academic articles early childhood education

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

Social & Emotional Development: For Our Youngest Learners & Beyond

You are here

Perhaps more than ever, mental health and social interactions have been on the minds of many over the past year. A pandemic, ongoing systemic injustices, and a contentious political season combined to create uncertainty and stress for adults and children alike. What do these stressors mean for the mental health of our youngest learners? In what ways can early childhood educators nurture the social and emotional lives and learning of children from birth through age 8?

This issue of  Young Children  offers research-supported responses to these questions with a cluster of articles devoted to intentional practices that promote social and emotional development: The first four articles in this cluster focus on the specific social and emotional needs of infants and toddlers, and the development of these important articles represents a unique collaboration between NAEYC and ZERO TO THREE to collectively concentrate our respective journals on the emotional health of infants and toddlers.

The catalyst for this issue was threefold:

• the shared interest in supporting the early childhood education workforce to have the resources and tools necessary for meeting the needs of the youngest children in their care
• the understanding that social and emotional development is critical to learning and a fundamental aspect of infant and early childhood mental health (IECMH)
• the recognition of the power of collaboration to elevate the vital role of early childhood educators in supporting IECMH

Mary Jane Maguire-Fong opens this  Young Children  cluster with “What Babies Ask of Us: Contexts to Support Learning about Self and Other.” She details how early childhood educators can listen to, observe, and guide infants and toddlers through thoughtfully prepared play spaces, daily routines, and everyday interactions. In “‘You’re Okay’ May Not be Okay: Using Emotion Language to Promote Toddlers’ Social and Emotional Development,” Elizabeth K. King harnesses that keen awareness and planning to outline how educators can use anti-oppressive emotion language strategies with toddlers.

Tapping into these same powers of observation and reflection, Claire Vallotton, Jennifer Mortensen, Melissa Burnham, Kalli Decker, and Marjorie Beeghly present “Becoming a Better Behavior Detective: Applying a Developmental and Contextual Lens on Behavior to Promote Social and Emotional Development.” Educators can use this 5-Step Reflective Cycle to identify and be responsive to infants’ and toddlers’ behaviors and needs. Of course, following these steps depends on our own emotional presence and well-being. In an accompanying piece to this article, Holly Hatton-Bowers and colleagues offer recommendations for “Cultivating Self-Awareness in Our Work with Infants, Toddlers, and Their Families: Caring for Ourselves as We Care for Others.”

Finally, in “When in Doubt, Reach Out: Teaming Strategies for Inclusive Early Childhood Settings,” Christine Spence, Deserai Miller, Catherine Corr, Rosa Milagros Santos, and Brandie Bentley capture how an early childhood educator learns to actively participate in early intervention processes through effective communication and collaboration. This cluster also features a special Rocking and Rolling column defining IECMH and outlining how early childhood educators play a role in fostering infants’ and toddlers’ emotional well-being.

For educators of older children, it is vital to understand that the roots of social and emotional learning begin in infancy. In addition to the cluster articles, you’ll find pieces devoted to social and emotional learning in preschool and elementary settings, including articles that

• outline the ARC framework to help children learn to recognize and manage their emotions, particularly those who have experienced trauma
• describe effective strategies for fostering responsibility in young children
• distinguish between friendship and kindness in preschool settings

The articles in the  ZERO TO THREE Journal  explore a variety of issues related to IECMH in early childhood education settings, including: how infants’ and toddlers’ mental health is paramount to their ability to form healthy relationships, regulate their emotions, and learn; the role of IECMH consultation, the impact of COVID, and equity and power dynamics; and trauma-informed care and the importance of teachers’ mental health, particularly in the context of multiple, long-term stressors affecting every layer of the early childhood education system and society as a whole. The issue also recognizes the valuable role of advocacy and policy and provides suggestions for how early childhood professionals can bring their expertise to influence effective policy change for babies and families.

We hope that the readers of  Young Children  and the  ZERO TO THREE Journal  will turn to both publications to discover perspectives and find valuable resources to support their work with infants, toddlers, and their families. Links to selected articles from each issue are available on each journal’s web page.

—Annie Moses, editor in chief, with Stefanie Powers, editor in chief,  ZERO TO THREE Journal , and Kathy Reschke, editorial assistant,  ZERO TO THREE Journal

Above: Children in Maureen Linnane’s toddler class used cardboard materials to create a collage.

Below: This piece comes from Chandler, the young toddler son of an NAEYC staff member, as he explored art materials.

Is your classroom full of children’s artwork? To feature it in  Young Children , see the link at the bottom of the page or email  [email protected]  for details.

Send your thoughts on this issue, and on topics you’d like to read about in future issues of Young Children, to  [email protected] .

Would you like to see your children’s artwork featured in these pages? For guidance on submitting print-quality photos (as well as details on permissions and licensing), see  NAEYC.org/resources/pubs/authors-photographers/photos .

Annie Moses, PhD, is director of periodicals at NAEYC and serves as editor in chief of  Young Children  and  Teaching Young Children .

Stephanie Powers is the editor in chief at ZERO TO THREE Journal.

Kathy L. Reschke, PhD, is senior content specialist for ZERO TO THREE. Dr. Reschke contributes to the design and development of competency-based professional development products and services. She developed the content for the ZERO TO THREE Critical Competencies for Infant-Toddler Educators™ course manuals, online course, and coaching program. [email protected]

Vol. 76, No. 1

Print this article

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Impacts of Early Childhood Education on Medium- and Long-Term Educational Outcomes

Dana charles mccoy.

1 Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

Hirokazu Yoshikawa

2 New York University, New York, NY

Kathleen M. Ziol-Guest

Greg j. duncan.

3 University of California, Irvine, CA

Holly S. Schindler

4 University of Washington, Seattle, WA

Katherine Magnuson

5 University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

Andrew Koepp

Jack p. shonkoff.

Despite calls to expand early childhood education (ECE) in the United States, questions remain regarding its medium- and long-term impacts on educational outcomes. We use meta-analysis of 22 high-quality experimental and quasi-experimental studies conducted between 1960 and 2016 to find that on average, participation in ECE leads to statistically significant reductions in special education placement ( d = 0.33 SD , 8.1 percentage points) and grade retention ( d = 0.26 SD , 8.3 percentage points) and increases in high school graduation rates ( d = 0.24 SD , 11.4 percentage points). These results support ECE’s utility for reducing education-related expenditures and promoting child well-being.

As a period of rapid growth in foundational cognitive, social, and emotional skills, early childhood represents a particularly sensitive time for the promotion of children’s educational potential ( Shonkoff & Philips, 2000 ). Reflecting this promise, rates of enrollment in state-funded early childhood education (ECE) programs have risen dramatically in recent years, more than doubling between 2002 and 2016 ( Barnett et al., 2017 ; Barnett, Hustedt, Robin, & Schulman, 2003 ). Despite increased investment in publicly funded ECE programming as a mechanism to promote learning, the ability of ECE to improve children’s educational outcomes in middle childhood and adolescence remains uncertain for both methodological and substantive reasons.

In the present study, we conduct a meta-analysis of high- quality research studies to provide an up-to-date estimate of the overall impact of ECE program participation on three distinct medium- and long-term educational outcomes: special education placement, grade retention, and high school graduation. We focus on these outcomes for several reasons. First, previous literature suggests that the skills typically targeted by ECE programming—including cognitive skills in language, literacy, and math as well as socio-emotional capacities in self-regulation, motivation/engagement, and persistence—are likely precursors of children’s ability to maintain a positive academic trajectory ( Heckman, Pinto, & Savelyev, 2013 ). As a result, educational outcomes are theoretically relevant as more distal targets of ECE programming. Second, the prevalence and cost of special education, grade retention, and especially high school dropout are large ( Levin, Belfield, Muennig, & Rouse, 2007 ). Because of this, understanding the possible benefits of ECE for mitigating negative educational outcomes such as these is of particular importance to educational policymaking.

To address several limitations of previous work in this area (see Appendix ), we employ data from a comprehensive meta-analytic database of ECE program evaluations published between 1960 and 2007 as well as a supplement to this database covering studies published between 2007 and 2016. All studies met strict inclusion criteria based on study design, attrition, and relevance. From this larger database, we focus on estimates for three educational outcomes (special education placement, grade retention, and high school dropout) and conduct sensitivity analyses probing differences based on model specification and the time between the end of the ECE program and the outcome measurement.

Appendix Table A1 provides detailed information on the 22 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Seven of these studies used experimental designs (i.e., random assignment to ECE vs. a non-ECE control condition), 4 used quasi-experimental designs (i.e., sibling fixed effects, regression discontinuity, and propensity score matching), and 11 compared ECE and control group children who were not randomly assigned to conditions but provided evidence that groups were equivalent on observed characteristics at baseline.

Results of multilevel weighted regression analyses revealed positive and statistically significant average effects of ECE across all three outcomes combined, b = 0.24, SE = 0.04, p < .001 (see Table 1 ). Specifically, ECE participation led to an average decrease of 0.33 SD ( SE = 0.11, p < .01) in special education placement, an average decrease of 0.26 SD ( SE = 0.06, p < .001) in grade retention, and average increase of 0.24 SD ( SE = 0.07, p < .001) in graduation rates relative to nonparticipation. Based on the subset of observations providing the necessary data, our results show that ECE participation is associated with an 8.09 percentage point ( SE = 3.44, p < .05) decrease in special education placement, 8.29 percentage point ( SE = 2.05, p < .01) decrease in grade retention, and 11.41 percentage point ( SE = 2.40, p < .01) increase in high school graduation (see Figure 1 ). Results of sensitivity analyses were largely consistent with those from our primary analyses (see Table 1 and Appendix for details) and suggest that effects of ECE on educational outcomes (particularly special education and retention) are larger at longer term follow-up relative to time points close to the end of treatment.

Effect sizes ( d ) represent results from all available observations ( n = 75). Percentage point data represent results from a subset of observations ( n = 62) with available data.

** p < .01. ***p < .001.

Estimated Standardized Difference Between ECE and Non-ECE Children Observed From Two-Level Weighted Regression Analyses

Note. All models (with the exception of the first set of sensitivity analyses) weighted by the inverse variance of the ES estimates times the inverse of the number of effect sizes per contrast. Primary models include all time points and both current and cumulative representations of special education and grade retention. The first set of sensitivity models nests effect sizes in studies rather than in contrasts. The second set of sensitivity models controls for time (in years) since the end of treatment. The third set of sensitivity models includes a reduced sample of effect sizes reflecting only the latest time point per contrast and only cumulative representations of special education and grade retention. All effect sizes coded such that positive coefficients indicate more desirable outcomes (i.e., lower special education placement, lower grade retention, and higher graduation rates). ECE = early childhood education; ES = effect size.

These results suggest that classroom-based ECE programs for children under five can lead to significant and substantial decreases in special education placement and grade retention and increases in high school graduation rates. These findings support previous work on the lasting impacts of ECE on children’s educational progression, placement, and completion ( Aos, Lieb, Mayfield, Miller, & Pennucci, 2004 ; Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010 ; Gorey, 2001 ; Lazar et al., 1982 ). Importantly, relative to this earlier work, our analyses cover a wider age range, reflect a mix of both historical demonstration projects and more modern large-scale evaluations, and use more rigorous criteria for research design.

These results provide further evidence for the potential individual and societal benefits of expanding ECE programming in the United States. Over the past several years, financial investments in public ECE have risen rapidly, with states spending $7.4 billion in 2016 to support early education for nearly 1.5 million 3- and 4-year-olds ( Barnett et al., 2017 ). At the same time, approximately 6.4 million children are in special education classes, and more than 250,000 are retained each year, with annual per pupil expenditures for special education and retention amounting to more than $8,000 and $12,000, respectively ( Chambers, Parrish, & Harr, 2002 ; Office of Special Education Programs, 2014 ; U.S. Department of Education, 2015 ; Warren, Hoffman, & Andrew, 2014 ). Even more costly is the fact that approximately 373,000 youth in the United States drop out of high school each year, with each dropout leading to an estimated $689,000 reduction in individual lifetime earnings and a $262,000 cost to the broader economy ( Chapman, Laird, Ifill, & Kewal-Ramani, 2011 ; Levin et al., 2007 ). These negative educational outcomes are much more frequent for children growing up in low- as opposed to higher-income families, and yet more than half of low-income 3- and 4-year-old children remain out of center-based care ( Child Trends, 2015 ; O’Connor & Fernandez, 2006 ). Given the high costs that special education placement, grade retention, and dropout place on both individuals and taxpayers, our results suggest that further investments in ECE programming may be one avenue for reducing educational and economic burdens and inequities.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the following funders of the National Forum on Early Childhood Policy and Programs: the Alliance for Early Success, the Buffett Early Childhood Fund, the Palix Foundation, Harvard University, and an Anonymous Donor. We are also grateful to the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education (R305A110035) and the National Institutes of Health (5R01HD073172-04) for supporting this research and to Abt Associates, Inc. and the National Institute for Early Education Research for making their data available to us. Research reported in this publication was also supported by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under award No. F32HD078034 to the first author. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or any other funding agency.

