improving quality in the early years executive summary

Quality costs

Working paper 1What is high qualityearly childhoodeducation and care?

Maxine Hill and Emma KnightsDaycare Trust

Report series funded by

Quality costsWhat is high quality early childhood education and care?

1

Working paper 1: What is high quality early childhood educationand care?

Introduction

The Government’s vision, outlined in its Ten Year Strategy on Childcare,1 is that earlychildhood education and care (ECEC) provision in this country will be among the best in theworld with a better qualified workforce; more workers trained to professional level; greaterinvolvement of parents in planning and delivering services; and reformed regulatory andinspection systems. This vision marked a significant step in the development of ECECprovision and the quality of this available provision is improving, but it is still variable andthere is still some way to go to achieve high quality ECEC for all pre-school children.Daycare Trust has always insisted that quality is one of the foremost necessities of earlyyears provision but, while we acknowledge and welcome the great strides that have beenmade in expanding services, it is now generally accepted that quality remains the last pieceof the jigsaw to be fully addressed. Indeed quality has risen to the top of both the policy andpractice agendas. There is now a large body of work on improving quality of provision –which we will review here – but there has until now been no attempt to quantify the cost ofimproving quality to a consistently high level. This project aims to bring the work on qualityand sustainable funding together.

This working paper is the first of a series which accompanies a final report entitled QualityCosts. The project, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, has been carried out by DaycareTrust in partnership with the Social Market Foundation and the Institute of Fiscal Studies.The project is essentially formed of two halves:• First establishing what it costs to provide good quality ECEC; and• Setting out the issues associated with existing childcare subsidies, and what further

funding is needed to deliver that high quality ECEC.

The set of working papers which accompany this one are:• Working Paper 2: Costing the quality model (Social Market Foundation).• Working Paper 3: Current childcare costs.• Working Paper 4 International models of quality and cost (Social Market Foundation).• Working Paper 5 Funding the quality model (Institute of Fiscal Studies).

The research focuses on early years provision and does not include childcare provision forschool-age children.

We also know that parents and the home environment have the largest impact on a child’sdevelopment. The quality of the home learning environment and the interactions between aparent and child plays a more significant role in producing better child outcomes thanparental income, mothers’ qualifications and social class.2 Evidence also suggests thatparental intervention in children’s programmes produces modest positive effects onchildren’s cognitive development.3 However this working paper is concerned with the qualityof formal ECEC, and not that provided at home. Furthermore we had hoped to be able toinclude the quality of childminders; however our review of the literature showed this not to bepossible. There has not been the amount of research work carried out on this type of care asfor group care, and therefore we are unable to draw the same level of conclusion forchildminders.


2

Outline of this paper

This briefing paper explores what is meant by good quality ‘early childhood education andcare’ (ECEC) and examines the factors that determine quality. It proposes a ‘model’ ofquality to be costed as the next stage of the project by the Social Market Foundation.

The sections in this paper are:• What are the aims of high quality ECEC?• The impact of ECEC on children• Defining quality• Quality factors: process and structure• Daycare Trust’s ECEC model.

Methods

This briefing paper draws on three sources:1. A review of the literature from existing research on ECEC quality.2. Interviews with key stakeholders including the Department for Children, Schools and

Families (DCSF), Ofsted, childcare providers’ representative organisations and twolocal authorities.

3. A policy roundtable with subject experts, policy officials and representatives from theECEC sector.

The interviews took place in September and October 2008, followed by the roundtable heldon Chatham House terms (see Annex 2 for the list of participants). Where we refer tostakeholders in this paper, we are referring to the participants in the interview androundtable. We would like to extend our thanks to all of those who participated and gave theirtime generously. The project team are also supported by an advisory group of leadingacademics, researchers and policy officials (see Annex 3). We also thank them for theirsupport to this project.

The paper does not intend to provide a full analysis of all the research on the effects ofECEC provision on children’s development. A comprehensive literature review on the impactof ECEC provision was undertaken by Edward Melhuish for the National Audit Office in 2004which would be unwise to replicate. More recently, a literature review exploring a value-for-money comparison of ECEC, including an assessment of quality, was undertaken byresearchers at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which includedexploration of the role and impact of ECEC and factors affecting quality. These two papershave been drawn upon and referenced where they provide a fuller account than isappropriate to include here. Childcare nation?4 includes a more recent summary of findingson the outcomes of ECEC for children, and we include here references to relevant researchsince its publication in 2007.

What are the aims of high quality ECEC?

Before attempting a discussion of the definition of high quality ECEC, it is worth pausing toconsider what, as a society, are we aiming to achieve with our early years provision? Thereare a number of different aims that are prioritised by different stakeholders, with varyingemphasis. Some aims might be:

• Ensuring children are ready for school by developing good literacy and numeracyskills.

• Making sure children are safe and healthy.• Keeping children happy and engaged in activities they enjoy.• Ensuring children have good behaviour and are well-adjusted.


3

• Closing the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their peers.• Enabling both parents to be in paid work.

The different definitions of quality reflect the different aims of ECEC held to be mostimportant by different groups (we will consider this in more detail below). The internationalevidence shows that quality is measured differently in different countries depending upon thecultural values and constructions of childhood.5 The aims can vary considerably from countryto country, making some comparisons difficult. As noted by the OECD, positive childoutcomes are a major goal for ECEC in all countries, but what differs is which outcomes aredeemed to be more important. For example, the UK, as in many other English-speakingcountries and in France, prioritises outcomes that lead to children being ‘school ready’.6However countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway come from a social pedagogytradition which combines care, upbringing and learning, without hierarchy and with a focus onpreparing children for life more broadly, rather than focusing on school-readiness. A furtherexample of a different model of provision based on a different set of cultural values andviews on childhood is that in the Reggio Emilio region in northern Italy. Children there areconsidered as able to think and act for themselves in order to make meaning of their ownexperiences. ECEC workers therefore use an approach that takes into account thosechildren’s interests, experiences and choices. The value placed on certain outcomesinfluences how services are developed as well as the way quality is defined and measured.The Reggio Emilio approach is now widely written about and drawn on by many practitionersin the UK, but it is not yet central to the approach taken in this country to measure quality.

Identifying high quality in settingsDespite the following emphasis on research covering the outcomes for children, weappreciate that an outcomes-based approach is not the only way in which quality of ECECcan be defined or identified. Sylva and Roberts identify three other ways in which quality inearly childhood education is described.7 Observational rating scales are used by trainedresearchers (and increasingly by practitioners and those supporting practitioners): seeAppendix 1. Expert judgements from inspectors or advisers (such as those used in nationalstandards – see section on Ofsted below) are another way to identify quality. Finally,stakeholder views can be used to describe quality. Munton et al in 1995 proposed a‘conceptual framework’ as a practical way of allowing the various different stakeholders to‘share and develop mutual understanding of the quality concept’. This paper refers later to anumber of frameworks which aim to do this – and also thereby allow assessment ofindividual settings.

Integrated care and educationIt had been suggested to us by some stakeholders that for this project we should considerchildcare (provided so that parents can work) and early education separately, as they mayrequire different models of provision with different staffing structures, qualifications andactivities. This however was greeted by other stakeholders at the roundtable as a retrogradestep, given the body of work over the past decade to integrate the care and education forpre-school children. Melhuish in 2004 pointed out that there was ‘an overlap between thecare and education orientated settings with the distinction becoming increasingly blurred’,with the recognition of the importance of learning in the first three years of life. In the fiveyears since this review, the identified overlap has increased, with the introduction of the EarlyYears Foundation Stage in 2008 arguably removing any distinction completely. It can beargued that there is a difference in terms of the different number of hours of provisionrequired, depending whether the aim is entirely the care and education of the child orwhether there is an additional objective of allowing parents to work for longer hours. Wereturn to this later, but irrespective of parents’ motives for using ECEC, we would wantchildren to receive the benefits associated with early education. This also fits with theGovernment approach as set out in the national strategy and currently being implemented(see below). We are therefore working in this paper towards a model for integrated ECEC.


4

What can be measured?Research on the impact of ECEC is rightly dominated by what is beneficial to children.8 Theevidence in the – now substantial – body of empirical research shows that good qualityECEC is associated with better child outcomes, usually in future years (for example, school-readiness and beyond). Sylva and Roberts refer to a child outcome approach to definingquality as a ‘post-hoc’ one as quality judgements are made retrospectively.9 While we havean excellent body of evidence on some later ‘outcomes for children’, we do not havemeasures of the experiences of children in the provision – for example, their happiness andengagement. Do they enjoy their time in ECEC provision? There is a body of thoughtattempting to bring this approach, often linked to Emilio Reggio in Italy and based on achildren’s rights philosophy, more centrally into the discussion of quality.10 We are aware incarrying out this piece of work that the lack of empirical evidence from this point of view – onthe ‘here and now’ experience for children – makes our task more difficult.

The impact of ECEC on children

The period between birth and the age of six is crucial for children’s brain development andlearning, with the foundations being laid for later cognitive, social and emotionaldevelopment. Consequently, the quality of care – both at home and in ECEC provision – isabsolutely paramount.

There is now a large body of evidence from the UK, the US and many European countriesthat has examined the impact of ECEC for children.11 (The impact of ECEC on children isdiscussed in detail in Appendix 2.) The benefits are varied and include improvements inchildren’s confidence, peer relationships and behaviour; their learning and development; andbreaking the cycle of poverty. However these benefits are highly dependent on the quality ofprovision. Melhuish provides a substantial overview of the international research andconcluded that it is consistent in demonstrating a positive relationship between ECEC fromage three onwards and intellectual, social and behavioural development, and that therelationship is stronger where the provision of ECEC is of higher quality. Research alsoshows that poor quality ECEC provision is no more beneficial to the child than where there isno provision at all.12 Conversely, high quality ECEC produces better outcomes for children.

In the UK, the largest, and most widely cited study is the Effective Provision of Pre-SchoolEducation (EPPE) project which showed a significant link between higher quality provisionfor children from age three and better intellectual and social/behavioural outcomes whenchildren enter school.13 Furthermore these effects continue throughout primary school.Indeed research from the USA shows the effects remaining well into adulthood. The EPPEproject found that disadvantaged children in particular have much to gain from ECECprovision – a finding that is mirrored in other research and summarised by Melhuish in hisdetailed literature review of the impact of ECEC provision on children.14 Use of ECEC bydisadvantaged children produces positive cognitive, language and social development aslong as the quality of provision is high. Further, the advantages can last a substantial amountof time (see Appendix 2 for details). Both the EPPE project and the evaluation of theNeighbourhood Nurseries Initiative (NNI)15 showed that the benefits of good quality pre-school settings for disadvantaged children are particularly significant where they are with amixture of children from different social backgrounds.

