomes in Year 5. London: DfES / Institute ofEducation, University of London.

Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B.,Barreau, S. and Grabbe, Y. 2007. The Effective Pre-School and PrimaryEducation 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11). Influences on Children’s Developmentand Progress in Key Stage 2: Social/ behavioural outcomes in Year 5.London: DfES / Institute of Education, University of London.

The findings of the follow-up of the EPPE project indicated that pre-school qualityand effectiveness were especially relevant for sustaining better social and cognitivedevelopmental outcomes of children throughout primary school. However, it is thecombination of experiences over time that matters, rather than one single variable.In fact, research findings suggested that the social inclusion of disadvantagedchildren can successfully be achieved only if actions to improve their home learningenvironment, pre-school and primary school experiences are undertaken inconcert: the improvement of any of this component in isolation would be insufficientto close the cognitive and social /behavioural attainment gap. In this sense,targeting additional resources to pre-school and schools that serve disadvantagedareas could substantially contribute to achieve such important goal.

Melhuish, E., Quinn, L., Hanna, K., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I.and Taggart, B. 2006. The Effective Pre-School Provision in Northern Ireland(EPPNI) Project. Summary report. Belfast: Department of Education,Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and Social SteeringGroup.

57

Along with previous studies, the EPPNI study carried out in Northern Ireland foundthat disadvantaged children benefit even more from high quality ECEC when theywere attending settings with a mixture of children from different backgrounds. Thestudy identifies the following elements as qualifying features of ECEC settingsworking with disadvantage children: a) recruitment of well educated staff andongoing provision of professional development opportunities, b) strong leadershipand strong philosophy for the setting shared by all staff, c) ethos and emotionalclimate of the setting (warm and responsive interaction with the children, d) strongpartnership with parents, e) implementation of a pedagogy that provide childrenwith opportunities to extend their learning through play and self-directed activities.Research findings also highlighted that vulnerable children who attended pre-school tended to be less ‘at risk’ of developing SEN even after taking into accountbackground factors. Therefore pre-school can be viewed as an effective earlyintervention. In this sense, increasing the take up of pre-school places by parentswho would not usually send their children would provide vulnerable children with abetter start to school and reduce their risk to develop special educational needs:targeting additional resources to pre-school and schools that serve disadvantagedareas could definitely help to achieve this goal.

Melhuish, E., Belsky, J., Layland, A. H, Barnes, J. and the National Evaluationof Sure Start Research Team. 2008. Effects of fully established SSLPs on 3-year-old children and their families living in England: a quasi-experimentalobservational study. Lancet, 372: 1641-47

The study investigated the effects of Sure Start Local Programmes (SSLPs) inEngland. SSLPs are area-based interventions aiming to improve services for youngchildren and their families in deprived communities in order to promote health anddevelopment for reducing inequalities. A sample of over 5880 3-years-old childrenand their families from 93 disadvantaged SSLPs areas were compared with 18703-years-old children and their families from 72 similarly deprived areas in Englandwho did not take part to the intervention. Multilevel statistical analysis adjusted forbackground characteristic of the child, family and area were used for data analysis.The main findings of the study indicates that the SSLPs had positive effects onchildren’s socio-emotional development (SSLPs children showed more positivesocial behaviour and more independence), parenting patterns (families in SSLPsshowed less negative parenting and provided a better home-learning environment)and community regeneration (families in SSLPs used more services for supportingchild and family development). Therefore the authors concluded that earlyintervention through SSLPs could improve life and educational chances of childrenliving in disadvantaged areas. The contrast with the findings of previous evaluationof SSLPs (partly negative) might indicate that over time the program has evolved inmore clearly focused services (children’s centres), with more emphasis onchildren’s development and a greater attention to the most vulnerable children andfamilies (out-reaching and inter-agency work). After 7 years, the program mighthave improved because acquired knowledge & experience and - partly in responseto the findings of the previous evaluation - might have reduced shortages in staffand skills.

Veen, A., Roeleveld, J. en Leseman, P. (2000). Evaluatie van Kaleidoscoop enPiramide. Eindrapportage. Amsterdam: SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.

Veen, A., Derriks, M. & Roeleveld, J. (2002). Een jaar later. Vervolgonderzoekevaluatie van Kaleidoscoop en Piramide. Amsterdam: SCO-KohnstammInstituut.

The studies, carried out in The Netherlands, aimed at investigating the effects ofpreschool implementing the Kaleidoscoop and Piramide programs on children’scognitive and socio-emotional development. Kaleidoscoop is an ECEC curriculumfor children aged 3 to 6, based on active learning (a Dutch adaptation ofHigh/Scope). Piramide is a similar program, though more “learning” oriented andteacher centered. Both programs aim at cognitive, social and languagedevelopment for children “at risk” (with a special focus on ethnic minority children).The studies compared children who received the curriculum, to children who

58

attended preschool “as usual” and to children who were not enrolled in preschool atages 3 to 6. The follow-up study did not find consistent beneficial effects for theexperimental groups after one year of primary school. Groups were comparable onthe individual level, but not on the school level. Children in the experimental groupswere enrolled in schools with higher percentages of ethnic minority children. Theresearchers suggest that preschools that are more mixed, offer more advantagesto children from ethnic minorities.

Goede,D. de & Reezigt, G.J. (2001). Implementatie en effecten van deVoorschool in Amsterdam. Groningen: GION.

The study, carried out in The Netherland, aimed at investigating the effects ofpreschool implementing the Kaleidoscoop program on children’s cognitive andsocio-emotional development. Kaleidoscoop is an ECEC curriculum for preschoolchildren, implemented in playgroups for 2,5 to 6 year olds, based on active learning(a Dutch adaptation of High/Scope). It aimed at cognitive, social and languagedevelopment for children “at risk” (a special focus on ethnic minority children). Thestudy was carried out according to a quasi-experimental design in which data wereanalyzed through multilevel analyses. The sample consisted of 90 children whoattended playgroups and 97 in the control group, aged 3 and 4 in 1999 andfollowed longitudinally until 2001. The research findings showed that effects onchildren’s cognitive and socio-emotional development were inconsistent (somenegative effects, some non significant) and where they exist, most were small to(seldom) moderate.

van Tuijl, C., & Leseman, P. P. M. 2007. Increases in the verbal and fluidcognitive abilities of disadvantaged children attending preschool in theNetherlands. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22 (2), 188–203.

This was a longitudinal within-subject study aiming at determining the developmentof verbal and fluid intelligence of 4-6-years-old Turkish and Moroccan immigrantchildren in Dutch public pre-school system. The sample consisted of 300+ children,recruited at age 4 and studied longitudinally over a 2,5 years period in public pre-schools. The research was designed as a short-term longitudinal study with a pre-and post- test holding an interval of 30 months. The main findings indicated thatintelligence of children from disadvantaged communities increased relative to age-norms over the 2,5 years they spent in pre-school: in the long term the gains inverbal and fluid intelligence predicted emergent school skills such as vocabularyand pre-mathematical skills. Such findings attest the attendance of pre-schoolprograms with a developmental orientation could be considered as substantiallyenhancing language and cognitive development in low-income, ethnic-minoritychildren – even within a large pre-school system of moderate quality. Despite theresearch limitations – lack of randomly assigned control group – the results of thisstudy suggest that pre-school attendance has a positive impact on disadvantagedchildren’s cognitive ability.

Spiess, C. K., Buchel, F., Wagner, G. G. 2003. Children’s school placement inGermany. Does Kindergarten attendance matter? Bonn: IZA (Institute for theStudy of Labour). Retrieved from:http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/20484/1/dp722.pdf

Drawing on a data set from the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) the studyinvestigated longitudinal effects of ECEC attendance in West Germany. Specificallythe relationship between kindergarten attendance (in the year preceding enrolmentin primary school) and enrolment in more (Realshule and Gymnasium) or less(Hauptshule) academically demanding schools in 7

thgrade was examined by

comparing the children of German citizens to those of immigrants. A sample of 316children (110 foreigner and 206 German) was studied. The study methodologyconsisted of statistical analysis (binary probit technique) where the dependentvariable (0/1) is indicating children placement in vocational school (Hauptshule)and the independent variable of main interest was children’s attendance tokindergarten. The main findings indicated that, in West Germany, kindergartenattendance significantly raised the probability of immigrant children to be placed

59

into a higher educational level school. However, given the relatively lowparticipation rate of immigrant children in German ECEC (Buchel & Spiess, 2002

31)

policy attention should be drawn on how to increase it with the aim of improvingschool outcomes for immigrant children who are more often at risk of educationalfailure. By contrast no significant relationship between Kindergarten attendanceand later school placement could be found for German children after controlling forparental SES variables.

Becker, R. & Tremel, P. 2006. Auswirkungen vorschulischer Kinderbetreuung aufdie Bildungschancen von Migrantenkindern. Sozial Welt, 57, 397-418.

The study used the longitudinal data from the German Socioeconomic Panel toexamine whether preschool education could improve the educational chances ofmigrants’ children who tend to be disadvantaged in the German school system.The results about the effects of kindergarten for the period between 1984 and 2003indicated that ECEC education could improve the educational chances of migrants’children although their educational chances became similar to the native children’seducational attainment without any preschool experience.

Felfe, C. and Lalive, R. 2011. How Does Early Childcare32 Affect ChildDevelopment? Learning from the Children of German Unification. CESifoArea Conference on Economics of Education: Center for Economics Studies.Retrieved from: http://www.sole-jole.org/11122.pdf

This was a longitudinal study drawing on a data set from national surveys (GSOEPand GCP) of West and East Germany. The study examined the impact of ECEC onchildren’s short and medium run development in relation to non-cognitive outcomesin order to discuss the incidence of expanding high quality ECEC in Germansociety. Drawing on the data of the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) andGerman Child Panel (GCP) the study evaluated the impact of increasedaccessibility of centre-based childcare (triggered by German Unification) onchildren’s later development. Data on children’s non-cognitive development weredrawn from a large national datasets. The sample consisted of 800+ children whowere studied longitudinally from age 2 to 10. Statistical analysis of survey datacovering a broad range of indicators on child development and backgroundcharacteristics was used as research methodology. Along with the previous study(Spiess, Buchel & Wagner, 2003) the results of this research indicated that ECECattendance marginally promoted the development of ‘average children’ while it hada strong impact on cognitive and non-cognitive development of disadvantagedchildren in the long term. Therefore the findings suggest that universally accessiblehigh quality ECEC can contribute to decrease inequalities and to weakenintergenerational transmission of SES.

Brilli, Y., Del Boca, D., Pronzato, C. 2011. Exploring the Impacts of PublicChildcare on Mothers and Children in Italy: Does Rationing Play a Role?Bonn: IZA (Institute for the Study of Labour). Retrieved from:http://ftp.iza.org/dp5918.pdf

The study investigated the effects of public childcare (0-3 services) coverage onchildren’s school achievements in the Italian context where childcare opportunitiesare limited both in terms of availability (varying greatly among regions) and costs.The study draws on the datasets of INVALSI (Italian Institute for Evaluation of theEducation System) and of Cittadinanza Attiva (data on public childcare coverage at

31Büchel, F. & Spiess, C. K. 2002. Form der Kinderbetreuung und Arbeitsmarktverhalten

von Müttern in West- und Ostdeutschland. Schriftenreihe des Bundesministeriums fürFamilie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend. Band 220. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.32

Although the term childcare is used in the title, the content of the article actually refer tokindergarten provision.

60

the provincial level). A national sample of children assessed at age 7 (2nd

grade ofprimary school) for cognitive outcomes was studied using statistical regressionanalysis of survey data covering a broad range of indicators on child, family andenvironmental characteristics. The data (children school outcomes, family andenvironmental characteristics, childcare coverage in the area) were analysedthrough statistical estimations within an econometric model. The findings point outthat the impact of childcare availability on children’s cognitive development ishigher for children with low educated mothers living in low-income areas: thisstresses the importance of rationing childcare according to family SES criteria andto increase childcare availability especially in disadvantaged areas.

Havnes, T., and Mogstad, M. 2009. No Child Left Behind: Universal ChildCare and Children's Long-Run Outcomes. Bonn: IZA (Institute for the Studyof Labour). Retrieved from:http://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/36326/1/616201729.pdf

The aim of this study was to analyze the introduction of subsidized, universallyaccessible childcare in Norway addressing its impact on children’s long-termoutcomes (educational attainment). To elicit causal relationships between childcareand children’s long-term educational attainment, the authors used a difference-in-difference model, exploiting a childcare reform from 1975 in Norway, for carryingout the estimation. Drawing on a national sample of children distributed across 3cohorts (pre-reform, phase-in, post-reform) adults’ outcomes – in terms of yearsspent in education – were examined at age 30-33 by using a statistical regressionmodel for data analysis. Research findings indicated that childcare attendancesubstantially improved children’s educational attainment in the long term (inaggregate terms an additional 17.500 childcare places produced 6.200 years ofeducation) and raised their chances to complete high school and attend college.Subsample analysis indicated that the greatest effects on education stemmed fromchildren with low educated mothers. Overall, the findings suggest that universalaccess to subsidized childcare levels the playing field by increasingintergenerational mobility.

61

B 5. Studies focusing on pedagogical approaches and educationalprocesses

Hübenthal, M. and Ifland A. M. (2011) Risks for children? Recentdevelopments in early childcare

33policy in Germany. Childhood 18(1) 114–

127.

The study discussed the effects of a ‘human capital investment strategy’ – that hasbecome progressively influential in the German welfare state – on early childhoodeducation with particular reference to the ‘risks for children’. As a consequence ofthe human capital investment turn within the policy for children and families, ECECpolicies have become increasingly important on the basis of the rationale thatinvesting in early childhood services will produce pay-offs for the society’seconomy, as well as for the individual child in the future. However, the analysis ofrecent child-oriented critiques of the human capital investment approach carriedout in this study highlights that such strategies may lead to major risks for children:

While the human capital investment reorientation of the Germanwelfare state – that took place at the beginning of 2000 – highlightsthe crucial role of high quality ECEC in improving children’seducational and life chances, many studies have pointed out thatthis policy field and its occupational area were neglected fordecades. As a result, low staff educational levels, low wages andlittle societal recognition, high workloads and poor standards (e.g.staff–child ratio) were, and still are, dominant features of theGerman ECEC system. Against this background the authorsquestioned to what extent the human capital investment policy aimof expanding a system of high-quality ECEC could actually berealized in the near future and fear that ECEC system will instead beoverburdened by complex societal expectations while framingconditions will be likely to remain unchanged.

Whereas empirical studies concerning children between the ages of3 and 6 years demonstrated that children with a migration back-ground – a group of children affected more than average by povertyand whose families are characterized more than average by lowsocioeconomic status – are underrepresented in early childcarefacilities, the abolition of ECEC fees – independent of the occupa-tional status of their parents – is currently not at issue within thegovernmental ECEC social-investment strategies. Beyond that,further analysis and societal debates would be required forinvestigating how the culture-specific needs of children and familieswith migration backgrounds could be better considered in ECECpolicies. If such issues are not addressed, poverty and socialexclusion of disadvantaged groups could hardly be tackled byECEC.

Whereas – within federal government and public debates –demands for increased efficiency, aggregation and speeding up ofECEC are primarily driven by the argument of preparing children forthe functional needs of a globalized knowledge-based economy,alternative discourses are pointing out that these recentdevelopments in ECEC might lead to neglect child-specific learningneeds in favour of economic rationalization. In contrast to the efforts

33Although the term childcare is used in the title, the content of the article actually refer to

kindergarten provision

62

of the federal government to make ECEC more effective in thesense of ‘the more the better’ and ‘the faster the better’, researchfindings highlight that young children’s learning process is highlydependable on social environment, stable and trusting interactionwith other children and adults, as well as free and unconditionalspace and time for play and free expression. Therefore a humancapital investment strategy that emphasise early formalised learningover children’s developmental needs is inevitably going to havecounter-productive effects.

To conclude, the authors also identify the danger that human capital investmentECEC policies – by focusing primarily on the argument of creating ‘working citizensof the future’ – might neglect the democratic value of education in which childrenare seen as active citizen with the right to participate in decision-making processesthat affect them (UNCRC, 1989). These considerations advocate for ECEC policiesin which services are not only viewed as merely functional to the formation ofhuman capital, but also as democratic forums for the creation a more inclusive andequal society.

Jensen, J. J. 2011. Understandings of Danish pedagogical practices. InCameron, C. & Moss, P. (eds.) Social Pedagogy and Working with Childrenand Young People, p. 141-157. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

The study was based on the findings of a research project investigating coreunderstandings of pedagogical practices for working with young children in earlychildhood centres in Denmark and part of a larger European study on professionsin care work. In the context of the Danish welfare state, pedagogy plays a crucialrole, with pedagogues constituting an important part of the workforce in earlychildhood services. The study described the pedagogical understandingsunderpinning practices in ECEC, drawing on the investigation of pedagogues’perceptions through multimedia research methods (SOPHOS). From the studyemerged that the rationality generally underpinning practices in Danish ECECservices reflects an institutional logic of childhood that recognise children asexperts in their own lives. According to this logic, children acquire experience intheir own terms – through play and participation – and therefore interactionbetween children and adults should be respectful of children’s needs and basedupon dialogic communication (‘appreciative relations’). In line with this logic, theatmosphere and pace of day-to-day life in ECEC centres are characterised bychildren’s deep-level involvement into activities, openness toward unpredictabilityand humour. In particular the study findings highlight that the logic of childhoodunderpinning pedagogical practices in Danish ECEC centres focuses on:

The value of children’s everyday life experiences. Togetherness ineveryday life activities – such as eating, sleeping, going to thebathroom, going for a walk and welcoming and parting parents – isan essential component of early childhood pedagogy that allowschildren to become resourceful, independent and capable of living insociety. In this sense play, learning in planned activities andeveryday life experiences carry equal importance in Danishpedagogical practices. Everyday life activities take up much timeand space and they are considered important for the life of children‘here and now’ rather than for instrumental purposes linked to futureoutcomes.

Kropslighed (lit. ‘embodiment’). Children should be encouraged toexpress themselves with their body and to show their feelings.Therefore attention should be drawn to the creation of a physicalenvironment and an emotional climate that support children’s naturalexpression through embodiment (running, jumping, laughing, crying,screaming out loud...).

Outdoor life is marked by informal interactions where children canplay without interruption in a natural and physically challenging

63

environment. The pedagogical value of outdoor life consists infavouring risk-taking activities that nurture children’s self-confidenceand independence; in developing knowledge about nature; and inrelating to the wider world outside the centre (eg. walk to the forest,to the beach, participation to public places in the area).

Child-child relations. Relationships among children are highlyvalued and friendship within ECEC centre are intentionally cultivatedby the pedagogues as a way of creating a socially inclusivecommunity.

Participating adults. The engagement of adults in children’s activitiesis seen as a way of building relationships of closeness to thechildren and to their experiences. By participating to children’sexperiences and activities, pedagogues try to listen to their ideas, tounderstand their feelings and to see things from their perspective.

The author concludes that all these aspects connoting pedagogical approaches inworking with young children in Denmark have been nurtured over the years by acontext in which ample space was given to children’s and pedagogues’ initiatives inco-constructing everyday experiences within ECEC centres. There is a risk that theincreased control, placed upon ECEC centres at local and national level since2004, might hinder such practices undermining children’s voices in educationalprocesses.

ISSA. 2010. Competent educators of the 21st Century: ISSA’s principles ofquality pedagogy. Amsterdam. Retrieved from:http://tandis.odihr.pl/documents/hre-compendium/rus/CD%20SECT%205%20EVAL/V_97_2_ENG.pdf

The International Step by Step Association is established since 1994 as aninitiative of the Open Society Institute and promoted innovation in pre-school,primary schools and communities of Central, Eastern and Southeast Europe andCentral Asia. As an international organisation, ISSA is committed to the provisionof equal access to education and care opportunities, to a child-centred, holistic andindividualised approach to child development through developmentally appropriatepractices, to a socio-constructivist vision of learning that unfolds in children’sinteractions with peers, adults and the surrounding community environment. Thisdocument is the result of a long-standing process of consultation that involvedISSA experts in the effort of defining principles for quality pedagogy in ECECsettings according to the needs of the regions in which ISSA operates. The resultsof this consultation process among ISSA members identified seven areas acrosswhich quality pedagogy can be strived for:

Interactions. Interactions among children as well as betweenchildren and adults are crucial for promoting children’s’ physical,social, emotional and cognitive development through reciprocalexchanges of knowledge, experiences, feelings and opinions thatallow children to develop a sense of the self, of being a member ofthe community and knowledge of the world. Good qualitypedagogical practices therefore should sustain children’s learningthrough participation in co-constructive processes that foster theirholistic development in caring ways (nurturing relationships as away of leaning and living together).

Family and communities. Strong partnerships among educators,families and community members are essential for children’sdevelopment and meaningful learning. By being responsive to thediversity of families’ needs and by involving them in the life of theschool, educators support a shared responsibility for the educationof young children within local communities, which in turn promotessocial cohesion on a larger scale.

64

Inclusion, diversity and values of democracy. Good qualitypedagogy promotes the right of every child and family to beincluded, respected and valued through participation in decision-making processes. Striving toward common goals that allow children– especially those who are more vulnerable – to achieve their fullpotential should stand at the core of everyday educational initiativesundertaken in ECEC settings: children should therefore berecognised as active participants in the educational process andacknowledged as equal members in their communities.

Assessment and planning. Systematically observing children’sneeds (both at individual and group level), elaborating educationalplans focusing on their interests and experiences and evaluatingtheir progresses for promoting future achievements are essentialaspects of good quality pedagogy. Children, families and relevantprofessionals should all be involved in the assessment and planningprocess in order to promote the full development of each child,according to their individualised needs in the framework of the widersocial and cultural orientations (curricular guidelines).

Teaching strategies. The strategies that educators use to promotechildren’s learning should reflect democratic values, combine socialand cognitive development and be open for diversity in order topromote children’s curiosity, critical thinking and cooperation. ‘Aquality pedagogical process builds on the belief that care, learningand nurturing form a coherent whole and that every child well-beingand engagement are prerequisites for learning’ (ISSA, 2010; p. 32)

Learning environment. By creating a physically and psychologicallysafe and stimulating environment that offers a variety ofdevelopmentally appropriate materials, tasks, and situations, theeducator encourages children’s learning through independent andgroup exploration, play, access to diverse resources, and interactionwith other children and adults.

Professional development. Active participation, critical reflection,mutual cooperation with colleagues and engagement in ongoingprofessional development are essential features that connote thework of educators committed to good quality pedagogy.

The authors conclude that these principles could set the basis for local innovationof pedagogical practices for working with young children, given that sufficient spaceis left to children’s participation, to educators’ experimentation and to theinvolvement of parents and communities in ECEC services.

Laevers, F. 2011. Experiential Education: making care and education moreeffective through well being and involvement. Encyclopedia on EarlyChildhood Development: Montreal, Centre of Excellence for Early ChildhoodDevelopment. Retrieved from: http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/LaeversANGxp1.pdf

The article identifies and discusses the pedagogical aspects that are essential forpromoting early childhood development from the child’s perspective in theframework of Experiential Education (EXE). The educational model of ExperientialEducation was developed between the 1970’s and 1980’s from a series ofobservations of young children in ECEC settings in Flanders (Belgium) andprogressively became one of the most influential models in the area. In thetheoretical framework elaborated by EXE the most effective way of evaluatingquality of ECEC services is in relation to children’s learning outcomes is to focus ontwo process dimensions:

65

Emotional well-being, indicating that the basic needs of the child aresatisfied (children feel at ease, act spontaneously, show vitality andself-confidence)

Level of involvement, referring to the extent to which children areconcentrated and focused, operating at the very limits of theircapabilities.