Biographies

DANA CHARLES McCOY, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, 14 Appian Way, Cambridge, MA 02138; ude.dravrah.esg@yoccm_anad . Her research focuses on understanding and promoting positive development in early childhood.

HIROKAZU YOSHIKAWA, PhD, is the Courtney Sale Ross Professor of Globalization and Education and co-director of the Global TIES for Children Center at New York University, 726 Broadway, 5th Floor, New York, NY 10003; [email protected] . His research focuses on impacts of programs and policies on children and youth in the United States and in low- and middle-income countries.

KATHLEEN M. ZIOL-GUEST, PhD, is a child and family policy researcher at RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA, 90401; [email protected] . Her research focuses on economic well-being, income inequality, and poverty policies, particularly in early childhood.

GREG J. DUNCAN, PhD, is a distinguished professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Education, 3200 Education, Irvine, CA 92697; ude.icu@nacnudg . His research focuses on education and social policies designed to promote social mobility.

HOLLY S. SCHINDLER, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Washington, Miller Hall, Box 353600, Seattle, WA 98195; ude.wu@ldnihcsh . Her research focuses on how interventions and policies can best target family and school contexts during early childhood to prevent behavior problems and promote mental health in vulnerable populations of families.

KATHERINE MAGNUSON, PhD, is professor of social work and an associate director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, 1180 Observatory Ave, Madison, WI 53706; ude.csiw@nosungamk . Her research focuses on economically disadvantaged children, early childhood education, and other social policies.

RUI YANG, MA, is a PhD fellow in the Developmental Psychology program at New York University’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, 246 Greene Street, 516E, New York, NY 10003; [email protected] . Yang’s primary research interest is understanding the process of gender socialization in cultural context.

ANDREW KOEPP, EdM, is a research assistant at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, 13 Appian Way, Cambridge, MA 02138; ude.dravrah.liam@ppeok_werdna . His research explores how children and families benefit from supportive early care settings.

JACK P. SHONKOFF, MD, is the Julius B. Richmond FAMRI Professor of Child Health and Development and director of the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 50 Church Street, Cambridge, MA 02138; ude.dravrah@ffoknohs_kcaj . His work focuses on driving science-based innovation to achieve breakthrough outcomes for young children facing adversity.

Existing Evidence on Impacts of Early Childhood Education

Since the initiation of the Head Start program in the 1960s, a large body of educational and developmental research has focused on understanding the impacts of early childhood education (ECE) programs on children’s subsequent well-being. Most of these studies have focused on immediate and often positive gains in the types of cognitive and self-regulatory skills that are associated with children’s later academic well-being ( Lazar et al., 1982 ). Building on this work and broader theory regarding developmental cascades, a much smaller set of studies has aimed to quantify ECE’s longer term educational benefits ( Masten et al., 2005 ). In particular, the results of two of the most influential model programs in the early childhood literature—Perry Preschool and Abecedarian—are often cited as conclusive evidence for the role of ECE in improving educational attainment ( Barnett & Masse, 2007 ). In addition to demonstrating individual benefits, these studies are also used as exemplars of ECE’s potential to generate social benefits far in excess of their costs, with estimates typically surpassing $5 returned for every initial $1 invested in early educational programming ( Barnett & Masse, 2007 ; Belfield, Nores, Barnett, & Schweinhart, 2006 ; Heckman, Moon, Pinto, Savelyev, & Yavitz, 2010 ; Karoly, Kilburn, & Cannon, 2006 ).

Although the results of the Perry and Abecedarian programs support the promise of ECE for delivering both individual and social benefits, it is difficult to draw general conclusions from just two model program evaluations. In an attempt to provide a more comprehensive—and representative—perspective of the longer term benefits of ECE, several studies have used meta-analysis to quantify average effects across multiple evaluations using studies, rather than individuals, as the unit of observation ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ). When focusing on educational outcomes like graduation, attainment, special education placement, and grade retention, these meta-analyses have identified positive overall impacts of ECE participation, with effect sizes in the d = 0.15 to 0.50 range ( Aos, Lieb, Mayfield, Miller, & Pennucci, 2004 ; Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010 ; Gorey, 2001 ; LazQAzar et al., 1982).

Although promising, there are several limitations of this collective body of work that we attempt to address in the present study. First, with the exception of Aos et al. (2004) , no meta-analysis has included studies of ECE’s impact on educational outcomes published after 2000. In the present study, we review literature published up to 2016 to provide a more up-to-date meta-analytic estimate. In addition, we extend previous work focusing on ECE for 3- and 4-year-old children (e.g., Aos et al., 2004 ; Camilli et al., 2010 ) by considering services provided for children in the full 0 to 5 age range.

Second, unlike previous meta-analyses in this area ( Aos et al., 2004 ; Camilli et al., 2010 ; Lazar et al., 1982 ), we limit our analyses to focus exclusively on studies meeting a strict set of quality standards. From a methodological standpoint, the quality of a given meta-analysis is largely determined by the quality of the individual studies it covers ( Barnett, 1995 ; Gormley, 2007 ). When an included study is systematically biased, for example due to problems with nonrandom selection into treatment conditions or selective attrition, the results of the meta-analysis will also be biased ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009 ). By limiting our analysis to studies using rigorous experimental and quasi-experimental designs that have established baseline equivalence across ECE and comparison groups and reasonable levels of attrition, we aim to ensure that our estimates are as internally valid as possible.

Third, we provide both aggregated and disaggregated estimates of ECE’s impacts on three distinct educational outcomes. A common issue within meta-analysis is the collective evaluation of studies that differ fundamentally from one another in one or more ways, otherwise known as the “apples and oranges” problem ( Borenstein et al., 2009 ). In ECE research, previous meta-analyses (e.g., Camilli et al., 2010 ) have combined special education placement, grade retention, high school completion, and academic attainment into one outcome category despite the fact that these outcomes differ in terms of their relationship with other domains of functioning ( Alexander, Entwistle, & Kabbani, 2001 ; Morgan, Frisco, Farkas, & Hibel, 2010 ). Although some older meta-analyses have included domain-specific estimates (e.g., Gorey, 2001 ), no studies in the past decade have estimated the impacts of ECE on the subtypes of educational outcomes that generate important costs to both individuals and societies. We address this problem in the present study by identifying separate estimates for ECE’s impact on special education placement, grade retention, and high school graduation.

Detailed Methods

The present study draws from a comprehensive database of early childhood care and education program evaluations conducted in the United States between 1960 and 2007 and compiled by the National Forum on Early Childhood Policy and Programs. Building on several previously existing meta-analytic databases ( Camilli et al., 2010 ; Jacob, Creps, & Boulay, 2004 ; Shager et al., 2013 ), the Forum’s database was expanded to include ECE programs for children under age 3 and new research through 2007 and narrowed to focus only on studies meeting a strict set of quality-related criteria. For the present study, this database was then expanded once again to include studies published between 2007 and 2016. Studies were identified through systematic literature review, manual searches of leading policy institutes (e.g., Abt, Rand, Mathematica Policy Research, NIEER) and state and federal departments (e.g., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), and “snowballing” of the reference sections of included studies and reviews.

Studies were included in the database if they (a) evaluated a U.S.-based educational program, policy, or intervention for children ages 0 to 5 years; (b) made use of a comparison group that was shown to be equivalent to the treatment group at baseline; (c) had at least 10 participants in each condition; (d) experienced less than 50% attrition in each condition between initiation of treatment and the follow-up measurement; and (e) had enough information to calculate effect sizes for analysis. Included evaluations made use of experimental designs as well as quasi-experimental designs that included pre-post treatment and control group comparisons and were equivalent on relevant characteristics before initiation of treatment. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria for the complete meta-analytic database can be found in Shager et al. (2013) .

Of the more than 10,000 documents reviewed, most were excluded because they were not research studies, did not include an evaluation component, or consisted solely of previously published results. In total, 272 met the aforementioned criteria and were included in the full database. An additional 4 studies focusing exclusively on the outcomes of interest for the present study were also included covering the time period of 2007 to 2016. Data abstraction and coding were completed by doctoral-level research assistants. Coder training took place over a three- to six-month period and ended with reliability checks in which coders were required to achieve an interrater agreement with an expert coder of .80 for all codes with the exception of effect sizes, which were required to be within 10% of the true effect size. The range of interrater reliabilities for all study information was .87 to .96. Coding questions and discrepancies were resolved during weekly, full-team meetings and recorded for future reference in an annotated codebook.

Data were abstracted at multiple levels. Studies refer to the distinct investigations of different ECE programs. Contrasts are defined as comparisons of groups within a given study that experienced different conditions (e.g., full-time ECE vs. control, part-time ECE vs. control). Finally, effect sizes represent the standardized treatment-control difference using different outcome measures at different time points within contrasts.

Effect sizes were coded for special education placement, grade retention, and high school graduation outcomes using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis computer software ( Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2005 ). Specifically, Hedges g was calculated, which adjusts the standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d ) to account for bias in the d estimator when sample sizes are small. In the case of dichotomous rate and event data, effect sizes were first calculated as odds ratios before being converted to Hedges g . All effect sizes were coded such that positive numbers indicate more desirable outcomes (i.e., lower special education placement and grade retention, higher high school graduation).

For the present paper, we focused exclusively on studies that compared classroom-based ECE programs to non-ECE conditions for the full study sample. We excluded effect sizes that were not relevant to one of our three focal outcome measures (special education placement, grade retention, and high school graduation), including college participation and years of education completed. After imposing these exclusions, the final analytic sample for the present study included a total of 75 effect sizes taken from 34 contrasts and 22 studies (see Appendix Table A1 for study names and features).

Within our analytic sample, outcome definitions varied in two important ways. First, special education placement and grade retention were coded as either “current” (e.g., being in special education at the time of the data collection) or “cumulative” (e.g., ever having been in special education since the time of the intervention). Second, different studies captured outcomes at different time points. Time between the end of treatment and the measurement of the given outcomes was coded in years and included as a control variable in our sensitivity analyses.

To account for the nested nature of the effect size data, we used a two-level random intercept model with effect sizes at Level 1 nested in contrasts at Level 2. We chose this over a three-level model due to the low levels of nesting of contrasts within studies (average n of contrasts within studies = 1.54; range = 1–6). To determine whether ECE participation affected our targeted educational outcomes, we ran four primary models: (1) a model predicting cumulative and current special education effect sizes at all available time points, (2) a model predicting cumulative and current grade retention effect sizes at all available time points, (3) a model predicting high school graduation effect sizes at all available time points, and (4) a model that combines all of the aforementioned effect sizes for a single estimate of overall ECE impact on educational outcomes. We replicated these analyses using available percentage point (rather than effect size) data, which required us to limit our sample to 62 of the original 75 observations as some effect sizes could not be converted to percentage points (e.g., the NLSY79 Head Start regression discontinuity study). Effect sizes were, on average, slightly larger in the 13 observations without available percentage point data (mean effect size = 0.31) than they were in the 62 observations with available percentage point data (mean effect size = 0.28), though this difference was not statistically significant, t (73) = 0.72, p = ns .

We also ran three supplemental sets of sensitivity analyses using effect size data. The first used an alternative nesting strategy, with effect sizes nested in studies rather than contrasts. The second took the same approach used in the primary analyses but controlled for the amount of time that passed (in years) between the end of the treatment and the observation time point. The third focused on a narrower set of models predicting only “cumulative” outcome definitions taken from the latest available time point.