Research on children under the age of three is less prevalent and less conclusive than thatfor the older age group. Some research on the impact of ECEC for these children findspositive effects, some finds quite the opposite and some finds no discernible effects. Overallthe research suggests that the quality of the care received and the number of hours spent inECEC settings both affect the outcomes for children. Melhuish’s review for the NAO


5

concluded that, for children who are not disadvantaged in their home environment, use ofhigh quality ECEC in the first three years has no strong effects upon cognitive and languagedevelopment. However disadvantaged children are likely to benefit from high qualityprovision in the first three years, with positive outcomes in language, cognitive and socialdevelopment16 Disadvantaged children benefit from high quality ECEC whether started ininfancy or at a later age. High quality centrebased care may facilitate in particular children’slanguage development, but where ECEC quality is low, children can show lower languagedevelopment than those not receiving ECEC provision during the first three years.17 Thisdemonstrates just how critical quality is in the development of ECEC. This has been recentlyconfirmed by the evaluation of the early education pilots for two-year-olds which concludedthat the overall lack of a significant impact disguises the fact that children who received highquality ECEC have significant improvements in their vocabulary, as well as improvements inparent/child interactions.18

There is some suggestion from other sources that long hours in ECEC provision from anearly age can lead to slightly increased externalising behaviour (aggression anddisobedience) irrespective of quality.19 On the other hand, poor quality childcare couldincrease the risk of producing poorer outcomes. These are covered in some detail inAppendix 2 and are difficult to summarise definitively in terms of hours – as different studiesare measuring slightly different behaviours and in a lot of cases the effect of behaviours isvery small and, unlike the positive effects of effective ECEC, may not last over the years.Melhuish concluded in 2004 that long hours of group care among non-disadvantagedchildren under the age of two may increase the risk of developing anti-social behaviour.Some studies define ‘long’ as more than three days/20 hours and others only found effectsabove 35 hours of group care a week. However in practice very few children in the UKactually experience long hours in group care, especially under the age of two or even three.20

Furthermore a recent UK study using Millennium Cohort Study data on childcare use andworking mothers concluded that group settings used by a nine-month-old baby is positivelyassociated with school readiness scores at three years old, and found no association withthat use and poor behavioural outcomes. 21

Impact on the family

Many parents who use ECEC for their pre-school children do so as it enables them to enterand maintain employment, and to undertake education or training. This is one of the keygoals of the Government’s childcare strategy. However, even when parents are unable totake up paid employment, ECEC can have positive effects on the family as a whole. Forexample parents whose two-year-olds participated in the free early education pilot of only 7.5(or sometimes 12.5) hours a week reported improvements in physical, mental and emotionalhealth and the functioning of the whole family as they had more time to devote to othermembers.22

Wider outcomes for society

ECEC provides beneficial outcomes that reach beyond the children and families using theservices. ECEC enables parents – especially mothers – to focus more consistently on theiremployment when they know that their children are well cared for and secure. Consequently,as described in the OECD’s report Starting Strong II, the outcomes help to enhance humancapital.23 Other positive externalities that early education provides include: better health,increased labour market participation, more gender equality and workers with higher skillslevels that serve to increase the productivity of those they work with. As individual earningsincrease, so too do tax revenues.24 Further societal effects also identified by the OECDinclude reduced levels of criminality and family violence, and an increase in social cohesion.


6

For these reasons many commentators, including Daycare Trust, argue that promoting theuse of quality ECEC provision is a public good. Cleveland and Krashinsky outlined thetheoretical bases of understanding ECEC as a public good and suggest that the rationale issimilar to those used in favour of education paid for by the state.25 The positive effects reachbeyond the individual child and the family, and the potential for market failure including lowquality and shortages of provision justify government intervention. More recently, a literaturereview of early childhood services and OECD countries on behalf of Unicef, explored a rangeof cost-benefit research and concluded that the demonstrated benefits of early childhoodservices, to not just children and families but also governments and national economies,justify state investment.26

These arguments are discussed in more detail in the reports by OECD and Unicef and shallnot be replicated here, as their examination does not shed any light onto the issue of whatconstitutes high quality provision. But they do add weight to the argument that the fact thatthe UK Government has increased substantially the expenditure on ECEC provision, meansthat the quality of provision is of paramount importance – whether it is provided by themaintained, private, voluntary or independent sector.

Defining quality

It is universally accepted that children should receive a good quality service in ECECprovision; yet, perhaps not surprisingly, there is no common agreement of what that means.There is no single definition of what ‘quality’ is. Although one stakeholder says ‘we would allrecognise it when we see it’, it is probable we might all have a slightly different perception ofwhat is the best ECEC experience.

It is apparent that the understanding of what constitutes ‘quality ECEC’ differs depending onthe individual’s perspective. For example, parents, children, ECEC staff and managers, localauthorities and politicians approach this with diverse attitudes and differ in their view of whatECEC might be expected to deliver. These differing perspectives on quality have beencategorised by Lilian Katz as coming from a ‘outside-in’ perspective (viewed by parents), an‘inside’ perspective (as experienced by staff), a ‘top-down’ perspective (seen by observers),and a ‘bottom-up’ perspective (experienced by children).27 A similar view was raised severaltimes in our interviews with stakeholders as part of this project, where the principle ofbringing together the diverse views of stakeholders was identified as important and in thissection we aim to do that. As noted above, different countries have chosen to develop ECECservices differently and its quality reflects the social and cultural context.

As noted by Munton, Mooney and Rowland in 1995, key stakeholders are typically looking fora definition of a ‘global standard of care that can be universally accepted as indicative ofgood quality.’28 One example of this is the current work within the DCSF on the QualityImprovement Project outlined below. Munton et al – and many researchers since then,including more recently Tony Bertram29 – argued that a single, universally accepted definitionof quality is unachievable as it is value-based and subjective. This principle is now widelyaccepted, and our discussions with stakeholders in this project have confirmed this.

Munton et al therefore proposed a conceptual framework for evaluating quality based on aframework developed by Avedis Donabedian for healthcare30 comprising six dimensions:effectiveness, acceptability, efficiency, access, equity and relevance. Additional featuresinclude: incorporating the views of stakeholders; increasing awareness of issues related toquality and an attention to quality improvement; the capacity to clarify and expand onpeople’s ways of thinking about quality; and the ability to be practically applicable. Eachdimension is further defined in terms of its structures, process and outcome. This framework


7

can be a useful tool as it allows different definitions of quality, reflecting different values andinterests.

Before moving on to discuss some of the various indicators of quality identified by research,this paper will consider the views of quality in more detail from the perspective of keystakeholders.

Government view of quality

The OECDs international review of ECEC services argues that voluntary approaches toquality improvement need to be reinforced by a proactive approach from governments who‘have a pivotal role in defining and ensuring programme standards and in creating strong andequitable early childhood systems’.31 In the UK, the Ten Year Strategy for Childcare outlinedthe Government’s increased awareness of the importance of quality and the necessity ofgovernment intervention, brought about by the evidence on child development, which:

‘tells us that government involvement in childcare provision cannot be limited tosecuring adequate supply to support labour market participation. Government needsto care about the quality of childcare. The longer term benefits of getting the earlyyears right will pay dividends for both individuals and for society as a while aschildren grow to adulthood.’32

It is worth quoting in full the Government’s definition of quality childcare provision, as set outin the Ten Year Strategy: 33

‘To meet the Government’s vision, childcare must become part of a partnership withparents to meet the cognitive, social, emotional and physical needs of children. Fortoo long there has been a false distinction between ‘education’ and ‘care’ in earlyyears services that is reflected in different qualifications and regulatory systems. Forchildren, such a distinction has no meaning. Children need a safe and stimulatingenvironment at all times, whether this is provided in their own home, in a nurseryschool, a day nursery or a childminder’s home. A modern childcare system shoulddeliver high quality services for children that enable them to learn, develop social andemotional skills, and explore through play.’

This definition leads onto various policy initiatives intended to improve the quality of ECECbased chiefly around reforming the workforce and introducing a robust regulation andinspection regime.

The OECD noted that as governments spend more money on ECEC, there is also a growingconcern about quality.34 It is evident that this has occurred in the UK with the Governmentinitially focusing the childcare strategy on investing in the supply and subsidy of childcareplaces, primarily to provide ECEC for working parents and to help meet their child povertytargets, alongside providing free, early education to improve children’s outcomes. Afteridentifying several strategies for quality improvement in their Ten Year Strategy for Childcare(which will be further discussed below) there is now a much wider and clearer focus onimproving the quality of provision.

Five years on from the launch of the strategy, most of the policy initiatives related to qualityimprovement have been implemented, at least partially. These include:

• Reform of the ECEC workforce, led by the Children’s Workforce DevelopmentCouncil, including: a commitment to a graduate led workforce in all full daycaresettings by 2015; creation of the Early Years Professional Status (EYPS); and a newsingle qualifications framework providing more opportunities for existing staff toincrease their skills, supported by the Graduate Leader Fund (following on from the


8

Transformation Fund), which aims at raising the quality of provision by supporting theprivate, voluntary and independent (PVI) sector in recruiting and training qualifiedstaff.

• A new regulatory framework and inspection regime for all ECEC services.• A single quality framework – known as the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) –

providing an integrated approach to care and education and setting the nationalstandards for learning and development from birth to age five.

The Government reported progress on the Ten Year Strategy in January 2009, in its NextSteps for Early Learning and Childcare document. This gives an update on the EYFS andEYPS, and reasserts the Government’s vision of ‘high quality...highly skilled practitionersdelivering excellent play-based learning adapted to the development needs of each individualchild.’35 The document also outlines plans to attract more new graduates into the ECECworkforce, through a scheme like Teach First in schools.

Every Child Matters and the outcomes dutyFrom the Government’s perspective the quality framework for ECEC, as with all children’sservices, is driven by the Every Child Matters (ECM) programme.36 ECM covers five areas toensure that all children have the support needed to:

1. be healthy;2. stay safe;3. enjoy and achieve;4. make a positive contribution;5. achieve economic well-being.

These five outcomes are now enshrined in the outcomes duty in the Childcare Act 2006which places a duty on English and Welsh local authorities to reduce inequalities andimprove the well-being of all young children in their area through the planning and delivery ofintegrated early childhood services. Meeting the requirements of this duty requires a wide-ranging and inclusive strategy and various guidance materials are now available to assistlocal authorities and providers in meeting their duties.

OfstedSince the introduction of the free entitlement to early education in 1998, Ofsted has beenresponsible for inspecting the quality of education provided by all establishments eligible todeliver this, including the private, voluntary and independent sectors. Since September 2001,Ofsted has been also the regulatory body responsible for ensuring minimum standards ofquality and safety are met within the sector. ECEC settings are graded according to the ECMoutcomes (outlined above). From September 2008, Ofsted introduced a new inspectionregime across the ECEC sector to ensure that all providers of the EYFS will be reported onin the same way. Although Ofsted also works with providers to construct strategies forimprovement, in practice local authorities play a more significant role.

The most recent inspection statistics show that between July 2007 and August 2008, 66 percent of full daycare providers were rated as good and 4 per cent outstanding. The results forchildminders are a little lower with 54 per cent being rated as good and 5 per centoutstanding. The lowest rating of inadequate was given to 3 per cent of both full daycareproviders and childminders. The remainder were rated as satisfactory.37 The inspectionratings for early education settings (nursery schools and classes) are better, with 10 per centrated outstanding and 61 per cent rated as good.

Ofsted produced a more detailed exploration of the evidence over a three-year inspectioncycle during the three years to March 2008.38 The report found that 60 per cent of all settingswere good or outstanding although the quality does vary widely across the sector. More fulldaycare (65 per cent) and sessional daycare (64 per cent) settings were rated good or


9

outstanding compared with creches (50 per cent). The report states that the poorer quality inthe latter settings is due to low staff ratios and the number of qualified leaders and staff.

The latest Ofsted Annual Report39 suggests that the Government has had some success inimproving quality. For example, in 2001 when inspections began, almost 40 per cent ofproviders did not fully meet the minimum standards expected, but now the figure is just 4 percent. However, while many providers sustain or improve their standards betweeninspections, almost as many drop sharply in the opposite direction. Ofsted rightly views thisvolatility as unacceptable. Also of great concern is the fact that, although some local authorities havebucked this trend, provision is generally of poorer quality in the most disadvantaged areas, thus providing apoorer foundation in later life for these children than for their more affluent peers.

Ofsted outlined in their report Early Years Leading to Excellence some of the key aspectsthat inspectors are looking for when determining good quality organisation, leadership andmanagement within a setting. Best practice in this area is shown to be where:

• children are at the heart of all that happens;• adults have a robust approach to keeping children safe;• providers further improve on already outstanding practice;• stimulating environments enable children to thrive safely; and• records are used extremely well to support children.

Although criticisms are often levelled at Ofsted inspections (some of which were raised in ourstakeholder interviews), the existence of Ofsted and the duties it carries out are in contrast tosome countries. The regulation and inspection of ECEC services in different countries varyconsiderably, and the OECD remarked that ‘the level of regulation of services for childrenunder 3 gives rise for concern’. There however remains in the UK much feeling that thestandards inspected do not represent high quality, but rather a floor of minimum standardswhich need to be built on in order to provide high quality provision which would be acceptedas such by all who saw it.

Early Years Foundation StageThe EYFS which took effect in settings in September 2008, sets the national standards forlearning and development from birth to age five. It amalgamates the previous Ofsted NationalStandards, the Foundation Stage and Birth to Three Matters to create an overarchingframework for the provision of care and education for children from birth until completion oftheir reception year. The EYFS covers two key areas: the welfare and development ofchildren.