On the basis of these assumptions, methodological tools were elaborated (LeuvenScale) in order to facilitate practitioners’ reflection on pedagogical practices and topromote their improvement through interventions directed toward individualchildren, toward the general context or toward educational approaches adoptedwithin the setting. Drawing on the wealth of these experiences Ten Action Pointsfor promoting children well-being and involvement in educational environment wereidentified:

Fig. 1. Rearrange the classroom in appealing corners or areas

Fig. 2. Check the content of the areas and make them more challenging

Fig. 3. Introduce new and unconventional materials and activities

Fig. 4. Identify children’s interests and offer activities that meet these

Fig. 5. Support activities by stimulating inputs

Fig. 6. Widen the possibilities for free initiative and support them with

sound agreements

Fig. 7. Improve the quality of the relations amongst children and between

children and teacher(s)

Fig. 8. Introduce activities that help children to explore the world of

behaviour, feelings and values

Fig. 9. Identify children with emotional problems and work out sustaining

interventions

Fig. 10. Identify children with developmental needs and work out

interventions that engender involvement.

Fig. 11. The author concludes that high levels of emotional well-being and

involvement lead to high levels of child development by nurturing

children’s exploratory drive that provide intrinsic motivation for

learning. In this sense deep-level learning – instead of superficial

learning, which is externally driven – is encouraged and long-

lasting effects can be obtained. By being engaged in deep-level

learning experiences within ECEC settings, children’s are

supported in their all-round development through connectedness

with each others, with adults with the material world around them

and with broader society.

Mantovani, S. 2007. Early Childhood Education in Italy. In Early ChildhoodEducation. An International Encyclopedia, ed. New, R. S. and M. Cochran,1110 – 5. Westport (CT): Praeger Publishers.

The study discusses the fundamental features characterising early childhoodpedagogy in Italy, starting from the assumption that pedagogy in such context isdefined as the general framework within which educational processes areunderstood and reflected upon. The author defines pedagogy as a reflection about

66

educational experiences that are characterised by values, goals, intentionality andthat are considered as intrinsically relational processes situated in culture and time.In this sense, pedagogy is conceptualised at the same time as theory of education– being philosophical and political – and as a practical science – studying andinterpreting educational events that take place in human interactions withinevolving social and cultural contexts. Arguing that early childhood pedagogy in theItalian context builds upon broad perspectives and a variety of approaches ratherthan upon a specific curricular framework focused on teaching and learningactivities, the author outlines its core principle as follows:

A broad and holistic approach to children’s development focused onchildren’s personal needs (bodily and emotional well-being; sense ofidentity and autonomy; links between family and ECECenvironment; rhythm, pace and atmosphere of everyday life in thesetting; spaces to play, rest and share pleasant moments)

Significance of interpersonal and social relationships that are seenas fundamental means for sustaining children’s autonomy,developing a positive identity and a strong sense of the self, elicitingcuriosity and sustaining children’s involvement through dialogue,discussion, fun and stability in partnership

An image of the child as competent, active agent in his/her ownlearning that takes place within interactions with peers, adults andcultural artefacts

A conceptualisation of knowledge as the result of co-constructedmeaning making processes

A complex vision of learning that avails of the integrated use ofmany symbolic languages through project work for making sense ofreality (art, science, social interaction…)

The importance of the situations and environments in which learningtakes place (e.g. physical environment, quality of the materials,significance of the organisation of space in the setting…); spacesand materials made available to children are considered ‘the thirdeducator’ given their role in mediating children’s self-initiatedlearning experiences.

A vision of education as a participatory process, that unfolds socio-emotional, community and political dimensions and it engageschildren, families, decision-makers and citizens in defining theidentity of ECEC institutions (‘community character’ of ECECinstitutions)

Sensitivity toward inclusion and attention to diversity focusing on thedevelopment of respectful and meaningful exchanges betweenindividuals, groups and approaches

Value attached to continuity of relationships over time (childrenshare ECEC experiences with the same group of children and thesame teacher team for the length of time they attend such settingsand primary school classes are formed by taking into account thestrong links that have been developed between peers, their familiesand teachers over the pre-school years)

The importance of documenting children’s everyday experiences inECEC services – through observation, listening, recording – for re-reading and re-thinking educational experiences together withchildren and families and for sustaining a culture of childhood withinthe local community

67

An awareness of the cultural nature of ideas and practicesconcerning children and education

A striving for universal access to educational and care services asan opportunity to experience diversity, to negotiate meanings and todevelop a broader self.

Moss, P. 2011. Democracy as first practice in early childhood education andcare. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development: Montreal, Centre ofExcellence for Early Childhood Development. Retrieved from:http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/MossANGxp1.pdf

The article discusses the issues of democracy in early childhood education andcare, drawing on the long-standing pedagogical traditions that over the years haveshaped early childhood approaches in many services for young children acrossEurope. Democracy is considered as a multidimensional concept thatencompasses people’s participation in decision-making processes on matters thataffect them and therefore as a relational, ethical and political concept. In so doing,the author explores possibilities for the operation of democracy at several levels ofthe ECEC system. Bringing democratic values and practices in ECEC meansreclaiming the space for collective choices aimed at the common good at eachlevel of the system: national, local and institutional level. Practicing democracy inthe ECEC field at national level implies envisaging ECEC services as a publicgood, providing an entitlement to services for all children as citizens (along with afunding system that enables children to exercise their entitlement) and elaboratinga framework curriculum that defines broad values and goals while allowing , at thesame time, local interpretations. Practicing democracy at local governmental levelmeans developing and sustaining ‘local cultural projects of childhood’ whichenable community members to take responsibility for the education of youngchildren through civic engagement, political consultation processes andinvolvement in the management of ECEC institutions. In this way ECEC servicesbecome spaces for participatory democracy where children, parents, professionalsand local administrators have the possibility to discuss their experiences, exchangetheir points of view and share common goals and aspirations on education as wellas on civil society. Practicing democracy at the level of ECEC institutions meansthat both children and adults engage in the following activities:

Decision-making about the purposes, practices and management ofECEC services (for example by running nurseries as socialcooperatives of parents and professionals or by electing parents-professional committees involved in both pedagogical andadministrative issues). Children, parents and professionals shouldalso be involved in the design of early childhood environments aswell as in the educational planning of the centre.

Deepening the understanding of learning processes byencompassing children’s views, parents’ interpretations andpractitioners’ observations. Early childhood pedagogies that areopen to unpredictability rather than being oriented toward theachievement of pre-determined outcomes value children’s agency inlearning processes and therefore sustain their achievements in thelong term

Participatory evaluation of early childhood work through meaning-making processes that involve all stakeholders, including children,and make educational practices visible, therefore subject toreflection, dialogue and change. In this sense evaluation has thepotential to generate new pedagogical knowledge throughparticipatory research processes, to nurture staff personal andprofessional development and to sustain the social and culturalgrowth of ECEC institutions

68

contesting dominant discourses by asking critical questions,encouraging the discussion of divergent points of view andrespecting diversity.

The author concludes by arguing that, in order to sustain democratic and inclusivesocieties, the values and purposes of ECEC services need to be constantlyexamined and re-defined in dialogue with children, parents and community. In thissense nurturing democratic practices in ECEC means to respect the naturallearning strategies of young children and to value their agency in the process ofgenerating new knowledge and understandings of childhood within society.

Pramling Samuelsson, I. & Asplund Carlsson, M. 2008. The playing learningchild: towards a pedagogy of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal ofEducational Research, 52:6, 623-641.

The study elaborates on the findings of several years of research carried out in thecontext of Swedish pre- schools in relation to play and learning in order to proposea sustainable pedagogy for the future that does not separate these two element butrather draw upon similarities for promoting creative reasoning in future generations.Systematic research on learning, carried out by Goteborg University, highlightshow both activities – play and learning – are intertwined in children’s everydayexperiences and are characterised by an act (how children play and learn) and anobject (what children play and learn). On a day-to-day basis children in pre-schoolsare engaged in certain experiences and activities within which they relate to signsand symbols in contexts of interaction with peers and adults. Within theseprocesses, the role of the teachers has a great impact in enacting and sustainingchildren’s learning. The authors argue that high quality pre-school settings arethose where ‘one can see in children’s play what they work with in their dailycurriculum and also how the themes coming up in play are picked up by teachers inthe curriculum work’. This implies that teachers’ and children’s contributions areequally important in shaping the content and methodologies of learning. In thissense, research findings from Sweden support the argument that early childhoodpedagogy should be different in nature from the traditional school teaching and beelaborated by drawing upon the similarities between play and learning in children’severyday interactions within ECEC settings. Therefore the effective promotion oflearning processes in pre-school settings presuppose:

Teachers’ awareness of both the child’s perspective and her/his own

The engagement of child and teacher in the process

Teachers’ goal direction and sensitivity to child perspectiveoperating simultaneously in order to expand children’s experiences

High levels of communication and interactions between children andteachers and among children themselves.

On the basis of these research findings, promoting children’s learning within ECECsettings means to adopt an approach that coherently link knowledge to socialinteraction and to the organisation of the environment for fostering meaning-makingprocesses in children’s everyday experiences. In this sense, early childhoodeducation should be organised to allow the greatest possible amount of interactionand communication among children and between children and teachers on a dailybasis. Early childhood pedagogy therefore should be substantially different fromtraditional school teaching and draw on the similarities between play and learningfor the elaboration of strategies that are respectful of children’s development. Toconclude, the authors outline the key-features of a pedagogy of early childhoodeducation, based on the similarities between play and learning which are:

Adopting children’s experiences as a point of departure for meaning-making processes

Envisaging learning as a process that encompasses both inter-personal and intra-personal variation (acknowledging the variety of

69

ways in which a child learns as well as the variety of ways in which agroup of children think about the same phenomenon)

Focusing children’s attention on meta-cognitive aspects of learning,trying to develop children’s self-awareness and respect for differentpoints of view.

Making use of the close connections between playing and learningfor promoting children’s full development means that teachersshould leave room for improvisation, interaction and listening to thechildren, encouraging children’s willingness to make sense of thesurrounding world through the exploration of possibilities offered byeveryday life within ECEC settings.

Vandenbroeck, M. 2011. Diversity in Early Childhood Services. Encyclopediaon Early Childhood Development: Montreal, Centre of Excellence for EarlyChildhood Development. Retrieved from: http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/VandenbroeckANGxp1.pdf

The study discusses the issue of diversity and equity in ECEC that, in recent years,has received an increasing attention by policy-makers and researchers. Althoughat policy level a certain consensus exists in viewing ECEC as a central plank ofinclusive policies, this consensus does not extend to the way diversity is perceivedor treated in different contexts. As the discourse of diversity has become sopervasive in ECEC that it risk to become meaningless, the author calls for a re-conceptualisation of the issue starting from the analysis of three dominantparadigms which are:

The economic perspective. Within this paradigm ECEC is perceivedas an important tool for overcoming disadvantage: the return oninvestment is high, leading to better social and educationaloutcomes for children and later, better adjustment to therequirements of school, workplace and society. Although thisperspective might be useful for identifying quantitative needs, it failsto address qualitative questions that are crucial for the design andprovision of effective ECEC services within diverse localcommunities. Furthermore, by reducing children to the status offuture adults, this approach might disregard their well-being andparticipation here and now, which is an essential condition forsuccessful learning.

The educational approach to children from disadvantagedbackground. This paradigm builds on the principle that children fromdisadvantaged background needs services, which are tailored totheir background and specific needs. As for many children theenrolment in ECEC services represents their first steps into society– reflecting how society looks at them – it becomes essential toconstruct educational environments that value their identity and thatare responsive to their needs, as a positive self-image stands at thebasis of children’s well-being and capacity to succeed. For thisreason, the author argues that a child-centred curriculum needs tobe a family-centred curriculum as well: in this regards reference ismade to the guiding principles for the elaboration of curricularespectful of diversity identified by DECET (see literature A, p. 14)

The social perspective. Within this paradigm ECEC is seen as anintegral part of the social welfare system that States have put intoplace for ensuring social justice, equal opportunities and thedistribution of wealth. However, many scholars have demonstratedthat children from ethnic minority or low-income families tend eitherto be under-represented in ECEC services or to attend services oflower quality compared to higher income families. In this sense,policy-makers and administrator should make more effort in

70

ensuring that high quality ECEC services are available to all childreneither free or at an affordable cost.

In the conclusions, the author advocates for a more comprehensive view on theissues of diversity and equity in ECEC, which integrates economic, educational andsocial perspectives rather than favouring one paradigm only. In particular theauthor identifies the risks associated with narrowing the focus on one paradigmonly: a narrow economic focus may lead to disregard children’s and parents’perspective in educational processes; a narrow educational perspective might leadto schoolification of ECEC services while a purely welfare concern may lead topoor quality, with weakly qualified staff who are unable to meet the educationalneeds of young children. In this sense it is suggested that in diversity situationspublic policies need to be complemented by analysis from different perspectives inorder to better address the complex needs of children and families in contemporarysociety. If all these issues are not carefully taken into account within an integratedframework, ECEC might be viewed theoretically as plank of inclusive policies but inreality might actually contribute to widen the education gap.

71

B 6. Studies focussing on European research on policy for youngchildren

EACEA. 2009. Tackling social and cultural inequalities through earlychildhood education and care in Europe. Brussels: EACEA Eurydice.

The study, commissioned by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture ExecutiveAgency of the European Commission, explores the available cross-national dataand national policies on ECEC in Europe. In particular, the study addresses issuesof efficiency and equity of ECEC systems by placing emphasis on policy gearedspecifically to at risk children (OECD category C /Disadvantages). The studycovers 30 member countries of the Eurydice Network and analyses dataconcerning only accredited and subsidised centre-based provision (pubic andsemi-private provision). The main research findings point out that the countries,which are more successful in achieving high participation rates of at risk children inECEC provision, are the countries that have adopted a unitary model as:

The entitlement to a place has been recognised as a right for allchildren

Opening hours are generally extended to meet the flexible workinghours of parents

A coherent pedagogical approach that attributes the sameimportance to education, socialisation and care has beendeveloped.

On the basis of robust research findings, the study advocates for policies thatincrease both availability and accessibility of ECEC provision, especially forchildren under three as a necessary condition to incrementing participation amongchildren and families at risk. Further policy attention should be also given to theimpact of informal obstacles that hinder the participation of at risk children in pre-school provision (3-6 services), in order to make ECEC more attractive todisadvantaged families by tailoring services on their diverse needs. In theseregards, centre-based, intensive, early starting and child-focused ECEC programsthat combine the provision of parental support (‘strong parent involvement, parenteducation, programmed educational home activities and measures of familysupport’) have proven to be successful in producing long-term benefits fordisadvantaged children and parents. By contrast, targeted ECEC programs fordisadvantaged children have proven to be scarcely effective, as they are found toreinforce social and ethnic segregation, which may transfer to the primary schoolsystem as well. In this sense, research evidence shows that ECEC services with amore mixed income population lead to better results for children and promotesocial inclusion. The authors conclude by arguing that one of the main policychallenges at the current time is to (re)build (current) ECEC systems that providehigh quality care and education for all children, that are integrated, attractive andaffordable to all families regardless social class or minority status, yet that aresensitive to differing educational needs and able to compensate early educationaldisadvantages. The ideal early education system is both integrated anddifferentiated, ensures both common developmental and educational goals, yet isadaptive to individual needs and preferences, and works in both a child- andfamily-centred way. The system joins up the different types of care, education andsupport that are provided through inter-service cooperation that ensure equivalentquality for all subsystems.

NESSE. 2009. Early childhood education and care. Key lessons fromresearch for policy makers. Retrieved from:http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news1697_en.htm

The study is a comprehensive review of international evidence on the socialbenefits of ECEC. By providing an analytical overview of the various rationales that

72

drive the development of ECEC services, the study summarises existing researchknowledge and highlight policy measures that may contribute to successful ECECpolicy development and implementation. The most important findings highlight that:

There are many competing, intersecting and overlapping argumentsthat drive ECEC policy. Not all of them are compatible.

In economic terms investments in ECEC bring great returns,although it needs to be acknowledged that the size of the effectsand its long-term impact may vary considerably according to thequality of services provided. Therefore claims about ECECcontribution to long-term economic well-being should be carefullycontextualised rather than considered in isolation from other societalfactors.

Quality ECEC provides a solid foundation for more effective futurelearning, achievements and children's social development, althoughtheoretical conceptions of the processes involved may differaccording to the broader socio-cultural and political contexts inwhich services operates (see the section on pedagogicalapproaches outlined above).

Targeting ECEC service to disadvantaged children is problematic forsocial inclusion as it tends to reinforce stigmatisation. Inclusivegeneralised provision should be considered a more suitable option.

Private for-profit services tend to offer the lowest quality provision inall countries investigated and consequently may contribute toexacerbate social stratification.

The wealth of educational approaches and experiences that build onyoung children's rights and participation leads to major changes inthe ways in which ECEC services are conceptualised and delivered.A child rights approach focuses on and organizes effort on theexperiences of children in the here and now and solicits theirparticipation. Therefore, early intervention should not be consideredas something that is done to young children for (re)shaping theirfuture, but rather venture with them in collaborative ways.

Child poverty and vulnerability are multi-causal and impact severelyon children's well-being and educational attainment. Redistributivemeasures to lessen child poverty have been cost-effective in manycountries, and such measures could be extended to all countries.ECEC services, however good, can only marginally compensate forfamily poverty and socio-economic disadvantage.

ECEC services are a complex issue that cross many traditionaladministrative boundaries. A systematic and integrated approach toearly education and care is necessary to develop and improveservices at a systemic level – a co-ordinated policy framework, theappointment of a lead ministry, the coordination of central anddecentralized levels, a consultative approach to reform, links acrossservices and so on.

Despite some robust findings from individual child developmentstudies, there are no unambiguous empirical data about youngchildren that can inform ECEC policy development andimplementation in Europe. Findings from the field of childdevelopment need to be carefully contextualized.

To conclude, the study suggests that any EU-level measure addressing ECECservices development should undertake a comprehensive approach thatacknowledges the need for a range of inter-linked initiatives in order to promote

73

children’s well-being, educational achievements and social participation in anincreasingly complex and diverse society.

European Commission (2011). Early Childhood Education and Care:Providing all our children with the best start for the world of tomorrow.Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/school-education/doc/childhoodcom_en.pdf

The Communication addresses fundamental issues with which Member States areconfronted at the current time: to provide access to child care and education for allchildren, but also to raise the quality of provision through well integrated servicesthat build on a joint vision of the role of ECEC, of the most effective curricularframeworks and of the staff competences and governance arrangementsnecessary to deliver it. The Communication recognises that ECEC plays animportant role in reducing the incidence of early school leaving – which is stronglycorrelated with situations of socio-economic disadvantage – in overcoming thesocial segregation of marginalised groups (e.g. Roma) and in reducing theeducational achievement gap of children with migrant backgrounds. For thesereasons, the provision of universally available high-quality ECEC – supported byefficient and equitable funding strategies – is strongly encouraged. As researchevidence indicates, returns on investment in early childhood education are thehighest, especially for children from disadvantaged background, while educationalinvestment at later stages tends to benefit mostly children from highersocioeconomic backgrounds. In the Communication, the issue of ECEC quality isaddressed through three key-aspects:

Curriculum: ECEC services should be designed and delivered tomeet all children's full range of needs, cognitive, emotional, socialand physical. Young children’s developmental needs and learningstrategies are very different from those of school-age children.Appropriate practices that integrate care and education should beelaborated in order to promote children’s socio-emotional andcognitive development;

Staff: as competent educators are key to high quality ECECservices, attracting, educating, and retaining suitably qualified staffshould be seen as a priority. Furthermore, given the highly complexand diverse context in which educators are operating, continuousreflection on pedagogical practices as well as systemic approachesto professionalization should be promoted within ECEC settings;

Governance: a systemic approach to the ECEC services that buildson a strong collaboration between the different policy sectors, suchas education, employment, health, social policy allows governmentsto develop and implement policies more simply and to combineresources for children and their families more efficiently. Thisrequires a coherent vision that is shared by all stakeholders,including parents, a common policy framework with consistent goalsacross the system, and clearly defined roles and responsibilities atcentral and local levels in order to better address local needs.

The Communication concludes by stressing the need to learn from good practiceand experiences carried out in Member States for improving the quality of policy inECEC across the EU. These activities could be organised under the Open Methodof Coordination, by focusing on the identification and analysis of commonchallenges, good practice models and how to transfer successful approaches toother systems. Furthermore the Communication suggests that – given theimportant role that ECEC has to play in reducing early school leaving andovercoming educational disadvantage – key challenges as well as possiblesolutions in this field should be highlighted in Member States' National ReformProgrammes to address the Europe 2020 priorities.

74

Belgian Ministry for Social Integration and UNICEF. 2011. Preventing SocialExclusion through the Europe 2020 Strategy: early childhood developmentand the inclusion of Roma families. Brussels.

This Discussion Paper was prepared on the behalf of the Belgian Presidency of theCouncil of the European Union and it is the result of a consultation process thatinvolved both Roma and Early Childhood Development experts (UNICEF &European Social Observatory). The aim of the paper was to provide directions onEarly Childhood Development (ECD), one of the most promising strategies for thesocial inclusion of Roma children. The Discussion Paper explored the situation ofRoma families in Europe and the problems with which they are confronted. It alsooutlined the policies implemented at national levels as well as the key legalinstruments available at EU level and looked at experiences that are beingdeveloped by the NGO sector. The paper concludes with concreterecommendations addressed to the EU and to domestic policymakers:

A broad but coherent approach to ECD of Roma children is requiredas part of the Member States’ National Reform Programmes. Innational strategies for the inclusion of Roma, ECD should be seennot only as the foundation of health and learning for young children,but also a source of employment for Roma women. At EU level suchcoherent strategy could be undertaken by linking the work on therecent Communication on the Rights of the Child (COMM2006-367)to the forthcoming Recommendations on Child Poverty and Well-being (July 2012);

The European Commission should identify priority areas for EUspending so that funding could be directed more effectively towardmicro-regions and neighbourhoods whose population is hardest hitby poverty and social exclusion for addressing issues such asemployment, health, housing, community renovation and ECD. Aspecial ECD funding facility should be created in order to resourceinnovative early development programmes and scale up promisingcurrent initiatives over a long-term time frame, until such programscan be taken over by local government or national funding bodies.

Systematic data collection and research on Roma population andchildren should be carried out at national levels. Special effortsshould be made to ensure that children from the most marginalisedRoma communities have the opportunity to express their opinionand shape policies and practices that affects them.

Attention to Roma children in EU policies should be improvedthrough the following initiatives:

Build on the work of the recent Communication on ECEC(COMM2011-66), advocating for the provision of comprehensiveECD services to all children with a particular focus on the mostmarginalised children such as Roma, for ensuring that the nextsteps toward the promotion of a more equitable and inclusiveaccess to ECEC are followed through the implementation ofcoordinated and cross-sectorial policies intervening on behalf ofyoung children (education, employment health and social policies)

Ensure that the implementation of the recently adopted Agenda forthe Right of the Child (COMM2011-60/4) mainstreams attention tomarginalised children and provides for specific follow up on theactions for Roma children identified in the Agenda

Ensure that Roma children and families receive due attention in theforthcoming Recommendations to fight child poverty and promotechild well-being (July 2012)

75

At national level, responsive policies addressing the ECD challengefor Roma children should be combined with context-specificinitiatives that concretely promote the inclusion of Roma children inECEC services by:

Ensuring that all children born in Europe are registered at birth

Expand and strengthen outreach services for young children andfamilies from isolated and marginalised communities (especiallyhealth and community services that in many regions are the onlyformal system to have contact with Roma)

Make existing systems more responsive and flexible in order tomake the broad range of services needed for young children moreacceptable to Roma communities (for example by using health,education and cultural mediators). These services should focusespecially on the education of Roma girls and women.

Support Roma families to promote the development of their youngchildren at home through the provision of a safe and stimulatingphysical psycho-social environment by enhancing woman’s child-rearing skills

Provide at least two years of inclusive, mandatory and affordablehigh quality pre-school education that provide comprehensiveservices (health, nutrition and parental support) and facilitatesmooth transition of children from home to pre-school and from pre-school to formal schooling. Children’s testing and placement inspecial schools should be removed, along with the perversefinancial and social incentives that encourage Roma families toenrol their children in such special schools. Instead, both pre-schools and schools should be prepared to welcome Roma childrenby removing financial and bureaucratic barriers, by training teachersin anti-bias education and recruiting Roma assistant, by adaptingcurricula in order to acknowledge existing strengths of Romachildren as a basis for equal treatment. Inclusion should beembraced as a core goal of education; therefore culturally sensitiveand participatory practices that include Roma communities indecision-making should be seen as essential pre-requisites of highquality provision.