Because effect sizes are based on varying numbers of cases and are therefore estimated with varying degrees of precision, effect sizes (and estimates of percentage point differences) were weighted by the inverse of the variance of each effect size estimate multiplied by the inverse of the number of effect sizes per contrast ( Cooper & Hedges, 2009 ; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001 ). Across all models, the primary coefficient of interest was the Level 1 intercept, which reflects the average effect size for the particular outcome across included contrasts (or studies).

Results of Sensitivity Analyses

Results of primary and sensitivity analyses are shown in full in Table 1 , as well as in Appendix Figures A1 through ​ throughA3. A3 . Specifically, results of the first set of sensitivity analyses in which effect sizes were nested in studies (rather than contrasts) produced estimates that were relatively comparable (within approximately 0.03 SD ) to the primary results. In particular, when nesting in studies, the overall effect of ECE on all outcomes was b = 0.24 ( SE = 0.04, p < .001), and the effect on special education was b = 0.30 ( SE = 0.11, p < .05), grade retention was b = 0.23 ( SE = 0.05, p < .01), and graduation rates was b = 0.27 ( SE = 0.07, p < .001).

Results of the second set of sensitivity analyses—which included an additional “time since end of treatment” control—produced results that were similar to the primary findings for grade retention, attenuated slightly (by approximately 0.04 SD ) for graduation and attenuated substantially (by approximately 0.15 SD , or nearly 50% of the primary estimate) for special education. In particular, the overall impact of ECE immediately following treatment across all outcomes was b = 0.16 ( SE = 0.06, p < .01), whereas the effect of ECE immediately following treatment on special education was b = 0.17 ( SE = 0.11, ns ), grade retention was b = 0.26 ( SE = 0.07, p < .05), and graduation rates was b = 0.21 ( SE = 0.08, p < .01). The coefficient for time in years since treatment was significant and positive for all outcomes but graduation, indicating that ECE impacts grew larger each year posttreatment for special education and retention and remained stable over time for graduation. Specifically, ECE effects were found to be significantly larger across time for all outcomes combined ( b = 0.013, SE = 0.002, p < .001), special education ( b = 0.022, SE = 0.003, p < .001), and grade retention ( b = 0.020, SE = 0.001, p < .001). Collectively, these results showing growing ECE effects on special education and retention diverge from prior evidence showing “fade-out” of ECE’s benefits for cognitive skills and achievement. Additional research is needed to identify the mechanisms underlying these gains. It is possible, for example, that ECE may benefit children’s development of fundamental but often unmeasured skills such as self-regulation, communication, and motivation, and these skills in turn may lead to more favorable educational outcomes over time ( Bailey, Duncan, Odgers, & Yu, 2017 ).

A third set of sensitivity analyses examining only (a) the last time point of data available within a given contrast and (b) cumulative data for special education and grade retention again revealed positive and statistically significant effects of ECE across all three outcomes ( b = 0.28, SE = 0.05, p < .001). Relative to the primary results, results of these sensitivity analyses were slightly stronger (by approximately 0.03–0.05 SD ) for special education and retention and substantially smaller (by approximately 0.14 SD ) for graduation. In particular, these sensitivity analyses showed that ECE participants were, on average, 0.37 SD ( SE = 0.05, p < .001) lower in special education placement, 0.29 SD ( SE = 0.07, p < .001) lower in grade retention, and 0.10 SD ( SE = 0.02, p < .001) higher in graduation rates than their control group peers. Follow-up analyses revealed that the substantial drop in average effect size magnitude for graduation rates within this set of sensitivity analyses was attributable to the relatively greater weighting of the NLSY study—which, due to its large sample size, has a very small standard error—within a more limited sample of effect sizes.

Limitations

Research is needed to address several important limitations of the work presented. First and most importantly, circumstances surrounding today’s ECE programs differ from those associated with many of the programs included in this analysis. Many programs in this analysis were implemented at a time when alternative care options were limited, mostly targeted particularly high-risk children, often included comprehensive “wrap-around” services and home visiting components, and frequently provided services for multiple years at a time. Although our inclusion of more recent programs (up to 2016) represents an improvement on prior meta-analyses in this area, the degree to which the impacts found in the present analyses are comparable with the potential effects of the types of universal, publicly funded pre-school programs being considered for scale-up today is a needed area of future research ( Barnett, 2010 ). Second, the limited data from the small sample of included studies precludes our ability to test hypotheses of mechanism, impact variation, and relative forms and levels of program quality. In particular, probing the degree to which these effects may be explained by differences in cognitive and/or socio-emotional functioning is of particular use for generating knowledge about intervention impact fadeout and persistence ( Bailey et al., 2017 ). Additional attention is also needed to understand the degree to which ECE’s impacts may be stronger—or weaker—for particular subgroups of children ( Magnuson et al., 2016 ). In the Perry program evaluated in this study, for example, improvements in graduation rates and reductions in grade retention were driven entirely by girls, whereas effects on criminal activity, later-life income, and employment were driven by boys ( Heckman et al., 2010 ; Schweinhart et al., 2005 ). Moving forward, research with a larger number of longitudinal studies is needed to probe these critical, policy-relevant questions of “why” and “for whom.”

+ and dark grey bars identify those observations included in sensitivity analyses using a reduced sample. Two additional observations (one from the Yale Child Welfare Research Program and one from the Perry Preschool study) included in primary analyses but not shown due to lack of percentage point data.

+ and dark grey bars identify those observations included in sensitivity analyses using a reduced sample. Seven additional observations (six from the Currie and Thomas NLSCM fixed effect study and one from the NLSY79 Head Start regression discontinuity study) included in primary analyses but not shown due to lack of percentage point data.

+ and dark grey bars identify those observations included in sensitivity analyses using a reduced sample. Two additional observations (from the NLSY79 Head Start regression discontinuity study and the OEO Head Start regression discontinuity study) included in primary analyses but not shown due to lack of percentage point data.

Summary of Included Studies

*Study included in meta-analysis.

Early childhood education : Journals

• Childhood education "The purpose of Childhood Education, an official journal of the Association for Childhood Education International, is to capture and disseminate information about exciting and innovative models, programs, funding approaches, practices, policies, research, and other areas that are being explored and implemented to improve the education of children around the world."
• Contemporary issues in early childhood "Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood is a peer-reviewed international research journal. The journal provides a forum for researchers and professionals who are exploring new and alternative perspectives in their work with young children (from birth to eight years of age) and their families. CIEC aims to present opportunities for scholars to highlight the ways in which the boundaries of early childhood studies and practice are expanding, and for readers to participate in the discussion of emerging issues, contradictions and possibilities."
• Early childhood education journal "The Early Childhood Education Journal analyzes issues, trends, policies, and practices for early childhood education from birth through age eight. In addition, the journal offers well documented points of view and practical recommendations."
• Early childhood research quarterly "Early Childhood Research Quarterly (ECRQ) publishes research on early childhood education and development from birth through 8 years of age. ECRQ publishes predominantly empirical research (quantitative or qualitative methods) on issues of interest to early childhood development, theory, and educational practice."
• Early education and development "Early Education and Development (EE&D) is a multi-disciplinary professional journal that publishes primarily empirical research on the links between early childhood education and children's development from birth to age 8. It is international in scope and designed to emphasize the implications of research and solid scientific information for practice and policy. EE&D is designed for researchers and practitioners involved in preschool and education services for children and their families."
• Journal of early childhood teacher education "The Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education is the official journal of the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators. Its purpose is to provide a forum for consideration of issues and for exchange of information and ideas about research and practice in early childhood teacher education."
• Journal of research in childhood education : JRCE "The Journal of Research in Childhood Education, a publication of the Association for Childhood Education International, features articles that advance knowledge and theory of the education of children, infancy through early adolescence."
• YC young children "Young Children is a peer-reviewed professional journal published by the National Association for the Education of Young Children."
• << Previous: Recent print books
• Next: Databases >>
• Background information
• Recent e-books
• Recent print books
• Connect to Stanford e-resources
• Last Updated: May 16, 2024 2:27 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.stanford.edu/early_childhood_ed

• EMU Library
• Research Guides

Early Childhood Education

• Scholarly Journals
• Search Tutorial
• Tips for Finding Full Text
• More How-To Find Articles
• Is it a Scholarly Article?
• Course Ebooks
• Curriculum/Activity Books
• Find Videos
• Early Education Jobs
• Organizations
• Presentation Help
• Citation Tutorials
• Research Help

Find Journals by Title

Find Journals & Other Periodicals by Title

Search here for journal, magazine or newspaper titles. If you're looking for articles on a topic, use the  databases .

Examples: Newsweek , Journal of Educational Psychology .

Selected Journals for Early Childhood Education

These links take you to a source with recent issues of the journal. Additional issues may be available via other sources. Use  Find Journals by Title  (above) to find alternate sources for a title.

• Child Development "As the flagship journal of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), Child Development has published articles, essays, reviews, and tutorials on various topics in the field of child development since 1930." Uses blind peer review.
• Child Development Perspectives CDP "publishes brief articles on developmental science that are written in accessible language for a wide audience. CDP emphasizes brief, well synthesized reviews of research, but occasionally publishes essays on policy, statistics and methods, and other topics in developmental science."
• Childhood Education The official journal of the Association for Childhood Education International "focuses on the learning and well-being of children around the world."
• Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood "CIEC aims to present opportunities for scholars to highlight the ways in which the boundaries of early childhood studies and practice are expanding, and for readers to participate in the discussion of emerging issues, contradictions and possibilities." Peer reviewed.
• Early Child Development and Care "The Journal provides English translations of work in this field that has been published in other languages, and original English papers on all aspects of early child development and care: descriptive and evaluative articles on social, educational and preventive medical programs for young children, experimental and observational studies, critical reviews and summary articles." Peer reviewed.
• Early Childhood Education Journal "Provides a practical and lively forum for early childhood teachers, program administrators, day care workers, and other professionals concerned with the education of young children." Peer reviewed.
• Early Childhood Research Quarterly " ECRQ publishes predominantly empirical research (quantitative or qualitative methods) on issues of interest to early childhood development, theory, and educational practice (Birth through 8 years of age)."
• Early Years: An International Research Journal The official journal of TACTYC (Association for the Professional Development of Early Years Educators) "publishes research papers and scholarly critiques on all issues associated with early childhood education and care" with a special focus on the "professional development of early years practitioners."
• Education 3-13 : International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education The official publication of the Association for the Study of Primary Education (ASPE) is a peer reviewed UK-based journal focusing on primary education.
• Elementary School Journal "ESJ publishes peer-reviewed articles that pertain to both education theory and research and their implications for teaching practice. In addition, ESJ presents articles that relate the latest research in child development, cognitive psychology, and sociology to school learning and teaching."
• European Early Childhood Education Research Journal The Journal of the European Early Childhood Education Research Association provides "a forum for the publication of original research in early childhood education in Europe."
• International Journal of Early Childhood The official journal of OMEP, l'Organisation Mondiale pour l'Education Prescolaire publishes peer reviewed research "on children, childhood and early childhood education across various social and cultural contexts."
• International Journal of Early Years Education A peer reviewed "forum for researchers and practitioners to debate the theories, research, policy and practice which sustain effective early years education world-wide."
• Journal of Children and Media Publishes peer reviewed research on "children as consumers of media, representations of children in the media, and media organizations and productions for children as well as by them."
• Journal of Early Childhood Literacy Publishes peer reviewed research on "issues related to the nature, function and use of literacy in early childhood."
• Journal of Early Childhood Research This peer reviewed journal "publishes papers in the fields of health, law, social work, therapy, education, sociology, history, and the arts, and welcomes papers from non-traditional as well as established territories of early childhood education."
• Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education Official Journal of the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators
• Journal of Early Intervention Offers blind peer reviewed articles "related to research and practice in early intervention for infants and young children with special needs and their families. . . .Key features include research reports, scholarly reviews, policy analyses, research methods, and "Innovative Practices".
• Journal of Research in Childhood Education JRCE is "a publication of the Association for Childhood Education International, features articles that advance knowledge and theory of the education of children, infancy through early adolescence."
• Merrill-Palmer Quarterly Publishes "empirical and theoretical papers on child development and family-child relationships."
• Topics in Early Childhood Special Education "The practical nature of this journal helps professionals improve service delivery systems for preschool children with special needs. Each issue features reports of original research, literature reviews, conceptual statements, position papers, and program descriptions."
• Voices of Practitioners: Teacher Research in Early Childhood Education Peer reviewed research authored by early childhood teachers.
• YC - Young Children "An award-winning, peer-reviewed journal that combines research and practice, Young Children supports educational excellence and focuses on meeting the needs of all children, birth through third grade." Published by the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Selected Education Journals