The welfare section sets out the safety and general standards of care that children receivesuch as ensuring that appropriate staff are in place, and that facilities and equipment aresafe for children. It also covers the quality of the environment and recommends that thereshould be access to outdoor space.

The development section outlines some of the key milestones that most children should havereached by the age of five, such as interacting with other children and adults and therecognition of simple, written words. These milestones are intended to guide those workingwith children and to help them to identify when a child needs more help. The EYFS isfounded on the importance of play and enables each child to develop at their own pace.

The EYFS was developed over a number of years after wide consultation and is to bereviewed in 2010. Although there has been a campaign against the EYFS in some quarters,it is predominantly welcomed by the ECEC sector. Interviewees for this project felt that EYFSwill make a substantial contribution to improving quality in the ECEC sector, and this wassubstantiated both by work Daycare Trust has carried out in the last year (for example, a


10

survey of attendees at Daycare Trust’s annual conference 2008 and work with localauthorities for The Government Office for the South East) and in a number of recent ‘one-year on’ reports.40

At the end of the EYFS children’s development is measured against thirteen scales and the2009 profile results published in October 2009 show that over the last year, the achievementgap between the bottom 20 per cent and the rest has narrowed slightly from 36 per cent to34 per cent, and the proportion of five year olds reaching a ‘good’ level of developmentincreased from 49 per cent to 52 per cent.41

ECEC workforceAcknowledging the importance of the ECEC workforce in raising the quality of provision, theGovernment have invested substantial finances into developing the workforce. In 2005 theycreated the Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC) to develop andprofessionalise the ECEC workforce and to contribute to the Government’s target of having agraduate leader in every full daycare setting by 2015 (two in disadvantaged areas) and inevery children’s centre by 2010. There is consideration of making this a requirement, ratherthan just a target. The CWDC is responsible for developing the Early Years ProfessionalStatus (EYPS) – a role equivalent in level to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), but notnecessarily in pay and conditions and without identical training requirements. Finally, tosupport the PVI sector in recruiting and training more highly qualified staff, the Governmentintroduced the Transformation Fund in 2006, which has since been superseded by theGraduate Leader Fund, worth £305m over the three years 2008/09 to 2010/11. Localauthorities are also expected to use their Sure Start, Early Years and Childcare Grant to fundthe training and development of the ECEC workforce. They also undertake qualificationaudits of their provision.

The Government’s Next Steps for Early Learning and Childcare document signals that arequirement for all ECEC staff to be qualified to Level 3 may come on board from 2015. TheNext Steps document also identifies the need to create a more consistent continuousprofessional development framework, setting out a Continuous Professional Development(CPD) entitlement so that all of the workforce, not only graduates through the EYPS, canexpect training and development.

Quality assurance and improvement schemesA plethora of quality assurance (QA) schemes for ECEC settings have been developed sincethe publication of the National Childcare Strategy in 1998. The (then) DfES benchmarkedsuch schemes under an accreditation programme established in 2002 called ‘Investors InChildren’ until 2007. One example of such a scheme used by ECEC providers is ‘Aiming forQuality’, operated by the Pre-school Learning Alliance. The scheme intends to improve andmaintain high levels of quality, and the Alliance suggests that participating will make theprovider more attractive to both parents and staff. Aiming for Quality incorporates threestages of accreditation and covers a range of practices, including curriculum planning,assessment of progress towards early learning goals, quality of curriculum, quality ofteaching, equality and diversity, staff retention and parental involvement. However a largenumber of other QA– or more often now described as QI (quality improvement) – schemeshave been developed at local authority level.

The recent Ofsted report on early years inspections comments that those settingsparticipating in a QA scheme generally provide higher quality ECEC. 74 per cent of daycaresettings taking part in a QA were rated good or outstanding compared with 62 per cent ofthose that were not. Among childminders, 85 per cent of those in QA schemes provided goodquality or outstanding care compared with 59 per cent who were not. The report also statesthat outstanding settings that are in QA schemes have similar features to other outstanding


11

settings, but those with a quality assurance award have ‘a clearer focus on excellentcommitment and systems to improve quality’.42

Since 2005 QA schemes have been monitored by the National Quality Improvement Network(NQIN) supported by the National Children’s Bureau (NCB) with DCSF funding. In 2007, theNQIN published a guidance document to provide guiding principles by which the widenumber of schemes for ECEC services should be evaluated, covering a broad range ofissues.43 The original 12 principles have now been clustered into five themes aimed to workalongside new guidance and tools provided by National Strategies. The themes are:

1. Early years and childcare settings improve outcomes.2. Values and principles are inclusive and address quality.3. Continuous self-evaluation and reflective practice.4. Effective leadership and workforce planning.5. Effective monitoring and evaluation of practice and outcomes.

The term ‘Quality Assurance’ has now largely been superseded by ‘Quality Improvement’ toemphasise the important role in improving quality the schemes play. The sheer number ofschemes available arguably makes it difficult for any one to be immediately recognised bycustomers (eg parents) as an assurance of quality.44 Although Ofsted reports that settingsthat have embarked on such schemes appear to have improved the quality of their services,it is considered by some that the better settings are more likely to opt to do this in the firstplace. Furthermore some stakeholders suggest that the schemes largely produce animprovement in policies and process which do not automatically translate into better qualityexperiences for children; this view was confirmed by work carried out by Daycare Trust withlocal authorities and settings in the South-East who rated QA schemes low in terms of toolsto improve quality practice.45 However as well as ensuring that settings have good policiesfor all aspects of their work, good QI schemes focus should focus settings on self-evaluationand reflective practice.

Quality Improvement ProgrammeThe DCSF’s Quality Improvement Programme (QIP) takes forward the ‘vision’ set out in theChildren’s Plan in December 2007, to make this country the best place in the world forchildren to grow up in. The QIP has three key themes:46

1. Communicating quality: aims to develop a universal view of the characteristics of highquality ECEC provision to combat the different views of parents, providers, localauthorities and other stakeholders.

2. Driving quality improvement through the system: local authorities working withsettings to improve quality and raising standards above the Ofsted minimum.

3. Supporting the workforce to rise above the minimum standards: providing funding,including the Graduate Leader Fund (GLF), training for leadership skills and anexpanded programme of CPD.

The QIP identifies three elements of high quality provision with the individual child placed atthe centre:

1. Workforce: graduate led; Level 3 as standard; continuing professional development;opportunities for staff to improve skills and qualifications.

2. Content and environment: adult-child ratios; the EYFS providing challenging,appropriate play-based content; safe and stimulating physical environment.

3. Practice: clear educational goals; warm responsive relationship between adult/child;parents involved in children’s learning; meeting individual child’s needs; sustainedshared thinking.


12

Support from local authoritiesLocal authorities have a key role to play in the implementation of the QIP and use a variety oftools in working with settings to improve quality:

• development officer/early years adviser/setting improvement partner time workingwith settings, particularly those which are struggling to provide high quality;

• training programmes;• raising qualifications and Graduate Leader Fund;• using Early Years leaders to spread better practice (for example, networking,

mentoring, buddying, visits to high quality settings, modelling good practice withinstruggling settings);

• support for QA and QI schemes (see ‘Quality assurance and improvement schemes’above); and

• attaching quality conditions to funding streams – this has not been used to asignificant extent in the past, but will be used increasingly in the future (for example,quality standards apply to the free places for two-year-olds).

We carried out a number of interviews with local authorities in the South-East on their role inraising quality in early 2009. There was complete agreement among early years leads thatworkforce was key and that it in turn influences the other elements of quality. All localauthorities mentioned issues with quality of leadership and management. In some settingsthe ethos was not as it should be, and there was not always a commitment to CPD. Therewas unanimous approval of the move to graduate leaders and the EYPS. Local authoritiesalso singled out the quality of adult/child relationships and the nature of the engagement.Outside facilities were often mentioned as often leaving room for improvement.


13

Parents’ views of quality

Parents are arguably the principle ‘customer’ of ECEC services on behalf of their children.Some research has found that parents do not always accurately judge the quality of theprovision they use47 and this view is often expressed by Government and local authorityofficials.48 Some similar views were expressed in the stakeholder interviews conducted forthis project with several interviewees commenting that many parents choose ECEC based onfactors associated with convenience and accessibility rather than on quality. One intervieweefrom a local authority commented that, for parents, quality is much lower down the priority listthan location and affordability. Another representative from a different authority said:

‘I think parents’ views are formed by all sorts of different things…it’s very hard for aparent to find out what is quality, and is that a good place for my child to go, andsometimes the urgency of their need to have the childcare, and the practicalities ofwhere it is, and affordability dominate their decision…I’m accepting that parents differin priorities, especially if the urgency is the need to bring in an income, to work etc.But I think it’s also quite hard for parents to make a judgement on quality, and someparents are bowled over by lots of new equipment, but if they can talk to somebodyabout it, to actually look at the quality of what goes on there they need some help todo that, because they often haven’t got that background to do it.’

Another interviewee succinctly said: ‘I think their views of quality are restricted by what theirneeds are.’

The conflicting drivers of parents’ needs have emerged in the research evidence. TheNational Audit Office surveyed parents in 2004 who were using ECEC services and foundthat the most commonly cited factor influencing parents’ choice of provider was staffreferences and reputation (47 per cent), closely followed by location (44 per cent). Wellqualified staff and good facilities were both only mentioned by 10 per cent of parents.49

However in a MORI survey conducted for Daycare Trust in the same year 51 per cent ofparents said well qualified, experienced and well paid staff were most important whenchoosing childcare, the same percentage as said reliable and trustworthy staff, followed bygood reputation (43 per cent), hygiene and safety (42 per cent), and warm and caringenvironment (41 per cent).50 Parents in qualitative research conducted by Daycare Trustshowed that they rated highly the safety of the environment and the happiness of their childin using the setting, and lone parents in particular prioritised these issues over and abovecost and location.51 Trust and recommendations by people they knew were considered veryimportant, with many parents strongly averse to leaving children – particularly those who arevery young – ‘with a stranger’. This translated into many parents being more wary ofchildminders than group settings, where they felt that the presence of more (albeit unknown)adults and organisational processes would reduce any risk of harm to the child.

The DCSF’s Quality Improvement Programme identified that parents’ main driver in choosingECEC tends to be personal recommendation, trust and convenience; with some parents –but still very much a minority – using Ofsted reports to guide their choice of provider. TheDCSF conducts a regular large-scale survey of parents’ use, views and experiences ofECEC. The most recent survey found that the quality of ECEC and educational opportunitieswere key. The most commonly cited reasons for parents using group care were:• the setting had a good reputation;• the parent felt they could trust them; and• it provided education as well as care (all were cited by 15 per cent of parents).

The DCSF survey showed that the responses in relation to ‘trust’ changed with the age of thechild:• when the baby was not yet one-year-old trust was mentioned by 28 per cent of parents;• this fell to 17 per cent for parents of children aged two and three; and• fell further to 14 per cent for parents of children aged four and five.


14

It is noteworthy that for parents using childminders, trust was by far the most important factor(cited by 46 per cent).52

The evidence therefore indicates that parents are quite aware of the importance of quality inECEC settings, but do not tend to use the same language of quality as ECEC professionals,instead talking about the importance of their child being safe, happy, mixing with otherchildren and learning. Research has identified that parents rate ‘good staff, warm and caringatmosphere, quality of buildings, health and safety’ as the most important aspects of quality,and the benefits for their children of attending provision as ‘improving their social skills,preparing them for school and having an opportunity to play with children from variedbackground’.53 They thought their children valued ‘making friends, having a range of funthings to do and having warm and caring staff’ (which, apart from parents undervaluing theimportance of outdoor play, does correlate well with children’s own views – see Children’sviews of quality below).