76

Conclusions

In this literature study we analysed several longitudinal studies on outcomes ofECEC in the European Union. In addition, some examples of influential qualitativestudies and policy reports have been added. It needs to be noted that quantitative,longitudinal outcome studies in the EU are limited, in contrast to more qualitativestudies that look at processes and pedagogies. Both type of studies are importantand need to be considered as complementing each other. The longitudinal studies,presented here, may provide political arguments for investing in early childhoodeducation and in promoting quality of provisions. On the other hand, they often lacka debate of what the outcomes should be, as overall the outcomes that aremeasured are quite similar across different countries. They also tend to look atpedagogies as instrumental to reach the predefined outcomes. The qualitativestudies that we selected give more insights in pedagogical processes that maycontribute to reaching desired outcomes. More importantly, they also showsubstantial debates on what these desired outcomes may be, by broadening thescope from individual achievements (e.g. school readiness) to more social orientedgoals such as social cohesion, social inclusion, equity, respect for diversity anddemocracy.

Given the considerable differences that characterised the research framework,design and content of the studied reviewed in this literature study, drawingevidence on the basis of comparison of research findings becomes quiteproblematic. First of all, the studies presented in the above section belong todifferent disciplinary fields and imply considerable differences in framing theresearch questions and in designing methodological tools for answering suchquestions. Also, within the range of longitudinal effect-oriented studies, differentmethodological frameworks are used (e.g. quasi experimental, mixed-methodsdesigns and econometric estimations) and they draw on different samples (smallscale, relatively large scale and large scale representative of the target population).The composition of samples also varies greatly according to the specific focus ofeach study (children from low income families, children with a migrant background,children from mixed backgrounds). Furthermore the studies reviewed investigatethe impact of ECEC within an extreme variety in provision (childcare services, pre-schools, kindergarten, day care services, family day care, targeted programs) andarrangements (regulation, funding, accessibility). The purposes for which ECECservices are designed also change considerably according to the social, culturaland political context within which they originated (care and education of youngchildren, preparation for formal schooling, compensatory intervention, assistance toworking mothers). And, most of all, the diverse political contexts also yieldimportant differences in the extent to which the provisions at study operate and arefunded (e.g. adult-child ratios, staff qualifications, …). All these factors have animpact on the quality of ECEC provision that cannot be considered to behomogeneous across different contexts but also within the same context (Sylva etal., 2004).

Although assumptions on overall ECEC quality were made in most of the studiesanalysed (Andersson, 1989-1992; Driessen, 2004; van Tuijl & Leseman, 2007;Datta Gupta & Simonsen, 2007; Felfe & Lalive, 2011; Brilli et al, 2011) only in thestudies carried out in England, Northern Ireland and Sweden quality was directlytaken into account (Broberg et al., 1997; Sammons et al., 2003; Sylva et al., 2004;Melhuish et al., 2006; Sammons et al. 2007). For all these reasons, the scope of aliterature study, cannot go beyond contextualised summaries of results. As theliterature overview in the more qualitative part shows, many important aspects ofECEC policy and practice cannot be concluded from the quantitative research.First: the very meaning of ECEC (and thus of what outcomes a society expects)should be the result of democratic participatory processes, rather than prescribedby science. Second, once a consensus on the meaning of ECEC has beenreached through democratic participatory processes (what outcomes a societyexpects), it is not only important to see whether ECEC is fulfilling its purpose but

77

also to investigate what processes (e.g. pedagogy, reflective practices focusing onchildren's needs, parent engagement, responsiveness to the social needs of localcommunities...) do and do not contribute to achieving the agreed goals andoutcomes. Third, it is important to keep in mind that in all EU countries the potentialpublic of the ECEC sector is increasingly diverse. The average child does not exist,and therefore, one looks not for a curriculum that serves everybody, but fordifferentiated approaches that serve each child. This may mean that withincountries and regions, a broad curriculum framework is needed that allowsdiscretionary space to professionals, rather than narrowly defining programs andoutcomes.

Long-term effects of participation in ECEC on children’s development.

Most longitudinal studies highlight that attending high quality ECEC program haslong-lasting effects on children’s cognitive development (Andersson, 1989 -1992;Broberg et al. 1997; Sylva et al., 2004; Melhuish et al., 2006; Sammons et al. 2007;Melhuish et al., 2008; Brilli et al., 2011). By promoting children’s overalldevelopment, ECEC services enhance fundamental cognitive abilities (verbalabilities and scientific thinking) that facilitate further acquisition of domain-specificskills related to language and mathematics. If certain conditions are provided –such as an early start, high quality services and effective primary school education– the positive effects of ECEC attendance can potentially persist until the teen age.However none of the factors mentioned above can, on its own, determinechildren’s academic achievements and educational success. While the findings ofthe reviewed studies do not allow speculation on the appropriate age for ECECenrolment and on the effectiveness of compulsory school provision, relevantinformation on ECEC quality is provided especially by those studies that combinedquantitative and qualitative methodologies. As quality is a matter of crucialimportance, a more detailed discussion will follow (Broberg et al., 1997; Sylva etal., 2004; Melhuish et al., 2006; Melhuish et al., 2008).

Interestingly, some studies show that ECEC attendance did not have the expectedsignificant impact on children’s cognitive acquisitions. These studies were carriedout in contexts in which ECEC provisions tend to be very diverse and highlyfragmented with possible negative impact on quality (Caille, 2001; Driessen, 2004)and in some cases their findings refer specifically to the effects of targetedprograms for disadvantaged children (Veen et al. 2000-2002; Goede & Reezigt,2001). This may suggest that quality is less the result of a specific programoriented towards cognitive development (e.g. Kaleidoscoop and Piramide) than amore generic aspect of ECEC.

Most studies have found that attending ECEC programs also has long-lastingeffects on children’s non-cognitive development (Andersson, 1989 -1992; Sylva etal., 2004; Melhuish et al., 2006; Sammons et al. 2007; Melhuish et al., 2008;Shirley, 2010; Del Boca et al., 2010; Felfe & Lalive, 2011) confirming that earlyexperiences of socialisation with peers in formal settings promote pro-socialbehaviour, self regulation and autonomy. If early socialisation experiences arecarried out in settings providing high quality care and education, the beneficialeffects on children’s social and emotional development might persist until the teenage, although other factors – such as quality of the home learning environment andfurther school experiences – also play important roles. As already mentioned inrelation to cognitive development, none of these factors taken in isolation canaccount for long lasting positive effects on children’s social and emotionaldevelopment: it is rather the combination of experiences over time that matters.

In a few studies (Veen et al., 2000-2002; Driessen, 2004; Datta Gupta & Simonsen,2007) it was found that ECEC attendance does not substantially affect childrensocial and emotional development. However, given the different contexts in whichthe studies took place and the variety of service provision investigated (programstargeted to ethnic minority children, centre-based provision and family day care)the only further consideration that could be made is that comprehensive andconsistent systems of high quality are a condition to yield the expected beneficial

78

results on a population level. Certainly these findings call for a more detailedexploration of these issues in research.

All studies focusing on sub-samples of vulnerable children report that high qualityECEC benefits especially the most disadvantaged children, whose gains incognitive and socio-emotional development are higher than for ‘average’ children(Brilli et al. 2011; Felfe & Lalive, 2011). From the findings of these studies itappears that vulnerable children benefit the most from ECEC when it is provided incontexts of social mix (Sylva, 2004; van Tuijl and Leseman, 2007; Havnes andMogstad, 2011). Two studies have also found that ECEC intervention contributesto reduce the risk of developing special educational needs (Sammons et al. 2003;Melhuish et al., 2006). These results suggest that services addressing a diversepopulation, that is, providing structured services for all, in which special attention isgeared towards disadvantages children may be preferred over targeted provisions.This is confirmed by some of the qualitative studies and is also to be found amongthe recommendations of the policy documents we reviewed.

Effects on school careers

Most of the studies analysed found that participation in ECEC programs – byenhancing children’s cognitive and social competences – facilitate the transitioninto primary school especially for those children who come from a disadvantagedbackground (ethnic minority and/or low-income families). These studies report thatnot only children who attended ECEC program adjust better to formal learningwithin school setting (Sammons et al. 2003; Sylva et al. 2004; Melhuish, 2006;Lanfranchi et al., 2002-2003) but also that the advantages in educationalattainment might persist until the end of primary school, provided that ECEC was ofhigh quality (Sammons et al. 2007; Felfe & Lalive 2011). Similarly, studies carriedout on children’s school placement and further educational chances (Spiess et al.,2003; Shirley, 2010; Havnes and Mogstad, 2011) found that benefits of ECECattendance are particularly salient to the school career of disadvantaged children,proving the substantial contribution made by ECEC to their educationalopportunities. Only one study (Caille, 2001) found that pre-school attendance didnot substantially influence the inequalities in school career that remain ratherstrongly affected by family and neighbourhood backgrounds. The study did notprovide answers as to why this was the case in France, but qualitative studies ofthe French “école maternelle” may suggest this be related to elements of thecurriculum (e.g. the lack of play-based learning and child-centred curricula)(Brougère, Guénif-Souilamas & Rayna, 2008).

Quality matters

All the studies analyzed in this literature study concur to say that quality of ECECprovision is crucial for promoting children’s cognitive and social development that,in turn, will contribute to enhance their educational chances and promote theirsocial integration. As these aspects are particularly salient to those children whoare living in conditions of socio-economic disadvantage, deepening the discussionon the characteristics of ECEC provision that are associated to good qualitybecomes important for the scope of this review. The research findings ofquantitative and more qualitative studies identify multiple factors that areassociated to ECEC quality and that lead to long lasting positive effects onchildren’s outcomes:

Early start attendance

Staff qualification and continuing professional developmentopportunities that sustain practitioners’ collective reflectivity andinnovation of practices

Strong leadership and ethos shared by all members of staff

79

Good emotional climate in the setting, that welcomes the diverseneeds of children and families and address them by taking intoaccount their complexity

Adults’ responsive interactions to the diversified needs of youngchildren, promoting their emotional well-being and activeengagement in learning processes

Appropriate educational practices that respect the specificity ofyoung children’s learning strategies sustaining their curiosity ratherthan focusing on early formalised learning that dismiss children’sdevelopmental potential

Pedagogies that combine education and care for promoting theholistic development of children through their active participation inthe everyday life of the settings

A balanced curriculum that combines teacher-initiated and child-initiated activities with the purpose of sustaining children’s activeengagement in learning processes through encouraging children’sautonomous choices, sustaining shared thinking within groupinteractions, providing a variety of resources for play according tochildren’s interests and valuing play as a form of meaning-makingthat leads to knowledge co-construction

A curriculum that is negotiated with children, parents, professionalsand local communities whose voices, opinions and perspectives arevalued

A mixture of children from different social backgrounds and diverseethnic or cultural backgrounds attending the same setting. Targetedprograms tend to be less effective.

A strong commitment toward working with parents: involving parentsin decision-making about the education of their children in the centreand sharing educational goals promote an higher levels of parents’engagement in their children learning in the home environment aswell. Particular attention should be dedicated to the parents’partnership in contexts of cultural diversity, where the aspect ofnegotiating educational goals become crucial for their children’sparticipation in ECEC services.

Careful documentation of children’s activities (including, but notlimited to their learning) and reflection on the documentation withdifferent stakeholders

Policy contexts in which ECEC receive substantial funding, allowingthem to implement the described quality criteria. Moreover, effectsof ECEC ‘levelling the playing field’ might be more limited in moreunequal societies, than in societies that have more comprehensivewelfare policies.

The influence of background factors

Despite the important contribution made by ECEC to children’s cognitive and socialdevelopment, it appears evident from the literature reviewed that children'soutcomes are also strongly influenced by their socio-economic backgrounds. Thequality of children’s home learning environment also play a role in shapingchildren’s cognitive and social development (Broberg et al., 1997; Sylva et al.,2004). The implications of such findings for the provision of ECEC programs thatare aimed at the educational success and social inclusion of children with adisadvantaged background are important as they call attention to the issue ofparents’ involvement. In this sense, the studies carried out by the EPPE andEPPNI team in England and Northern Ireland highlight that better gains for children

80

and families were found in ECEC that fostered high levels of parents’ participationthrough the organisation of specific initiatives (outreaching and multi-agency work)and involvement in pedagogical decision-making. Therefore it can be concludedthat only services of high quality that purse a strong partnership with parents byengaging them in democratic decision-making can make a real difference in the lifechances of vulnerable children and their families.

However, the impact of broader socio-economic factors associated with welfarepolicies should not be underestimated: it is no coincidence that the effects of familybackground on children’s educational attainment tend to be more limited inScandinavian countries where universally accessible childcare is provided andSES differences in population are less marked than elsewhere. This leads to theconclusion that well-funded, integrated socio-educational ECEC services in orderto succeed in improving the life chances of children and families at risk need to beclosely linked to labour, health and social policies that promote a more equalredistribution of resources by targeting extra-funding toward disadvantagedneighbourhoods (UNICEF Innocenti, 2008).

Gaps and future research needed

The studies reviewed in this literature study also highlight existing gaps inresearch. Specifically, it emerges that more studies are needed in order to explorehow the positive effects of ECEC attendance could be extended through systemicinitiatives that involve – on the basis of an equal partnership – primary school andother institutions operated by local authorities in the neighbourhood (e.g. socialservices, health services, community services, …) as well as informal networks ofparents within local communities. It appears that insufficient research attention isgiven to integrate lifelong learning approaches that would work comprehensivelywith children; young people communities and families across formal and informalsettings.

Also more studies adopting multi-method perspectives, combining quantitative andqualitative methodologies in different political contexts would be welcomed, in orderto further disentangle social-political and pedagogical issues.

Finally, it also needs to be noticed that the democratic approach, about negotiatingpractices with children, parents and local communities, as described in many of thepolicy reports, is virtually absent from research. We have no knowledge aboutstudies in which effects of ECEC are examined and in which different stakeholdersare involved in the design of the study and the discussion on what the desirableoutcomes might be.

References

Bae, B. 2009. ‘Children's right to participate: challenges in everyday interactions.’European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 17 (3): 391-406.

Bennett, J. 2008. Early childhood services in the OECD countries: Review of the literatureand current policy in the early childhood field. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.Retrieved from: http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/502

Brougère, G., Guénif-Souilamas, N., & Rayna, S. (2008). Ecolle maternelle (preschool) inFrance: a cross-cultural perspective. European Early Childhood Education ResearchJournal, 16(3), 371-384.

Burger, K. 2010. ‘How does early childhood care and education affect cognitivedevelopment? An international review of the effects of early interventions for children fromdifferent social backgrounds.’ Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25: 140 – 165.

Commission of the European Communities. 2006a. Toward an EU strategy on the rights ofthe child. Retrieved from:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0367:FIN:EN:PDF

Commission of the European Communities. 2006b. Efficiency and equity in Europeaneducation and training systems. Retrieved from:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0481:FIN:EN:PDF

Council of the European Communities. 1992. Council recommendation of 31 March 1992on child care (92/241/EEC). Retrieved from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:31992H0241:EN:HTML

Council of the European Union. 2002. Presidency conclusions, Barcelona, 15-16 March2002. Retrieved from:http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/71025.pdf

Council of the European Union. 2010. Council conclusions of 11 May 2010 on the socialdimension of education and training. Retrieved from:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:135:0002:0007:EN:PDF

Council of the European Union. 2011a. Tackling child poverty and promoting child well-being. Retrieved from:http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/122878.pdf

Council of the European Union. 2011b. Council conclusions on early childhood educationand care. Retrieved from:http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st09/st09424.en11.pdf

Dalhberg, G. & Moss, P. 2005. Ethic and politics inearly childhood education. London:Routledge.

de Kruif, R.E.L.; Riksen-Walraven, J.M.A.; Gevers Deynoot-Schaub, M.J.J.M.; Helmerhorst,K.O.W.; Tavecchio, L.W.C., & Fukkink, R.G. 2009. Pedagogische kwaliteit van de opvangvoor 0 tot 4 jarigen in Nederlandse kinderdagverblijven in 2008. Amsterdam-Nijmegen:NCOS.

Einarsdottir, J. & Wagner J. T. 2006. Nordic Childhoods and Early Education: Philosophy,Research, Policy and Practice in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.Information Age Publishing.

EPPI-Centre. 2004. What is the impact of out-of-home integrated care and educationsettings on children aged 0-6 and their parents? London: Institute of Education.

Esping-Andersen & al. Eds. 2002. Why we need a new welfare state. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

European Commission (2010). Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusivegrowth. Retrieved from:http://eunec.vlor.be/detail_bestanden/doc014%20Europe%202020.pdf

European Commission (2011a). An EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from:http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/children/docs/com_2011_60_en.pdf

European Commission (2011b). Early Childhood Education and Care: Providing all ourchildren with the best start for the world of tomorrow. Retrieved from:http://ec.europa.eu/education/school-education/doc/childhoodcom_en.pdf

Havnes, T. & Mogstad, M. 2011. No Child Left Behind: Subsidized Child Care and Children'sLong-Run Outcomes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2): 97–129.

Heckman, J. J. & Masterov, D. V. 2007. The productivity argument for investing in youngchildren. Bonn: IZA.

Hübenthal, M. & Ifland, A. M. 2011. ‘Risks for children? Recent developments in earlychildcare policy in Germany.’ Childhood, 18(1): 114-27.

Jensen, A.S., Bröstrom, S. & Hensen, O.H. 2010. ‘Critical perspectives on Danish earlychildhood education and care: between the technical and the political’. Early Years, 30 (3):243-54.

Lister, R. (2007). ‘Why citizenship: where, when and how children?’ Theoretical Inquiries inLaw, 8(2), 693-718.

Kjørholt, A. T. & Qvortrup, J. 2012. The modern child and the flexible labour market: earlychildhood education and care. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mantovani, S. 2007. ‘Early Childhood Education in Italy’, in R. S. New, and M. Cochran EarlyChildhood Education: An International Encyclopedia. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers,1110 – 1115.

Moss, P. 2007. ‘Bringing politics into the nursery: early childhood education as a democraticpractice.’ European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 15 (1), 5-20.

NESSE. 2009. Early childhood education and care. Key lessons from research for policymakers. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news1697_en.htm

OECD. 2006. Starting Strong II.

Penn, H. & Lloyd,E. (2007) 'Richness or rigour? A discussion of systematic reviews andevidence-based policy in early childhood', Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Vol 5(1),3-18.

Penn, H. 2011. Quality in early childhood services: an international perspective. Mc GrawHill: Open University Press.

Pramling Samuelsson, I. & Sheridan, S. 2010. ‘A turning point or a backward slide: thechallenge facing the Swedish preschool today’. Early Years, 30 (3): 219-27.

Pramling, N. & Pramling Samuelsson, I. Eds. 2011. Educational encounters: Nordic studiesin early childhood didactics, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Rinaldi, C. 2005. In Dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, Researching and Learning.London: Routledge.

UNCRC. 1989. United Nation Convention on the right of the child.

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null effects. PsychologicalBulletin, Vol 86(3), May 1979, 638-641.

Vandenbroeck, M. Forthcoming. Why evidence based paradigm in early childhood educationand care is anything but evident. Submitted to European Early Childhood EducationResearch Journal

Vandenbroeck, M. & Bouverne De Bie, M. 2006. ‘Children’s agency and educational norms.A tense negotiation’. Childhood, 13 (1), 127-43.

83

Annex B: Summary tables of research on themes B1, B2, B3 and B4

■ __________________________________________________________________

A. Studies exploring the relations between ECEC and children cognitive outcomes

Box 100 Study reference

Box 101 Study Type

Box 102 Aim Box 103 Methodology Box 104 What was studied

Box 105 Howwas it studied

Box 106 Summary key findings (B1)

Box 107 Sylva, K., Melhuish,E. C.,Sammons, P.,Siraj-Blatchford, I.and Taggart, B.2004. TheEffectiveProvision ofPre-SchoolEducation(EPPE) Project.Effective Pre-SchoolEducation.London: DfES /Institute ofEducation,University ofLondon.

Box 108

Box 109 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 110 Studyto investigate:

Box 111 - theimpact of pre-school on childrenintellectualdevelopment

Box 112 - thecharacteristic ofeffective pre-school setting inthis regards

Box 113 - thelong-terms effectsof pre-school onchildren academicachievementthrough Key-Stage 1 (first andsecond year ofprimary schoolattended bychildren aged 6and 7)

Box 114 - theimpact of thehome andchildcare historyon childrendevelopment

Box 115 Location:England

Box 116 Context:

Box 117 Five-yearsstudy funded by DfESwith the purpose ofproducing researchevidences for policy-making

Box 118 Sample: 3,000children recruited at age3+ and studiedlongitudinally until theend of Key-Stage 1. Asample of home childrenwere recruited at schoolentry for comparisonwith pre-school group

Box 119 Methodology:statistical analysis usinga multi-level model toexplore the value addedby pre-school after takingaccount of child, parents,home background factors

Box 120 -Childrenintellectualdevelopment(attainment) at3, 4/5, 6 and 7years of age

Box 121

Box 122 -backgroundcharacteristicof the parentsand homelearningenvironment

Box 123

Box 124

Box 125 -quality of pre-school settings(141 amongLA daynursery,integratedcentres,playgroups,private daynurseries,nurseryschools and

Box 126 standardized childassessment

Box 127

Box 128

Box 129

Box 130

Box 131 parental interviews

Box 132

Box 133

Box 134

Box 135 ECERS-E ratingscale

Box 136 casestudiesobservations andinterviews in 12centres whichshowed to be themost effective(effectivenessbased on theprogress childrenmade aftercontrolling pre-testand socialbackground)

Box 137 -pre-school attendance, compared to none,enhance children’ all round development: bettercognitive and non-cognitive outcomes

Box 138 - duration of attendance (months) and qualityof pre-school settings matters: an earlier start (under3)and higher quality are related to better intellectualdevelopment that has long-lasting effects in primaryschool: better academic attainment in KS1

Box 139 - high quality is associated with staffqualification (5), warm and responsive interaction tochildren’s individual needs (1-7) and effectivepedagogy(2-3-4-6)

Box 140 - effective pedagogy include a balancedcurriculum (promoting education and social developmentas complementary) and a good mix of teacher-initiatedand child-initiated activities ‘sustaining shared thinking’

Box 141 - centres integrating education and care,combining flexible hours for childcare along withsubstantial health and family supports services have thehighest scores on pre-school quality

Box 142 -there is a strong relationship betweenfamilies background characteristics and childrenintellectual development however the quality of homelearning environment is more important than SES

Box 143 - the centres that encouraged high levels ofparents engagement in their children learning andinvolved them in decision-making about children learningprogram lead to better intellectual gains for children

84

nurseryclasses)

Box 144 Sammons, P.,Sylva, K.,Melhuish, E.,Siraj-Blatchford, I.,Taggart, B.,Grabbe, Y. andBarreau, S.2007. TheEffective Pre-School andPrimaryEducation 3-11Project (EPPE3-11).Influences onChildren’sAttainmentand Progressin Key Stage2: CognitiveOutcomes inYear 5.London: DfES /Institute ofEducation,University ofLondon.

Box 145 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 146 Thestudy aims to:

Box 147 -investigatingcontinuing effectsof pre-schoolattendance onchildren’scognitivedevelopmentthroughout KeyStage 2 of primaryeducation(attended bychildren aged 7 to10)

Box 148 - toexamine thecombined effect ofHLE, pre-schooland primaryschoolexperience onchildren’scognitiveattainment

Box 149 Location:England

Box 150 Context: followup of the EPPI study (3-7) funded by DfES withthe purpose of producingresearch evidences forpolicy-making

Box 151 Sample:2,500 children of theoriginal sample studiedlongitudinally until theend of KS2. A sample ofhome children wererecruited for comparisonwith pre-school group.