• AERA Open "A peer-reviewed, open access journal published by the American Educational Research Association (AERA)."
• Afterschool Matters An open access peer-reviewed journal from the National Institute on Out-of-School Time.
• American Educational Research Journal AERJ "publishes original empirical and theoretical studies and analyses in education that constitute significant contributions to the understanding and/or improvement of educational processes and outcomes." A blind peer reviewed journal from the American Educational Research Association.
• American Journal of Education Sponsored by the Pennsylvania State College of Education, this peer reviewed journal publishes articles "that present research, theoretical statements, philosophical arguments, critical syntheses of a field of educational inquiry, and integrations of educational scholarship, policy, and practice."
• Australian Journal of Teacher Education This open access peer- reviewed journal publishes research related to teacher education.
• Cognition and Instruction This peer reviewed journal publishes articles on the "rigorous study of foundational issues concerning the mental, socio-cultural, and mediational processes and conditions of learning and intellectual competence." Articles are sometimes blind reviewed.
• Comparative and International Education This open access peer-reviewed journal "is published twice a year and is devoted to publishing articles dealing with education in a comparative and international perspective."
• Computers and Education Publishes peer reviewed articles on the use of computing technology in education.
• Contemporary Educational Psychology "publishes articles that involve the application of psychological theory and science to the educational process."
• Current Issues in Emerging eLearning (CIEE) "an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal of research and critical thought on eLearning practice and emerging pedagogical methods."
• Democracy and Education Open access peer-reviewed journal "seeks to support and sustain conversations that take as their focus the conceptual foundations, social policies, institutional structures, and teaching/learning practices associated with democratic education."
• Developmental Review This peer reviewed journal "emphasizes human developmental processes and gives particular attention to issues relevant to child developmental psychology."
• Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education This official publication of the Association for the Study of Primary Education (ASPE) publishes peer reviewed articles related to the education of children between the ages of 3-13.
• Educational Administration Quarterly This peer reviewed journal from the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) offers conceptual and theoretical articles, research analyses, and reviews of books in educational administration."
• Educational and Psychological Measurement "scholarly work from all academic disciplines interested in the study of measurement theory, problems, and issues."
• Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis EEPA "publishes scholarly articles of theoretical, methodological, or policy interest to those engaged in educational policy analysis, evaluation, and decision making." Blind peer reviewed journal from the American Educational Research Association.
• Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice Sponsored by the National Council on Measurement in Education, this journal promotes "a better understanding of and reasoned debate on assessment, evaluation, testing, and related issues."
• Educational Policy "focuses on the practical consequences of educational policy decisions and alternatives"
• Educational Researcher "Educational Researcher publishes scholarly articles that are of general significance to the education research community and that come from a wide range of areas of education research and related disciplines." A peer reviewed journal from the American Educational Research Association.
• Educational Research Quarterly ERQ "publishes evaluative, integrative, theoretical and methodological manuscripts reporting the results of research; current issues in education; synthetic review articles which result in new syntheses or research directions; book reviews; theoretical, empirical or applied research in psychometrics, edumetrics, evaluation, research methodology or statistics" and more. Uses blind peer review.
• Educational Research Review Publishes review articles "in education and instruction at any level," including research reviews, theoretical reviews, methodological reviews, thematic reviews, theory papers, and research critiques. From the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI).
• Educational Studies "publishes fully refereed papers which cover applied and theoretical approaches to the study of education"
• Education and Culture This peer reviewed journal from Purdue University Press "takes an integrated view of philosophical, historical, and sociological issues in education" with a special focus on Dewey.
• FIRE: Forum of International Research in Education This open access, peer reviewed journal promotes "interdisciplinary scholarship on the use of internationally comparative data for evidence-based and innovative change in educational systems, schools, and classrooms worldwide."
• Frontline Learning Research An official journal of EARLI, European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. Open Access.
• Future of Children Articles on policy topics relevant to children and youth. An open access journal from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings Institution.
• Harvard Educational Review "a scholarly journal of opinion and research in education. It provides an interdisciplinary forum for discussion and debate about the field's most vital issues."
• High School Journal "The High School Journal publishes research, scholarship, essays, and reviews that critically examine the broad and complex field of secondary education."
• IDEA Papers A national forum for the publication of peer-reviewed articles pertaining to the general areas of teaching and learning, faculty evaluation, curriculum design, assessment, and administration in higher education.
• Impact: A Journal of Community and Cultural Inquiry in Education A peer-reviewed, open-access journal devoted to the examination and analysis of education in a variety of local, regional, national, and transnational contexts.
• Instructional Science "Instructional Science promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of the instructional process and resultant learning. Published papers represent a variety of perspectives from the learning sciences and cover learning by people of all ages, in all areas of the curriculum, and in informal and formal learning contexts." Peer reviewed.
• Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning - IJPBL This open access, peer reviewed journal "publishes relevant, interesting, and challenging articles of research, analysis, or promising practice related to all aspects of implementing problem-based learning (PBL) in K–12 and post-secondary classrooms."
• International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning An Official Publication of the International Society of the Learning Sciences
• International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation - IJELP An open access journal from the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Articles undergo a double-blind peer review process.
• Internet and Higher Education Publishes peer reviewed articles "devoted to addressing contemporary issues and future developments related to online learning, teaching, and administration on the Internet in post-secondary settings."
• Journal for Research in Mathematics Education An official journal of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), JRME publishes peer reviewed research articles and literature reviews, as well as commentaries and book reviews. Concerned with mathematics education at both the K-12 and college level.
• Journal of Applied Research on Children - JARC Published by the CHILDREN AT RISK Institute, this open access. peer reviewed journal publishes "interdisciplinary research that is linked to practical, evidenced-based policy solutions for children’s issues."
• Journal of Computer Assisted Learning JCAL "is an international peer-reviewed journal which covers the whole range of uses of information and communication technology to support learning and knowledge exchange."
• Journal of Education A scholarly peer-reviewed journal focusing on K-12 education. This long-standing journal is sponsored by the Boston University School of Education.
• Journal of Educational Psychology This blind peer reviewed journal from the American Psychological Association publishes "original, primary psychological research pertaining to education across all ages and educational levels," as well as "exceptionally important theoretical and review articles that are pertinent to educational psychology."
• Journal of Educational Research "publishes manuscripts that describe or synthesize research of direct relevance to educational practice in elementary and secondary schools, pre-K–12."
• Journal of Interactive Media in Education - JIME This long-standing peer reviewed open access journal publishes research on the theories, practices and experiences in the field of educational technology.
• Journal of Research in Science Teaching - JRST This blind peer reviewed journal is the official journal of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research, which "publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy."
• Journal of Teacher Education The flagship journal of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) publishes peer reviewed articles on teacher education and continued support for teachers.
• Journal of the Learning Sciences "JLS provides a multidisciplinary forum for research on education and learning as theoretical and design sciences." This official journal of the International Society of the Learning Sciences uses a double blind review process.
• Journal of Vocational Behavior "The Journal of Vocational Behavior publishes empirical and theoretical articles that expand knowledge of vocational behavior and career development across the life span. " Peer reviewed.
• Learning and Instruction This peer reviewed journal from the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) publishes "advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching."
• Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning - National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) Publishes "papers on all aspects of mentoring, tutoring and partnership in education, other academic disciplines and the professions."
• Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning MJCSL is an open-access journal focusing on research, theory, pedagogy, and other matters related to academic service-learning, campus-community partnerships, and engaged/public scholarship in higher education. Published by the University of Michigan. All articles are free online --don't worry about the "Buy a copy" messages.
• Michigan Reading Journal Open access journal from the Michigan Reading Association.
• NACADA Journal - National Academic Advising Association "The NACADA Journal is the biannual refereed journal of the National Academic Advising Association. It exists to advance scholarly discourse about the research, theory and practice of academic advising in higher education."
• Numeracy Published by the National Numeracy Network, this open access and peer reviewed journal "supports education at all levels that integrates quantitative skills across disciplines."
• Policy and Society A highly ranked open access journal that publishes peer-reviewed research on critical issues in policy theory and practice at the local, national and international levels. Includes articles on Education policy.
• Reading Research Quarterly RRQ publishes peer reviewed scholarship on literacy, including original research, theoretical and methodological essays, review articles, scholarly analysis of trends and issues, as well as reports and viewpoints. Published by the International Literacy Association.
• Review of Educational Research RER "publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education." A blind peer reviewed journal from the American Educational Research Association.
• Review of Higher Education Published by the Association for the Study of Higher Education this journal provides peer-reviewed research studies, scholarly essays, and theoretically-driven reviews on higher education issues.
• Review of Research in Education RRE "provides an annual overview and descriptive analysis of selected topics of relevant research literature through critical and synthesizing essays."
• Science Education "Science Education publishes original articles on the latest issues and trends occurring internationally in science curriculum, instruction, learning, policy and preparation of science teachers with the aim to advance our knowledge of science education theory and practice."
• Scientific Studies of Reading The official Journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading "publishes original empirical investigations dealing with all aspects of reading and its related areas, and occasionally, scholarly reviews of the literature and papers focused on theory development. " Uses blind peer review.
• Sociology of Education "SOE publishes research that examines how social institutions and individuals' experiences within these institutions affect educational processes and social development." A blind peer reviewed journal from the American Sociological Association.
• Studies in Science Education This blind peer reviewed journal publishes review articles that offer "analytical syntheses of research into key topics and issues in science education."
• Teachers College Record "The Teachers College Record is a journal of research, analysis, and commentary in the field of education. It has been published continuously since 1900 by Teachers College, Columbia University."
• Theory into Practice "TIP publishes articles covering all levels and areas of education, including learning and teaching; assessment; educational psychology; teacher education and professional development; classroom management; counseling; administration and supervision; curriculum; policy; and technology." Peer reviewed.
• << Previous: Is it a Scholarly Article?
• Next: Finding Books >>

Get Research Help

Use 24/7 live chat below or:

In-person Help Summer 2024 Mon-Thur, 11am - 3pm

Email or phone replies

Appointments with librarians

 Access  Library and Research Help tutorials

Education Librarian

• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 2:53 PM
• URL: https://guides.emich.edu/early

Why early childhood care and education matters

The right to education begins at birth.

But new UNESCO data shows that 1 out of 4 children aged 5 have never had any form of pre-primary education. This represents 35 million out of 137 million 5-year-old children worldwide. Despite research that proves the benefits of early childhood care and education (ECCE), only half of all countries guarantee free pre-primary education around the world.

UNESCO’s World Conference on Early Childhood Care and Education taking place in Tashkent, Uzbekistan on 14-16 November 2022 will reaffirm every young child’s right to quality care and education, and call for increased investment in children during the period from birth to eight years.  

Here’s what you need to know what early childhood care and education.

Why is early childhood care and education important?

The period from birth to eight years old is one of remarkable brain development for children and represents a crucial window of opportunity for education. When children are healthy, safe and learning well in their early years, they are better able to reach their full developmental potential as adults and participate effectively in economic, social, and civic life. Providing ECCE is regarded as a means of promoting equity and social justice, inclusive economic growth and advancing sustainable development.

A range of research and evidence has converged to support this claim. First, neuroscience has shown that the environment affects the nature of brain architecture – the child’s early experiences can provide either a strong or a fragile foundation for later learning, development and behaviours. Second, the larger economic returns on investment in prior-to-school programmes than in programmes for adolescents and adults has been demonstrated. Third, educational sciences have revealed that participation in early childhood care and education programmes boosts children’s school readiness and reduces the gap between socially advantaged and disadvantaged children at the starting gate of school.