There is some evidence that parents find it hard to judge quality54 and may rate the provisionthat their children use higher than independent assessors.55 Parents cannot necessarily beexpected to know what elements of the provision contribute to their desired outcomes, forexample they tend to set a lower importance on staff qualifications than the sector itself, andthis may be both due to the relative importance given to particular outcomes and to theunderstanding of what qualifications contribute. However if parents are to be the ‘purchasers’of quality the ‘childcare market’, some will need support to consider more fully what mightconstitute quality and the relative value of its different components. This in no way representsa disregard for the outcomes which parents hold to be most important, but recognises theright of parents to have information as to what is required for particular outcomes to be likelyin a setting. Some interviewees, in particular those with a government or quasi-governmentperspective, felt that the EYFS and the new Ofsted inspection regime should help, as parentswill be able to compare like with like much more easily.

Penelope Leach notes that that ‘we do not know as much as we should, partly because highdemand for scarce childcare in many countries makes it difficult for parents who haveobtained places to be openly critical of them or to vote with their feet by moving children outof care they regard as ‘poor’. Daycare Trust will be returning to this issue with further focusgroups and a policy paper on the subject of Parents and Quality Childcare in 2010.

Children’s views of quality

Children’s views on ECEC and what they want from it are increasingly being explored,although there is arguably more evidence available that covers older children and youngpeople. Clark and Moss developed a multi-method approach – the Mosaic approach – toexplore children’s perspectives on their early years settings.56 Children placed greatimportance on their friendship groups, and also on outdoor play and on having adults presentto resolve any conflicts that arise. A literature review found that as well as time to spend withtheir friends, young children valued a range of activities, caring staff who took children’sconcerns seriously, ample space, access to outside and clean toilets.57 Pre-school childrenwere most likely to complain about not having enough toys or having to sit on the carpet fortoo long. Campbell-Barr also looked at children’s views more recently and found children didnot identify with an educational element of ECEC provision.58

Penelope Leach identifies that for young children, good quality ECEC primarily consists of agood relationship between the adult and the child, followed by stability of care (as discussedearlier in this paper). She also identifies the importance of being with other children(especially stable groups of children, rather than just mixing with children in parks andplaygrounds). In order for children to be able to integrate well in these settings with other


15

children, there must also be adequate time for them to settle in. Adult-planned activities androutines are important so that all children can benefit from a wide range of activities, butthese must be flexible to take children’s preferences into account.59

No conceptual framework or set of standards can guarantee each and every child a highquality experience; it is of course possible for one child to have a poor quality experience in asupposedly ‘outstanding’ setting if, for example, their relationships with the workers were notgood. However it is expected that this should be far less likely in a setting which has met highstandards when observed and inspected.

Quality factors: process and structure

We have two clear conclusions from the literature review. First the difficulties in definingquality of ECEC, due to its subjective nature and the influence of cultural values, are widelyacknowledged.60 Second, much of the research on ECEC draws a distinction between‘structural’ and ‘process’ aspects.61 Melhuish’s review of the literature on the impact of ECECprovision defined these two aspects as:

1. Process dimensions, which are ‘the characteristics of the child’s experience e.g.interactions with others, learning experiences, variety in stimulation, responsivenessin environment’.

2. Structural dimensions which focus on ‘aspects of the environment that are fixed, e.g.accommodation, group size, adult-child ratio, training of staff, health and safety,stability of staff, management structure.’62

In a policy paper written for Daycare Trust, Melhuish expanded on these descriptions andcommented that structural aspects tend to be focused on where legislation of daycare qualityexists, as these are easier to inspect and control. 63

These dual dimensions of quality are now widely accepted. The OECD report, StartingStrong II, included process and structural aspects in their evaluation of early childhoodsystems – but they also identified a further six factors. Arguably, some of these could beclassified as either process or structural dimensions, but also it could be argued that the lastthree (in the list below) are actually of a different type. The additional six aspects of qualityidentified by the OECD are:1. Orientation quality: the type and level of attention a government brings to early childhood

policy and which can include: direction to a market or public system or a mixed economy;and care of children while parents work or a more developmental approach.

2. Educational concept and practice: a national curriculum framework that guides theconcept and practice of centres. This differs between countries and across time, althougha common conviction is emerging that focuses on highly trained staff.

3. Operational quality: management that focuses on quality improvement, local need andeffective team building, and which relies heavily upon the professional competence ofcentre leaders and local administration.

4. Child outcome quality or performance standards: positive child outcomes are a key targetin all countries, although there are differences in which targets are the focus (as outlinedabove). The UK and France prioritise language and logico-mathematical skills, whichrequire regular assessments to prepare the child for school

5. Countries that do not use formal assessments, such as Sweden, which evaluate centreperformance and national sample evaluations.

6. Standards pertaining to parent/community outreach and involvement: these tend toemerge in targeted and local early education programmes and include issues such asoutreach to parents, services that encompass cultural values and participation inintegrated services.


16

Process factors have been explored widely in other research,64 and are clearly fundamentalto delivering high quality ECEC. Research evidence suggests that the quality of provision forthe under threes relies on affection, communication and responsiveness. The relationshipschildren have with both the adults and other children – and the nature of the interactionsbetween them - are crucial. For children aged over three, the learning opportunities andeducation aspects of provision also become increasingly important.65

Melhuish’s comprehensive literature review of the impact of ECEC provision on youngchildren from 2004 highlighted the following factors as key for enhancing children’sdevelopment:66

• Adult-child interaction that is responsive, readily available and affectionate.• Well-trained and committed staff.• Facilities that are safe and sanitary and accessible to parents.• Group sizes and ratios that facilitate appropriate staff-child interaction.• Supervision that maintains consistency.• Staff development that ensures stability, continuity and improving quality.• A developmentally appropriate curriculum with educational content

Indeed, the EPPE study, which we consider further below, is one large scale example thathas identified several ‘process’ factors indicating quality in pre-school settings:67

• the quality of child-staff interactions is of particular importance with children making moreprogress in settings where staff were warm and responsive to the children’s individualneeds;

• higher quality settings view educational and social development as complementary andequal in importance; and

• better quality settings were those that encouraged ‘shared sustained thinking’ interactionsbetween staff and children as well as child-initiated activities.

However we are not here providing a review of the literature on process factors, as the aim ofthis paper is to produce a model of quality ECEC in order for it to be costed. Process factors– such interpersonal relationships and adult-child interactions – do not appear to have a pricetag attached to them which are separate from any structural issues. No stakeholdersuggested any additional costing associated with improving the process factors, apart fromtraining costs.

Our failure to explore the issues surrounding the ‘process’ aspects of quality is not a lack ofappreciation of their fundamental importance. It is simply that, as we are chiefly concerned inthis project with how funding can be used to improve the quality of ECEC provision, thisdirects us to explore how financial investment could lead to an improved quality of provision,and it is the ‘structural’ aspects that directly require additional funding. However it is likelythat the improvement of structural factors will act through improving the process factors. Weshould bear in mind Melhuish’s point:

‘Structural factors seem to provide the necessary conditions for process quality suchas positive staff/child interaction. They facilitate but do not guarantee good qualityexperiences for the child.’

An individual child could have a poor experience at a high quality setting if, for example,his/her relationships with the adults there were not good. However by improving thestructural aspects of the provision, the evidence suggests that this improves also the processaspects of the children’s experience, making this scenario less and less likely.

Quality factors and the stakeholder discussions


17

Daycare Trust undertook a number of stakeholder interviews as part of the process ofresearching this paper. All interviewees identified that the workforce was the main crucialaspect in determining quality, as this then has an impact on all aspects of a setting: highlyqualified and motivated staff will know about staff development and so will do their best torelate well to children; they will recognise the importance of healthy food, stimulating toysand a good environment; they will have quality interactions with adults and children alike; andthey will be willing to learn and contribute to a high quality ethos in the setting. Alongsidequalifications there needs to be professionalism. Some noted that in order for ECEC workersto be highly valued, there needs to be better pay.

A number of people also emphasised that a quality workforce was not just aboutqualifications, but also about confidence, skills, knowledge and competence levels.Interviewees noted the importance of in-depth training, rather than the odd day here andthere. Child development was seen as an important part of the training, and this should begiven more emphasis within NVQs. Modelling good adult-child interactions within the settingsimproved the quality of other staff. Reflective practice was mentioned numerous times, sothat practitioners are able to continuously improve their practice and identify areas that theycan work on. Some felt that EYPS may not be enough to achieve this; that its distinction as astatus, rather than a training course or qualification, might hinder its impact.

A management approach understanding and promoting quality through the wholeorganisation was seen as critical. A good leader or manager makes a big difference in asetting, as they will be able to always strive for the best for the children in their setting – forexample, having higher ratios if that is what the particular children need. High quality settingsare those that are working to the quality standards set by government as minimumstandards, and exceeding those where possible.

When discussing the research that indicates that the maintained sector has higher qualityprovision, all the interviewees indicated that it was important to drill down into this finding tosee what it is about the maintained sector that brings quality. Interviewees suspected that itcomes back to the workforce and their qualifications, training and status. The workforce inthe maintained sector tends to be more qualified. Some local authority representatives alsofelt that having a dedicated building with the sole purpose of caring for and educatingchildren, rather than having to adapt other space to meet their needs (as usually is the casefor sessional care), was important. The maintained sector may also find it easier to have along-term view and not have the same concerns about sustainability.

The Early Years Foundation Stage and its bringing together of the care and educationaspects was welcomed and seen a step forward – especially as care professions aretraditionally undervalued. Bringing the frameworks together for birth to age three and earlyeducation for three- and four-year-olds was seen as essential as children can’t learn if theyaren’t cared for effectively – for example, a child won’t learn if he/she is hungry. ECEC needsto be interested in the whole child and how he/she fits into society, as well as how his/herfamily are supported in doing that. DCSF mentioned that EYFS should be the minimumstandard, with the best providers offering more than that.

Key changes identified in the interviews as needed to improve quality were:• good leaders/managers in the PVI sector (ie not just EYPs), so that they can instil an

ethos of quality, as well as manage change and ensure sustainability;• encouraging staff to be reflective practitioners so that they can constantly improve;• further improvements to the qualifications of staff; and• more information to parents about judging quality so that they can make informed

decisions and ‘buy’ quality provision, thereby ensuring that the ‘childcare market’values quality.


18

This view that the structural dimensions provide a precondition of quality ECEC but must notbe seen as the ‘be all and end all’ was raised several times in our interviews withstakeholders and in the roundtable at which these factors were discussed. There was astrong view that the importance of child-staff interactions, centre practices and other processfeatures – which are notably harder to measure and regulate – need to be acknowledgedalongside the structural factors in order to ensure that they are not overlooked by thoseworking in settings to improve the experience of children.

Quality factors and the research evidence

In terms of the evidence base in the UK, and also internationally, the research on ECEC hasshifted its focus across the years. Influenced by attachment theory first developed by Bowlby,for several decades research tended to focus on whether ECEC provision was bad forchildren.68 It has since shifted from analysing the effect of ECEC on children’s developmentaloutcomes (for a fuller discussion see Appendix 2) to the impact of the quality of provision onchildren’s development.69 We now turn to what this research has to say about each of thefactors which influence quality in ECEC settings, and we are limiting the review to that ofstructural factors for the reasons given above.

We have reviewed the three main studies on ECEC that have been carried out in Englandover the past decade:1. the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS);2. the Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative (NNI) evaluation; and3. Effective Pre-School Education (EPPE) study.For further information, see Appendix 2. Here we summarise the structural factors that thesestudies identify as quality indicators in early years provision.

From the MCS, in rank order:

FACTOR BETTER QUALITYSector - MaintainedGroup size - Larger groupsStaff qualifications - Higher qualificationsChildren’s Centre status - Children’s CentreAges - Older childrenStaff-child ratios - Fewer childrenLinks with SSLP - NO links with SSLP or Health ServicesCentre size - Smaller centresManager’s qualifications - Higher qualifications

The NNI evaluation identified the following overall predictors of quality as:

FACTOR BETTER QUALITYSector - MaintainedChildren’s Centre status - Children’s CentreCentre size - largerAge of children - mixed age groupsStaff qualifications - better qualifications

Finally, the EPPE study found the following key factors as essential in influencing quality:

FACTOR BETTER QUALITYSetting type - Integrated care and education, and nursery schoolsStaff qualifications - Higher qualifications


19

Manager’s qualifications - Higher qualificationsType of children - mix of children from a range of social backgrounds

There are no studies which contradict these findings, and others add weight to theconclusions that these are the structural factors which influence quality (for example, JaneWaldfogel has identified staff-child ratios and education levels of staff70).