Box 152 Methodology:statistical analysis usinga contextualised multi-level model to analysethe combined effects ofpre-school and primaryschool effectiveness onchildren cognitiveattainment (controllingbackgroundcharacteristics)

Box 153 -children’scognitiveoutcomes atage 10

Box 154

Box 155

Box 156 -backgroundcharacteristicsof the parentsand homelearningenvironment

Box 157 standardisedassessment ofReadings andMathematic

Box 158

Box 159

Box 160 parents’ interviewsand parentalquestionnaire

Box 161 - pre-school quality and effectiveness stillmatters for children’s social / behavioural developmentaloutcomes at age 10, in particular:

Box 162 >attending higher quality or more effectivepre-school has a continuing positive effect on children’soutcomes in Reading and Mathematics at age 10

Box 163 > by contrast attending low quality pre-schoolno longer show cognitive benefits at the end of KS2 (pre-school children’s cognitive outcomes do not significantlydiffer from those of home children)

Box 164 - furthermore findings indicates that no onefactor – quality of pre-school, HLE or schooleffectiveness – is the key in shaping children cognitiveoutcomes throughout KS2 but rather is the combinationof experiences over time that matters

Box 165 Melhuish, E., Quinn,L., Hanna, K.,Sylva, K.,Sammons, P.,Siraj-Blatchford, I.and Taggart, B.2006. TheEffective Pre-

Box 166 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 167 Thestudy aims toinvestigate:

Box 168 - theimpact of pre-school on childrenintellectualdevelopment

Box 169 -characteristics of

Box 172 Location:Northern Ireland

Box 173 Context:longitudinal study fundedby DE, DHSSPS andSSG with the purpose ofproducing researchevidences for policy-making

Box 174 Sample: 800

Box 176 -Childrenintellectual

Box 177 attainment at 3, 4,5, 6, 7 and 8years of age

Box 178 -backgroundcharacteristic

Box 180 standardised childassessment overtime

Box 181

Box 182

Box 183

Box 184 parental interviews

Box 191 - pre-school attendance enhances all round(cognitive and social) development of all children

Box 192 - attendance of high quality pre-school isrelated to better intellectual outcomes

Box 193 - high quality is associated with staffqualification and professional development (1), strongleadership and strong philosophy for the setting sharedby all staff (1), ethos and emotional climate of the setting(warm and responsive interaction with the children, 2),parental partnership (3), pedagogy (providing

85

SchoolProvision inNorthernIreland (EPPNI)Project.Summaryreport. Belfast:Department ofEducation,Department ofHealth, SocialServices andPublic Safety,and SocialSteering Group.

effective pre-school setting inthis regards

Box 170 - thelong-terms effectsof pre-school onchildreneducationalattainmentthrough Key-Stage 1 (childrenup to 8 years)

Box 171 - theimpact of thehome andchildcare historyon childrendevelopment

children recruited at age3+ and studiedlongitudinally until theend of Key-Stage 1. Asample of home childrenwere recruited at schoolentry for comparisonwith pre-school group

Box 175 Methodology:statistical analysis usinga multi-level model toexplore the value addedby pre-school after takingaccount of child, parentsand home backgroundfactors

of the parentsand homelearningenvironment

Box 179 -quality of pre-school settings( 80 amongnurseryschools /classes,playgroups,private daynurseries,receptionclasses andreceptiongroups)

Box 185

Box 186

Box 187

Box 188

Box 189 ECERS-E ratingscale

Box 190 intensive casestudiesobservations andinterviews in 3centres wherethere had beenindication of goodpractices (nurseryschool, private daynursery and aplaygroup)

opportunities to extend children learning through playand self-directed activities, 4)

Box 194 - nursery schools/classes have the highestscores on pre-school quality

Box 195 - for all children the quality of the homelearning environment is more important for children’sintellectual and social development than parentaloccupation, education and income (what the parents dois more important than who parents are) thereforefostering active parental engagement with children arelikely to benefit children cognitive development andattainment at school

Box 196 - vulnerable children who attend pre-schooltend to be less ‘at risk’ of developing SEN even aftertaking into account background factors

Box 197 Shirley, M. 2010. AnEarly ChildhoodInterventionProgrammeand the longterm Outcomesfor Students.Child Care inPractice, 16(3):257-274.

Box 198 Small scalelongitudinalstudy

Box 199 Theaim of the study isto evaluate theimpact of theEarly StartProgramme onchildreneducationalattainment(cognitiveoutcomes) at age15.

Box 200 Location: ROI(disadvantaged urbancommunity)

Box 201 Context: EarlyStart (ES) is an earlychildhood interventionprogram offered in withinselected school indesignateddisadvantaged areas >targeted programmedesigned to promotelanguage and cognitivedevelopment and toprevent school failure.

Box 202 Methodology:non-randomisedmultimethod researchdesign involvingstudents, parents,teachers and participants

Box 204 -childrenacademicattainment atage 15

Box 205

Box 206

Box 207

Box 208

Box 209

Box 210

Box 211

Box 212

Box 213 -familybackground

Box 214

Box 215

Box 216

Box 224 scores from the JuniorCertificate(standardisedstate examinationtaken at third yearof secondaryschool)

Box 225

Box 226

Box 227 semi-structuredinterviews withparents

Box 228

Box 229 structured interviewswith primary andsecondary schoolteachers

Box 232 - no significant difference were found betweenthe study group (ES students) and the comparison groupin relation to placement in special education

Box 233

Box 234 - ES student were more likely to take higher-level subjects for their Junior Certificate

Box 235 - positive correlation emerges between ESattendance and higher examination marks inmathematics and science

Box 236 - no significant relationships emerged forother subjects

Box 237 -ES students were more likely to study aforeign language which is a entry requirement forUniversity in Ireland (50% against 33% of the controlgroup)

Box 238 the early intervention programmesupported students’ academic attainment – in maths andscience – over the long term and increased students’educational chances

Box 239

86

from local community.

Box 203 Sample: 20students aged 15 whotook part to the EarlyStart during the first yearof the programme(1994/1995). A sample ofstudents who did notattend the programmewere recruited atsecondary school forcomparison.

Box 217 -teachers’perceptions ofstudent’sachievement

Box 218

Box 219

Box 220 -socio-economicprofile of thecommunity

Box 221

Box 222

Box 223

Box 230

Box 231 Haase Index of RelativeAffluence andDeprivation &interviews withcommunityeducators

Box 240 - lack of community-based facilities that wouldallow students facing difficulties in certain subjects tobenefit from additional academic support outside theschool (individual tutorials) was identified as a criticalfactor hindering students’ progresses along their schoolcareer (‘there was a tendency to move from higher levelto ordinary level rather than seek additional academicsupport outside the school’, p. 272)

Box 241

Box 242 Limitations of the study: small samplerepresenting only the 28% of the children enrolled inEarly Years Program in 1994/1995 within the designateddisadvantaged area

Box 243 Driessen, G. E. J. M.2004. A largescalelongitudinalstudy of theutilization andeffects of earlychildhoodeducation andcare in TheNetherlands.Early ChildDevelopmentand Care, 174(7–8), 667–689.

Box 244 longitudinalstudydrawing ondata set fromnational

Box 245 survey(PRIMA)

Box 246 Thestudy aims toinvestigate theeffects of ECECparticipation onchildren’scognitivecompetencies.

Box 247 Location: TheNetherlands

Box 248 Context:longitudinal studydrawing on the data(1996-2000) of the cohortstudy PRIMA carried outon national scale.

Box 249 Sample:33,418 children studiedlongitudinally until theend of Grade 2 (in totaldata from approx. 600schools were available).A sample of homechildren were recruited atschool entry forcomparison with pre-school group.

Box 250 Methodology:statistical analysis usingboth cross-sectional andlongitudinal analyses.

Box 251 -childrencognitiveattainment

Box 252 (language andmathematicsskills)assessed inKindergarten,Grade 2 andGrade 4 ofprimary school

Box 253

Box 254 -backgroundcharacteristicof the parents

Box 255

Box 256 -type of ECECservice/programattended by

Box 258 language andmathematic skillswere measuredusingstandardised testsfrom CITO theDutch NationalInstitute forEducationalMeasurement

Box 259

Box 260

Box 261

Box 262 parent questionnaires

Box 263

Box 264

Box 265

Box 266 day-care, pre-school,targeted parent-child program(integrated,

Box 267 - only weak relations were found betweenECEC participation and children’s cognitivecompetencies

Box 268 - when relevant child and familiescharacteristic are taken into account no difference canbe noted between children who participated to ECECand ‘home’ children in relation to their cognitiveattainment in primary school

Box 269 > these findings hold for different ECEC typesof provision considered both separately and incombination

Box 270 > Findings in context:

Box 271 - ECEC provision tend to be very diverse andhighly fragmented (type of provision, availability andaccessibility, administrative responsibility for regulationand funding, care/educational purposes)

Box 272 - not all services are designed to promotecognitive, linguistic or social-emotional development ofchildren (eg. day care centres are intended to provideonly childcare in connection to parents’ participation inthe workforce)

Box 273 - not all services / programs meet thenecessary quality standard (deterioration in the quality ofday-care centres has been observed in previous

87

Box 257 children

language,development,combinations),combinations

studies34

)

Box 274 > Limitations: quality of individual ECECservices – that is acknowledged to be playing a crucialrole in promoting better cognitive outcomes on thelonger term (EPPE 3-7 & 3-11, EPPNI) – was not takeninto account in the study

Box 275 Veen, A., Roeleveld,J. en Leseman,P. (2000).Evaluatie vanKaleidoscoopen Piramide.Eindrapportage. Amsterdam:SCO-KohnstammInstituut.

Box 276 Veen, A., Derriks, M.& Roeleveld, J.(2002). Eenjaar later.Vervolgonderzoek evaluatievanKaleidoscoopen Piramide.Amsterdam:SCO-KohnstammInstituut.

Box 277 Box 278 Thestudies aim toevaluate theeffects ofKaleidoscoop andPiramide:programs onchildren’scognitivedevelopment.

Box 279

Box 280 Location: TheNetherlands

Box 281 Context:Kaleidoscoop andPiramide are ECECprograms for childrenaged 2,5 to 6,implemented in playgroups, based on activelearning. It is a Dutchadaptation ofHigh/Scope. It aims atcognitive, social andlanguage developmentfor children “at risk” (aspecial focus on ethnicminority children).

Box 282 Methodology:quasi-experimentaldesign with 4 groups: 1Kaleidoscoop (n = 108),1 Piramide (n = 115) anda control group ofcomparable children (n =102). There were largedrop-out rates at T2 and

Box 284 -children’scognitivedevelopment

Box 285

Box 286 cognitive tests (3 tests+ CITO tests) andlanguage tests(passivevocabulary)

Box 287

Box 288

Box 289

Box 290 Measurementsundertaken in1997, 1998, 1999and a follow-up in2002

Box 291

Box 292 - small and sometimes non significant positiveeffects of Kaleidoscoop on cognitive development andlanguage

Box 293

Box 294 Follow-up one year later (in 2002) yieldsinconsistent results and most results are non significant.

34 Gevers Deynoot-Schaub, M. & Riksen-Walraven, M. 2002. Kwaliteit onder druk: de kwaliteit van opvang in Nederlandse kinderdagverblijven in 1995 en 2001. Pedagogiek,22, 109–124. This study has been conducted in 2002, before the marketization of child care in The Netherlands: later studies have documented that the quality of provisionshas gone down since then. This might imply that the remark on the limited impact of ECEC in The Netherlands due to irregularity of quality may be even more true today.

88

T3 (over 50%)

Box 283 Data analysiscarried out throughmultiple regressionanalyses

Box 295 Goede,D. de &Reezigt, G.J.(2001).Implementatieen effecten vande Voorschoolin Amsterdam.Groningen:GION.

Box 296 Box 297 Thestudy aims atinvestigating theeffects ofpreschool usingKaleidoscoop onchildren’scognitivedevelopment

Box 298

Box 299 Location: TheNetherlands

Box 300 Context:Kaleidoscoop is a ECECprograms for childrenaged 2, 5 to 6,implemented inplaygroups, based onactive learning. It is aDutch adaptation ofHigh/Scope. It aims atcognitive, social andlanguage developmentfor children “at risk” (aspecial focus on ethnicminority children).

Box 301 Methodology:Quasi experimentaldesign, data analysedthrough multilevelanalyses Sample: 90children had preschooland 97 in control group,aged 3 and 4 in 1999,followed until 2001.

Box 302 -children’scognitivedevelopment

Box 303 CITO tests

Box 304

Box 305 - Effects for children who started at age 3 arelarger than for those who started at age 4: early startmatters

Box 306 -Effects are inconsistent (some negativeeffects, some non significant) and where they exist, mostare small to (seldom) moderate

Box 307

Box 308 Other studies from the Netherland in Dutch language:

Box 309 Schonewille, B., Kloprogge, J. & van der Leij, A. 2000. Kaleidoscoop en Piramide. Samenvattend Eindrapport. Utrecht: Sardes.

Box 310 > The study reports the findings of the centre-based integrated programs (Piramide and Kaleidoscoop) evaluations, focusing on the effects of such programs forchildren’s socio-emotional development.

Box 311 Tesser, P. & Iedema, J. 2001. Rapportage Minderheden 2001. Deel I. Vorderingen op School. Den Haag: SCP.

Box 312 > Review of evidences from the evaluation of parent-child programs run in the Netherlands.

Box 313 van Tuijl, C. 2002. Effecten van Opstap Opnieuw bij Follow-up. Effecten van Opstap Opnieuw bijTurkse en Marokkaanse Leerlingen op Middellange Termijn. Alkmaar:Extern Print.

Box 314 > Evaluation of the Revised Step-up program that is a well known family intervention program carried out in the Netherlands.

89

Box 315 vanTuijl, C., &Leseman, P. P.M. 2007.Increases in theverbal and fluidcognitiveabilities ofdisadvantagedchildrenattendingpreschool in theNetherlands.Early ChildhoodResearchQuarterly, 22(2), 188–203.

Box 316 longitudinalwithin-subject study

Box 317 Thestudy aims to :

Box 318 -determining thedevelopment ofverbal and fluidintelligence of 4-6-years-old Turkishand Moroccanimmigrant childrenin Dutch publicpre-school system(PS)

Box 319

Box 320 Location: TheNetherlands

Box 321 Context:longitudinal study focusingon the effects of large-scale (national-wide)ECEC public provision(PS) on the developmentof general cognitiveabilities of disadvantageschildren Sample: 300+children recruited at age 4and studied longitudinallyover a 21/2 years-periodthey spent in public pre-schools (n: 100).

Box 322 Researchdesign: short-termlongitudinal study with apre- and post- test(interval = 30 months)

Box 323 -familybackgroundcharacteristics

Box 324

Box 325 -children’sintelligence

Box 326 (verbal and fluid)

Box 327

Box 328

Box 329 -changes inintelligence

Box 330

Box 331 structured interview(index of familySES)

Box 332

Box 333 standardised test(RAKIT) withindicators ofverbal and fluidintelligence

Box 334

Box 335 difference betweennormalisedstandard score ofpre-test andpost-test:additionallygains or losseswere related toage-referencedforms

Box 336

Box 337 - intelligence of children from disadvantagedcommunities increased relative to age-norms over the21/2 years they spent in pre-school

Box 338

Box 339 therefore the attendance of pre-schoolprograms with a developmental orientation cansubstantially enhance language and cognitivedevelopment in low-income, ethnic-minority children(even within a large pre-school system of moderatequality): the impact of pre-school on these children is notlimited to domain-specific school skills but it also concernfundamental cognitive ability

Box 340

Box 341 Limitations:

Box 342 -lack of randomly assigned control group

Box 343 - the quality of individual pre-schools was nottaken into account in the study

90

Box 344 Felfe, C. and Lalive,R. 2011. HowDoes EarlyChildcare AffectChildDevelopment?Learning from

Box 345 theChildren ofGermanUnification.CESifo AreaConference onEconomics ofEducation:Center forEconomicsStudies.

Box 346 longitudinalstudydrawing ondata set fromnational

Box 347 surveys(GSOEP andGCP)

Box 348

Box 349 Thestudy aims to:

Box 350 -examine theimpact of ECECon children shortand medium rundevelopment inrelation tocognitiveoutcomes

Box 351 -discussing theincidence ofexpanding highquality care onsociety

Box 352 Location: Westand East Germany

Box 353 Context: thestudy draws on the data ofthe German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP)and German Child Panel(GCP) to evaluate theimpact of increasedaccessibility of centre-based childcare (triggeredby German Unification) onchildren’s laterdevelopment. Data onchildren’s cognitivedevelopment were drawnfrom large nationaldatasets.

Box 354 Sample: 800+children who were studiedlongitudinally from age 2to 10.

Box 355 Methodology:statistical analysis ofsurvey data covering abroad range of indicatorson child development andbackgroundcharacteristics.

Box 356 -childrencognitivedevelopment

Box 357

Box 358

Box 359

Box 360

Box 361 -family SES

Box 362

Box 363

Box 364

Box 365

Box 366

Box 367 -high quality ofchildcare inGermany isassumed ashomogeneousacrossGermanregions on thebasis of thetightness oftheirregulations

Box 368 language skillsand schoolgrades self-reported bychildren’smothers

Box 369

Box 370 householdincome and sizeand level ofparents’education

Box 371

Box 372 formal criteria aschild-staff ratio,maximum size ofthe group ofchildren, size ofthe childcarecentre, stafftraining andqualifications

Box 373 - children enrolled in childcare centres have aclear advantage in all dimensions > overall ECECpromote children non-cognitive development on theshort term

Box 374 - the positive impact of childcare attendance isgreater for children who started to attend formal careonly after supply increased (children from low socio-economic background)

Box 375 - in the medium run the difference betweenthe children who attended childcare centres and thosewho did not seem to dissipate on average

Box 376 - however children who entered childcare onlyonce it became more accessible seem to benefitsubstantially from it even several years later (betterresults in school and better social skills in the mediumterm)

Box 377

Box 378 Along with the previous study, these findingsindicates that ECEC attendance marginally promote thecognitive development of ‘average children’ while it hasa strong impact on cognitive development ofdisadvantaged children on the long term.

Box 379

Box 380

Box 381 Brilli,Y., Del Boca,D., Pronzato,C. 2011.Exploring the

Box 385 Statisticalestimationwithin aneconometric

Box 386 Thestudies aim to:

Box 387 -investigate theeffects of public

Box 388 Location: Italy

Box 389 Context: thestudy is carried out in acontext in which childcareopportunities are limited

Box 392 -children schooloutcomes atage 7 (2

nd

grade of

Box 402

Box 403 INVALSI languageand math test(school year

Box 416 - childcare coverage coefficients are alwayspositive and significant on language test score, only inareas with high rationing the coefficient of childcare ispositive and significant also for math score childcarerationing plays a role on children school outcomes but

91

Impacts ofPublicChildcare onMothers andChildren inItaly: DoesRationing Playa Role? Bonn:IZA.

Box 382

Box 383 DelBoca, D. &Pasqua, S.2010. Esitiscolastici ecomporta

Box 384 mentali, famiglia eservizi perl’infanzia (tr.Cognitive andnon-cognitiveoutcomes,family andchildcare).Torino:FondazioneGiovanniAgnelli.

model childcare (0-3services)coverage onchildren scholasticachievements

both in terms ofavailability (which variesgreatly among regions)and costs

35and in which

accessibility criteria differacross municipalities. Thestudy draws on thedataset of INVALSI (ItalianInstitute for Evaluation ofthe Education System)and of Cittadinanza Attiva(data on public childcarecoverage at the provinciallevel).

Box 390 Sample:27,000+ childrenassessed at age 7 (2

nd

grade of primary school).

Box 391 Methodology:statistical regressionanalysis of survey datacovering a broad range ofindicators on child, familyand environmentalcharacteristics.

primaryschool)

Box 393

Box 394 -childrencharacteristics(gender andcitizenship)

Box 395 -familycharacteristics(parents’working statusand education)

Box 396 -environmen

Box 397 talcharacteri

Box 398 stics

Box 399

Box 400

Box 401 -measure ofchildcarecoverageduring theschool year2002-2003(when children)

2008-2009)

Box 404

Box 405

Box 406

Box 407

Box 408

Box 409 information providedby INVALSI dataset (reported bythe schools)

Box 410

Box 411

Box 412

Box 413 information on GDPper capita byprovince

Box 414

Box 415 percentage ratiobetween publicchildcare slotsand populationaged 0-2 yearsby province

given the lack of information on eligibility criteria (eg.priority given to children with working mothers or todisadvantaged children) the effect of rationing cannot bedisentangled.

Box 417 - paternal and maternal education have apositive and significant impact on children test scores

Box 418 -non-Italian children perform worse than theirItalian peer especially in language test

Box 419 - heterogeneous effects: a) childcare effectsbecome stronger when rationing is higher and thisseems particularly true for language test scores; b)childcare availability impact are stronger on languagetest score for children with low educated mothers and inlow GDP areas, who are likely to benefit more fromchildcare opportunities than their counterparts Theseresults are consistent with the findings of previousstudies showing that public childcare may enhanceeducational opportunities of children from adisadvantage background. The fact that the impact ofchildcare availability on children’s cognitive developmentis higher for children with low educated mothers living inlow-income areas, highlight the importance ofRATIONING CHILDCARE according to family SEScriteria and to increase CHILDCARE AVAILABILTYespecially in DISADVANTAGED areas.

Box 420 Limitation of the study: a) childcare qualitywas not taken into account although quality of publicprovision can be assumed to be rather high due to itseducational orientation and quality regulationsintroduced at regional level; b) the effects of rationingcriteria could not be disentangled.

Box 421 Andersson, B. E.1989. Effects of

Box 423 Naturally-occurring

Box 424 Thestudy aims toinvestigate the

Box 425 Location:Sweden

Box 429 -cognitiveoutcomes at

Box 445 WISC (1979) verbaland non-verbal

Box 451 -children entering day care at an early stage(before age1) perform significantly better on cognitivetests and received more positive ratings from their

35 Del Boca, D. 2010. Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union: policy overview and policy impact analysis. A case study: Italy. Budapest & Brussels: TARKI-Applica.

92

public day-care:a longitudinalstudy. ChildDevelopment,60, 857– 866.

Box 422 Andersson, B. E.1992. Effects ofday care oncognitive andsocio -emotionalcompetence inthirteen-year-old Swedishschool children.ChildDevelopment,63, 20–36.

prospectiveevaluation

long-term effectsof day-care onchildren’scognitivedevelopment.

Box 426 Context: thestudy follows longitudinallychildren from the first yearof life up to age 8 (1989)and 13 (follow-up, 1992).

Box 427 Sample: 128children and their familiesliving in 8 low- and middle-resource neighborhoods inStockholm and Goteborg.92% and 87% of thechildren remained in thestudy at age 8 and 13respectively.

Box 428 Method:hierarchical regressionanalysis.

age 8 and 13

Box 430

Box 431

Box 432

Box 433

Box 434

Box 435

Box 436

Box 437

Box 438

Box 439 -day-careattendance

Box 440

Box 441

Box 442

Box 443

Box 444 -familybackground

subtests

Box 446 teachers’ rating ofchildren’s schoolperformance ona 5 points scale

Box 447

Box 448 ageof entry, type ofcare (centrecare, familydaycare, mixedcare)

Box 449

Box 450 mother’s education,occupationalstatus, familytype

teachers in terms of school achievement both at age 8and 13 (at age 13 school performance is rated lowestamong children without out-of-home care) early startmatter: age of entry in daycare seems to have significantdirect effect on children cognitive competence evenwhen background variables are controlled

Box 452 - centre care is associated with bettercognitive development (although effects are less clearand extensive)

Box 453 -the overall high quality of Swedish day-carecentres, the training of personnel and family day-carersand the availability of paid parental leave during the first6/7 months might account for the repetitive differences inthe effects of day-care cross-nationally

Box 454 positive and long lasting effects of childcareon children’s cognitive development were found: giventhese findings it can be hypothesized that negativeeffects of early day-care (Belsky, 1986 & 1987; Vandelland Corasinti, 1990) may occur when day-care beginsbefore 6 months and when it is of poor quality: thefindings of this study shows if children are attending highquality settings they might enter a positive trajectory thatpromote their cognitive development on the long term(until teen years).