From a human rights perspective, expanding quality early learning is an important means for realizing the right to education within a lifelong learning perspective. ECCE provides a significant preparation to basic education and a lifelong learning journey. In 2021, only 22% of United Nations Member States have made pre-primary education compulsory, and only 45% provide at least one year of free pre-primary education. Only 46 countries have adopted free and compulsory pre-primary education in their laws.

How has access to ECCE evolved?

Overall, there has been significant global progress in achieving inclusive and high-quality ECCE. Globally, the ratio for pre-primary education has increased from 46% in 2010 to 61% in 2020. The global ratio for participation in organized learning one year before the official primary school entry age also increased to reach 75% in 2020. However, in low- and lower-middle-income countries, fewer than two in three children attend organized learning one year before the official primary entry age.  Furthermore, the proportion of children receiving a positive and stimulating home environment remains significantly low with only 64% of children having positive and nurturing home environments. Great regional disparities remain the biggest challenges. In sub-Saharan Africa, only 40% of children have experienced a positive and stimulating home learning environment compared to 90% of children in Europe and Northern America.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic impacted ECCE?

The COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating effect on ECCE and amplified its crisis. Young children have been deemed the greatest victims of the pandemic, experiencing the impact of on their immediate families, and because of stay-at-home orders of lockdowns, having been deprived of essential services to promote their health, learning and psychosocial well-being. Some children will start basic education without organized learning experiences to the detriment of their readiness for school. It was estimated that the closure of ECCE services has resulted in 19 billion person-days of ECCE instruction lost with 10.75 million children not being able to reach their developmental potential in the first 11 months of the pandemic.

What are the consequences on foundational learning?

ECCE is a pre-requisite for meeting the right to learn and to develop. In particular, access to pre-primary education is a basis for acquiring foundational learning including literacy, numeracy and socio-emotional learning. Yet, according to the recent estimate, about 64% of children in low- and middle-income countries cannot read and understand a simple story at age 10. The roots of this learning poverty start in ECCE and its lack of capacity to make children ready for school.

What is the situation regarding ECCE teachers and care staff?

As the calls grow for higher quality ECCE provision, teacher shortages and quality has received increasing attention. The number of teachers who received at least the minimum pedagogical teacher training, both pre-service and in-service, increased from 68% to 80% between 2010 and 2020. It is estimated that ECCE services need another 9.3 million full-time teachers to achieve the SDG target . Most Member States have established qualification requirements for ECCE teachers, while far less attention has been focused on ECCE teachers’ working conditions and career progression. The low social status, poor salaries and job insecurity of ECCE teachers and care staff tend to have an adverse impact on attracting and retaining suitably qualified early childhood educators.

What are the policies, governance and financing implications?

It is time for societies and governments to implement relevant policies to recover and transform their ECCE systems. ECCE is seen by many countries as a key part of the solution to a myriad of challenges including social inclusion and cohesion, economic growth and to tackle other sustainable development challenges. According to the 2022 Global Education Monitoring Report, 150 out of 209 countries have set targets for pre-primary education participation by 2025 or 2030. The proportion of countries that monitor participation rates in pre-primary education is expected to increase from 75% in 2015 to 92% in 2025 and 95% in 2030. It is expected that the pre-primary participation rate for all regions will exceed 90% by 2030. In Central and South Asia, East and South-East Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, participation rates are expected to be nearly 100%. At the same time, it is projected that participation rates in Northern Africa and Western Asia will be about 77% by 2030.

What are the obstacles to ensuring access to quality ECCE?

• Policy fragmentation: In many countries, ECCE policies and services are fragmented and do not leverage whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches to addressing the holistic needs and rights of families and their young children. This is particularly challenging for national governments with limited resources, low institutional capacities and weak governance.
• Lack of public provision : Non-state provision of ECCE continues to grow in many contexts, and the role of non-state actors in influencing policy development and implementation is evident. Non-state actors provide a large proportion of places in pre-primary education. In 2000, 28.5% of pre-primary aged children were enrolled in private institutions, and this rose to 37% in 2019, a figure higher than for primary (19%) or secondary (27%) education.
• Insufficient regulation of the sector : Specific regulations and standards for ECCE are not in place in most countries. Regulations usually do not establish quality assurance mechanisms and those that do, tend not to focus on outcomes.
• Chronic underfunding : An average of 6.6% of education budgets at national and subnational levels were allocated to pre-primary education. Low-income countries, on average, invest 2% of education budgets in pre-primary education, which is far below the target of 10% by 2030 suggested by UNICEF. In terms of international aid, pre-primary education remains the least funded sector.

What are the solutions?

Political will and ownership are key to transforming ECCE. UNESCO’s review highlights progress in some countries, giving an indication of what is required to successfully strengthen the capacity of ECCE systems:

• Expanding and diversifying access : Increasing investment and establishing a legal framework to expand ECCE services are essential steps. Innovative ECCE delivery mechanisms such as mobile kindergartens with teachers, equipment for learning and play, have been deployed in some countries to reach remote areas and provide children with pre-primary education.  
• Enhancing quality and relevance : ECCE curriculum frameworks should cover different aspects of early learning and prepare children with essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions to transit smoothly to formal education.
• Making ECCE educators and caregivers a transforming force : For the transformation of ECCE to take place, ECCE educators need to be adequately supported and empowered to play their part.
• Improving governance and stakeholder participation : Countries have adopted different modes of governance. There are generally two systems that are followed, an integrated system and a split system.
• Using funding to steer ECCE development : Strengthening domestic public financing is important for providing affordable ECCE. Since ECCE services are offered by different ministries, there must be a clear demarcation of funding and financing rules for different sectors and different ministries. Innovative financing may include earmarking resources from economic activities and other sources.
• Establishing systems for monitoring and assessing whole-of-child development . System-level action in strengthening the availability and reliability of data obtained from assessments enables efficient and timely monitoring of programmes and child developmental milestones.
• Galvanize international cooperation and solidarity . The World Conference on Early Childhood Care and Education is an opportunity to mobilize existing global, regional, and national networks to increase focus on identifying and sharing innovations, policies and practices.

Related items

• Early childhood
• Early childhood education

More on this subject

Other recent news

High-quality early child care and education: The gift that lasts a lifetime

Subscribe to the center for universal education bulletin, andres s. bustamante , andres s. bustamante assistant professor of education - university of california, irvine @bustamante_as eric dearing , eric dearing professor, applied developmental & educational psychology - boston college henrik daae zachrisson , henrik daae zachrisson professor, department of special needs education - university of oslo deborah lowe vandell , and deborah lowe vandell professor, school of education - university of california, irvine kathy hirsh-pasek kathy hirsh-pasek senior fellow - global economy and development , center for universal education @kathyandro1.

November 4, 2021

Debate continues on Biden’s “ Build Back Better” social infrastructure bill offering a historic expansion of child care and universal preschool. Early childhood education is a socially popular endeavor with strong bipartisan support and impressive evidence for meaningful impacts in the short and long term . Economic research examining the return on investment for early education suggests tremendous value ranging from $4 to $13 in return for every $1 spent from impacts on educational attainment, employment, health, truancy, and criminality.

Much of the data used in these projections come from classic “gold standard” interventions like the Abecedarian and Perry preschool studies. These were highly resourced projects that provided high-quality early education experiences to families from under-resourced communities. Can the findings from these studies be generalized to large-scale modern programs with children from a range of economic backgrounds? This is what is proposed in the new infrastructure bill as a universal pre-K model.

A new study published in Child Development  strongly suggests that sustained high-quality early education can have long-lasting impacts. Using the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development study of early child care and youth development as its base, this research followed 814 subjects of the original sample until the young adults were 26 years of age. These young adults had attended a variety of child care and preschool settings that varied widely in their quality of care. As this was a study of development of everyday children in everyday environments, it included families from low-, middle-, and high-income backgrounds in several locations around the country with access to high, middling, or lower quality of care when they were in early childhood. Remarkably, children from low-income backgrounds who had access to 24 months or more of high-quality early childhood education in their first five years were more likely to graduate from college and had higher salaries at age 26. In fact, the outcomes for these young adults who experienced sustained high-quality care were statistically indistinguishable from their higher-income peers.

Community-based early care and education, delivered at scale, can provide lasting impacts, and may serve as a catalyst for children’s success later in life—particularly for those from less resourced environments. Importantly, high quality was necessary for achieving these long-term outcomes. Recent findings from a study by University of Virginia Professor Bob Pianta and his colleagues make a similar point. High-quality early child care increases children’s readiness for school and narrows the so-called achievement gap by half. This means access to early education is not enough. Warm, safe, supporting environments that are rich with language and conversations, and offer many opportunities to play and engage in hands-on exploration are key. Sustained access is also critical in predicting long-term outcomes. Higher salary and college graduation rates were only evident for children who had two or more years of high-quality care.

The data are clear. Early childhood programs that are sustained and high quality can have long-lasting impacts on children, preparing them for formal schooling and beyond with the added factor that early education paves the way for parents to be in the workforce.

The data are clear. Early childhood programs that are sustained and high quality can have long-lasting impacts on children, preparing them for formal schooling and beyond with the added factor that early education paves the way for parents to be in the workforce. This is a win-win-win for society. But access alone and custodial care will not sow the benefits provided by high-quality early care programs.

As we continue the debate, let us keep the science of early learning clearly in mind. We need high-quality early childhood care to set children on trajectories that will enable them (and society) to thrive. The new research suggests that this goal is within our grasp and that it is scalable within everyday contexts.

Related Content

Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, Peg Burchinal

September 27, 2021

Lisa A. Gennetian, Kathy Hirsh-Pasek

October 17, 2019

Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, Helen Shwe Hadani, Elias Blinkoff, Roberta Michnick Golinkoff

October 28, 2020

Early Childhood Education

Global Economy and Development

Center for Universal Education

Annelies Goger, Katherine Caves, Hollis Salway

May 16, 2024

Sofoklis Goulas, Isabelle Pula

Melissa Kay Diliberti, Elizabeth D. Steiner, Ashley Woo

Who Has Authority over Their Knowledge? A Case Study of Academic Language Use in Science Education

• Published: 10 May 2024

Cite this article

• Catherine Lammert   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7356-0816 1 ,
• Brian Hand   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0574-7491 2 &
• Chloe E. Woods 3  

35 Accesses

Explore all metrics

An important goal in early childhood science education is students’ development of academic language. However, scholars disagree on whether academic language must be explicitly taught or whether it can be learned through immersive science experiences. In this case study of a co-taught second grade classroom, we use positioning theory and framings of authority of knowledge to examine teachers’ and students’ use of both every day and academic language. Findings suggest that inside science classrooms operating as knowledge generation environments, students can claim authority over their own knowledge and teachers are able to position students as having this authority. Findings further suggest that when teachers take the stance of negotiator within these learning environments, students can develop academic language in science through immersive experiences. This study points to the importance of early childhood teachers operating as active negotiators with students within science classrooms to meet the goal of developing their academic language knowledge and skills.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Learning Science: Discourse Practices

Developing Oral Science Explanations: Secondary School ELs’ Experimentation with Intertextual Linkages

All names are pseudonyms.

Adair, J. K., Colegrove, K. S., & McManus, M. E. (2017). How the word gap argument negatively impacts young children of Latinx immigrants’ conceptualizations of learning. Harvard Educational Review, 87 (3), 309–453. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.3.309 .

Anderson, B. E., Wright, T. S., & Gotwals, A. W. (2023). Teachers’ vocabulary talk in early-elementary science instruction. Journal of Literacy Research , 55 (1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086296X231163117 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Biesta, G. J. J. (2017). The rediscovery of teaching . Routledge.

Biesta, G. J. J., & Safstrom, C. A. (2011). A manifesto for education. Policy Futures in Education , 9 (5), 540–547. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2011.9.5.540 .

Cavagnetto, A., R (2010). Argument to foster scientific literacy: A review of argument interventions in K-12 science contexts. Review of Educational Research , 80 (3), 336–371. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310376953 .

Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2010). School discourse: Learning to write across the years of schooling . A&C Black.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research. (2nd ed.) SAGE.

Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (2014). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research and practice . Routledge.

Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review , 58 (3), 280–299. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.58.3.c43481778r528qw4 .

Ding, C., Lammert, C., Fulmer, G. W., Hand, B., & Suh, J. K. (2023). Refinement of an instrument measuring science teachers’ knowledge of language through mixed method. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 5 (12), https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-023-00080-7

Georgia Department of Education (2016). Get Georgia Reading Retrieved from: https://getgeorgiareading.org/cabinet/dph-2/ .