The following section takes a closer look at the evidence on these structural factors.

SectorThe evidence suggests that maintained status is a strong predictor of quality. Using theECERS measure (see Appendix 1), the EPPE study found that children attending nurseryclasses, nursery schools and integrated centres (combining care and education) have betterintellectual outcomes; in addition nursery classes and integrated centres also result in bettersocial outcomes. Playgroups, private day nurseries and local authority day nurseries scoredlower in their ECERS ratings.71 The MCS also found that maintained status was linked tohigher quality in most dimensions including better interactions, language and reasoningskills, curricular quality for literacy, maths, science and diversity.

Similar findings emerged from the NNI evaluation which found that fully maintained localauthority provision gave children the most stimulating environment to develop their languageand educational abilities, and also the highest quality physical environment. The evaluationreported that mainstream support systems and access to ‘educational infrastructure’ provideadvantages to the maintained sector and speculated that the differences in pay andconditions for staff may contribute to the differences in quality between sectors.72

Although it is clear from the research that the maintained sector provides a higher quality ofECEC provision across a range of outcomes for children, it is not possible from those studiesto ascertain the additional expenditure which leads to the observed higher quality. However itcan be seen that better staff pay and conditions would contribute to higher costs. In the MCSthe effect on interactions and maths was only apparent after staff qualifications wereremoved from the regression model, suggesting that qualifications could be influencing thehigher quality obtained by the maintained sector.73 This suggestion was supported by thestakeholders interviewed. However some of those interviewed or attending the roundtablewere sceptical that any factor other than qualifications and premises costs existed; in otherwords they put the demonstrated higher quality entirely down to higher staffing and premisesexpenditure.

Children’s centre statusBoth the NNI evaluation and the MCS found children’s centre status to have a positiveimpact on the quality of provision, with both showing it to be a stronger influence than that ofsector on specific issues. For example, the MCS found that children’s centres had a positiverelationship with provision for science, diversity and personal care routines, and therelationship was independent of sector. The NNI found higher quality scores in children’scentres related to interactions (between staff and child and also peers) and daily schedule(eg appropriate group activities, time for free play), rather than to education provision. TheMCS report comments that the positive impact resulting from children’s centre status may bebecause most were in the maintained sector; however personal care routines, science anddiversity were all areas with a positive relationship on quality and were independent ofsector.

Group size and size of centreThe MCS found that rooms with larger groups of children present were of the highest quality,once other factors had been taken into account. These offered better curricular provision,higher quality interactions and provision for children’s language and reasoning skills.


20

However earlier studies showed that smaller group sizes produced a range of better socialand cognitive outcomes for children.74

The MCS study also identified that groups in larger centres (ie greater numbers of childrenregistered at the centre) provided lower quality interactions for three- and four-year-olds.75

Yet this contradicts findings from the NNI evaluation which found that larger centres had asignificant and positive relationship with higher quality provision for children under the age ofthree and a half.76 Care routines, language and programme structure were all found to behigher quality. The evaluation report surmised that larger centres have the benefit ofeconomies of scale so can offer a wider range of facilities and resources for children andstaff.

Staff and manager qualifications and trainingThere is much evidence to show that staff qualifications and training are a key indicator ofquality, and as we saw earlier the Government has recognised the centrality of the workforceand qualifications in raising the standards of provision. In a briefing paper for Daycare Trustin 2004, Melhuish identified six factors related to staff characteristics that support qualityECEC:77

1. higher levels of staff education;2. in-service training;3. staff experienced in working with children;4. low staff turnover;5. adequate staff pay; and6. a trained centre manager to provide staff support and supervision.

In terms of the evidence from the three UK research studies we are focusing on, the EPPEstudy found that the most effective ECEC provision that produced better outcomes forchildren had highly qualified staff, mostly graduate teachers:78

‘Children made more progress in pre-school centres where staff had higherqualifications, particularly if the manager was highly qualified. Having trained teachersworking with children in pre-school settings (for a substantial proportion of the time,and most importantly as curriculum leader) had the greatest impact on quality…’

The EPPE study found a significant positive relationship between the percentage of Level 5(graduate) staff hours and children’s social and behavioural development. However, theresearchers pointed out that the complex interdependency between factors such as staffqualifications, ratios and the quality and type of provision suggest that it could be more usefulto consider the impacts of packages of provision rather than trying to identify the impact of aspecific factor.79 This confirmed earlier conclusions that the three factors of staffqualifications and training, group size and staff-child ratios work together, rather than operateindependently, to have a positive influence on children’s outcomes.80

The MCS report also found staff qualifications to be a strong predictor of quality, which had asignificant impact on children’s academic progress, language development and interactions.Manager qualifications were also showed to be related to quality of provision.81 Similarfindings emerged in the NNI evaluation which highlighted the importance of a well-qualifiedworkforce for the provision of high quality care-giving and for child outcomes. Children withaccess to a qualified teacher were significantly more cooperative and sociable, and displayedfewer worried and upset behaviours than those with no access to a trained teacher

PayThere is little research exploring the effects of staff pay directly on the quality of ECECprovision. One exception is a study conducted in the USA by Deborah Phillips et al whichexplored a range of quality indicators in centre-based childcare in 104 centres in


21

Massachusetts, Virginia and Georgia.82 The study found that the quality of provision wasmore strongly associated with the wages of staff, and particularly the highest wage paid tofull-time teachers, than any other structural dimension of care. The National ChildcareStaffing Study found that higher quality centres have higher staff wages, a better adult workenvironment and lower teacher turnover – as well as a more highly educated and trainedstaff.83 What is less understood is why staff wages play such a strong role in the quality ofprovision. It could be speculated that higher staff wages first increases the pool of candidatesfor jobs and then staff retention, contributing to the stability of care for children and helping todrive up quality. Qualitative work with practitioners concluded that the perpetuation of lowpay undermines efforts to raise the quality of the ECEC workforce and the services itprovides.84

Stability of staff groupThe importance of consistency of care has been highlighted by a number of commentators,85

illustrating that a low turnover of staff contributes to high quality. A recent study concludedthat stability of the staff group – as well as qualifications of staff, the structure and content ofactivities, and the premises – contributes to positive child cognitive outcomes.86 Theimportance of consistency of staff was emphasised by interviews undertaken by DaycareTrust with settings in the South-East. It is however hoped that the improvements in the otherstructural aspects, such as pay and career prospects, would aid retention.

Melhuish, summarising research on investing in quality ECEC said:‘This issue of staff retention is critical to the quality of childcare. Indeed, without lowstaff turnover consistently good quality childcare becomes impossible.’87

RatiosThe current legal ratio for children and staff is laid out in the Statutory Framework for theEYFS and covers all ECEC providers. In group settings, for children aged under two, theminimum ratio is 1:3 (i.e. one staff member for every three children); and for two year olds itis 1:4. For children aged between three and seven it is 1:8, but where a member of staffholds Qualified Teacher Status, Early Years Professional Status or another Level 6qualification, the ratio is 1:13.88 Childminders may care for a maximum of six children agedunder eight, with only three children under the age of five and not normally more than oneunder the age of one. The ratios are a statutory minimum requirement and some providersdo exceed them.

Research tends to use observed ratios in any group or room, rather then just the overallratios a setting is working to. The research evidence suggests that higher staff-child ratios(fewer children per member of staff) are associated with better quality care and consequentlybetter outcomes for children.89 However, the interdependency of ratios with other qualityindicators means that ratios should not be treated in isolation. For example, as the EPPEstudy showed, the lower ratios found in nursery schools and classes does not necessarilyresult in poorer quality as the impact of sector type and staff qualifications tends to result inhigher quality ECEC.90 International evidence reviewed by Mooney et al for DfES in 2003cited the example of ECEC in France where poorer ratios are offset by staff qualificationsand training and also warm staff/child interaction.91 Their analysis also identified factors suchas the number of children with special needs, the experience of staff, auxiliary help andhaving explicit objectives which may all have an impact on the quality of ECEC services. TheMCS (using multiple regression analysis) also found that better ratios improve the quality ofprovision once sector is accounted for.92

Although it is difficult to independently assess the impact of ratios on quality given its highdependence on other factors (primarily staff qualifications, but also group size), the evidencedoes suggest that higher staff-child ratios produce higher quality provision and betteroutcomes for children. Munton et al argued strongly that making ratios dependent on staff


22

qualifications and group size could provide a real incentive to drive up the quality of care,because providers could be more easily persuaded to employ better skilled staff if those staffcould in turn care for more children.

Age rangeBoth the NNI evaluation and the MCS found that the overall quality of provision is higherwhere older children were cared alongside younger children. The NNI evaluation, whichparticularly focused on provision for children aged under three and a half, found that mixed-age rooms produced better cognitive outcomes but slightly worse behavioural outcomes. Itfound that younger children in a mixed-age room benefited educationally from the presenceof older children as they experienced educational activities and higher level communicationintended for the older children. However, there was a weak but significant effect on youngerchildren’s worried and upset behaviour (using ASBI item 4 for example: frowning or stampingtheir feet).

PremisesAll reviews included premises as one of the structural aspects of quality – for exampleMeluish included ‘safe and appropriate physical space’ alongside the six staffing factorsabove. Furthermore it is widely accepted in the sector that outdoor play is an importantelement of the experience of children; although direct access to outdoor space is not aspecific requirement in the EYFS, only that it should be provided ‘wherever possible’.However there is no research literature that we can draw on to help us in this task.

The effect of quantity

EPPE showed that while part-time provision of 15 hours per week provided the improvedoutcomes covered in detail in Appendix 2, there were no added benefits for additionalnumber of hours. We therefore discussed within the advisory group, and then at theroundtable, the implication of this for our model of quality ECEC. The suggestion that weonly needed to have a high quality provision for 15 hours a week, and could continue with thecurrent quality level for any additional hours a child attended, was found not to be acceptablefor a number of reasons, both principled and more pragmatic:• Children have a right to expect high quality provision for all hours.• Given the evidence that long hours of poor provision for younger children could have a

negative impact on their outcomes, it is possible that the additional hours of poorerprovision could possibly begin to reduce the positive outcomes of the 15 hours of highquality provision.

• Consistency of care and relationship are important, so we would want to minimise achanging of the guard in the middle of the day.

• Much effort has been made to integrate care and education – to remove the distinctionbetween the two – and it would be a very retrograde step to separate them out andattempt to work out in effect two different quality models; the aims of the provision shouldbe the same for the children.

• The EYFS applies to all provision irrespective of whether it is full-time or not.• Children arrive at different times of the day and the week, and this flexibility was

important for families (indeed the Government is expecting further flexibility when freeeducation is extended from 12.5 hours to 15 hours a week in 2010).

• The research we are considering is based on outcomes for the future; but we would allagree that children are more than vessels waiting for outcomes and, as we havedescribed earlier, there are also aims which relate to the here and now – such as childrenbeing happy, well-occupied and relating well to the children and adults around them.

Due the responses in interviews and roundtable, we have not pursued this model. Although,at the roundtable considering the costings ten months later, one participant suggested we


23

return to this in order to reduce the costs, we have not taken this advice as it was held to bevery much a minority view.

Daycare Trust’s ECEC model

Based on the strong evidence reviewed above, in particular from EPPE, the MCS and theNNI evaluations, we developed a ‘model’ of high quality ECEC which was then costed by theSocial Market Foundation (these costings are published in Working Paper 2).

Staff qualification levels

There is strong research evidence showing the paramount importance of staff qualificationson the quality of ECEC, which is supported by all stakeholders. It is clear that the ECECprofession needs to be graduate-led, and that the model of high quality nursery schools andnursery classes has a significant proportion of the staff as teacher. However what we couldnot decipher from the research evidence was exactly what proportion of staff need to begraduates to ensure the high quality. We suggest two models to be costed for each agegroup:

2+ year oldsModel 1: 50% graduates, 50% Level 3 qualifiedModel 2: 33% graduates, 67% Level 3 qualified

0-1 year oldsModel 1: 33% graduates, 67% Level 3Model 2: one graduate room leader, remaining staff has Level 3 qualification

This reflects the substantial evidence showing the centrality of staff qualifications insupporting quality ECEC provision.