Box 455 Limitation: the findings of this study might notbe generalisable beyond Scandinavian countries inwhich overall high quality, universally accessiblechildcare is provided and SES differences in populationare less marked than elsewhere.

Box 456 Broberg, A. G.,Wessels, H.,Lamb, M. E.and Hwang,C.P. 1997.Effects of daycare on thedevelopment ofcognitiveabilities ineight-year-olds:

Box 457 Naturallyoccurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 458 Thestudy aim toinvestigate thelong-term effectsof daycare onchildren cognitivedevelopment(attainment at age8 in 2

ndgrade of

primary school)

Box 459 Location:Sweden

Box 460 Context: thestudy followedlongitudinally children from16 months – when theywere not attending out-of-home care yet – up to age8.

Box 461 Sample: 146children and their families

Box 463 -childrencognitiveoutcomesmeasured atage 28, 40, 80and 101months

Box 464

Box 465

Box 466 -

Box 479 standardised tests onverbal andmathematicalabilities andobservation byprofessionalpsychologists

Box 480

Box 481 children’s

Box 488 - Tested ability was related to the number ofmonths children had spent in center-based day carebefore 3.5 years of age early start matter

Box 489

Box 490 - Child care quality predicted cognitive abilitiesamong children who had spent at least 36 months in out-of-home care during their preschool years: children whoattended centre-based care consistently performedbetter than other children on cognitive abilities tests(once controlled for background variables)

Box 491

93

a longitudinalstudy.DevelopmentalPsychology, 33,62-69.

living in low- and middle-resource neighborhoods inGoteborg. Before 20months of age, 54 childrenentered center care, 33entered family day carewhile 59 did not attendany form of out-of-homecare (home care group).

Box 462 Method:regression analysis.

childbackgroundcharacteristics

Box 467

Box 468 -familybackgroundcharacteristic

Box 469

Box 470 -quality ofhomeenvironment

Box 471

Box 472

Box 473

Box 474

Box 475

Box 476

Box 477

Box 478 -quality out-of-home careenvironment

temperament (asreported byparents)

Box 482

Box 483 SES, family type,paternalinvolvement

Box 484

Box 485 Home Observationfor Measurementof theEnvironment(HOME) & ChildRearingPractices Report(CRPR)

Box 486

Box 487 structural anddynamicmeasures (SpotObservationChecklist) drawnby observationsand interviewswith caregivers

Box 492 - dynamic measures of quality (adult-childinteraction) predicted verbal abilities while structuralmeasures (child:staff ratio, group size and age range)predicted mathematical abilities

Box 493

Box 494 -the quality of home environment predictedverbal abilities only in earlier phases: no longerpredictive when children are in 2

ndgrade

Box 495

Box 496 -family SES (maternal and paternaloccupation) did not predict children’s performance ofcognitive abilities in 2

ndgrade

Box 497

Box 498 high quality out-of-home care has positiveand lost lasting effects on children cognitivedevelopment

Box 499

Box 500 Limitation: the findings of this study might notbe generalised beyond Scandinavian countries in whichoverall high quality, universally accessible childcare isprovided and SES differences in population are lessmarked than elsewhere.

94

Box 501 Havnes, T., andMogstad, M.2011. No ChildLeft Behind:SubsidizedChild Care andChildren'sLong-RunOutcomes.AmericanEconomicJournal:EconomicPolicy, 3(2):97–129.

Box 502 Open accessversion:Havnes, T., andMogstad, M.2009. No ChildLeft Behind:Universal ChildCare andChildren'sLong-RunOutcomes.StatisticsNorway:ResearchDepartment.

Box 503 Diffence-in-difference(DD)estimates

Box 504 Theaim of the study isto analyse theintroduction ofsubsidized,universallyaccessiblechildcare inNorwayaddressing theimpact of onchildren long-runoutcomes(educationalattainment).

Box 505 To elicitcausalrelationshipbetween childcareand children’slong-termeducationalattainment a DDapproach thatexploit a childcarereform from 1975in Norway is usedfor carrying outthe estimation.

Box 506 Location:Norway

Box 507 Context:providing evidence oflong-term effects ofchildcare on childreneducational attainment ina context of subsidizedand universally accessibleservices > Scandinaviancontribution to theinternational policy debateon ECEC gainingincreasing attention in US,Canada and EU.

Box 508 Sample:499.000+ children(318.300+ families)distributed across 3cohorts (pre-reform,phase-in, post-reform).Treatment andcomparison groups weredefined according tomunicipal childcare (3-6services) coverage ratesin the expansion periodafter the reform (1976-1979).

Box 509 Method:comparing adultsoutcomes – in terms ofyears spent in education –by age 30-33 in 2006using a statisticalregression model for dataanalysis.

Box 510 -child andfamilybackground

Box 511

Box 512

Box 513

Box 514

Box 515

Box 516

Box 517

Box 518

Box 519 -childcarecoverage in418 Norwegianmunicipalities

Box 520

Box 521

Box 522

Box 523

Box 524 -adultoutcomes

Box 525 Statistic Norwaydatasetcontainingunique individualidentifiers thatallow to matchparents and theirchildren

Box 526

Box 527 administrativeregister data onformal childcareinstitutions andtheir location(StatisticNorway)

Box 528

Box 529

Box 530 number ofcompleted yearsof education in2006 (data drawnfrom annualreports fromNorwegianeducationalestablishment)

Box 531 Difference-in-difference estimates show that:

Box 532 -childcare attendance substantially improvededucational attainment of children in the long term (inaggregate terms additional 17.500 childcare placesproduced 6.200 years of education)

Box 533 - childcare expansion improved childreneducational chances by raising the chances ofcompleting high school and attending college

Box 534 -subsample analysis indicates the greatesteffects on education stems from children with loweducated mothers

Box 535 overall the findings of the estimatesindicate that universal access to subsidized childcarelevels the playing field by increasing intergenerationalmobility

Box 536

Box 537 Limitation: the findings of this study might notbe generalised beyond Scandinavian countries in whichoverall high quality, universally accessible childcare isprovided and SES differences in population are lessmarked than elsewhere.

Box 538

95

B. Studies exploring the relations between ECEC and children non-cognitive outcomes

Box 539 Study reference

Box 540 Study Type

Box 541 Aim Box 542 MethodologyBox 543 Whatwas studied

Box 544 Howwas it studied

Box 545 Summary key findings (B,2)

Box 546 Sylva, K., Melhuish,E. C.,Sammons, P.,Siraj-Blatchford, I.and Taggart, B.2004. TheEffectiveProvision ofPre-SchoolEducation(EPPE) Project.Effective Pre-SchoolEducation.London: DfES /Institute ofEducation,University ofLondon.

Box 547

Box 548 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 549 Study toinvestigate:

Box 550 - theimpact of pre-schoolon children social/

Box 551 behavioural development

Box 552 - thecharacteristic ofeffective pre-schoolsetting in thisregards

Box 553 - thelong-terms effectsof pre-school onchildren socio-behaviouraloutcomes throughKey Stage 1 (firstand second year ofprimary schoolattended by childrenaged 6 and 7)

Box 554 - theimpact of the homeand childcarehistory on childrendevelopment

Box 555 Location:England

Box 556 Context:

Box 557 Five-yearsstudy funded by DfESwith the purpose ofproducing researchevidences for policy-making

Box 558 Sample:3,000 children recruitedat age 3+ and studiedlongitudinally until theend of Key-Stage 1. Asample of homechildren were recruitedat school entry forcomparison with pre-school group

Box 559 Methodology: statistical analysisusing a multi-levelmodeling to explore thevalue added by pre-school after takingaccount of child,parents, homebackground factors

Box 560 -Children social/behaviouraldevelopment(attainment) at 3,4/5, 6 and 7 yearsof age

Box 561

Box 562 -backgroundcharacteristic ofthe parents andhome learningenvironment

Box 563

Box 564 -quality of pre-school settings(141 among LAday nursery,integratedcentres,playgroups,private daynurseries, nurseryschools andnursery classes)

Box 565 social/behaviouralprofiles compiledby pre-schoolworkers andprimary schoolstaff

Box 566

Box 567 parentalinterviews

Box 568

Box 569

Box 570 ECERS-E ratingscale

Box 571 casestudiesobservations andinterviews in 12centres whichshowed to be themost effective(effectivenessbased on theprogress childrenmade aftercontrolling pre-test and socialbackground)

Box 572 -pre-school attendance, compared to none,enhance children’ all round development: bettercognitive and non-cognitive outcomes

Box 573 - quality of pre-school settings matters:higher quality is related to better social/behaviouraldevelopment whose effects are lasting throughoutKS1 (social behavioural development at age 6)

Box 574 - high quality is associated with staffqualification (5), warm and responsive interaction tochildren’s individual needs (1-7) and effectivepedagogy(2-3-4-6)

Box 575 - effective pedagogy include a balancedcurriculum (promoting education and socialdevelopment as complementary), a good mix ofteacher-initiated and child-initiated activities andbehaviour policies in which staff support children inrationalising their conflicts

Box 576 - centres integrating education and care,combining flexible hours for childcare along withsubstantial health and family supports services havethe highest scores on pre-school quality

Box 577 -there is a strong relationship betweenfamilies background characteristics and childrensocial/behavioural development however the qualityof home learning environment (HLE) is moreimportant than SES

Box 578 - the centres that encouraged high levelsof parents engagement in their children learning andinvolved them in decision-making about childrenlearning program lead to better gains for children

Box 579 Sammons, P.,Sylva, K.,Melhuish, E.,Siraj-Blatchford, I.,

Box 580 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 581 Thestudy aim to:

Box 582 - exploreevidences ofcontinuing pre-

Box 584 Location:England

Box 585 Context:follow up of the EPPIstudy (3-7) funded by

Box 588 -Children social/behaviouraldevelopment(attainment) atage 10

Box 593 assessed byteachers usingGoodman (1997)Strengths anddifficulties

Box 596 - pre-school quality and effectiveness stillmatters for children’s social / behaviouraldevelopmental outcomes at age 10, in particular:

Box 597

Box 598 > overall attending pre-school still have a

96

Taggart, B.,Barreau, S. andGrabbe, Y.2007. TheEffective Pre-School andPrimaryEducation 3-11Project (EPPE3-11).Influences onChildren’sDevelopmentand Progressin Key Stage2: Social/behaviouraloutcomes inYear 5.London: DfES /Institute ofEducation,University ofLondon.

school influenceson children’s social /behaviouraldevelopmentthroughout KeyStage 2 of primaryeducation (attendedby children aged 7to 10)

Box 583 - toanalyse thecombined effect of agood early yearsHLE, and goodquality pre-schoolon social /behaviouraldevelopment at age10

DfES with the purposeof producing researchevidences for policy-making

Box 586 Sample:2,500 children of theoriginal sample studiedlongitudinally until theend of KS2. A sampleof home children wererecruited forcomparison with pre-school group.

Box 587 Methodology: statistical analysisusing a contextualisedmulti-level model toanalyse the combinedeffects of HLE, pre-school and primaryschool effectiveness onchildren social /behaviouraldevelopment

Box 589

Box 590

Box 591 -backgroundcharacteristic ofthe parents andhome learningenvironment

Box 592

questionnaire

Box 594

Box 595 parents’interviews andparentalquestionnaire

positive effect on children’s ‘pro-social behaviour’

Box 599

Box 600 > attending higher quality pre-school stillhave a positive impact on all aspects of socialdevelopment: ‘self-regulation’, ‘hyperactivity’, ‘pro-social’ and ‘anti-social behaviour’

Box 601

Box 602 > by contrast attending a low quality pre-school does not lead to longer term benefits onchildren’ social / behavioural development

Box 603

Box 604

Box 605 - furthermore findings indicates that no onefactor – quality of pre-school, HLE or schooleffectiveness – is the key in enhancing social /behavioural outcomes throughout KS2 but rather isthe combination of experiences over time that matters

Box 606 Melhuish, E., Quinn,L., Hanna, K.,Sylva, K.,Sammons, P.,Siraj-Blatchford, I.and Taggart, B.2006. TheEffective Pre-SchoolProvision inNorthernIreland (EPPNI)Project.Summaryreport. Belfast:

Box 607 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 608 Thestudy aims toinvestigate:

Box 609 - theimpact of pre-schoolon children social/behaviouraldevelopment

Box 610 -characteristics ofeffective pre-schoolsetting in thisregards

Box 611 - thelong-terms effectsof pre-school onchildren educational

Box 613 Location:Northern Ireland

Box 614 Context:longitudinal studyfunded by DE,DHSSPS and SSG withthe purpose ofproducing researchevidences for policy-making

Box 615 Sample: 800children recruited atage 3+ and studiedlongitudinally until theend of Key-Stage 1. Asample of homechildren were recruited

Box 617 -Children social/

Box 618 behaviouraldevelopment(attainment) at 3,4, 5, 6, 7 and 8years of age

Box 619 -backgroundcharacteristic ofthe parents andhome learningenvironment

Box 620 -quality of pre-school settings (

Box 621 childsocial behaviouralprofiles compiledby pre-school andprimary schoolstaff

Box 622 parental interviews

Box 623 ECERS-E ratingscale

Box 624 intensive casestudiesobservations andinterviews in 3centres where

Box 625 - pre-school attendance enhances allround (cognitive and social) development of allchildren

Box 626 - attendance of high quality pre-school isrelated to better social/behavioural outcomes

Box 627 - high quality is associated with staffqualification and professional development (1), strongleadership and strong philosophy for the settingshared by all staff (1), ethos and emotional climate ofthe setting (warm and responsive interaction with thechildren, 2), parental partnership (3), pedagogy(providing opportunities to extend children learningthrough play and self-directed activities, 4)

Box 628 - nursery schools/classes have the highestscores on pre-school quality

Box 629 - for all children the quality of the home

97

Department ofEducation,Department ofHealth, SocialServices andPublic Safety,and SocialSteering Group.

attainment throughKey-Stage 1(children up to 8years)

Box 612 - theimpact of the homeand childcarehistory on childrendevelopment

at school entry forcomparison with pre-school group

Box 616 Methodology: statistical analysisusing a multi-levelmodel to explore thevalue added by pre-school after takingaccount of child,parents and homebackground factors

80 among nurseryschools / classes,playgroups,private daynurseries,reception classesand receptiongroups)

there had beenindication of goodpractices (nurseryschool, privateday nursery and aplaygroup)

learning environment is more important for children’sintellectual and social development than parentaloccupation, education and income (what the parentsdo is more important than who parents are) thereforefostering active parental engagement with childrenare likely to benefit children social development andattainment at school

Box 630 - vulnerable children who attend pre-schooltend to be less ‘at risk’ of developing SEN even aftertaking into account background factors

Box 631 Shirley, M. 2010. AnEarly ChildhoodInterventionProgrammeand the longterm Outcomesfor Students.Child Care inPractice, 16(3):257-274.

Box 632 Small scalelongitudinalstudy

Box 633 The aimof the study is toevaluate the impactof the Early StartProgramme onchildren non-cognitive outcomesat age 15.

Box 634 Location:ROI (disadvantagedurban community)

Box 635 Context:Early Start (ES) is anearly childhoodintervention programoffered in withinselected school indesignateddisadvantaged areas >targeted programmedesigned to promotelanguage, cognitivedevelopment and toprevent school failure.

Box 636 Methodology: non-randomisedmultimethod researchdesign involvingstudents, parents,teachers andparticipants from localcommunity.

Box 637 Sample: 20students aged 15 whotook part to the EarlyStart programme duringits first year

Box 638 -children non-cognitiveoutcomes

Box 639

Box 640

Box 641

Box 642 -familybackground

Box 643

Box 644

Box 645

Box 646 -teachers’perceptions ofstudent’sachievement

Box 647

Box 648

Box 649 - socio-economic profileof the community

Box 650

Box 651

Box 652

Box 653 standardised interviewbased onRosenberg Self-Esteem Scale(RSE)

Box 654

Box 655 semi-structuredinterviews withparents

Box 656

Box 657 structured interviewswith primary andsecondary schoolteachers

Box 658

Box 659 Haase Index ofRelative Affluenceand Deprivation &interviews withcommunityeducators

Box 660

Box 661 - ES students were rated more positivelyby their secondary school teachers in terms of theirsocial skills although no correlation was foundbetween RSE score and participation to the ESprogramme

Box 662

Box 663

Box 664 Limitations of the study: small samplerepresenting only the 28% of the children enrolled inEarly Years Program in 1994/1995 within thedesignated disadvantaged area

Box 665

98

(1994/1995). A sampleof students who did notattend the programmewere recruited forcomparison.

99

Box 666 Driessen, G. E. J. M.2004. A largescalelongitudinalstudy of theutilization andeffects of earlychildhoodeducation andcare in TheNetherlands.Early ChildDevelopmentand Care, 174(7–8), 667–689.

Box 667 longitudinalstudydrawing ondata set fromnational

Box 668 survey(PRIMA)

Box 669 Thestudy aims toinvestigate theeffects of ECECparticipation onchildren’s non-cognitivecompetencies.

Box 670 Location:The Netherlands

Box 671 Context:longitudinal studydrawing on the data(1996-2000) of thecohort study PRIMAcarried out on nationalscale.

Box 672 Sample:33,418 children studiedlongitudinally until theend of Grade 2 (in totaldata from approx. 600schools wereavailable). A sample ofhome children wererecruited at schoolentry for comparisonwith pre-school group.

Box 673 Methodology: statistical analysisusing both cross-sectional andlongitudinal analyses.

Box 674 -children non-cognitiveattainment

Box 675 (socialbehaviour, self-confidence, workattitude, wellbeing) assessedin Kindergarten,Grade 2 andGrade 4 ofprimary school

Box 676

Box 677 -backgroundcharacteristic ofthe parents

Box 678

Box 679 - typeof ECEC service/programattended by

Box 680 Children

Box 681 students profileswere compiled bythe teachers toobtain animpression ofchildren’s non-cognitivecompetencies

Box 682

Box 683

Box 684

Box 685

Box 686

Box 687 parent questionnaires

Box 688

Box 689

Box 690 day-care, pre-school,targeted parent-child program(integrated,language,development,combinations),combinations

Box 691 - only weak relations were found betweenECEC participation and children’s non-cognitivecompetencies

Box 692 - when relevant child and familiescharacteristic are taken into account no differencecan be noted between children who participated toECEC and ‘home’ children in relation to their non-cognitive attainment in primary school

Box 693 > these findings hold for different ECECtypes of provision considered both separately and incombination

Box 694 > Findings in context:

Box 695 - ECEC provision tend to be very diverseand highly fragmented (type of provision, availabilityand accessibility, administrative responsibility forregulation and funding, care/educational purposes)

Box 696 - not all services are designed to promotecognitive, linguistic or social-emotional developmentof children (eg. day care centres are intended toprovide only childcare in connection to parents’participation in the workforce)

Box 697 - not all services / programs meet thenecessary quality standard (deterioration in thequality of day-care centres has been observed inprevious studies

36)

Box 698 > Limitations: quality of individual ECECservices – that is acknowledged to be playing acrucial role in promoting better cognitive outcomes onthe longer term (EPPE 3-7 & 3-11, EPPNI) – was nottaken into account in the study

Box 699 VeenBox 701 Box 702 The Box 704 Location: Box 708 - Box 709 R- Box 716 - no effects on children’s social

36 Gevers Deynoot-Schaub, M. & Riksen-Walraven, M. 2002. Kwaliteit onder druk: de kwaliteit van opvang in Nederlandse kinderdagverblijven in 1995 en 2001. Pedagogiek,22, 109–124. This study has been conducted in 2002, before the marketization of child care in The Netherlands: later studies have documented that the quality of provisionshas gone down since then (De Kruif et al., 2009). This might imply that the remark on the limited impact of ECEC in The Netherlands due to irregularity of quality may beeven more true today.

100

, A., Roeleveld,J. en Leseman,P. (2000).Evaluatie vanKaleidoscoopen Piramide.Eindrapportage. Amsterdam:SCO-KohnstammInstituut.

Box 700 Veen, A., Derriks, M.& Roeleveld, J.(2002). Eenjaar later.Vervolgonderzoek evaluatievanKaleidoscoopen Piramide.Amsterdam:SCO-KohnstammInstituut.

studies aim toevaluate the effectsof Kaleidoscoopand Piramideprograms onchildren non-cognitivedevelopment.

Box 703

The Netherlands

Box 705 Context:Kaleidoscoop andPiramide are ECECprograms for childrenaged 2,5 to 6,implemented in playgroups, based onactive learning. It is aDutch adaptation ofHigh/Scope. It aims atcognitive, social andlanguage developmentfor children “at risk” (aspecial focus on ethnicminority children).

Box 706 Methodology: quasi-experimentaldesign with 4 groups: 1Kaleidoscoop (n = 108),1 Piramide (n = 115)and a control group ofcomparable children (n= 102). There werelarge drop-out rates atT2 and T3 (over 50%)

Box 707 Dataanalysis carried outthrough multipleregression analyses

children socio-emotionaldevelopment

Schobl (Bleichrodtet al, 1993), filledin by the teacher

Box 710

Box 711

Box 712

Box 713

Box 714

Box 715 Measurementsundertaken in1997, 1998, 1999and a follow-up in2002

development

Box 717

Box 718 Follow-up one year later (in 2002) yieldsinconsistent results and most results are nonsignificant.

Box 719 Other studies from the Netherland in Dutch language:

Box 720 Schonewille, B., Kloprogge, J. & van der Leij, A. 2000. Kaleidoscoop en Piramide. Samenvattend Eindrapport. Utrecht: Sardes.

Box 721 > The study reports the findings of the centre-based integrated programs (Piramide and Kaleidoscoop) evaluations, focusing on the effects of such programs forchildren’s socio-emotional development.

Box 722 Tesser, P. & Iedema, J. 2001. Rapportage Minderheden 2001. Deel I. Vorderingen op School. Den Haag: SCP.

Box 723 > Review of evidences from the evaluation of parent-child programs run in the Netherlands.

Box 724 van Tuijl, C. 2002. Effecten van Opstap Opnieuw bij Follow-up. Effecten van Opstap Opnieuw bijTurkse en Marokkaanse Leerlingen op Middellange Termijn. Alkmaar:Extern Print.

Box 725 > Evaluation of the Revised Step-up program that is a well known family intervention program carried out in the Netherlands.

101

Box 726 Felfe, C. and Lalive,R. 2011. HowDoes EarlyChildcare AffectChildDevelopment?Learning from

Box 727 theChildren ofGermanUnification.CESifo AreaConference onEconomics ofEducation:Center forEconomicsStudies.

Box 728

Box 729 longitudinalstudydrawing ondata set fromnational

Box 730 surveys(GSOEP andGCP)

Box 731

Box 732 Thestudy aims to:

Box 733 -examine the impactof ECEC onchildren short andmedium rundevelopment inrelation to non-cognitive outcomes

Box 734 -discussing theincidence ofexpanding highquality care onsociety

Box 735 Location:West and EastGermany

Box 736 Context: thestudy draws on thedata of the GermanSocio-Economic Panel(GSOEP) and GermanChild Panel (GCP) toevaluate the impact ofincreased accessibilityof centre-basedchildcare (triggered byGerman Unification) onchildren laterdevelopment. Data onchildren non-cognitivedevelopment weredrawn from largenational datasets.

Box 737 Sample:800+ children who werestudied longitudinallyfrom age 2 to 10.

Box 738 Methodology: statistical analysis ofsurvey data covering abroad range ofindicators on childdevelopment andbackgroundcharacteristics.