Gibbs, A. S., & Reed, D. K. (2021). Shared reading and science vocabulary for kindergarten students. Early Childhood Education Journal , 51 , 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-021-01288-w .

Hamel, E., Joo, Y., Hong, S. Y., & Burton, A. (2021). Teacher questioning practices in early childhood science activities. Early Childhood Education Journal , 49 (3), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01075-z .

Hand, B., & Cavagnetto, A. (2023). Brian’s life is not just another brick in the wall: Reframing the metaphor of science teaching. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy , [Ahead of print] https://doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2023.2284711 .

Hand, B., Cavagnetto, A., Chen, Y. C., & Park, S. (2016). Moving past curricula and strategies: Language and the development of adaptive pedagogy for immersive learning environments. Research in Science Education, 46 (2), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-015-9499-1 .

Hand, B., Chen, Y.-C., & Suh, J. K. (2021). Does a knowledge generation approach to learning benefit students? A systematic review of research on the science writing heuristic approach. Educational Psychology Review, 33 , 535–577. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09550-0 .

Haneda, M. (2014). From academic language to academic communication: Building on English learners’ resources. Linguistics and Education , 26 , 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.01.004 .

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms . McGraw-Hill.

Jensen, B., & Thompson, G. A. (2020). Equity in teaching academic language- an interdisciplinary approach. Theory into Practice , 59 (1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1665417 .

Kayı-Aydar, H. (2019). Positioning theory in applied linguistics . Palgrave Macmillan.

Keys, C. W., Hand, B., Prain, V., & Collins, S. (1999). Using the science writing heuristic as a tool for learning from laboratory investigations in secondary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36 (10), 1065–1084.

Lammert, C., & Hand, B. (2022). Early childhood science teachers’ epistemic orientations: A foundation for enacting relational care through dialogue. Early Childhood Education Journal . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01427-x .

Lammert, C., Hand, B., & Sharma, R. (2023). Beyond pedagogy: The role of epistemic orientation and knowledge generation environments in early childhood science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 45 (6), 431– 450. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2022.2164474 .

Manz, E. (2016). Examining evidence construction as the transformation of the material world into community knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching , 53 (7), 1113–1140. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21264 .

Moghaddam, F., & Harré, R. (2010). Words of conflict, words of war: How the language we use in political processes sparks fighting . Praeger.

National Center for Education Statistics (2022). District search Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_detail.asp?ID2=1918120 .

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas . National Academies.

Naylor, S., Keogh, B., & Downing, B. (2007). Argumentation and primary science. Research in Science Education , 37 , 17–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-005-9002-5 .

Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states . The National Academies Press.

Norton-Meier, L. (2005). A thrice-learned lesson from the literate life of a five-year-old. Language Arts , 82 (4), 286–295. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41483489 .

Nxumalo, F., Gagliardi, L. M., & Won, H. R. (2020). Inquiry-based curriculum in early childhood education . Oxford Research Encyclopaedia.

Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2015). Early childhood education and care Retrieved from: https//www.oecd.org/edu/school/earlychildhoodeducationandcare.htm .

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective . Routledge.

Suh, J. K., Hwang, J., Park, S., & Hand, B. (2022). Epistemic orientation toward teaching science for knowledge generation: Conceptualization and validation of the construct. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59 (9), 1651–1691. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21769 .

Takanishi, R. (2016). First things first: Creating the new American primary school . Teachers College.

Thompson, G. A., & Watkins, K. (2021). Academic language: Is this really (functionally) necessary? Language and Education , 35 (6), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1896537 .

Townsend, D. (2015). Who’s using the language? Supporting middle school students with content area academic language. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 58 (5), 376–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.374 .

Uccelli, P., & Phillips Galloway, E. (2016). Academic language across content areas: Lessons from an innovative assessment and from students’ reflections about language. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy , 60 (4), 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.553 .

Uccelli, P., Phillips Galloway, E., Barr, C. D., Meneses, A., & Dobbs, C. L. (2015). Beyond vocabulary: Exploring cross-disciplinary academic-language proficiency and its association with reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly , 50 (3), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.104 .

UNESCO. (2023). Social Development goal 4: Literacy and adult learning . Authors.

Valdés, G. (2010). Between support and marginalisation: The development of academic language in linguistic minority children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism , 7 (2–3), 102–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050408667804 .

Weiss, K. A., McDermott, M. A., & Hand, B. (2022). Characterising immersive argument-based inquiry learning environments in school-based education: A systematic literature review. Studies in Science Education , 58 (1), 15–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2021.1897931 .

Widger, S., & Schofield, A. (2012). Interaction or interruption? Five child-centred philosophical perspectives. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood , 37 (4), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911203700405 .

Wright, T. S., & Gotwals, A. W. (2017). Supporting kindergarteners’ science talk in the context of an integrated science and disciplinary literacy curriculum. The Elementary School Journal , 117 (3), 513–537. https://doi.org/10.1086/690273 .

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.,) Sage.

Download references

This research received funding from the Roy J. Carver Charitable Trust.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Teacher Education, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

Catherine Lammert

Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA

Department of Educational Psychology, Leadership, & Counseling, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

Chloe E. Woods

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine Lammert .

Ethics declarations

Research involved human subjects.

This research received approval from the Institutional Review Board at the University of Iowa, Approval #201,804,703. All participants provided informed, active consent.

Conflicts of Interests

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lammert, C., Hand, B. & Woods, C.E. Who Has Authority over Their Knowledge? A Case Study of Academic Language Use in Science Education. Early Childhood Educ J (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01674-0

Download citation

Accepted : 07 April 2024

Published : 10 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-024-01674-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Academic language
• Argumentation
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Validation of the Teacher Questionnaire of Montessori Practice for Early Childhood in the Dutch Context

• Symen van der Zee Saxion University of Applied Sciences

Montessori education has existed for more than 100 years and counts almost 16,000 schools worldwide (Debs et al., 2022). Still, little is known about the implementation and fidelity of Montessori principles. Measuring implementations holds significant importance as it provides insight into current Montessori practices and because it is assumed that implementation might influence its effectiveness. In the Netherlands, it is especially important to measure fidelity because of the country’s history of flexible implementation of Montessori principles. No instruments currently exist that are specifically designed to measure Montessori implementation in the Dutch context. This study aims to validate a translated version of the Teacher Questionnaire for Montessori Practices, developed by Murray et al. (2019), within the Dutch early childhood education context. Additionally, it seeks to investigate the extent to which Montessori principles are implemented in Dutch early childhood schools. Data were collected from 131 early childhood Montessori teachers. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the Dutch dataset did not align with the factor structure proposed by Murray et al. (2019). Subsequent exploratory factor analysis led to the identification of a 3-factor solution, encompassing dimensions related to Children’s Freedom, Teacher Guidance, and Curriculum, which shows some similarities with Murray et al.’s (2019) factors. Implementation levels in the Netherlands varied, with the highest level of implementation observed in Children’s Freedom and the lowest in Curriculum.

Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various χ 2 approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 296-298.

Berends, R. & de Brouwer, J. (2020). Perspectieven op Montessori [Perspectives on Montessori]. Saxion University Progressive Education University Press.

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Publications.

Debs, M. (2023). Introduction: Global Montessori Education. In M. McKenna, A. Murray, E. Alquist, & M. Debs (Eds.), Handbook of Montessori education. Bloomsbury Publications.

Debs, M., de Brouwer, J., Murray, A. K., Lawrence, L., Tyne, M., & Von der Wehl, C. (2022). Global diffusion of Montessori schools. Journal of Montessori Research, 8(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v8i2.18675

Demangeon, A., Claudel-Valentin, S., Aubry, A., & Tazouti, Y. (2023). A meta-analysis of the effects of Montessori education on five fields of development and learning in preschool and school-age children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Article 102182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102182

Dutch Montessori Association. (n.d.). Onze scholen op de kaart [Our schools on the map]. https://montessori.nl/scholen/

Dutch Montessori Association. (1983). Raamplan Montessori opleidingen [Framework plan for Montessori teacher training]. Nederlandse Montessori Vereniging.

Eyssen, C. H. (1919). Iets over de Montessori gedachten in de Fröbelschool [Thoughts about Montessori in Fröbel schools]. Correspondentieblad van den Bond van Onderwijzeressen bij het Fröbelonderwijs, 15, 37–38.

Fabrigar, L., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SAGE.

Gerker, H. E. (2023). Making sense of Montessori teacher identity, Montessori pedagogy, and educational policies in public schools. Journal of Montessori Research, 9(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v9i1.18861

Hardesty, D. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development. Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00295-8

Hazenoot, M. (2010). In rusteloze arbeid: de betekenis van Cornelia Philippi-Siewertsz van Reesema (1880-1963) voor de ontwikkeling van het onderwijs aan het jonge kind [In restless labor: The significance of Cornelia Philippi-Siewertsz van Reesema (1880-1963) for the development of early childhood education]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Groningen].

Hoencamp, M., Exalto, J., de Muynck, A., & de Ruyter, D. (2022). A Dutch example of New Education: Philipp Abraham Kohnstamm (1875–1951) and his ideas about the New School. History of Education, 51(6), 789-806. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760X.2022.2038697

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/BF02289447

Hu, L.-I., & Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Imelman, J. D., & Meijer, W. A. J. (1986). De nieuwe school, gisteren en vandaag [The new school, yesterday and tomorrow]. Elsevier.

Inspectorate of Education. (n.d.). Toezichtresultaten [Monitoring results]. https://toezichtresultaten.onderwijsinspectie.nl/zoek?q=montessori&page=1&sector=BAS

Joosten-Chotzen, R. (1937). Montessori opvoeding. Haar toepassing in ons land. [Montessori education. Its application in our country]. Bijleveld.

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291575

Kramer, R. (1976). Maria Montessori: A biography. Diversion Books.

Ledesma, R. D., & Valero-Mora, P. (2007). Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out Parallel Analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.7275/wjnc-nm63

Leenders, H. H. M. (1999). Montessori en fascistisch Italië: een receptiegeschiedenis [Montessori and fascist Italy: A reception history]. Intro.

Lillard, A. S. (2019). Shunned and admired: Montessori, self-determination, and a case for radical school reform. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 939–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09483-3

Lillard, A. S. (2012). Preschool children’s development in classic Montessori, supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.001

Lillard, A. S., Heise, M. J., Richey, E. M., Tong, X., Hart, A., & Bray, P. M. (2017). Montessori preschool elevates and equalizes child outcomes: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01783

Montessori, M. (1935). De Methode der wetenschappelijke pedagogiek [The Montessori Method]. Van Holkema & Warendorf N.V. (original work published 1914)

Montessori, M. (1937). Het geheim van het kinderleven [The secret of childhood]. Van Holkeman & Warendorf N.V.

Montessori, M. (1949). The absorbent mind. Theosophical Press.

Montessori, M. (1971). The formation of man. The Theosophical Publishing House. (original work published 1955)

Montessori, M. (1989). The child in the family. Clio Press. (original work published 1975)

Montessori, M. (1997). The California lectures of Maria Montessori, 1915. Clio Press.

Montessori, M. M. (1961). Waarom Montessori lycea [Why Montessori high schools]. In M. A. Allessie, O. Cornelissen, J. Haak, L. D. Misset, & W. P. Postma (Eds.), Montessori perspectieven (pp. 15–21). J. H. De Busy.

Montessori, M. M. (1973). Voorwoord [Preface]. In M. J. ten Cate, T. J. Hoeksema, & E. J. Lintvelt-Lemaire, (Eds.), Het montessori material deel 1 (pp. 3–5). Nederlandse Montessori Vereniging.

Murray, A. K., Chen, J., & Daoust, C. J. (2019). Developing instruments to measure Montessori instructional practices. Journal of Montessori Research, 5(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v5i1.9797

Murray, A. K., & Daoust, C. J. (2023). Fidelity issues in Montessori research. In M. McKenna, A. Murray, E. Alquist, & M. Debs (Eds.), Handbook of Montessori education. Bloomsbury Publications.