ManagersGiven the demonstrated importance of leadership, we suggest all managers should begraduates and paid accordingly.

Staff payThe model needs to adjust pay accordingly to reflect the higher qualifications and to ensurestaff can be recruited and retained.

The OECD has highlighted the low pay levels of ECEC staff across different countries.93

ECEC staff across the UK are paid at levels much below the national average. It is alsostriking that the staff in state-led settings (mainly nursery schools, primary schools withnursery classes and some children’s centres) earn considerably more than those in theprivate and voluntary (PVI) provision.

DCSF’s Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey 2007 showed that staff working in fullday care in children’s centres – which is often provided by local authority (althoughincreasingly by PVI settings) – earned £9.30 per hour compared with £7 per hour in PVIsessional care and £6.90 in PVI full daycare. The table also shows that in the maintainedsector qualified ECEC teachers earned £19.60 per hour, nursery nurses £10.40 per hour,and even ‘other paid early years support staff’ received £8.70 per hour.

Fig.1 Average (mean) hourly payFull daycare

Full daycare inchildren’scentres

Sessionalcare

All Staff £6.90 £9.30 £7.00


24

SeniorManagers

£9.80 £14.30 £8.70

Supervisory £7.10 £9.50 £7.10

Other paidstaff

£5.90 £7.10 £6.10

Nurseryschools

Primary schools withnursery & receptionclasses

All Staff £13.00 £12.70Heads/EYCo-ordinators

£22.10 £17.90

EY Teachers(EYTs)

£19.60 £17.70

NurseryNurses

£10.40 £10.40

Other paidstaff

£8.70 £8.30

Daycare Trust published a policy paper in 2008 examining the current state of the ECECworkforce and current Government measures aimed at improving the quality of ECEC staff.94

The paper argues that the low pay and working conditions of the ECEC workforce couldjeopardise the universally-held ambitions to improve the quality of provision and governmentintervention to raise them is crucial.

In the costing calculations, we are using graduate pay to mirror primary school qualifiedteachers’ pay, and Level 3 qualified staff earnings equivalent to unqualified teachers. Fordetails, see Daycare Trust’s Working Paper 2: Costing the quality model.

Adult-child ratios

We have seen that the research showed us that adult-child ratios are a key factor in ensuringquality but also that they are related to staff qualifications, training and group size. A reviewof the international evidence supported this and also included staff salaries as one of theelements to which the impact of ratios was ‘inextricably linked’.95 More staff per child canimprove the nature of interactions, but again this is not the only factor in determining adult-child relationships. The research – both from this country and others – does not lend itself todetermining ideal ratios.

We expected to hear from some stakeholders a desire to increase the current minimumratios in our quality model, particularly given the unease from some quarters when the ratiowas increased to 1:13 for four- year-olds with graduate staff. However this was not the case.One manager of a small chain of full-time nurseries did feel strongly that the 1:13 ratio wasnot adequate and she was not intending to implement it when her staff became qualified;furthermore she had made the decision to reduce to 1:6 the ratio in one of her settings whichserved a disadvantaged area, as she has learnt that those children required more adultinteraction that the children in more affluent areas. This perhaps confirms the EPPE findingthat socially mixed settings tend to be of higher quality; but this is not a factor we can buildinto our standard model. On the other hand, we heard from nursery schools that their lowerratios did not detract from their quality, a view which is corroborated by the researchevidence. We therefore concluded that as long as staff qualifications and pay wereincreased, the current statutory adult-child ratios are sufficient to ensure high qualityprovision.

Premises


25

We were unable from the literature to provide any definitive conclusions on what premisescosts would be in the high quality model such as this. Therefore, we have asked SocialMarket Foundation to consider two extremes – the low version with premises costs remainingat current levels and the other with premises costs increasing at the same rate as staff costs.

Conclusion

Our stakeholder interviews and roundtable confirmed the conclusion in earlier literaturereviews that there is not an agreed understanding or definition of quality in ECEC provision.Moreover it is not possible to come to one given that it is a very subjective issue. It variesdepending on the subject’s perceived objectives for the service and, where consideration isbeing given to future outcomes for children, which outcomes are being prioritised.

Despite this, it is clear that a distinction can be drawn between ‘structural’ and ‘process’aspects:

• Process dimensions are ‘the characteristics of the child’s experience e.g. interactionswith others, learning experiences, variety in stimulation, responsiveness inenvironment’.

• Structural dimensions focus on ‘aspects of the environment that are fixed, e.g.accommodation, group size, adult-child ratio, training of staff, health and safety,stability of staff, management structure’. 96

The research evidence shows us which of these elements have a demonstrable effect on theoutcomes for children, and to what extent. It is clear from this literature review and confirmedby the project’s stakeholders that an increase in staff qualifications and a correspondingincrease in their pay is required if high quality ECEC provision is to be achieved in the UK.This is not to say that a better qualified, rewarded and managed staff in itself can form aguarantee that every child experiences high quality ECEC, but it will lay the foundations inwhich the process factors can flourish. Furthermore neither current adult-child ratio norcentre sizes would prevent high quality provision in these circumstances. We thereforepropose to cost two models of increased staff qualifications and pay, one more stretchingthat the other and with a range of improvement to premises.

The next phase of this project is reported in detail in Working Paper 2: Costing the qualitymodel (Social Market Foundation).


26

Appendix 1Observational measures of quality

Research on the impact of ECEC provision usually uses observational methods to measurequality. The EPPE study and the MCS measured quality using:

1. The Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale – Revised (ECERS-R). Thismeasure was developed in the US and consists of 43 items divided into 7 subscalesof quality features: space and furnishing; personal care routines; language andreasoning; activities; social interactions; organisation and routines; and adultsworking together. Each item is rated on a seven-point subscale.*

2. The Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale – Extension (ECERS-E). This isa UK extension to the ECERS-R developed by the EPPE project team whichassesses literacy; numeracy; science; and diversity. The scale is linked to thecurricular guidance for the foundation stage.

3. The Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale (CIS). The scale consists of 26 itemsforming four subscales measuring caregiver-child interactions: positive relationships;punitiveness; permissiveness; and detachment.

The NNI evaluation used the CIS (described above) and an two observational methods:• A revised version of the Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS-R).** This

measure consists of 39 items on seven subscales: space and furnishings; personal careroutines; listening and talking; activities; interaction; programme structure; and parentsand staff. Each item is rated on a seven-point subscale. The ITERS-R is designed toassess provision for children from birth to two and a half years.

Foundation Stage Profile Assessments (FSPA): is carried out on all children, beingcompleted in the summer term of the child’s first year at primary school (reception) so as toindicate their development at that point. They cover a range of issues with some areashaving several scales:

• Personal, Social and Emotional Development (3 scales)• Communication, Language and Literacy (4 scales)• Mathematical Development (3 scales)• Knowledge and Understanding of the World (1 scale)• Physical Development (1 scale)• Creative Development (1 scale)

These assessments are intended to provide a comprehensive picture of each child’sdevelopment as perceived by educational experts.

The Accounting Early for lifelong learning programme and assessment scale,developed by Chris Pascal and Tony Bertram, professors at the Centre for Research in EarlyChildhood, Birmingham, has been very recently launched. This ranks children on 17 items infour domains: communication, language and literacy development; attitudes and dispositionsto learn; social competence and self-concept; and emotional wellbeing. It covers all 117 ofthe EYFS profile points, but the tone is somewhat different.

* The Millenium Cohort Study used three of the seven ECERS-R subscales: personal care routines;language-reasoning; and interaction** Harms, Clifford and Cryer (2003) Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale, Revised Edition (ITERS-R). New York: Teachers College Press


27

Appendix 2The impact of ECEC provision on children

Between birth and the age of six is a crucial period for children when a high proportion oflearning and development occurs. Consequently, it is a time when children need high qualitycare – both at home and in ECEC provision. There is now a large body of evidence from theUK, the USA and many European countries that has shown the considerable benefits ofECEC for children.97 In the UK, the largest, and most widely cited, is the Effective Provisionof Pre-School Education (EPPE) project. The benefits are varied and include improvementsin children’s confidence, peer relationships and behaviour; their learning and development;and also in breaking the cycle of poverty. However, as explored in more detail later, thesebenefits are highly dependent on the quality of provision.

Research shows that poor quality provision in early education and care adds no more valuethan no provision at all.98 Conversely, high quality ECEC produces better outcomes forchildren. The EPPE study showed a significant link between higher quality provision andbetter intellectual and social/behavioural outcomes when children enter school. It alsoshowed that the quality of child/staff interactions were of particular importance with childrenmaking more progress in settings where staff were warm and responsive to the children’sindividual needs.99 There is some suggestion from other sources that long hours in ECECprovision from an early age can lead to slightly increased externalising behaviour(aggression and disobedience) irrespective of quality,100 and we return to this below.

We also know that parents and the home environment have the largest impact on a child’sdevelopment. The quality of the home learning environment and the interactions between aparent and child plays a more significant role in producing better child outcomes thanparental income, mothers’ qualifications and social class.101 Evidence also suggests thatparents’ intervention in children’s programmes produces modest positive effects on children’scognitive development.102

Research shows that the effects of ECEC provision can differ depending on the age of thechild and the child’s socio-economic background.

Age of child

The impact of ECEC differs depending on the age of the child.

Children three years and overThere is now substantial literature on the effect of ECEC on child outcomes focused onchildren aged three years and over. In the UK we now have several large-scale studies thatprovide a substantial evidence base which has informed all recent strategies to developquality in the UK ECEC sector. The largest and most widely cited of these is the EPPE study.

The EPPE project began in 1997 and is the first major longitudinal study in Europe toexamine the effects of pre-school education for three- and four-year-olds. It is funded by theDCSF and has provided much of the evidence base for the Government’s expansion ofECEC provision. The first stage of the EPPE project studied the progress of 3,000 childrenfrom differing social backgrounds in a range of different types of pre-school settings followingthem from age three and evaluating their progress until age seven. The aim was to ascertainthe developmental ‘value-added’ by pre-school education and care separate to the child’spersonal and social characteristics.


28

Some of the key findings from EPPE that demonstrate the positive effects of high qualityECEC provision, as measured during the pre-school period, are:103

• Pre-school experience, compared to none, enhances all-round development in children.• Disadvantaged children benefit significantly from good quality pre-school experiences,

especially where they are with a mixture of children from different social backgrounds.• Good quality can be found across all types of early years settings; at the time that the

study was conducted, quality was found to be higher overall in settings integrating careand education and in nursery schools. However, the early-years sector has changedsubstantially since then with the creation of more children’s centres and with manynurseries moving from sessional to full daycare.

• Settings that have staff with higher qualifications have higher quality scores and theirchildren make more progress.

• Quality indicators include warm interactive relationships with children, having a trainedteacher as manager and a good proportion of trained teachers on the staff.

• Where settings view educational and social development as complementary and equal inimportance, children make better all-round progress.

• Full-time attendance led to no better gains than part-time attendance (15 hours).• For all children, the quality of the home learning environment is more important for

intellectual and social development than parental occupation, education or income.

The Millennium Cohort Study (MCS)The MCS began in 2000 and is following the lives of 19,000 babies born between 2000 and2002 in the UK. The Quality of Childcare Settings in the Millennium Cohort Study wasestablished to assess the quality of provision attended by 10,000 children in the sample andaimed to ascertain what the quality is of group settings attended and whether there is arelationship between the quality of ECEC received and children’s home background.Forthcoming publications are expected to include analysis of the impact of ECEC on futurechild outcomes.

The MCS indicated that ECEC provision scores well on interaction and developing children’ssocial skills. Settings were found to be relatively strong on literacy (especially oral languageand communication), but not as good on mathematical and scientific understanding ordiversity. The MCS found that the quality of pre-school provision for children’s language andsocial interactions had improved significantly since the EPPE data was collected,demonstrating improvements in provision over a relatively short period.104 The maintainedsector had the highest quality overall, but improvements were particularly seen in thevoluntary sector quality and also to a lesser extent in the private sector (especially in the areaof interaction).