Box 739 -children non-cognitivedevelopment

Box 740

Box 741

Box 742

Box 743

Box 744

Box 745

Box 746 - familySES

Box 747

Box 748

Box 749

Box 750

Box 751

Box 752 - highquality ofchildcare inGermany isassumed ashomogeneousacross Germanregions on thebasis of thetightness of theirregulations

Box 753 independence socialskills, behaviour,personality andmotor skills self-reported bychildren’s mothers

Box 754

Box 755 household incomeand size and levelof parents’education

Box 756

Box 757 formal criteria aschild-staff ratio,maximum size ofthe group ofchildren, size ofthe childcarecentre, stafftraining andqualifications

Box 758 - children enrolled in childcare centreshave a clear advantage in all dimensions > overallECEC promote children non-cognitive developmenton the short term

Box 759 - the positive impact of childcareattendance is greater for children who started toattend formal care only after supply increased(children from low socio-economic background)

Box 760 - in the medium run the difference betweenthe children who attended childcare centres andthose who did not seem to dissipate on average

Box 761 - however children who entered childcareonly once it became more accessible seem to benefitsubstantially from it even several years later (betterresults in school and better social skills in the mediumterm)

Box 762

Box 763 These findings indicates that ECECattendance marginally promote the non-cognitivedevelopment of ‘average children’ while it has astrong impact on the social development ofdisadvantaged children on the long term.

Box 764

Box 765 DelBoca, D. &Pasqua, S.2010. Esiti

Box 767 Statisticalestimationwithin an

Box 768 Thestudies aim to:

Box 769 -investigate the

Box 770 Location:Italy

Box 771 Context: thestudy is carried out in a

Box 774 -children non-cognitiveoutcomes in

Box 793 assessed by parentsand teachersthrough a

Box 799 - parents’ level of education is notsignificantly correlated to children non-cognitiveoutcomes

Box 800

102

scolastici ecomporta

Box 766 mentali, famiglia eservizi perl’infanzia. (tr.Cognitive andnon-cognitiveoutcomes,family andchildcare)Torino: FondazioneGiovanniAgnelli.

econometricmodel

effects of childcareattendance (0-3services) onchildren non-cognitive outcomes

context in whichchildcare opportunitiesare relatively limitedboth in terms ofavailability and costs

37

and in whichaccessibility criteriadiffer acrossmunicipalities. Thestudy draws on thedataset elaborated bythe PsychologyDepartment of TurinUniversity (2008-2009).

Box 772 Sample:1,000+ primary schoolchildren living thesurrounding of Turinarea.

Box 773 Methodology: statistical regressionanalysis of survey datacovering a broad rangeof indicators on childand familycharacteristics.

primary school(1

stto 4

thgrade)

Box 775

Box 776

Box 777

Box 778

Box 779

Box 780

Box 781

Box 782

Box 783

Box 784

Box 785 -childrencharacteristics

Box 786 - familycharacteristics(parents’ workingstatus andeducation)

Box 787 -children’schildcareattendance (0-3services)

Box 788

Box 789

Box 790

Box 791

Box 792

questionnaire

Box 794 (abilityto listen, toconcentrate, toestablishinterpersonalrelationships, tocooperate withpeers andcreativity)

Box 795

Box 796

Box 797 information providedby the datasetelaborated by thePsychologyDepartment ofTurin University.

Box 798

Box 801 - attendance of formal childcare has apositive and significant impact on all the non-cognitive indicators considered in the study

Box 802

Box 803 these findings confirm the importance ofearly socialising experiences for the non-cognitivedevelopment of children

Box 804

Box 805 Limitation of the study: childcare qualitywas not taken into account although quality of publicprovision can be assumed to be rather high due to itseducational orientation and quality regulationsintroduced at regional level.

Box 806

Box 807

Box 808

Box 809

37 Del Boca, D. 2010. Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union: policy overview and policy impact analysis. A case study: Italy. Budapest & Brussels: TARKI-Applica.

103

Box 810 Andersson, B. E.1989. Effects ofpublic day-care:a longitudinalstudy. ChildDevelopment,60, 857– 866.

Box 811

Box 812 Andersson, B. E.1992. Effects ofday care oncognitive andsocio-emotionalcompetence inthirteen-year-old Swedishschool children.ChildDevelopment,63, 20–36.

Box 813 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation(longitudinalstudy)

Box 814 Thestudy aims toinvestigate the long-term effects of day-care on children’ssocial and personaldevelopment.

Box 815 Location:Sweden

Box 816 Context: thestudy followslongitudinally childrenfrom the first year of lifeup to age 8 (1989) and13 (follow-up, 1992).

Box 817 Sample: 128children and theirfamilies living in 8 low-and middle-resourceneighborhood inStockholm andGoteborg. 92% and87% of the childrenremained in the studyat age 8 and 13respectively.

Box 818 Method:hierarchical regressionanalysis.

Box 819 - non-cognitiveoutcomes at age8 and 13

Box 820

Box 821

Box 822

Box 823

Box 824

Box 825

Box 826

Box 827

Box 828

Box 829 -day-care attendance

Box 830

Box 831

Box 832

Box 833

Box 834 -familybackground

Box 835 social competence andpersonaldevelopment weremeasured througha 52-itemsquestionnairefilled out byschool teachers

Box 836

Box 837

Box 838 ageof entry, type ofcare (centre care,family daycare,mixed care)

Box 839

Box 840 mother’s education,occupationalstatus, family type

Box 841

Box 842 -children entering day care at an earlystage (before age1) received more positive ratingsfrom their teachers in terms of their socio-emotionaldevelopment both at age 8 and 13 compared to thoseentering day-care in a later age or those in home-care) age of entry in daycare seems to have significantdirect effect on children social competence evenwhen background variables are controlled

Box 843 -SES and children’s intelligence affect theratings of socio-emotional competence both at age 8and 13

Box 844 -the overall high quality of Swedish day-care centres, the training of personnel and family day-carers and the availability of paid parental leaveduring the first 6/7 months might account for therepetitive differences in the effects of day-care cross-nationally

Box 845 no adverse effect of early entry into day-care on children’s socio-emotional development werefound: given these findings it can be hypotised thatnegative effects of early day-care (Belsky, 1986 &1987; Vandell and Corasinti, 1990) may occur whenday-care begins before 6 months and when it is ofpoor quality: the findings of this study shows ifchildren are attending high quality settings they mightenter a positive trajectory that promote their cognitivedevelopment on the long term (until teen years).

Box 846 Limitation: the findings of this study mightnot be generalised beyond Scandinavian countries inwhich overall high quality, universally accessiblechildcare is provided and SES differences inpopulation are less marked than elsewhere.

Box 847 Datta Gupta, N. andSimonsen, M.2007. Non-cognitive ChildOutcomes andUniversal HighQuality ChildCare. Bonn:

Box 849 Statisticalestimationexploitinglarge scaledataset onchildrenoutcomes(Danish

Box 850 Thestudy aim toinvestigate theeffects on child non-cognitive outcomesof enrolment inuniversal publiclysubsidized highquality center

Box 852 Location:Denmark

Box 853 Context: thestudy contributes to theliterature on the impactof large scale ECECprograms on children’soutcomes, informing

Box 855 -children non-cognitiveoutcomes

Box 856

Box 857

Box 858

Box 859

Box 869 strengths anddifficultiesquestionnaireindex (Goodman,1997)

Box 870

Box 871 gend

Box 879 - on average pre-school attendance at 3years, compared to home care, does not lead tosignificant difference in children non-cognitiveoutcomes at age 7 > these findings are in contrastwith those of Belsky et al. (2007) who reportnegative effects of centre-based care on childrensocial and behavioural outcomes: this might beexplained by the fact that Danish pre-school are lessteacher-directed and more oriented toward

104

IZA DiscussionPaper. (Alsopublished in:Journal ofPublicEconomics,2010, 94:1-2,30-43)

Box 848

LongitudinalSurvey ofChildren)merged withadministrative recordsalong withpseudo-experimentgeneratingvariation inpre-schooltake upacrossDanishmunicipalities

Box 851 basedchild care andfamily day care forthree-year-olds inDenmark vis-à-vishome care.

about the effects ofdifferent typology ofcare arrangementsacross a range ofdifferent socioeconomicbackground (universalpublicly subsidized highquality childcare).

Box 854 Sample:6.000 children bornbetween Sep-Oct 1995whose outcomes weresurveyed at age: 6months, 3.5 and 7.5years old (1

stgrade

primary school).

Box 860 -childbackgroundcharacteristics

Box 861

Box 862 -childcareenrolment

Box 863

Box 864 -modeof care andnumber of hoursin care

Box 865

Box 866

Box 867

Box 868 -parentalbackground

er, family type…

Box 872

Box 873

Box 874 measured at age 3.5

Box 875

Box 876 pre-school, familydaycare, homecare

Box 877

Box 878 SES,mother educationand occupationalstatus, firstlanguage spoken

socialization than pre-K programs in US

Box 880

Box 881 - family day care seems to deterioratebehavioural outcomes for boys whose mothers havea lower level of educationestimations suggest thatpre-school outperforms family daycare for the overallpopulation

Box 882

Box 883 - finally longer hours – between 40-50hours per week – lead to poorer children’s outcomes

Box 884

Box 885

C. Studies investigating the links between ECEC and successful transition into school

Box 886 Study reference

Box 887 Study Type

Box 888 Aim Box 889 Methodology Box 890 What was studied

Box 891 Howwas it studied

Box 892 Summary key findings (B,3)

Box 893 Sylva, K., Melhuish,E. C.,Sammons, P.,Siraj-Blatchford, I.and Taggart, B.2004. TheEffectiveProvision ofPre-SchoolEducation(EPPE) Project.Effective Pre-School

Box 895 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 896 Studyto investigate:

Box 897 - theimpact of pre-school on childrenintellectual andsocial/behaviouraldevelopment

Box 898 - thecharacteristic ofeffective pre-school setting inthis regards

Box 901 Location:England

Box 902 Context:

Box 903 Five-yearsstudy funded by DfES withthe purpose of producingresearch evidences forpolicy-making

Box 904 Sample: 3,000children recruited at age3+ and studiedlongitudinally until the endof Key-Stage 1. A sampleof home children were

Box 906 -Childrenintellectualand social/

Box 907 behaviouraldevelopment(attainment) at3 - 4/5, 6 and7 years of age

Box 908

Box 909 -backgroundcharacteristic

Box 912 standardized childassessment takenover timecombined withchild social/

Box 913 behavioural profilescompiled by pre-school workersand primaryschool staff

Box 914

Box 915

Box 919

Box 920 - children in high quality centres showed moreindependence and reduced anti-social / worried behaviourduring transition to primary school

Box 921

Box 922 - high quality is associated with staffqualification (5), warm and responsive interaction tochildren’s individual needs (1-7), effective pedagogy(2-3-4-6)

Box 923 - effective pedagogy include a balancedcurriculum (promoting education and social developmentas complementary), a good mix of teacher-initiated andchild-initiated activities and behaviour policies in whichstaff support children in rationalising their conflicts

105

Education.London: DfES /Institute ofEducation,University ofLondon.

Box 894

Box 899 - thelong-terms effectsof pre-school onchildreneducationalattainmentthrough Key-Stage 1 (first andsecond year ofprimary schoolattended bychildren aged 6and 7)

Box 900 - theimpact of thehome andchildcare historyon childrendevelopment

recruited at school entryfor comparison with pre-school group

Box 905 Methodology:statistical analysis using amulti-level modeling toexplore the value addedby pre-school after takingaccount of child, parents,home background factors

of the parentsand homelearningenvironment

Box 910

Box 911 -quality of pre-school settings(141 amongLA daynursery,integratedcentres,playgroups,private daynurseries,nurseryschools andnurseryclasses)

parentalinterviews

Box 916

Box 917 ECERS-E ratingscale

Box 918 casestudiesobservations andinterviews in 12centres whichshowed to be themost effective(effectivenessbased on theprogress childrenmade aftercontrolling pre-testand socialbackground)

Box 924

Box 925

Box 926 Seelast column

Box 927 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 928 Thestudies aim to:

Box 929 -investigatingcontinuing effectsof pre-schoolattendance onchildren’scognitive / non-cognitivedevelopmentthroughout KeyStage 2 of primaryeducation(attended bychildren aged 7 to10)

Box 930 - toexamine thecombined effect ofHLE, pre-school

Box 931 Location:England

Box 932 Context: followup of the EPPI study (3-7)funded by DfES with thepurpose of producingresearch evidences forpolicy-making

Box 933 Sample: 2,500children of the originalsample studiedlongitudinally until the endof KS2. A sample of homechildren were recruited forcomparison with pre-school group.

Box 934 Methodology:statistical analysis using acontextualised multi-levelmodel to analyse the

Box 935 -children’scognitiveoutcomes atage 10

Box 936

Box 937 -Childrensocial/behaviouraldevelopment(attainment) atage 10

Box 938

Box 939 -backgroundcharacteristicsof the parentsand homelearning

Box 940 standardisedassessment ofReadings andMathematic

Box 941

Box 942 assessed byteachers usingGoodman (1997)Strengths anddifficultiesquestionnaire

Box 943

Box 944

Box 945 parents’interviews andparentalquestionnaire

Box 946 There are evidences that improving the accessto high quality and more effective pre-school is very likelyto benefit children throughout primary school by:

Box 947 - improving social adjustment to school settings

Box 948 - promoting cognitive development.

Box 949

Box 950 Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Barreau, S. and Grabbe, Y.2007. The Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11). Influences on Children’sDevelopment and Progress in Key Stage 2: Social/behavioural outcomes in Year 5. London: DfES / Instituteof Education, University of London.

Box 951

Box 952 Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Grabbe, Y. and Barreau, S.2007. The Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11). Influences on Children’sAttainment and Progress in Key Stage 2: CognitiveOutcomes in Year 5. London: DfES / Institute of

106

and primaryschoolexperiences onchildren’sattainment

combined effects of pre-school and primary schooleffectiveness on children’sattainment

environment Education, University of London.

Box 953 Sammons, P.,Taggart, B.,Smees, R.,Sylva, K.,Melhuish, E.,Siraj-Blatchford, I., &Elliot, K. 2003.The EarlyYearsTransition &SpecialEducationalNeeds(EYTSEN)Project.London: DfES /Institute ofEducation,University ofLondon.

Box 954 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 955 Thestudy aims atidentifyingchildren ‘at risk’ ofSEN in pre-schoolfor both cognitiveand social /behaviouraldevelopment andto investigate theinfluence of pre-school attendanceon children’soutcomes at entryto primary school.

Box 956 Location:England

Box 957 Context: thestudy builds on the datacollected as part of theEPPI project (3-7), fundedby DfES with the purposeof producing researchevidences for policy-making

Box 958 Sample:children of the EPPIoriginal sample identifiedas ‘at risk’ of SEN,studied longitudinally untilthe end of Year 1 inprimary school. A sampleof home children wererecruited for comparisonwith pre-school group.

Box 959 Methodology:statistical analysis using amulti-level model toanalyse the effects of HLEand pre-school on ‘at risk’children’s attainment

Box 960 -childrenintellectualand social/

Box 961 behaviouraldevelopment(attainment) at3, 4/5 and 6years of age

Box 962

Box 963

Box 964

Box 965

Box 966 -backgroundcharacteristicsof the parentsand homelearningenvironment

Box 967

Box 968 -variation inpolicies andprovision ofpre-school andprimary schoolsettingsdesigned tosupport SENchildren

Box 969 individual assessmentof differentaspects ofchildren’scognitivedevelopmentcombined withchild social/

Box 970 behavioural profilescompiled by pre-school workersand primaryschool staff

Box 971 parents’interviews andquestionnaire

Box 972

Box 973 interviews to centres’managers,evaluation of pre-school quality(ECERS-E),parents’perception of SENand of how theirneeds aresupported

Box 974 - pre-school attendance, especially in highquality settings, provides all young children with a betterstart to primary school but particularly those ‘at risk’ withSEN

Box 975

Box 976 - pre-school helps to promote both cognitivedevelopment and peers sociability especially for vulnerablechildren, easing their transition to school

Box 977

Box 978 - the positive effects of pre-school attendanceon ‘at risk’ children’s cognitive and non-cognitivedevelopment still evident at the end of Year 1 of primaryschool

Box 979

Box 980 - high quality pre-school centres may be seenas an effective intervention for providing more vulnerablechildren with a better start to primary school

Box 981 Melhuish, E., Quinn,L., Hanna, K.,

Box 982 Naturally-occurring

Box 983 Thestudy aims toinvestigate:

Box 988 Location:Northern Ireland

Box 989 Context:

Box 992 -Childrenintellectual

Box 996 standardised childassessment over

Box 1001

Box 1002 - pre-school attendance enhances all round(cognitive and social) development of all children

107

Sylva, K.,Sammons, P.,Siraj-Blatchford, I.and Taggart, B.2006. TheEffective Pre-SchoolProvision inNorthernIreland (EPPNI)Project.Summaryreport. Belfast:Department ofEducation,Department ofHealth, SocialServices andPublic Safety,and SocialSteering Group.

prospectiveevaluation

Box 984 - theimpact of pre-school on childrenintellectual andsocial/behaviouraldevelopment

Box 985 -characteristics ofeffective pre-school setting inthis regards

Box 986 - thelong-terms effectsof pre-school onchildreneducationalattainmentthrough Key-Stage 1 (childrenup to 8 years)

Box 987 - theimpact of thehome andchildcare historyon childrendevelopment

longitudinal study fundedby DE, DHSSPS and SSGwith the purpose ofproducing researchevidences for policy-making

Box 990 Sample: 800children recruited at age3+ and studiedlongitudinally until the endof Key-Stage 1. A sampleof home children wererecruited at school entryfor comparison with pre-school group

Box 991 Methodology:statistical analysis using amulti-level model toexplore the value addedby pre-school after takingaccount of child, parentsand home backgroundfactors

and social/

Box 993 behaviouralattainment at3, 4, 5, 6, 7and 8 years ofage

Box 994 -backgroundcharacteristicof the parentsand homelearningenvironment

Box 995 -quality of pre-school settings( 80 amongnurseryschools /classes,playgroups,private daynurseries,receptionclasses andreceptiongroups)

time

Box 997 childsocial behaviouralprofiles compiledby pre-school andprimary schoolstaff

Box 998 parental interviews

Box 999 ECERS-E ratingscale

Box 1000 intensive casestudiesobservations andinterviews in 3centres wherethere had beenindication of goodpractices (nurseryschool, privateday nursery and aplaygroup)

Box 1003

Box 1004 - advantageous effects of pre-school wereevident throughout KS1, with some reduction in strengthfor some outcomes compared to school entry

Box 1005

Box 1006

Box 1007 - high quality pre-school attendance (nurseryschools / classes) was related to longer term effects

Box 1008 (pre-school quality was significantly related tochildren’s development over the last four years of primaryschool)

Box 1009 vanTuijl, C., &Leseman, P. P.M. 2007.Increases in theverbal and fluidcognitiveabilities ofdisadvantagedchildrenattendingpreschool in theNetherlands.

Box 1010 longitudinal within-subjectstudy

Box 1011 Theaims of the studyare:

Box 1012 -determining thedevelopment ofverbal and fluidintelligence of 4-6-years-old Turkishand Moroccanimmigrant childrenin Dutch publicpre-school system

Box 1014 Location: TheNetherlands

Box 1015 Context:longitudinal study focusingon the effects of large-scale (national-wide)ECEC public provision(PS) on the developmentof general cognitiveabilities of disadvantageschildren Sample: 300+children recruited at age 4and studied longitudinally

Box 1017 -familybackgroundcharacteristics

Box 1018

Box 1019 -children’sintelligence

Box 1020 (verbal and fluid)

Box 1021

Box 1022

Box 1036 structured interview(index of familySES)

Box 1037

Box 1038 standardised test(RAKIT) withindicators ofverbal and fluidintelligence

Box 1039

Box 1043 - intelligence of children from disadvantagedcommunities increased relative to age-norms over the 21/2

years they spent in pre-school

Box 1044

Box 1045 - the gains in verbal and fluid intelligencepredicted emergent school skills such as vocabulary andpre-mathematical skills

Box 1046

Box 1047 therefore the attendance of pre-schoolprograms with a developmental orientation (educationalfunction) can substantially enhance language and cognitivedevelopment in low-income, ethnic-minority children (even

108

Early ChildhoodResearchQuarterly, 22(2), 188–203.

(PS)

Box 1013 -investigatingwhether gains inverbal and fluidintelligence arerelated to higherlevels of emergentschool skills at theend of pre-school

over a 21/2 years-periodthey spent in public pre-schools (n: 100).

Box 1016 Researchdesign: short-termlongitudinal study with apre- and post- test(interval = 30 months)

Box 1023 -changes inintelligence

Box 1024

Box 1025

Box 1026

Box 1027

Box 1028

Box 1029

Box 1030

Box 1031

Box 1032

Box 1033

Box 1034 -emergentschool skills

Box 1035

Box 1040 difference betweennormalisedstandard score ofpre-test and post-test: additionallygains or losseswere related toage-referencedforms

Box 1041

Box 1042 curriculum-related tests(Dutch ReceptiveVocabulary &Utrecht NumberConcept)administered atpost-test

within a large pre-school system of moderate quality)

Box 1048

Box 1049 Limitations:

Box 1050 -lack of randomly assigned control group

Box 1051 - the quality of individual pre-schools were nottaken into account in the study

Box 1052 Caille, J.-P. 2001.Scolarisation à2 ans etréussite de lacarrièrescolaire audébut de l'écoleélémentaire[Schoolenrolment at 2years andschool successat thebeginning ofelementaryschool].Éducation &formations, 60,7-18.

Box 1053 Longitudinal studybased ona panelstudy of1997

Box 1054

Box 1055 Thestudy aims atinvestigating theeffects of pre-school attendanceon later schoolsuccess.

Box 1056 Location:France

Box 1057 Context:longitudinal study focusingon the effects of pre-school provision onchildren’s later schoolcareer.

Box 1058 Sample: cohortof 8.661 children, born in1991, who entered inprimary school at age 6 -31% of them enteredpreschool at age 2.

Box 1059 Methodology:logistic regressioncontrolling for thecharacteristic of the child,of the family and ofneighbourhood

Box 1060 Effects are studiedon schoolcareer,meaningattending thesecond year ofprimary schoolwithoutdoubling anyyear.

Box 1061

Box 1062

Box 1063 Nomeasurements ofcognitive, social orothercharacteristics

Box 1064

Box 1065 Nomeasurements ofquality ofpreschool.

Box 1066

Box 1067 - early attendance positively influences schoolcareer at CE2 (second year of primary school), meaningthat the number of children who have doubled one yeardiminishes significantly when children enrolled at ayounger age in preschool

Box 1068 - immigrant children benefit more from earlyenrolment than majority children

Box 1069 - BUT enrolment at age 2 is not equallydistributed:

Box 1070 > children with the French nationality (31%)more often at age 2 than with a foreign nationality (21%)and children whose parents are born in France (32%) moreoften than those whose parents were immigrants (25%)

Box 1071 - once controlled for child and backgroundcharacteristics early enrolment in preschool (at age 2,rather than age 3) does hardly influence the inequalities inschool career that are due to the most important family andneighbourhood factors

Box 1072 therefore the social inequalities in schoolcareer (in the first two years of primary school) are not (oralmost not) moulded by early entry in preschool.

109

Box 1073 Studies from Switzerland in German language:

Box 1074 Lanfranchi, A. 2002. Schulerfolg von Migrationskindern. Die Bedeutung familienergänzender Betreuung im Vorschulalter. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Box 1075 Lanfranchi, A., Gruber, J. & Gay, D. 2003. Schulerfolg von Migrationskindern dank transitorischer Räume im Vorschulbereich. In H.-R. Wicker, R. Fibbi & W. Haug (Hrsg.)Migration und die Schweiz. Ergebnisse des Nationalen Forschungsprogramms "Migration und interkulturelle Beziehungen" (S. 481-506). Zürich: Seismo.

Box 1076 Within the framework of a national research programme carried out in the field of migration, the research team of Lanfranchi et al. investigated the supportive measuresimplemented in aid of four- and six- year old children in three Swiss towns. A preliminary survey consisting of a spot check of 876 Swiss, Albanian, Turkish, Portuguese and Italianchildren took place in Winterthur, Neuchâtel and Locarno in 1998. One year later – the younger children were in kindergarten and the older ones in the primary school – the teacherswere questioned about the performance of the children in question. Their results were compared to those of children who did not attend kindergarten (children staying at home withtheir mothers, relatives, neighbours or childminders). The main findings of the study indicates that children who attended ECEC were significantly better assessed by theirkindergarten and teachers of the first primary school class in terms of their linguistic, cognitive and special skills than children who grew up exclusively in the circle of their ownfamily: in particular it emerged that children from migrant families managed the transition to school significantly better.