Philippi-Siewertsz van Reesema, C. (1924). Voorlopers van Montessori [Predecessors of Montessori]. Pedagogische Studiën, 5, 72–77.

Philippi-Siewertsz van Reesema, C. (1954). Kleuterwereld en kleuterschool [Toddler world and kindergarten]. Wereldbibliotheek. https://objects.library.uu.nl/reader/index.php?obj=1874-205180&lan=en#page//21/44/33/21443341246326260137183521089397551476.jpg/mode/1up

Prudon, P. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis as a tool in research using questionnaires: A critique. Comprehensive Psychology. https://doi.org/10.2466/03.cp.4.10

Randolph, R. J., Bryson, A., Menon, L., Henderson, D., Mauel, A. K., Michaels, S., Rosenstein, D. L. W., McPherson, W., O’Grady, R., & Lillard, A. S. (2023). Montessori education’s impact on academic and nonacademic outcomes: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(3), 1–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1330

Rietveld-van Wingerden, M., Sturm, J. C., & Miedema, S. (2003). Vrijheid van onderwijs en sociale cohesie in historisch perspectief [Freedom of education and social cohesion in historical perspective]. Pedagogiek, 23(2), 97–108. https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/187625

den Ouden, M. et al. . (n.d.). Saxion Ethische commissie [Saxion Universitiy of Applied Sciences Ethical commission]. https://srs.saxion.nl/ethische-commissie/

Schmitt, T. A. (2011). Current methodological considerations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(4), 304–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406653

Schwegman, M. (1999). Maria Montessori 1870–1952. Amsterdam University Press.

Sins, P., & van der Zee, S. (2015). De toegevoegde waarde van traditioneel vernieuwingsonderwijs: een studie naar de verschillen in cognitieve en niet-cognitieve opbrengsten tussen daltonscholen en traditionele scholen voor primair onderwijs [The added value of progressive education: A study of the differences in cognitive and noncognitive outcomes between Dalton schools and traditional primary schools]. Pedagogische Studiën, 92(4). https://pedagogischestudien.nl/article/view/14174/15663

Sixma, J. (1956). De Montessori lagere school [The Montessori elementary school]. Wolters.

Slaman, P. (2018). In de regel vrij. 100 jaar politiek rond onderwijs, cultuur en wetenschap [Generally free. 100 years of politics around education, culture and science]. Ministerie van OCW.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

Tavakol, M., & Wetzel, A. (2020). Factor analysis: A means for theory and instrument development in support of construct validity. International Journal of Medical Education, 11, 245–247. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5f96.0f4a

Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor Analytic Evidence for the Construct Validity of Scores: A Historical Overview and Some Guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056002001

Vos, W. (2007). Aandacht voor kwaliteit [Focus on quality]. In M. Stefels & M. Rubinstein (Eds.), Montessorischolen in beweging (pp. 75–80). Garant Uitgevers.

Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93

Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127

Copyright (c) 2024 Jaap de Brouwer, Vivian Morssink-Santing, Symen van der Zee

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License .

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors can view article download statistics for published articles within their accounts.

Journal of Montessori Research Author Agreement The following is an agreement between the Author (the “Corresponding Author”) acting on behalf of all authors of the work (“Authors”) and the Journal of Montessori Research (the “Journal”) regarding your article (the “Work”) that is being submitted for consideration.   Whereas the parties desire to promote effective scholarly communication that promotes local control of intellectual assets, the parties for valuable consideration agree as follows. A. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR’S GRANT OF RIGHTS After being accepted for publication, the Corresponding Author grants to the Journal, during the full term of copyright and any extensions or renewals of that term, the following: 1.    An irrevocable non-exclusive right to reproduce, republish, transmit, sell, distribute, and otherwise use the Work in electronic and print editions of the Journal and in derivative works throughout the world, in all languages, and in all media now known or later developed. 2.    An irrevocable non-exclusive right to create and store electronic archival copies of theWork, including the right to deposit the Work in open access digital repositories. 3.    An irrevocable non-exclusive right to license others to reproduce, republish, transmit,and distribute the Work under the condition that the Authors are attributed. (Currently this is carried out by publishing the content under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 license (CC BY-NC.) 4.    Copyright in the Work remains with the Authors. B. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR’S DUTIES 1.    When distributing or re-publishing the Work, the Corresponding Author agrees to credit the Journal as the place of first publication. 2.    The Corresponding Author agrees to inform the Journal of any changes in contact information. C. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR’S WARRANTY The Corresponding Author represents and warrants that the Work is the Authors’ original work and that it does not violate or infringe the law or the rights of any third party and, specifically, that the Work contains no matter that is defamatory or that infringes literary or proprietary rights, intellectual property rights, or any rights of privacy. The Corresponding Author also warrants that he or she has the full power to make this agreement, and if the Work was prepared jointly, the Corresponding Author agrees to inform the Authors of the terms of this Agreement and to obtain their written permission to sign on their behalf. The Corresponding Author agrees to hold the Journal harmless from any breach of the aforestated representations. D.  JOURNAL’S DUTIES In consideration of the Author’s grant of rights, the Journal agrees to publish the Work, attributing the Work to the Authors. E. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This agreement reflects the entire understanding of the parties. This agreement may be amended only in writing by an addendum signed by the parties. Amendments are incorporated by reference to this agreement. ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR ON BEHALF OF ALL AUTHORS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS WORK

How to Cite

• Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)

Make a Submission

• Norwegian Bokmål

Developed By

This electronic publication is supported by the

University of Kansas Libraries .

ISSN:  2378-3923

Implementing Dual Language Immersion Programs with Intentionality

May 16, 2024

Alexandra Figueras-Daniel

W. Steven Barnett

In reflecting upon my most favorite work, what always comes to mind are the opportunities I've had to deeply understand how both the research and the practice of early childhood education and systems come together. This started with my unique experience of having worked in a research institute and then subsequently as a preschool classroom teacher. Currently I continue to work in the intersection of research, policy and practice through various research projects, which allow me to sit at the intersection of these two worlds. In that space, I often observe early childhood education program administrators seeking solutions for their dual language learner (DLL) populations. I find that there is often a desire to “do the right thing” but a lack of knowledge about where to start or what the possibilities are for where to go. This is especially true for the implementation of dual language immersion (DLI) programs, which are deemed to be a north star based on extant research showing how effective these programs are in both supporting emergent bilingual children becoming proficient in English while providing effective opportunities to develop and maintain their home language. Similarly, teachers often ask “what does it look like” in reference to how much of each language to use, what materials are needed, what strategies to use, or what books should be purchased. Unfortunately, this often results in the implementation of dual language approaches that are happenstance rather than intentional creating inequitable opportunities and which do not guarantee best practice.  

These are not easy challenges to overcome, but the good news is that we do know what practices are effective even though current policy and guidance are not adequate to support practitioners or hold programs accountable in systemic ways. In response, last week, an important report was released aiming to provide support in this very area. Operationalizing High Quality Dual Language Programming: From the Early Years to the Early Grades , led by Xigrid Soto-Boykin and Shanteel Meek of the Children's Equity Project (CEP) at Arizona State University, along with a wide range of other dual language experts, provide a framework to guide the implementation of dual language immersion (DLI) programs for children who are emergent bilinguals. The report highlights seven key research-based dimensions and sub indicators to concretely guide the development of effective programs based on current research and input from experts. Included in these are: 

• Programmatic structures 
• Language allocation 
• Curricula, instruction, and pedagogy 
• Assessment 
• Workforce, education, credentials, and professional development 
• Family leadership and engagement 
• Services and inclusion for emergent bilingual children with disabilities 

Of course, while the new report provides important guidelines, getting it right requires action and a continuous improvement system. Conversations must bring visionary leaders, diverse practice-based collaborators, and families to the table. Who is at the table matters not only for moving policy forward but to ensure that policy is developed in ways that allow for effective implementation by teachers and benefit the learners that need it most. To this end, these conversations must be led by a vision and a mission that articulate what the goals of an immersion program are for administrators, teachers, children, and families. Further, leaders must become knowledgeable about what the research says and potentially seek partnerships for experts to collaborate with practitioners to reflect and develop their own policies and guidance. This type of collaboration can successfully lead to conversations about curricula, instruction, pedagogy, and assessment. Further, assessment must consider the specialized needs and strategies for DLLs. Data collected via specialized lenses inform decisions about professional development of teachers and other staff working with DLL children and families. The CEP report offers guidance on this front as well, highlighting NIEER’s work based on its measure for classroom quality for DLLs, the Classroom Assessment of Supports for Emergent Bilingual Acquisition; CASEBA .  

Again, though the report aims to “operationalize” what the field has established as promising practice, the true operationalizing depends on systems, tools, and time devoted to doing the work. We are in dire need of leaders who acknowledge the urgency of the DLL population’s education needs and seek immediate ways to address them. In New Jersey, we have been providing professional development via the Self-Evaluation of Supports for Emergent Bilingual Acquisition (SESEBA) and are beginning to see a shift in both attitudes and agendas. However, for widespread use and to see improvements across programs, we need supportive systems. From my perspective, the information contained in the report further outlines what the ingredients for these systems of support need to be. Specifically, programs must be established intentionally, rather than relying on bilingual teachers to intuitively use Spanish without guidance or acknowledgment that which practices are, in fact, the ones we are striving to see. Ultimately, this is what DLLs, and their families need and deserve, so that participating in a high-quality DLL program is not only a feasible option, but also so that the quality of what they receive relies on intention rather than happenstance.  

The Authors

Dr. Figueras-Daniel was awarded a Young Scholars Program grant from the Foundation for Child Development to investigate coaching and professional development of Latina preschool teachers working with DLLs. At NIEER, she leads this study as well a project to develop a Latina leadership pipeline in ECE.

W. Steven (Steve) Barnett is a Board of Governors Professor and the founder and Senior Co-Director of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University. Dr. Barnett’s work primarily focuses on public policies regarding early childhood education, child care, and child development.

About NIEER

The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at the Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, conducts and disseminates independent research and analysis to inform early childhood education policy.

Related Articles

Are public school preschool programs more academic auspice-related variations in preschool practice in the united states, universal prekindergarten mixed delivery quality and access, including family child care in state funded pre-k systems.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Stay Informed on Early Childhood Education Each Week

Education Policy

Making the early grades matter, a conversation about teaching and learning in kindergarten through grade 2, article/op-ed.

Shutterstock

Laura bornfreund, feb. 26, 2024.

With the exception of reading, there has long been limited attention to strengthening kindergarten and the early grades of elementary school and K-2 teachers' vital role in laying the foundation for children’s future learning and development. The tide, however, may be shifting. Under U.S. Secretary of Education Cardona, the Department of Education has an initiative to help states think about how to make kindergarten a more “sturdy bridge” between pre-K and the early grades. In recent years, state legislatures have introduced or passed laws to require kindergarten, fund kindergarten as a full day, and promote play-based learning in kindergarten and the early grades. Other states are piloting efforts to ensure children’s kindergarten experiences align with how they learn best. To learn more about efforts to transform kindergarten, visit New America’s Transforming Kindergarten page . You can also check out some of our ideas for strengthening K-2 here .

Last year, in 2023, I had the opportunity to work with School Readiness Consulting on a landscape project of what assessment and curricula look like in kindergarten through second grade. For this blog post, I asked SRC team members Soumya Bhat, Mimi Howard, Kate McKenney, Eugenia McRae, and Nicole Sharpe, and authors of the brief “ Making the Early Years Matter ,” what they learned about the K-2 years.

In the brief, "Making the Early Grades Matter: Seven Ways to Improve Kindergarten Through Grade 2," you write about the importance and opportunity of children’s K-2 years. You say that their importance is not fully realized. How do we know this is the case, and why do you think it’s happening?

While such clear benefits are linked to the K–2 years, particularly the importance of kindergarten, the policies and practices in use for this critical time have yet to catch up to the research. We know that children who start behind will stay behind, underscoring that grade 3 is too late to start focusing on student proficiency. Unfortunately, K-2 continues to be systemically undervalued and under-resourced in many districts. This undervaluing is happening for several reasons – one is that school improvement efforts primarily focus on third grade and above, partly due to accountability pressures and accompanying testing requirements. This focus on standardized assessments later in elementary school has increased academic demands in the K-2 space. That pushdown of academic expectations is not aligned with developmentally appropriate teaching and learning practices, leading to challenges for K–2 teachers charged with providing that continuous and robust educational experience for their students.