Children under three years oldResearch on the younger age group is less prevalent and less conclusive than that for theolder age group. Melhuish began his wide-ranging review of the research on youngerchildren with a thorough exploration of the research originating from the theoretical work ofJohn Bowlby, which will not be duplicated here. According to attachment theory (which isnow widely accepted and continues to be researched105), good attachment by a child towardsthe principal caregiver, usually the child’s mother, is fundamental to the development of thechild. Insecure attachment is associated with an increased risk of negative developmentoutcomes and secure attachment leads to positive outcomes. Attachment theory influencedmuch of the research on childcare for younger children during the 1970s and 1980s, whichexplored the then commonly held view, that daily separations from the mother may harm thedevelopment of a secure attachment and have long-term developmental consequences.However this was fuelled by a misunderstanding of ‘separation’ used as a technical term aspart of attachment theory (ie a parent and a baby not being together enough in the first placeto form a bond) and it is now commonly understood that a strong primary attachment is notdamaged by separation in the everyday sense.106 The National Institute of Child Health and


29

Human Development (NICHD) study specifically examined the effect of ECEC on thesecurity of attachment and found that the amount or type of ECEC has no direct effect on thesecurity of the child’s attachment unless the primary carer (usually the mother) wasparticularly insensitive to the child or the ECEC provision of extremely poor quality.107 Thereare some findings that maternal employment in the first year of a child’s life may beassociated with negative outcomes,108 and this area needs further exploration. Melhuish’sreview of the evidence in 2004 suggested that non-parental care in the first year of a child’slife does not itself lead to insecure attachment, but poor quality non-parental care is a riskfactor for attachment. It is also important for young children to develop a strong relationship(attachment) with a ‘key person’ – who is consistent, reliable and responsive to their needs –within their ECEC provision. Continuity of care is very important.

The recent body of evidence on the impact of ECEC for the under threes is inconclusive:some research finds positive effects, some finds quite the opposite and some finds nodiscernible effects.109 The research suggests that the age of beginning to use ECEC, thenumber of hours spent in ECEC and also the quality of the care received can all affect theoutcomes for children. For example, both EPPE110 and the NICHD111 in the USA suggest alimited negative effect on behaviour for high levels of group care for children aged underthree.

Melhuish’s 2004 review for the National Audit Office concluded that use of high quality ECECin the first three years has no strong effects upon cognitive and language development forchildren who are not disadvantaged in their home environment.112 Moreover, poor qualityECEC could increase the risk of producing poorer outcomes. His review also found highlevels of group care among non-disadvantaged children aged 0–2 may increase the risk ofdeveloping anti-social behaviour. Disadvantaged children are likely to benefit from highquality provision in the first three years, with use of high quality ECEC producing positiveoutcomes in cognitive and social development. High quality centre-based care may facilitatein particular children’s language development, but where ECEC quality is low, children canshow lower language development than those not attending ECEC provision during the firstthree years.113 This demonstrates just how critical quality is in the development of ECEC.This has been recently confirmed by the evaluation of the early education pilots for two-year-olds which concluded that the overall lack of a significant impact disguises the fact thatchildren who were in high quality care have significant improvements in their vocabulary, aswell as improvements in parent-child interactions.114

The Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative (NNI) was launched in 2001 and aimed to increasethe provision of ECEC for working parents in the most disadvantaged areas of England. Theevaluation specifically aimed to examine the effect of quality on children’s overall behaviouraland social outcomes, focussed specifically on the quality of provision for children under theage of three and a half. The findings published in 2007 identified a number of positive effectsof attending centre-based care, as well as an exploration of the quality factors. Overall theNNI evaluation found a significant but modest effect of care on children’s behaviour and akey finding was that attending a centre with a high proportion of working families had apositive effect on children’s behaviour and reduced anti-social behaviour.115 One of thefindings was that the age at which children started attending their nursery had no impact ontheir behaviour, either negative or positive. However, the longer (in terms of number ofmonths) children had been attending the nursery, the more likely they were to show anti-social behaviours such as teasing other children and calling them names, or being bossy andneeding to have their own way.

The NNI evaluation analysed the impact of attending nursery for different numbers of hours,and aimed to identify the ‘tipping point’ where the positive effects of pre-school might turninto negative ones. They found that children who attended for at least 30 hours and/or threedays a week up to the age of 42 months could be more anti-social (that is, likely to tease


30

other children or be bossy and want their own way) than those attending daycare for shorterhours or fewer days. Children who attended for 35 hours a week or more tended to showmore worried or upset behaviours compared with the rest of the group. However, somechildren showed increased positive behaviours with time spent in group care while othersshowed increased negative behaviours.116

The EPPE study concurred with these findings for very young children, and found that therewas an increased risk of difficult behaviours for children under two who use over 20 hours ofcentre-based care or over 40 hours of childminder care.117 More recently, Dmitrieva,Steinberg and Belsky identified more externalising behaviour (fighting or arguing) for childrenplaced in childcare for more than 30 hours a week before the age of two. (This study involvedchildren in US kindergartens rather than in childcare in the UK.) Importantly, it may be thatthese effects do not persist: daycare effects on socio-emotional development can be seen upto age three, but not after age five.118

Furthermore, a recent UK study using MCS data on ECEC use and working mothersconcluded that group settings used by a nine-month-old baby is positively associated withschool readiness scores at age three, and there was no association with poor behaviouraloutcomes. 119

Disadvantaged children

In his substantial overview of the international research, Melhuish concluded that the benefitsto intellectual, social and behavioural development of high quality pre-school provision fromthe age of three onwards are particularly marked for disadvantaged children.120 In additionuse of ECEC by disadvantaged children in the first three years of life produces positivecognitive, language and social development as long as the quality of provision is high.

High quality ECEC provision for children aged three and over also benefits disadvantagedchildren by producing better cognitive, language and social outcomes. Further, theadvantages can last a substantial amount of time. Melhuish’s literature review found thatrandomised control trial (RCT) studies – mainly conducted in the USA – all show clearbenefits for disadvantaged children of high quality provision, whether started in infancy or atthree years of age. For example, the Perry Pre-School Project in Michigan, a longitudinalstudy of 123 African-American children in an area of extreme urban deprivation found thatchildren who attended a pre-school programme were more likely to graduate from highschool, to be in employment and earning over $20,000 by the age of 40 and less likely tobecome pregnant as teenagers.121 Quasi-experimental studies with rigorous methodologyproduced similar patterns of results. For example, the Head Start programme – a broad-based early intervention programme that included early education, parenting and healthyeating interventions – found that disadvantaged white children who had been enrolled onHead Start were more likely to graduate from high school and attend college than those whohad not attended Head Start.122

In the UK, the EPPE study showed that disadvantaged children benefit significantly fromgood quality pre-school experiences, especially where they are with a mixture of childrenfrom different social backgrounds.

Specific outcomes for children

Social, emotional and behavioural outcomesThe impact of ECEC on children’s social, emotional and behavioural development has beenstudied at length. ECEC provision can benefit children’s sociability, independence and


31

concentration, although the evidence also identifies possible negative outcomes amongsome children – mainly those in the lower age group.123 The evidence reviewed by Melhuishin 2004 led to his concluding that, for disadvantaged children (and for children from the ageof three who are not disadvantaged in their home environment), high quality ECEC impactspositively upon their social development. For younger children who are not disadvantaged,evidence from early studies found that children with experiences of infant daycare were lesscompliant with adult requests and more aggressive with their peers.124 However, as Melhuishpoints out, it might be that non-compliance and uncooperativeness could be interpretednegatively or more positively as increased assertiveness and independence. More recently,the EPPE study also found negative behavioural outcomes for some children who attendedcentre-based care before the age of three who displayed slightly higher levels of anti-socialbehaviour than children from similar backgrounds who did not attend group care. However,the anti-social behaviour decreased if the children went on to attend a high quality settingbetween the ages of three and five.

The EPPE study also showed that children who attended early education between the agesof two and three had better peer relationships. It also demonstrated the positive influence ofquality on behavioural outcomes. Using standardised ratings scales, children in higher qualitysettings showed more independence and reduced worried/anti-social behaviours by the timethey entered primary school. Additionally, the quality of child/staff interactions were alsoshown to be important: where staff showed warmth and responsiveness to the needs of thechildren, children made more progress. (EPPE did not measure the quality of settings forchildren aged under three – therefore it could be that the settings that children attendedbefore the age of three were of poor quality, which may have effected children’s behaviouraloutcomes, such as increasing anti-social behaviour.)

A major study of the effects of ECEC provision is from the USA. The NICHD has followed1,300 children from birth since 1991. The study has shown positive effects for children whohave some experience of pre-school or childcare between the ages of six months and fourand a half years.125 High levels of group care below the age of two was found to producelimited negative effects, although the quality of the care received made a substantialcontribution. The NICHD also found that relatively long hours spent in centre-based ECECcan result in some negative behavioural affects. The study found that every year spent incentre-based care for at least ten hours per week was associated with a one per cent higherscore on a standardised assessment of low-level problem behaviours which includedteasing, bossiness and needing attention. However, the impact of poor parenting was foundto be more important.

The NNI evaluation specifically aimed to examine the effect of the quality of provisionattended under the age of three and a half on children’s overall behavioural and socialoutcomes. It focused more attention on the effects of nursery care on children’s behaviouraloutcomes using the Adaptive Social Behavioural Inventory (ASBI) and information on childand family characteristics collected through a purposively designed questionnaire (theChildcare Quality and Children’s Behaviour Study). The ASBI measure records children’ssocial and behavioural development across five measures (co-operation and conformity;peer sociability; confidence; anti-social; and worried and upset subscales). The NNIevaluation found that behaviour was improved when there were well-structured but flexibleprogrammes – with many opportunities for free play – and a spacious and pleasant physicalenvironment. The evaluation also found several centre characteristics that had an effect onchildren’s social and behavioural outcomes: involvement in the children’s centre programmeand larger centres were more likely to produce better behavioural outcomes for children.

The NNI evaluation found that the age range of rooms had a weak but significant effect onchildren’s behaviour, with children under the age of three and a half displaying more worriedand upset behaviours when attending a mixed age room with children aged four and over.


32

Yet mixed-age rooms were found to be higher quality overall in relation to better cognitiveoutcomes.

The NNI evaluation analysed the impact of attendance for different lengths of time. Thefindings support research from the EPPE study in suggesting that a ‘tipping point’ does exist,where the amount of time spent each week or day might turn positive outcomes into negativeoutcomes. The more time spent each week at a childcare centre did result in greaterconfidence and sociability. But children attending for more than 30 hours and/or 3 days eachweek were rated as more anti-social (for example, more likely to call other children names,be bossy or want their own way). Children who attended for more than 35 hours and/or 5days per week were more likely to show more worried or upset behaviours.

Cognitive and language outcomesThere is substantial research on the impacts of ECEC provision on children’s cognitivedevelopment. Melhuish looked in some detail at the effect of early education and care oncognitive outcomes for children and concluded that, for children aged 0–3, there are noapparent differences in cognitive development between children who attend ECEC provisionand those who are cared for at home provided that the quality of care is good. Conversely,children attending poor quality provision may show lower cognitive development than beingin home care. Melhuish et al found that language development was particularly influenced bythe quality of care and that children attending day nurseries that provided poor quality careoften showed poorer language development.126

The EPPE project’s investigation into the effect of ECEC on children’s cognitive outcomesmade many valuable findings including: the positive cognitive outcomes resulting from pre-school remained throughout Key Stage 1; and a child’s duration at pre-school positivelyinfluenced cognitive outcomes. The EPPE study showed that children with no pre-schoolexperience (the ‘home’ group) have poorer cognitive attainment and concentration when theystart primary school than those who have some pre-school learning.127 From data collectedfrom children at age ten, EPPE also found that cognitive outcomes in reading andmathematics persist throughout primary school – and again, positive outcomes depend uponthe quality of the provision.128 The EPPE study found that children make better all-roundprogress where settings view educational and social development as complementary andequal in importance.129

How long do the effects of ECEC last?