110

D. Studies investigating the contribution made by ECEC to social inclusion

Box 1077 Study reference

Box 1078 Study Type

Box 1079 Aim Box 1080 MethodologyBox 1081 What was studied

Box 1082 Howwas it studied

Box 1083 Summary key findings (B,4)

Box 1084 Sylva, K., Melhuish,E. C.,Sammons, P.,Siraj-Blatchford, I.and Taggart, B.2004. TheEffectiveProvision ofPre-SchoolEducation(EPPE) Project.Effective Pre-SchoolEducation.London: DfES /Institute ofEducation,University ofLondon.

Box 1085

Box 1086 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 1087 Studyaims to investigate:

Box 1088 - theimpact of pre-school on childrenintellectual andsocial/ behaviouraldevelopment

Box 1089 - thecharacteristic ofeffective pre-schoolsetting in thisregards

Box 1090 - thelong-terms effectsof pre-school onchildreneducationalattainment throughKey-Stage 1 (firstand second year ofprimary schoolattended bychildren aged 6 and7)

Box 1091 - theimpact of the homeand childcarehistory on childrendevelopment

Box 1092 Location:England

Box 1093 Context:

Box 1094 Five-yearsstudy funded by DfESwith the purpose ofproducing researchevidences for policy-making

Box 1095 Sample:3,000 children recruitedat age 3+ and studiedlongitudinally until theend of Key-Stage 1. Asample of homechildren were recruitedat school entry forcomparison with pre-school group

Box 1096 Methodology: statistical analysisusing a multi-levelmodel to explore thevalue added by pre-school after takingaccount of child,parents, homebackground factors

Box 1097 -Childrenintellectual andsocial/

Box 1098 behaviouraldevelopment(attainment) at3 - 4/5, 6 and7 years of age

Box 1099

Box 1100 -backgroundcharacteristicof the parentsand homelearningenvironment

Box 1101

Box 1102 -quality of pre-school settings(141 amongLA daynursery,integratedcentres,playgroups,private daynurseries,nurseryschools andnurseryclasses)

Box 1103 standardized childassessment takenover timecombined withchild social/

Box 1104 behavioural profilescompiled by pre-school workersand primaryschool staff

Box 1105

Box 1106 parentalinterviews

Box 1107

Box 1108

Box 1109 ECERS-E ratingscale

Box 1110 casestudiesobservations andinterviews in 12centres whichshowed to be themost effective(effectivenessbased on theprogress childrenmade aftercontrolling pre-testand socialbackground)

Box 1111 -pre-school attendance, compared to none,enhance children’ all round development: better cognitiveand non-cognitive outcomes

Box 1112 - disadvantaged children benefit significantlyfrom good quality pre-school experiences, especially inconditions of social mix (mixture of children from differentsocial backgrounds)

Box 1113 - duration of attendance matters: overalldisadvantaged children tend to attend pre-school forshorter periods of time than those from more advantagedgroups (around 4-6 months less)

Box 1114 -the vulnerable children who attend pre-schooltend to be less ‘at risk’ of developing SEN even aftertaking into account background factors therefore pre-school can be viewed as an effective early intervention forthe reducing SEN especially for the most disadvantagedchildren

Box 1115 - specialized support in pre-school provided inrelation to the different needs of different groups ofchildren (eg. additional language support for EAL children)can ameliorate the effects social disadvantage andproviding children with a better start to school

Box 1116 - investing in good quality pre-school provisioncan be seen as effective means to achieve social inclusionand breaking cycles of disadvantage

Box 1117 - high quality is associated with staffqualification (5), warm and responsive interaction tochildren’s individual needs (1-7), effective pedagogy(2-3-4-6)

Box 1118 - centres integrating education and care,combining flexible hours for childcare along withsubstantial health and family supports services have thehighest scores on pre-school quality

Box 1119 - for all children the quality of the home learningenvironment is more important for children’s intellectualand social development than parental occupation,

111

education and income (what the parents do is moreimportant than who parents are)

Box 1120 - the centres that encouraged high levels ofparents engagement in their children learning and involvedthem in decision-making about children learning programlead to better gains for children

Box 1121 Seelast column (2studies)

Box 1122 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 1123 Thestudy aim to:

Box 1124 - exploreevidences ofcontinuing pre-school influenceson children’scognitive andsocial / behaviouraldevelopmentthroughout KeyStage 2 of primaryeducation(attended bychildren aged 7 to10)

Box 1125 - toanalyse thecombined effect ofa good early yearsHLE, and goodquality pre-schoolon cognitive andsocial / behaviouraloutcomes at age 10

Box 1126 Location:England

Box 1127 Context:follow up of the EPPIstudy (3-7) funded byDfES with the purposeof producing researchevidences for policy-making

Box 1128 Sample:2,500 children of theoriginal sample studiedlongitudinally until theend of KS2. A sampleof home children wererecruited forcomparison with pre-school group.

Box 1129 Methodology: statistical analysisusing a contextualisedmulti-level model toanalyse the combinedeffects of HLE, pre-school and primaryschool effectiveness onchildren attainment

Box 1130 -children’scognitiveoutcomes atage 10

Box 1131

Box 1132 -Childrensocial/behaviouraldevelopment(attainment) atage 10

Box 1133

Box 1134 -backgroundcharacteristicof the parentsand homelearningenvironment

Box 1135

Box 1136 standardise dassessment ofReadings andMathematic

Box 1137

Box 1138 assessed byteachers usingGoodman (1997)Strengths anddifficultiesquestionnaire

Box 1139

Box 1140 parents’interviews andparentalquestionnaire

Box 1141 - pre-school quality and effectiveness areespecially relevant for sustaining better social andcognitive developmental outcomes of children throughoutprimary school

Box 1142 - however is combination of experiences overtime that matters therefore in order to promote socialinclusion of disadvantaged groups actions to improve theirhome learning environment, pre-school and primary schoolexperiences should be undertaken in concert: theimprovement of any of this component in isolation wouldbe insufficient – on its own – to close the cognitive andsocial /behavioural attainment gap.

Box 1143 - targeting additional resources to pre-schooland schools that serve disadvantaged area could help toachieve this purpose

Box 1144 Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Grabbe, Y. and Barreau, S.2007. The Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11). Influences on Children’sAttainment and Progress in Key Stage 2: CognitiveOutcomes in Year 5. London: DfES / Institute ofEducation, University of London.

Box 1145 Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Barreau, S. and Grabbe, Y.2007. The Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11). Influences on Children’sDevelopment and Progress in Key Stage 2: Social/behavioural outcomes in Year 5. London: DfES /Institute of Education, University of London.

Box 1146 Sammons, P.,Taggart, B.,Smees, R.,Sylva, K.,

Box 1147 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 1148 Thestudy aims atidentifying children‘at risk’ of SEN inpre-school for both

Box 1149 Location:England

Box 1150 Context: thestudy builds on the datacollected as part of the

Box 1153 -childrenintellectual andsocial/

Box 1154 beh

Box 1162 individual assessmentof differentaspects ofchildren’s

Box 1167 - pre-school, especially in high quality settings,helps to promote both cognitive development and peerssociability especially for vulnerable children, easing theirtransition to school

Box 1168

112

Melhuish, E.,Siraj-Blatchford, I., &Elliot, K. 2003.The EarlyYearsTransition &SpecialEducationalNeeds(EYTSEN)Project.London: DfES /Institute ofEducation,University ofLondon.

cognitive and social/ behaviouraldevelopment and toinvestigate theinfluence of pre-school attendanceon children’soutcomes at entryto primary school.

EPPI project (3-7),funded by DfES withthe purpose ofproducing researchevidences for policy-making

Box 1151 Sample:children of the EPPIoriginal sampleidentified as ‘at risk’ ofSEN, studiedlongitudinally until theend of Year 1 inprimary school. Asample of homechildren were recruitedfor comparison withpre-school group.

Box 1152 Methodology: statistical analysisusing a multi-levelmodel to analyse theeffects of HLE and pre-school on ‘at risk’children’s attainment

aviouraldevelopment(attainment) at3, 4/5 and 6years of age

Box 1155

Box 1156

Box 1157

Box 1158

Box 1159 -backgroundcharacteristicsof the parentsand homelearningenvironment

Box 1160

Box 1161 -variation inpolicies andprovision ofpre-school andprimary schoolsettingsdesigned tosupport SENchildren

cognitivedevelopmentcombined withchild social/

Box 1163 behavioural profilescompiled by pre-school workersand primaryschool staff

Box 1164 parents’interviews andquestionnaire

Box 1165

Box 1166 interviews to centres’managers,evaluation of pre-school quality(ECERS-E),parents’perception of SENand of how theirneeds aresupported

Box 1169 - children are more likely to move out ofcognitive ‘at risk’ status if they attend higher qualitysettings

Box 1170

Box 1171 - pre-school attendance helps to promotechildren’s cognitive and non-cognitive development (peersociability) especially for more vulnerable groups ofchildren and its effects last until the end of Year 1

Box 1172

Box 1173 - high quality pre-school centres may be seenas an effective intervention for providing more vulnerablechildren with a better start to primary school

Box 1174

Box 1175 - certain forms of provisions are seen to beparticularly beneficial to ‘at risk’ children:

Box 1176 > integrated centres and nursery schools areparticularly beneficial for those ‘at risk’ of SEN in cognitivedevelopment

Box 1177 > integrated centres and nursery classes andplay groups are particularly beneficial for those ‘at risk’ ofSEN in social / behavioural development

Box 1178

Box 1179 Melhuish, E., Quinn,L., Hanna, K.,Sylva, K.,Sammons, P.,Siraj-Blatchford, I.and Taggart, B.2006. TheEffective Pre-SchoolProvision inNorthern

Box 1180 Naturally-occurringprospectiveevaluation

Box 1181 Thestudy aims toinvestigate:

Box 1182 - theimpact of pre-school on childrenintellectual andsocial/ behaviouraldevelopment

Box 1183 -characteristics ofeffective pre-schoolsetting in this

Box 1186 Location:Northern Ireland

Box 1187 Context:longitudinal studyfunded by DE,DHSSPS and SSG withthe purpose ofproducing researchevidences for policy-making

Box 1188 Sample: 800children recruited atage 3+ and studied

Box 1190 -Childrenintellectual andsocial/

Box 1191 behaviouralattainment at3, 4, 5, 6, 7and 8 years ofage

Box 1192 -backgroundcharacteristic

Box 1194 standardised childassessment overtime

Box 1195 childsocial behaviouralprofiles compiledby pre-school andprimary schoolstaff

Box 1196 parental interviews

Box 1197

Box 1199 - pre-school attendance enhances all round(cognitive and social) development of all children:disadvantaged children benefit even more where they arewith a mixture of children from different backgrounds

Box 1200 - the benefits for children ‘at risk’ are greaterand longer lasting (until end of KS1) the better the qualityof the pre-school

Box 1201 - high quality is associated with staffqualification and professional development (1), strongleadership and strong philosophy for the setting shared byall staff (1), ethos and emotional climate of the setting(warm and responsive interaction with the children, 2),parental partnership (3), pedagogy (providing opportunities

113

Ireland (EPPNI)Project.Summaryreport. Belfast:Department ofEducation,Department ofHealth, SocialServices andPublic Safety,and SocialSteering Group.

regards

Box 1184 - thelong-terms effectsof pre-school onchildreneducationalattainment throughKey-Stage 1(children up to 8years)

Box 1185 - theimpact of the homeand childcarehistory on childrendevelopment

longitudinally until theend of Key-Stage 1. Asample of homechildren were recruitedat school entry forcomparison with pre-school group

Box 1189 Methodology: statistical analysisusing a multi-levelmodel to explore thevalue added by pre-school after takingaccount of child,parents and homebackground factors

of the parentsand homelearningenvironment

Box 1193 -quality of pre-school settings( 80 amongnurseryschools /classes,playgroups,private daynurseries,receptionclasses andreceptiongroups)

ECERS-E ratingscale

Box 1198 intensive casestudiesobservations andinterviews in 3centres wherethere had beenindication of goodpractices (nurseryschool, privateday nursery and aplaygroup)

to extend children learning through play and self-directedactivities, 4)

Box 1202 - nursery schools/classes have the highestscores on pre-school quality

Box 1203 - for all children the quality of the home learningenvironment is more important for children’s intellectualand social development than parental occupation,education and income (what the parents do is moreimportant than who parents are) therefore fostering activeparental engagement with children are likely to benefitchildren cognitive and social development at school

Box 1204 - vulnerable children who attend pre-school tendto be less ‘at risk’ of developing SEN even after taking intoaccount background factors therefore pre-school can beviewed as an effective early intervention for the reducingSEN

Box 1205 > increasing the take up of pre-school places byparents who would not usually send their children wouldprovide vulnerable children with a better start to schooland reduce their risk to develop SEN

Box 1206 - targeting additional resources to pre-schooland schools that serve disadvantaged areas could help toserve this purpose

Box 1207 Melhuish, E.,Belsky, J.,Layland, A. H,Barnes, J. andthe NationalEvaluation ofSure StartResearchTeam. 2008.Effects of fullyestablishedSSLPs on 3-year-oldchildren andtheir familiesliving inEngland: a

Box 1208 quasi-experimentalobservational study

Box 1209 Thestudy aims atinvestigating theeffects of SureStart LocalProgrammes(SSLPs) onchildren’s health,on their cognitiveand socio-emotionaldevelopment andon their families’functioning.

Box 1210 Location:England

Box 1211 Context:SSLPs are area-basedinterventions aiming toimprove services foryoung children andtheir families indeprived communitiesin order to promotehealth anddevelopment forreducing inequalities.

Box 1212 Sample:5880+ 3-y-o childrenand their families from93 disadvantaged

Box 1214 Children outcomeswere studiedin relation to:

Box 1215 -health

Box 1216 -languagedevelopment-social andemotionaldevelopment

Box 1217

Box 1218 Inadditionparenting andfamily

Box 1220

Box 1221

Box 1222

Box 1223

Box 1224 immunisations &accidents

Box 1225 British Abilities Scale

Box 1226 positive, negativebehaviour &independence

Box 1227

Box 1228 parenting risk, home-

Box 1229

Box 1230 After controlling for background factorsbeneficial effects associated with the programmes werefound for 5 out of 14 outcomes, namely:

Box 1231 - children’s socio-emotional development:SSLPs children showed more positive social behaviourand more independence

Box 1232 - families in SSLPs showed less negativeparenting and provided a better home-learningenvironment

Box 1233 -families in SSLPs used more services forsupporting child and family development.

Box 1234

Box 1235 early intervention can improve life andeducational chances of children living in disadvantagedareas.

114

quasi-experimentalobservationalstudy. Lancet,372: 1641-47

SSLPs areas werecompared with 1870+3-y-o children and theirfamilies from 72similarly deprived areasin England who tookpart in the MillenniumCohort Study.

Box 1213 Methods:multilevel statisticalanalysis adjusted forbackgroundcharacteristic of thechild, family and area.

functionsoutcomeswere alsostudied

Box 1219 along withmaternal well-being, serviceuse and localarea rating.

learningenvironment,father’sinvolvement (90mins home visits)

Box 1236

Box 1237 Note: the contrast with the findings of previousevaluation of SSLPs (partly negative) might indicate thatover time the program has evolved in more clearly focusedservices (children’s centres), with more emphasis onchildren’s development and a greater attention to the mostvulnerable children and families (out-reaching and inter-agency work). After 7 years the program might haveimproved because acquired knowledge & experience and -partly in response to the findings of the previous evaluation- might have reduced shortages in staff and skills.

Box 1238 Shirley, M. 2010. AnEarly ChildhoodInterventionProgrammeand the longterm Outcomesfor Students.Child Care inPractice, 16(3):257-274.

Box 1239 Small scalelongitudinalstudy

Box 1240 The aimof the study is toevaluate the impactof the Early StartProgramme onchildreneducationalattainment(cognitive and non-cognitiveoutcomes) at age15.

Box 1241 Location:ROI (disadvantagedurban community)

Box 1242 Context:Early Start (ES) is anearly childhoodintervention programoffered in withinselected school indesignateddisadvantaged areas >targeted programmedesigned to promotelanguage and cognitivedevelopment and toprevent school failure.

Box 1243 Methodology: non-randomisedmultimethod researchdesign involvingstudents, parents,teachers andparticipants from localcommunity.

Box 1244 Sample: 20students aged 15 whotook part to the Early

Box 1245 -childrenacademicattainment atage 15

Box 1246

Box 1247

Box 1248

Box 1249

Box 1250

Box 1251

Box 1252

Box 1253 -children non-cognitiveoutcomes

Box 1254

Box 1255

Box 1256 -familybackground

Box 1257

Box 1258

Box 1259

Box 1265 scores from the JuniorCertificate(standardisedstate examinationtaken at third yearof secondaryschool)

Box 1266

Box 1267 standardised interviewbased onRosenberg Self-Esteem Scale(RSE)

Box 1268

Box 1269 semi-structuredinterviews withparents

Box 1270

Box 1271 structured interviewswith primary andsecondary schoolteachers

Box 1274 - no significant difference were found betweenthe study group (ES students) and the comparison groupin relation to placement in special education

Box 1275

Box 1276 - ES student were more likely to take higher-level subjects for their Junior Certificate

Box 1277 - positive correlation emerges between ESattendance and higher examination marks in mathematicsand science

Box 1278 - no significant relationship emerged for othersubjects

Box 1279 -ES students were more likely to study a foreignlanguage which is a entry requirement for University inIreland (50% against 33% of the control group)

Box 1280 the early intervention programme supportedstudents’ academic attainment - in maths and science –over the long term and increased their educationalchances

Box 1281

Box 1282 - ES students were rated more positively bytheir secondary school teachers in terms of their socialskills although no correlation was found between RSEscore and participation to the ES programme

Box 1283

Box 1284 - lack of community-based facilities that would

115

Start during the firstyear of the programme(1994/1995). A sampleof students who did notattend the programmewere recruited atsecondary school forcomparison.

Box 1260 -teachers’perceptions ofstudent’sachievement

Box 1261

Box 1262

Box 1263 -socio-economicprofile of thecommunity

Box 1264

Box 1272

Box 1273 Haase Index ofRelative Affluenceand Deprivation &interviews withcommunityeducators

allow students in difficulties to benefit from additionalacademic support outside the school (individual tutorials)was identified as a critical factor hindering students’progresses along their school career (‘there was atendency to move from higher level to ordinary level ratherthan seek additional academic support outside the school’,p. 272)

Box 1285

Box 1286 Limitations of the study: small samplerepresenting only the 28% of the children enrolled in EarlyYears Program in 1994/1995 within the designateddisadvantaged area

Box 1287 Goede,D. de &Reezigt, G.J.(2001).Implementatieen effecten vande Voorschoolin Amsterdam.Groningen:GION.

Box 1288 Box 1289 Thestudy aims atinvestigating theeffects of preschoolusing Kaleidoscoopon children’scognitive andsocio-emotionaldevelopment

Box 1290

Box 1291 Location:The Netherlands

Box 1292 Context:Kaleidoscoop is aECEC programs forchildren aged 2,5 to 6,implemented inplaygroups, based onactive learning (Dutchadaptation ofHigh/Scope). It aims atcognitive, social andlanguage developmentfor children “at risk” (aspecial focus on ethnicminority children).

Box 1293 Methodology: Quasi experimentaldesign, data analysedthrough multilevelanalyses Sample: 90children had preschooland 97 in control group,aged 3 and 4 in 1999,followed until 2001.

Box 1294 -childrencognitivedevelopment

Box 1295

Box 1296 -children socio-emotionaldevelopment

Box 1297

Box 1298 CITO tests

Box 1299

Box 1300

Box 1301

Box 1302 Gedrags-beoordelingslijst(Dutch instrumentfor theassessment ofbehavior)

Box 1303 - Effects for children who started at age 3 arelarger than for those who started at age 4: early startmatters

Box 1304 -Effects are inconsistent (some negative effects,some non significant) and where they exist, most are smallto (seldom) moderate

Box 1305

Box 1306 Tesser, P. &

Box 1308 programs

Box 1309 Thestudy aims at

Box 1311 Country: TheNetherland

Box 1314 -children

Box 1319

Box 1320

Box 1324 Children with e Moroccan, Turkish and Antilleanbackground lag behind in Kindergarten age, compared to

116

Iedema, J.2001.RapportageMinderheden2001. Deel I.Vorderingen opSchool. DenHaag: SCP.

Box 1307

evaluation investigating thestate of affairsregarding theintegration of ethnicminority people inThe Netherlandsand moreparticularly onmatters ofeducation andlabour.

Box 1310

Box 1312 Context:report for the Ministry

Box 1313 Multilevelanalysis on existingdatabases (naturallyoccurring)

cognitiveoutcomes inkindergartenand primaryschool

Box 1315

Box 1316 -familybackground

Box 1317

Box 1318 -impact ofchildrenattendance totargetedprograms priorkindergarten

Box 1321

Box 1322

Box 1323 CITOtest

the general population. The developmental delays haveremained similar since the mid 1990’s.

Box 1325 For Turkish and Moroccan children, 40% of thisdifference is explained by levels of education of theparents and home language. For Surinam and Antilleanchildren this is only 20%.

Box 1326 The authors hypothesise that cultural factors(educational attitudes) may also influence.

Box 1327 60% of ethnic minority children are in so-called“black schools “(zwarte scholen = schools with a largemajority of ethnic minority children). School type explainsanother 10% of the variationnegative impact ofeducational programs carried out in context of low socialmix on children cognitive development

Box 1328 Differences between these groups seem todiminish in primary school, especially for mathematics, and(to a lesser extent) also for language. Similarly, whiledevelopmental delays in Kindergarten have remainedstable, the results of ethnic minority children on the CITOtests at the end of primary school have gone up since themid 1990’s. This is also reflected in increasing enrolmentin higher qualified directions in secondary school. Howeverethnic minority children still significantly more often leavesecondary school without certificate.

Box 1329 Participation in play groups prior to kindergartenhas positive effects on the results in group 2 ofKindergarten. Specific programs like Kaleidoscoop andPiramide have moderate effects but these are “notimpressive”limited impact of programs targetedspecifically at disadvantaged children

Box 1330 Other studies from the Netherland in Dutch language:

Box 1331 Schonewille, B., Kloprogge, J. & van der Leij, A. 2000. Kaleidoscoop en Piramide. Samenvattend Eindrapport. Utrecht: Sardes.

Box 1332 > The study reports the findings of the centre-based integrated programs (Piramide and Kaleidoscoop) evaluations, focusing on the effects of such programs forchildren’s socio-emotional development.

Box 1333 van Tuijl, C. 2002. Effecten van Opstap Opnieuw bij Follow-up. Effecten van Opstap Opnieuw bij Turkse en Marokkaanse Leerlingen op Middellange Termijn. Alkmaar:Extern Print.

Box 1334 > Evaluation of the Revised Step-up program that is a well known family intervention program carried out in the Netherlands.

Box 1335 Driessen, G. E. J. M.2004. A large

Box 1336 longitudinalstudy

Box 1339 Thestudy aims toinvestigate:

Box 1343 Location:The Netherlands

Box 1347 -childrencognitive and

Box 1354 standardised test(CITO, assessing

Box 1360 - no effects of ECEC attendance (DC,PS,P-CP)on long term cognitive and non-cognitive attainment couldbe demonstrated

117

scalelongitudinalstudy of theutilization andeffects of earlychildhoodeducationandcare in TheNetherlands.Early ChildDevelopmentand Care, 174(7–8), 667–689.

drawing ondata setfromnational

Box 1337 survey(PRIMA)

Box 1338

Box 1340 - theassociation withbetween parents’background andchildren’sparticipation inECEC services

Box 1341 - theeffects of ECECparticipation onchildren’s non-cognitivecompetencies

Box 1342

Box 1344 Context:longitudinal studydrawing on the data(1996-2000) of thecohort study PRIMAcarried out on nationalscale.