Tell us what you learned from your research and interviews about leveraging and improving K-2 policy and practice. What do you think is most important?

We certainly need to make changes that immediately impact the system - like expanding the supply of high-quality materials available for use by the K-2 community. And at the same time, those actions should also be coupled with more ongoing and long-term solutions, such as increasing focus and awareness around the uniqueness and value of K-2 as part of the more extensive education system. There is a strong sense of urgency about the challenges facing K–2, but at the same time, it is challenging to shift K–2 policies and practices in sustainable ways unless there is first a fundamental, core mindset shift—that K–2 should be a priority. This will require changing people’s minds about why the early grades are important and motivating people to invest in how young children learn in K–2. Only after these more significant mindset shifts occur will the education field be able to generate solutions that will lead to long-term systems change.

The Making the Early Grades Matter brief resulted from several interviews with district officials, stakeholders, and educators about instruction, curriculum, and assessment in K-2. Was there a story or comment that sticks out to you?

There is a clear desire and need to shift leaders' thinking toward investing in high-quality K–2 education that is well-aligned to prepare children to succeed in the third grade. One of the interviewees we spoke to said it best, “It’s not just one fix. So, it’s not just professional learning, it's not just curriculum, it’s not just assessment. You have to figure out how that all works together as a system.” As a field, we should know what a comprehensive and aligned K-2 system looks like and what it takes to get there. We need to ensure that K-2 educators have sufficient time, training, and resources to implement these practices with fidelity and with the support of district leadership. When these elements are in place, young students will be able to experience high-quality learning and instruction throughout the K-2 grades.

While federal, state, and local policymakers have a role in transforming what happens in K-2nd grade, philanthropies can be key partners. What can local and national foundations do?

Our scan revealed that philanthropic work focused on early childhood—even when funders include K–2 as part of a prenatal-to-third-grade emphasis—is often geared toward the beginning part of this spectrum with greater support for birth-to-five efforts. Similarly, philanthropic work focused on K -12 may usually trend toward grade 3 and higher grades. So, local and national philanthropy is well positioned to help fill the gaps in K-2, not only through strategic investments that advance the field but also by enlisting new partners in the work and ultimately elevating the value of the early grades.

Is there anything I haven’t asked that you think is important to highlight?

We must also consider who will bear the brunt of failure if we don’t address these systemic K-2 issues. The impacts of inaction will be most significantly felt by Black and Latine children, children experiencing poverty, multilingual learners, and children with learning disabilities. Multiple factors contribute to these students' inadequate early elementary experiences, including a lack of culturally relevant materials, potential bias in assessment design or implementation, mismatched demographic characteristics with teachers, less effective kindergarten transition activities, and overemphasis on didactic academic instruction. Until the systemic issues are further examined and addressed, these barriers will continue to keep many K-2 learners from receiving the support they need and deserve and from being prepared for success in third grade and beyond.

For more information, read School Readiness Consulting’s brief “ Making the Early Grades Matter: Seven Ways to Improve Kindergarten through Grade 2 .”

Related Topics

Review shows mixed results on long-term effectiveness of early education programs

UC Irvine, other researchers find that children do initially benefit from preschool

Irvine, Calif., May 9, 2024 – A new study including University of California, Irvine School of Education researchers has yielded varied results on the impact of publicly funded U.S. preschool programs on student performance beyond early childhood.

A study detailing the findings was published this month in Science .

“It’s settled that early childhood education is an essential component of any nation’s public policy; children are learning well before kindergarten, and parents are working. What is less settled, however, is how much we should expect preschool to be shaping achievement and well-being later in life,” said study co-author Jade Jenkins, UC Irvine associate professor of education.

In addition to her, investigators associated with the UC Irvine School of Education were Professor Drew Bailey; Distinguished Professor Greg Duncan; alumnus Tyler Watts, who earned a Ph.D. in 2017 and is now an assistant professor at Columbia University; and alumna Anamarie Whitaker, who earned a Ph.D. in 2014 and is now an assistant professor at the University of Delaware. The work was led by senior author Margaret Burchinal of the University of Virginia and included Emma Hart of Columbia University.

The scholars examined evaluations of the Head Start program and public prekindergarten initiatives in Boston and Tennessee, discovering that while children saw academic benefits immediately after preschool, the long-term effects varied. The findings highlight that not all early education programs guarantee favorable results, the authors say, stressing the need for more research on effective preschool interventions.

Two key studies in the 1960s and 1970s, the Perry Preschool and Abecedarian projects, respectively, have shaped common beliefs about early childhood education – and sparked significant interest in funding. They showed that early education led to better scholastic outcomes, income levels, employment rates and health, while reducing criminal behavior. However, the Science investigators note, these studies focused on projects more than five decades old, and current preschool initiatives should undergo modern assessments.

“The proven long-term success of early programs like Perry Preschool showed what’s possible with very intensive preschool programs. But policymakers need to know if lessons from Perry hold for today’s programs. Recent research shows that the answer appears to be ‘yes’ in some, but not all, cases,” Duncan said.

Given these mixed findings, he and his fellow authors recommend follow-up evaluations of existing random-assignment and lottery studies to learn whether early education programs correlate to successful outcomes in adulthood.

“The good news for society is that we have invested dramatically more over the past 50 years in programs designed to help young children and families,” Bailey said. “But with such improvements come practical challenges of balancing necessary redundancies in the system with unique opportunities for early education programs to support children’s development.”

The team proposes further research to uncover the essential components of preschool success, with a focus on identifying cognitive and socioemotional skills that yield enduring benefits. The scholars maintain that future efforts should include K-12 test scores and behavior records as well as surveys of teachers and students to shed light on classroom experiences and child development.

They also encourage policymakers and researchers to prioritize rigorous evidence around early childhood education programs in hopes of propelling their evolution and implementation.

UC Irvine’s Brilliant Future campaign: Publicly launched on Oct. 4, 2019, the Brilliant Future campaign aims to raise awareness and support for the university. By engaging 75,000 alumni and garnering $2 billion in philanthropic investment, UC Irvine seeks to reach new heights of excellence in student success, health and wellness, research and more. The School of Education plays a vital role in the success of the campaign. Learn more at https://brilliantfuture.uci.edu/school-of-education .

About the University of California, Irvine:  Founded in 1965, UC Irvine is a member of the prestigious Association of American Universities and is ranked among the nation’s top 10 public universities by  U.S. News & World Report . The campus has produced five Nobel laureates and is known for its academic achievement, premier research, innovation and anteater mascot. Led by Chancellor Howard Gillman, UC Irvine has more than 36,000 students and offers 224 degree programs. It’s located in one of the world’s safest and most economically vibrant communities and is Orange County’s second-largest employer, contributing $7 billion annually to the local economy and $8 billion statewide. For more on UC Irvine, visit  www.uci.edu .

Media access: Radio programs/stations may, for a fee, use an on-campus ISDN line to interview UC Irvine faculty and experts, subject to availability and university approval. For more UC Irvine news, visit news.uci.edu . Additional resources for journalists may be found at communications.uci.edu/for-journalists .

• Personality
• Home Improvement
• Entertainment
• Social Media

Why Early Childhood Education Is Important for Further Academic Success?

A child’s journey toward lifetime learning starts early childhood education. This period spans from birth to approximately eight years of age when children experience significant growth across cognitive, social, and emotional domains – making early childhood education of paramount importance in shaping academic preparedness, socioemotional ability, and overall well-being of a child for success later on in life.

Therefore, early childhood education must serve educational goals and promote long-term academic achievement by taking various forms over the years – something we will discuss further below in this post.

1. Cognitive Development

Early childhood education fosters cognitive growth during these formative early years by providing a stimulating atmosphere. Children are exposed to fundamental concepts in language, arithmetic, science, arts, and others through engaging activities, interactive play, and hands-on learning experiences – which lay a strong foundation for problem-solving abilities such as problem-solving critical thinking and decision-making skills later on.

Studies have revealed that children enrolled in top-quality early childhood programs develop more excellent cognitive skills .

2. Language and Literacy Skills

Early childhood education greatly emphasizes literacy and language development for children in supportive settings. Their parents expose them to print materials, stories, and discussions, which provide rich language experiences.

Early childhood educators play a vital role in supporting language growth in early years students by teaching early literacy principles like letter recognition, increasing vocabulary growth, and modeling appropriate communication skills. Early language literacy development creates the groundwork for future reading and writing proficiency, as well as academic achievements across subjects.

3. Social and Emotional Competence

Early childhood education plays a crucial role in supporting the development of social and emotional competency for success in and outside of school. Children acquire vital social skills such as collaboration, empathy, and conflict resolution from interactions with classmates and caregivers; furthermore, they acquire self-regulation abilities that allow them to better control impulses, behaviors, and emotions through self-regulatory skills.

Studies have linked high-quality early childhood programs with increased social competence, emotional resilience, and strong interactions among peers as indicators of future academic performance – traits essential for future academic performance, according to research. Visit scamfighter for honest reviews about educational and writing resources online.

4. School Readiness

Early childhood education plays a crucial role in helping children become ready for formal schooling, with its focus being to develop school-ready abilities such as focus, attention, following instructions, and independence.

Early childhood educators play an essential role in instilling academic behaviors and habits that set children up for future success in kindergarten and beyond – often through controlled learning settings and routines that introduce children to them early enough that they enter formal schooling armed with all of the fundamental knowledge needed for academic success – closing achievement gaps while encouraging long-term learning!

5. Closing the Opportunity Gap

Early childhood education programs that offer top-tier early education can reduce academic success gaps and help bridge opportunity gaps, creating fair and inclusive learning environments where all children, regardless of socioeconomic status, have equal access to engaging early learning activities.

Studies have shown that children from low-income households who participate in top early childhood programs have increased chances of academic success, high school graduation, and postsecondary study, breaking intergenerational poverty cycles while increasing social mobility.

6. Engaging and Supporting Parents

Early childhood education programs are pivotal in encouraging parental involvement and support of their child’s education. Parents are actively encouraged to participate at home and in classroom environments by participating in family participation activities.

Parent engagement events, such as seminars, home visits, or parent-teacher conferences, offer parents an opportunity to get advice about supporting academic growth at home while learning more about child development as well as forging connections between home, school, and educators that help children excel academically throughout their schooling careers.

If you, as a parent, need academic help to have more time with your child, check this out if you’re looking for pay someone to do assignment . Such bonds create cooperative relationships that help kids succeed academically throughout.

7. Long-Term Academic and Life Success

Early childhood education has long been demonstrated to have profound, long-term benefits on children’s academic performance and life outcomes. High-quality early childhood programs increase children’s chances of educational success throughout their school years, high school graduation, postsecondary education, or vocational training, and beyond.

Furthermore, such investments may create more educated workforces and healthier, more resilient communities that benefit society.

Investment in early childhood education is crucial to supporting children’s positive outcomes and academic performance. Early childhood education programs promote cognitive, language, and reading development, social-emotional competence, and school readiness by offering an engaging learning environment.

Early childhood education helps bridge the achievement gap, promotes parental involvement, and sets children on a course toward long-term success and learning. Early childhood education is critical, so we must advocate for laws and programs that ensure more children have access to high-quality early learning opportunities.

By doing this, we can ensure each child can reach his or her maximum potential on both social, emotional, and academic levels.

Editor’s Picks

Hidden affection: 17 signs he likes you but is playing it cool, when god wants you with someone this will happen: 6 meaningful signs, what smell do dogs hate to pee on 6 dog-repelling scents, astrid menks: decades in a triangle, now warren buffett’s wife, cristina invernizzi: the third mrs. belfort with a daughter’s age gap, related articles, into the future: innovation and technological advancements in online gambling vs. traditional casino settings, the essential guide to healthcare careers quizzes: what you need to know, what is warehouse safety, what are the ingredients used in fire extinguishers.

Impraise.com firmly believe that approaching life with a mindset of praise can bring about great things. So, let’s focus on the good in ourselves and others, and watch as the world responds with a smile. Join on this journey towards positivity, and let’s make the world a brighter place!

Copyright © 2024 Impraise.com All Rights Reserved.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms and Conditions