Box 1345 Sample:33,418 children studiedlongitudinally until theend of Grade 2 (in totaldata from approx. 600schools wereavailable). A sample ofhome children wererecruited at schoolentry for comparisonwith pre-school group.

Box 1346 Methodology: statistical analysisusing both cross-sectional andlongitudinal analyses.

non- cognitiveattainment

Box 1348 assessed inKindergarten,Grade 2 andGrade 4 ofprimary school

Box 1349

Box 1350 -backgroundcharacteristicof the parents

Box 1351

Box 1352 -type of ECECservice/programattended by

Box 1353 Children

language andmathematicsskills) along withstudents social/behaviouralprofiles compiledby the teachers

Box 1355

Box 1356 parent questionnaires

Box 1357

Box 1358

Box 1359 day-care, pre-school,targeted parent-child program(integrated,language,development,combinations),combinations

Box 1361

Box 1362 > Findings in context:

Box 1363 - ECEC provision tend to be very diverse andhighly fragmented (type of provision, availability andaccessibility, administrative responsibility for regulationand funding, care/educational purposes)

Box 1364 - not all services are designed to promotecognitive, linguistic or social-emotional development ofchildren (eg. day care centres are intended to provide onlychildcare in connection to parents’ participation in theworkforce > only social assistance function)

Box 1365 - not all services / programs meet the necessaryquality standard (deterioration in the quality of day-carecentres has been observed in previous studies

38)

Box 1366

Box 1367 > Limitations: quality of individual ECECservices –

Box 1368 that is acknowledged to be playing a crucial rolein promoting better cognitive outcomes on the longer term(EPPE 3-7 & 3-11, EPPNI) – was not taken into account inthe study

38 Gevers Deynoot-Schaub, M. & Riksen-Walraven, M. 2002. Kwaliteit onder druk: de kwaliteit van opvang in Nederlandse kinderdagverblijven in 1995 en 2001. Pedagogiek,22, 109–124. This study has been conducted in 2002, before the marketization of child care in The Netherlands: later studies have documented that the quality of provisionshas gone down since then (De Kuif et al, 2009) This might imply that the remark on the limited impact of ECEC in The Netherlands due to irregularity of quality may be evenmore true today.

118

Box 1369 vanTuijl, C., &Leseman, P. P.M. 2007.Increases in theverbal and fluidcognitiveabilities ofdisadvantagedchildrenattendingpreschool in theNetherlands.Early ChildhoodResearchQuarterly, 22(2), 188–203.

Box 1370 longitudinalwithin-subjectstudy

Box 1371 Theaims of the studyare:

Box 1372 -determining thedevelopment ofverbal and fluidintelligence of 4-6-years-old Turkishand Moroccanimmigrant childrenin Dutch public pre-school system (PS)

Box 1373 -examining whethergains in verbal andfluid intelligencediffered betweenchildren as afunction of age andhome language

Box 1374 -investigatingwhether gains inverbal and fluidintelligence arerelated to higherlevels of emergentschool skills at theend of pre-school

Box 1375 Location:The Netherlands

Box 1376 Context:longitudinal studyfocusing on the effectsof large-scale (national-wide) ECEC publicprovision (PS) on thedevelopment of generalcognitive abilities ofdisadvantages children>Turkish and Moroccanchildren are the most atrisk of educationalfailure in the Dutcheducation system(Tesser & Iedema,2001)

Box 1377 Sample:300+ children recruitedat age 4 and studiedlongitudinally over a 21/2

years-period they spentin public pre-schools (n:100).

Box 1378 Researchdesign: short-termlongitudinal study witha pre- and post- test(interval = 30 months)

Box 1379 -familybackgroundcharacteristics

Box 1380

Box 1381 -children’sintelligence

Box 1382 (verbal and fluid)

Box 1383

Box 1384

Box 1385 -changes inintelligence

Box 1386

Box 1387

Box 1388

Box 1389

Box 1390

Box 1391

Box 1392

Box 1393

Box 1394 -emergentschool skills

Box 1395 structured interview(family SES index)

Box 1396

Box 1397 standardised test(RAKIT) withindicators ofverbal and fluidintelligence

Box 1398

Box 1399 difference betweennormalisedstandard score ofpre-test and post-test: additionallygains or losseswere related toage-referencedforms

Box 1400

Box 1401 curriculum-related tests(Dutch ReceptiveVocabulary &Utrecht NumberConcept)administered atpost-test

Box 1402 - intelligence of children from disadvantagedcommunities increased relative to age-norms over the 21/2

years they spent in pre-school

Box 1403

Box 1404 - on average the gains were bigger children foryounger children and for those with a non-Dutch homelanguage

Box 1405

Box 1406 - the gains in verbal and fluid intelligencepredicted emergent school skills such as vocabulary andpre-mathematical skills

Box 1407

Box 1408 therefore the attendance of pre-schoolprograms with a developmental orientation (educationalfunction) can substantially enhance language andcognitive development in low-income, ethnic-minoritychildren (even within a large pre-school system ofmoderate quality)

Box 1409

Box 1410 Limitations:

Box 1411 -lack of randomly assigned control group

Box 1412 - the quality of individual pre-schools were nottaken into account in the study

119

Box 1413 Spiess, C. K.,Buchel, F.,Wagner, G. G.2003.Children’sschoolplacement inGermany. DoesKindergartenattendancematter? Bonn:IZA DiscussionPaper n. 722.

Box 1414 longitudinalstudydrawing ondata setfromnational

Box 1415 survey(GSOEP)

Box 1416

Box 1417

Box 1418

Box 1419

Box 1420

Box 1421

Box 1422

Box 1423

Box 1424

Box 1425

Box 1426 Thestudy aims to:

Box 1427 -examininglongitudinal effectsof ECP (earlychildhoodprograms)attendance

Box 1428 -exploring therelationshipbetweenkindergartenattendance (on theyear before theenrolment inprimary school) andchildren 7

thgrade

school placementinto more or lessacademicallydemanding schools

Box 1429 -differentiatingassociation for thechildren of German

Box 1430 Location:West Germany

Box 1431 Context: thestudy draws on thedata of the GermanSocio-Economic Panel(GSOEP) to evaluatethe impact ofcommunity-based earlychildhood care andeducational programs(available to all children– non targeted, non-compulsory, publiclysubsidised and state-regulated) on childrenlater school success.Children’s schoolattainment has beenexamined through theirschool placement at 7

th

grade: low-vocationallevel (Hauptshule) ormedium-high academiclevel (Realshule andGymnasium )

Box 1432 Sample: 316

Box 1434 -childkindergartenattendance

Box 1435

Box 1436 -family SES

Box 1437

Box 1438

Box 1439

Box 1440

Box 1441

Box 1442 - adummyvariableindicateswhether thehouseholdnationality(German orimmigrantbackground)

Box 1443 GSOEP data set

Box 1444

Box 1445

Box 1446 household incomeand size and levelof parents’education

Box 1447 - in West Germany Kindergarten attendancesignificantly raises the probability of immigrant children tobe placed into a higher educational level school giventhe relatively low participation rate of immigrant children inGerman ECP (Buchel & Spiess, 2002

39) policy attention

should be drawn on how to increase it with the aim ofimproving school outcomes for immigrant children who aremore often at risk of educational failure (Alba et al.,1994

40)

Box 1448

Box 1449 - whereas no significant relationship betweenKindergarten attendance and later school placement couldbe found for German children (after controlling for parentalSES variables)

Box 1450

Box 1451 Limitations:

Box 1452 -as the number of variables identified for thestudy were very limited, there might be additional variablesthat account for findings

Box 1453 eg. quality of ECEC was not taken intoaccount

Box 1454 in fact the findings of previous Germanstudies* report a positive relationship between the qualityof Kindergartens and children cognitive and socialoutcomes

Box 1455

39 Büchel, F. & Spiess, C. K. 2002. Form der Kinderbetreuung und Arbeitsmarktverhalten von Müttern in West- und Ostdeutschland. Schriftenreihe des Bundesministeriums für

Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend. Band 220. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.40

Alba, R., Handl, J. & Mueller, W. 1994. Ethnische Ungleichheit im deutschen Bildungssystem. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 46, 209-223.

120

citizens ascompared to thoseof immigrants.

children (110 foreignersand 206 Germans)

Box 1433 Methodology: statistical analysis(binary probittechnique) where thedependent variable(0/1) is indicatingchildren placement invocational school(Hauptshule) and theindependent variable ofmain interest ischildren’s attendance toKG.

Box 1456 Relevant studies carried out before 2000*:

Box 1457

Box 1458 European Child Care and Education (ECCE)Study Group. 1999. European Child Care and EducationStudy. School-age assessment of Child Development:long-term impact of pre-school experiences on schoolsuccess and family-school relationships. Final reportsubmitted to EU DG XII. Science, Research andDevelopment RTD Action: Targeted Socio-EconomicResearch. Berlin.

Box 1459

Box 1460 Tietze W. (Ed.) 1998. Wie gut sind unsereKindergaerten? Berlin: Luchterhand.

Box 1461 Felfe, C. and Lalive,R. 2011. HowDoes EarlyChildcare AffectChildDevelopment?Learning from

Box 1462 theChildren ofGermanUnification.CESifo Area

Box 1464 longitudinalstudydrawing ondata setfromnational

Box 1465 surveys(GSOEPand GCP)

Box 1466

Box 1467 Thestudy aims to:

Box 1468 -estimate the role ofcentre-based careaccessibility

Box 1469 -examine the impactof ECEC onchildren short andmedium rundevelopment inrelation to both

Box 1471 Location:West and EastGermany

Box 1472 Context: thestudy draws on thedata of the GermanSocio-Economic Panel(GSOEP) and GermanChild Panel (GCP) toevaluate the impact ofincreased accessibilityof centre-basedchildcare (triggered by

Box 1475 -children non-cognitivedevelopment

Box 1476

Box 1477

Box 1478

Box 1479

Box 1480

Box 1481 -childrencognitive

Box 1493 independence socialskills, behaviour,personality andmotor skills self-reported bychildren’s mothers

Box 1494

Box 1495 language skillsand school gradesself-reported bychildren’s mothers

Box 1500 - children enrolled in childcare centres have aclear advantage in all dimensions > overall ECECattendance promote children cognitive and non-cognitivedevelopment on the short run

Box 1501 - the positive impact of childcare attendance isgreater for children who started to attend formal care onlyafter supply increased (children from low socio-economicbackground)

Box 1502 - in the medium run the difference between thechildren who attended childcare centres and those who didnot seem to dissipate on average

Box 1503 - however children who entered childcare only

121

Conference onEconomics ofEducation:Center forEconomicsStudies.

Box 1463

cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes

Box 1470 -discussing theincidence ofexpanding highquality care onsociety

German Unification) onchildren laterdevelopment. Data onchildren cognitive andnon-cognitivedevelopment weredrawn from largenational datasets.

Box 1473 Sample:800+ children who werestudied longitudinallyfrom age 2 to 10.

Box 1474 Methodology: statistical analysis ofsurvey data covering abroad range ofindicators on childdevelopment andbackgroundcharacteristics.

development

Box 1482

Box 1483

Box 1484

Box 1485

Box 1486 -family SES

Box 1487

Box 1488

Box 1489

Box 1490

Box 1491

Box 1492 -high quality ofchildcare inGermany isassumed ashomogeneousacrossGermanregions on thebasis of thetightness oftheirregulations

Box 1496

Box 1497 household incomeand size and levelof parents’education

Box 1498

Box 1499 formal criteria aschild-staff ratio,maximum size ofthe group ofchildren, size ofthe childcarecentre, stafftraining andqualifications

once it became more accessible seem to benefitsubstantially from it even several years later (better resultsin school and better social skills in the medium term)

Box 1504

Box 1505 results suggest that the gains of centre-based childcare are higher and more long-lasting forchildren that attend it only once the access is expanded >children from low socio-economic background: thesefindings converge in saying that rationing tend to favourchildren from advantage background

Box 1506

Box 1507 Along with the previous study, these findingsindicates that ECEC attendance marginally promote thedevelopment of ‘average children’ while it has a strongimpact on cognitive and non-cognitive development ofdisadvantaged children on the long term these findingsindicate that universally accessible high quality childcarecan contribute to decrease inequalities and to weakenintergenerational transmission of SES.

Box 1508 Other studies from Germany in German language:

Box 1509 Becker, R. & Tremel, P. 2006. Auswirkungen vorschulischer Kinderbetreuung auf die Bildungschancen von Migrantenkindern. Sozial Welt, 57, 397-418.

Box 1510 The study draw on the longitudinal data from the German Socioeconomic Panel to examine whether preschool education could improve the educational chances ofmigrants’ children who tend to be disadvantaged in the German school system. The results about the effects of kindergarten for the period between 1984 and 2003 indicates thatECEC education can improve the educational chances of migrants’ children although their educational chances become similar to the native children’s one without any preschoolexperience.

122

Box 1511 Studies from Switzerland in German language:

Box 1512 Lanfranchi, A. 2002. Schulerfolg von Migrationskindern. Die Bedeutung familienergänzender Betreuung im Vorschulalter. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Box 1513 Lanfranchi, A., Gruber, J. & Gay, D. 2003. Schulerfolg von Migrationskindern dank transitorischer Räume im Vorschulbereich. In H.-R. Wicker, R. Fibbi & W. Haug (Hrsg.)Migration und die Schweiz. Ergebnisse des Nationalen Forschungsprogramms "Migration und interkulturelle Beziehungen" (S. 481-506). Zürich: Seismo.

Box 1514 Within the framework of a national research programme carried out in the field of migration, the research team of Lanfranchi et al. investigated the supportive measuresimplemented in aid of four- and six- year old children in three Swiss towns. A preliminary survey consisting of a spot check of 876 Swiss, Albanian, Turkish, Portuguese and Italianchildren took place in Winterthur, Neuchâtel and Locarno in 1998. One year later – the younger children were in kindergarten and the older ones in the primary school – the teacherswere questioned about the performance of the children in question. Their results were compared to those of children who did not attend kindergarten (children staying at home withtheir mothers, relatives, neighbours or childminders). The main findings of the study indicates that children who attended ECEC were significantly better assessed by theirkindergarten and teachers of the first primary school class in terms of their linguistic, cognitive and special skills than children who grew up exclusively in the circle of their ownfamily: in particular it emerged that children from migrant families managed the transition to school significantly better.

Box 1515 Caille, J.-P. 2001.Scolarisation à2 ans etréussite de lacarrièrescolaire audébut de l'écoleélémentaire[Schoolenrolment at 2years andschool successat thebeginning ofelementaryschool].Éducation &formations, 60,7-18.

Box 1516 Longitudinalstudybased on apanel studyof 1997

Box 1517

Box 1518 Thestudy aims atinvestigating theeffects of pre-school attendanceon later schoolsuccess.

Box 1519 Location:France

Box 1520 Context:longitudinal studyfocusing on the effectsof large-scale nation-wide pre-schoolprovision on children’slater school career.

Box 1521 Sample:cohort of 8.661children, born in 1991,who entered in primaryschool at age 6 - 31%of them enteredpreschool at age 2.

Box 1522 Methodology: logistic regressioncontrolling for thecharacteristic of thechild, of the family andof neighbourhood

Box 1523 Effects are studiedon schoolcareer,meaningattending thesecond year ofprimary schoolwithoutdoubling anyyear.

Box 1524

Box 1525

Box 1526 Nomeasurements ofcognitive, social orothercharacteristics

Box 1527

Box 1528 Nomeasurements ofquality ofpreschool.

Box 1529

Box 1530 - early attendance positively influences schoolcarrier at CE2 (second year of primary school), meaningthat the number of children who have doubled one yeardiminishes significantly when children enrolled at ayounger age in preschool

Box 1531 - immigrant children benefit more from earlyenrolment than majority children

Box 1532 - BUT enrolment at age 2 is not equallydistributed:

Box 1533 > children with the French nationality (31%)more often at age 2 than with a foreign nationality (21%)and children whose parents are born in France (32%)more often than those whose parents were immigrants(25%)

Box 1534 - HOWEVER once controlled for child andbackground characteristics early enrolment in preschool(at age 2, rather than age 3) does hardly influence theinequalities in school carrier that are due to the mostimportant family and neighbourhood factors (mother’seducation, SES,...)

Box 1535

Box 1536 therefore the social inequalities in schoolcareer (in the first two years of primary school) are not (oralmost not) moulded by early entry in preschool.

123

Box 1537 Brilli,Y., Del Boca,D., Pronzato,C. 2011.Exploring theImpacts ofPublicChildcare onMothers andChildren inItaly: DoesRationing Playa Role? Bonn:IZA.

Box 1538

Box 1539 DelBoca, D. &Pasqua, S.2010. Esitiscolastici ecomporta

Box 1540 mentali, famiglia eservizi perl’infanzia (tr.Cognitive andnon-cognitiveoutcomes,family andchildcare).Torino:FondazioneGiovanniAgnelli.

Box 1541 Statisticalestimationwithin aneconometric model

Box 1542 Thestudies aim to:

Box 1543 -investigate theeffects of publicchildcare (0-3services) coverageon childrenscholasticachievements andnon-cognitiveoutcomes

Box 1544 Location:Italy

Box 1545 Context: thestudy is carried out in acontext in whichchildcare opportunitiesare limited both interms of availability(which varies greatlyamong regions) andcosts

41and in which

accessibility criteriadiffer acrossmunicipalities. Thestudy draws on thedataset of INVALSI(Italian Institute forEvaluation of theEducation System), ofCittadinanza Attiva(data on publicchildcare coverage atthe provincial level) andof PsychologyDepartment of TurinUniversity.

Box 1546 Sample:27,000+ childrenassessed at age 7 (2

nd

grade of primaryschool) for cognitiveoutcomes. 1,000+primary school childrenliving the surrounding

Box 1548 -children schooloutcomes atage 7 (2

nd

grade ofprimaryschool)

Box 1549

Box 1550 -childrencharacteristics(gender andcitizenship)

Box 1551 -familycharacteristics(parents’working statusand education)

Box 1552 -environmen

Box 1553 talcharacteri

Box 1554 stics

Box 1555

Box 1556

Box 1557 -measure ofchildcarecoverageduring theschool year

Box 1566

Box 1567 INVALSI language andmath test (schoolyear 2008-2009)

Box 1568

Box 1569

Box 1570

Box 1571

Box 1572

Box 1573 information providedby INVALSI dataset (reported bythe schools)

Box 1574

Box 1575

Box 1576

Box 1577 information on GDPper capita byprovince

Box 1578

Box 1579 percentage ratiobetween publicchildcare slotsand populationaged 0-2 years byprovince

Box 1580

Box 1581

Box 1585 - childcare coverage coefficients are alwayspositive and significant on language test score, only inareas with high rationing the coefficient of childcare ispositive and significant also for math score childcarerationing plays a role on children school outcomes butgiven the lack of information on eligibility criteria (eg.priority given to children with working mothers or todisadvantaged children) the effect of rationing cannot bedisentangled.

Box 1586 - paternal and maternal education have apositive and significant impact on children test scores

Box 1587 -non-Italian children perform worse than theirItalian peer especially in language test

Box 1588 - heterogeneous effects: a) childcare effectsbecome stronger when rationing is higher and this seemsparticularly true for language test scores; b) childcareavailability impact are stronger on language test score forchildren with low educated mothers and in low GDP areas,who are likely to benefit more from childcare opportunitiesthan their counterparts These results are consistent withthe findings of previous studies showing that publicchildcare may enhance educational opportunities ofchildren from a disadvantage background. The fact thatthe impact of childcare availability on children’s cognitivedevelopment is higher for children with low educatedmothers living in low-income areas, highlight theimportance of RATIONING CHILDCARE according tofamily SES criteria and to increase CHILDCAREAVAILABILTY especially in DISADVANTAGED areas.

Box 1589 Limitation of the study: a) childcare quality wasnot taken into account although quality of public provisioncan be assumed to be rather high due to its educationalorientation and quality regulations introduced at regionallevel; b) the effects of rationing criteria could not be

41 Del Boca, D. 2010. Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union: policy overview and policy impact analysis. A case study: Italy. Budapest & Brussels: TARKI-Applica.

124

of Turin area assessedfor non-cognitiveoutcomes.

Box 1547 Methodology: statistical regressionanalysis of survey datacovering a broad rangeof indicators on child,family andenvironmentalcharacteristics.

2002-2003(whenchildren)

Box 1558

Box 1559

Box 1560

Box 1561

Box 1562 -children non-cognitiveoutcomes inprimary school(1

stto 4

th

grade)

Box 1563

Box 1564 -childcareattendance

Box 1565

Box 1582

Box 1583 assessed by parentsand teachersthrough aquestionnaire

Box 1584 (abilityto listen, toconcentrate, toestablishinterpersonalrelationships, tocooperate withpeers andcreativity)

disentangled.

Box 1590

Box 1591 -parents’ level of education is not significantlycorrelated to children non-cognitive outcomes

Box 1592 - attendance of formal childcare has a positiveand significant impact on all the non-cognitive

Box 1593 indicators considered in the study

Box 1594 these findings confirm the importance of earlysocialising experiences for the non-cognitive developmentof children

Box 1595 Havnes, T., andMogstad, M.2011. No ChildLeft Behind:SubsidizedChild Care andChildren'sLong-RunOutcomes.AmericanEconomicJournal:EconomicPolicy, 3(2):97–129.

Box 1596 Open accessversion:Havnes, T., andMogstad, M.

Box 1597 Diffence-in-difference(DD)estimates

Box 1598 The aimof the study is toanalyse theintroduction ofsubsidized,universallyaccessiblechildcare in Norwayaddressing theimpact of onchildren long-runoutcomes(educationalattainment).

Box 1599 To elicitcausal relationshipbetween childcareand children’s long-term educationalattainment a DDapproach that

Box 1600 Location:Norway

Box 1601 Context:providing evidence oflong-term effects ofchildcare on childreneducational attainmentin a context ofsubsidized anduniversally accessibleservices >Scandinaviancontribution to theinternational policydebate on ECECgaining increasingattention in US,Canada and EU.

Box 1602 Sample:499.000+ children(318.300+ families)

Box 1604 -child andfamilybackground

Box 1605

Box 1606

Box 1607

Box 1608

Box 1609

Box 1610

Box 1611

Box 1612

Box 1613 -childcarecoverage in418Norwegianmunicipalities

Box 1614

Box 1619 Statistic Norway datasetcontaining uniqueindividualidentifiers thatallow to matchparents and theirchildren

Box 1620

Box 1621 administrative registerdata on formalchildcareinstitutions andtheir location(Statistic Norway)

Box 1622

Box 1623

Box 1624 number of

Box 1625 Difference-in-difference estimates show that:

Box 1626 -childcare attendance substantially improvededucational attainment of children in the long term (inaggregate terms additional 17.500 childcare placesproduced 6.200 years of education)

Box 1627 - childcare expansion improved childreneducational chances by raising the chances of completinghigh school and attending college

Box 1628 -subsample analysis indicates the greatesteffects on education stems from children with loweducated mothers

Box 1629 overall the findings of the estimates indicatethat universal access to subsidized childcare levels theplaying field by increasing intergenerational mobility

Box 1630

Box 1631 Limitation: the findings of this study might not begeneralised beyond Scandinavian countries in whichoverall high quality, universally accessible childcare isprovided and SES differences in population are lessmarked than elsewhere.

125

2009. No ChildLeft Behind:Universal ChildCare andChildren'sLong-RunOutcomes.StatisticsNorway:ResearchDepartment.

exploit a childcarereform from 1975 inNorway is used forcarrying out theestimation.

distributed across 3cohorts (pre-reform,phase-in, post-reform).Treatment andcomparison groupswere defined accordingto municipal childcare(3-6 services) coveragerates in the expansionperiod after the reform(1976-1979).

Box 1603 Method:comparing adultsoutcomes – in terms ofyears spent ineducation – by age 30-33 in 2006 using astatistical regressionmodel for data analysis.

Box 1615

Box 1616

Box 1617

Box 1618 -adultoutcomes

completed yearsof education in2006 (data drawnfrom annualreports fromNorwegianeducationalestablishment)

Box 1632

126