The positive effects of ECEC provision can be long lasting. For example, Melhuish notes thatsocial skills and motivation developed from using ECEC provision provides a betterfoundation for the child, leading to educational success, better employment opportunities andsocial integration. And, as has been noted in several studies, ECEC provision is a key factorin reducing inequality, child poverty and in breaking the cycle of poverty.130

The EPPE study has also explored the impact of pre-school on the cognitive outcomes forchildren at the end of Year 5. The findings suggest that the quality of care (as measured byECERS-E) did have an impact on children’s outcomes, with attendance of a medium or highquality pre-school producing improved reading and mathematical skills, and better cognitiveoutcomes.131


33

Appendix 3: Acknowledgements

Members of the advisory group:Professor Kathy Sylva, University of OxfordCaroline Bryson, Nuffield FoundationDepartment for Children, Schools and FamiliesIvana La Valle, National Centre for Social ResearchPauline Jones Children’s Workforce Development CouncilLaura Mountford, HM TreasuryAllan Dodd Mouchel Consulting Ltd.Professor Paul Gregg, University of BristolDavid Wilkinson, National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Roundtable attendees from:Nuffield FoundationSocial Market FoundationDepartment for Children, Schools and FamiliesHM TreasuryOfstedNational Centre for Social ResearchNational Children’s BureauEarly Childhood ForumInternational Centre for the Mixed Economy of Childcare, University of East LondonNational Institute of Social and Economic ResearchPre-School Learning AllianceNational Childminding AssociationNational Day Nurseries Associationas well as Daycare Trust

Interviewees:Department for Children, Schools and FamiliesOfstedChildren’s Workforce Development CouncilPre-School Learning AllianceOxfordshire County Council, Children and Families ServiceLuton Borough Council, Family Information Service


34

1 DfES (2004) Choice for parents, the best start for children: a ten year strategy for childcare, DfES:London2 See, for example Sylva, K et al (2004) The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE)Project: Final Report, DfES: London; and Sylva et al (2004b) The Effective Provision of Pre-SchoolEducation (EPPE) Project: Findings from the Early Primary Years, DfES: London.3 Olmsted and Montie (2001) Early childhood settings in 15 countries: What are their structuralcharacteristics? High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Michigan4 Butt, S., Goddard, K., La Valle, I., and Hill, M. (October 2007) Childcare nation?: Progress on thechildcare strategy and priorities for the future, Daycare Trust/National Centre for Social Research5 Mooney, A et al (2003) Early Years and Childcare International Evidence Project, summary andassociated seminar papers, DfES, London; Mooney, A et al (2003b) Family day care: internationalperspectives on policy, practice and quality, Jessica Kingsley Publishers Ltd, London6 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2006) Starting strong II: early childhoodeducation and care, p. 128, OECD: Paris7 Sylva, K and Roberts, F, ‘Quality in early childhood education: evidence for long-term effects’, inPugh, G, Contemporary issues in the early years (in press)8 Melhuish, E.C., (2004) A literature review of the impact of early years provision on young children,with emphasis given to children from disadvantaged backgrounds, prepared for the National AuditOffice, Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues, Birkbeck College9 Sylva, K and Roberts F, op cit (note 7)10 For a fuller discussion, see Leach, P (2009) Child care today, chapter 13, Wiley: Oxford11 See, eg Garces, Thomas & Currie, (2002) Longer term effects of Head Start, NBER Working Paper8054; Sylva, K et al(2004) op cit (note 2); and Sylva, K, et al (2004) op cit (note 2)12 Melhuish, E.C. (2004) op cit (note 8)13 Sylva, K et al (2004) op cit (note 2)14 Melhuish, E.C. (2004) op cit (note 8)15 Mathers and Sylva (2007) National evaluation of the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative: Therelationship between quality and children’s behavioural development, Research ReportSSU/2007/FR/02216 Melhuish, E.C. (2004) op cit (note 8)17 Melhuish, E (2004b) Child benefits: The importance of investing in quality childcare, Daycare Trust:London18 Smith, R et al (2009) Early education pilot for two year old children: evaluation, DCSF ResearchReport No.134: London19 Belsky et al (2007) The NICHD early child care research network: are there long-term effects ofearly child care? Child Development, vol.78, issue 2, pp.681-701.20 Smith, Speight and La Valle (2009) Fitting it all together: how families arrange their childcare andthe influence on home learning, DCSF Research Report RR090: London21 Hansen, K and Hawkes, D (2009) Early childcare and child development, Journal of Social Policyvol.38, issue 2, p.21122 Smith, R et al (2009) op cit (note 18)23 OECD (2006) op cit (note 6)24 Stokes, L. and Wilkinson, D. (2007) Value for Money: Comparison of Public and Voluntary SectorProvision of Pre-School Childcare and Education: Literature Review, Report for the Office for NationalStatistics25 Cleveland G and Krashinsky M, (1998), The Benefits and Costs of Good Childcare: The EconomicRationale for Public Investment in Young Children, Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Centre forUrban and Community Studies: Toronto; Friendly, M and others in Cleveland G and Krashinsky M,(2001), Our Children's Future: Child Care Policy in Canada. University of Toronto Press: Toronto:Cleveland G and Krashinsky M, (2004) Financing Early Learning and Child Care in Canada,discussion paper prepared for the Canadian Council for Social Development’s national conference onchild care in Canada, Winnipeg, November 12 – 14 2004: University of Toronto26 Bennett, J. (2008) Early childhood services in the OECD countries: Review of the literature andcurrent policy in the early childhood field, Innocenti Working Paper No. 2008-01, UNICEF InnocentiResearch Centre: Florence.27 Katz (1993) ‘Multiple perspectives on the quality of early childhood programmes’, European EarlyChildhood Education Research Journal, vol.1,issue 2, pp.5–9


35

28 Munton, Mooney and Rowland (1995) ‘Deconstructing quality: A conceptual framework for the newparadigm in day care provision for the under 8s’, Early Childhood Development and Care, vol.114,pp.11–2329 Professor Tony Bertram (October 2008) presentation entitled Alternative Narratives of Qualitytoo NIESR seminar on ‘‘Measuring the Quality of Early Years Provision’, Centre for Research in EarlyChildhood http://www.niesr.ac.uk/event/pastevents.php30 Donabedian, A (1980) Explorations in quality assessment and montoring. Vol 1 The definitions ofquality and approaches to its assessment. Cited in Munton et al (1995)31 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2006) Starting strong II: early childhoodeducation and care. Page 126. Paris: OECD.32 DfES (2004) op cit (note 1) p933 DfES (2004) op cit (note 1) p4434 Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2006) Starting strong II: early childhoodeducation and care. Page 128. Paris: OECD.35 DCSF (January 2009) Next Steps for Early Learning and Childcare, Building on the 10-YearStrategy, HM Government36 DfES (2003) Every Child Matters37 Ofsted (2008) The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Servicesand Skills 2007/08, The Stationery Office: London38 Ofsted (2008) Early Years: Leading to Excellence, The Stationery Office: London39 Ofsted (2008) The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Servicesand Skills 2007/08, The Stationery Office: London40 See for example http://www.cypnow.co.uk/bulletins/Daily-Bulletin/inDepth/929092/?DCMP=EMC-DailyBulletin (27 August 2009);http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/939992/Nursery-Management-EYFS---one-year---So-far-so-good/ (24 September 2009)41 The fact that these figures are not higher is in part due to the high expectations, especially inliteracy, placed on children and there is a significant lobby to remove some of the literacy targets or toextend the EYFS into year one.42 Ofsted (2008) Early Years: Leading to Excellence, The Stationery Office: London43 National Quality Improvement Network (2007) Quality Improvement Principles: A framework forLocal Authorities and national organisations to improve quality outcomes for children and youngpeople, London: NCB44 National Quality Improvement Network (2007) Quality Improvement Principles: A Framework forLocal Authorities and National Organisations to Improve Quality Outcomes for Children and YoungPeople (NCB) notes that by 2004 there were 48 schemes registered with Investors In Children, somecovering all types of setting and others specifically focused on a particular type of provider (eg aNational Childminding Association (NCMA) scheme for childminders). Anecdotally the figure ofavailable quality assurance schemes for ECEC settings has now increased to closer to over 60.45 Report by Daycare Trust for Government Office South East (March 2009) Improving quality inchildcare settings46 http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/features/foundation_stage/ey_qip/47 Mocan (2002)The market for childcare National Bureau of Economic Research; and Duncan, Pauland Taylor (2001) Price and quality in the UK childcare market48 See, for example, the Ten Year Strategy for Childcare49 NAO (2004) Progress in developing high quality childcare and early years education accessible toall. London: The Stationery Office.50 MORI (2004) Childcare Quality Survey, Daycare Trust51 Daycare Trust (2006-8) Listening to families series52 Kazimirski et al (2008) Childcare and Early Years Survey 2007: Parents’ Use, Views andExperiences, Research Report DCSF-RR025, DCSF: London53 MORI (2004) Childcare Quality Survey, Daycare Trust54 Van Horn, M. et al (2001) Reasons for child care choice and appraisal among low income mothers,Child and Youth Care Forum, 30, 231–249, Springer: Netherlands55 Barnes, J. (2001) Using observations to evaluate paid child care settings, in: K. Petrogiannis & E.C. Melhuish (Eds) The pre-school period: care-education-development: findings from internationalResearch, Kastaiotis: Athens, 395–440.56 Clark, A and Moss, P (2001) Listening to young children: The Mosaic approach, National Children’sBureau

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/event/pastevents.php

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/bulletins/Daily-Bulletin/inDepth/929092/?DCMP=EMC-DailyBulletin



http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/939992/Nursery-Management-EYFS---one-year---So-far-so-good/

http://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/939992/Nursery-Management-EYFS---one-year---So-far-so-good/

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/primary/features/foundation_stage/ey_qip/


36

57 Mooney A and Blackburn T (2003). Children’s Views on Childcare Quality, Department forEducation and Skills Research Report RR482: DfES:58 Campbell-Barr V. (2005) What Is Childcare: The Need For The Voice of The Child, in T. Aldertonand V. Campbell-Barr (eds), Putting the Child Into Childcare, Maidstone, Kent EYDCP, cited in Stokesand Wilkinson (2007) op cit (note 24)59 Penelope Leach (2009) Child Care Today: What We Know and What We Need to Know. Polity:Cambridge60 Melhuish, E.C. (2004) op cit (note 8), Munton et al (1995) op cit (note 28); Bertram, T, presentationentitled ‘Alternative Narratives of Quality’ to NIESR conference Measuring the Quality of Early YearsProvision, 10 October 200861 See, for example, NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2000) The relation of child care tocognitive and language development, Child Development 71(4), 960-980; and Munton et al (1995) opcit (note 28)62 Melhuish, E.C. (2004) op cit (note 8)63 Melhuish, E (2004b) op cit (note 17)64 For example, Melhuish, E (2004b) op cit (note 17)65 Melhuish, E (2004b) op cit (note 17)66 Melhuish, E.C. (2004) op cit (note 8)67 Sylva et al (2004) op cit (note 2)68 Melhish, E. C., (2004) op cit (note 8)69 OECD US Country Note (2000) cited in McQuail et al (2003) Child Outcomes: Early years andChildcare International Evidence Project, Oct 2003, London: DfES70 Waldfogel, J (2006) What Children Need, Harvard University Press: Masscahusetts71 Sylva et al (2004) op cit (note 2)72 Mathers and Sylva (2007) op cit (note 15)73 Mathers, S., Sylva, K. and Joshi, H. (2007) Quality of Childcare Settings in the Millennium CohortStudy. Department for Education and Skills: London74 Ruopp R, Travers J, Glantz, R 7 Coelen C (1979) Children at the Centre: Final report of the NationalDay Care Study, Cambridge, Mass: Abt Associates; Howes C, Smith E & Galinsky E (1995) TheFlorida Childcare Improvement Study, New York, Family and Work Institute75 Mathers et al (2007) op cit (note 73)76 Mathers and Sylva (2007) op cit (note 15)77 Melhuish, E (2004b) op cit (note 17)78 Sylva, K. et al (2004) op cit (note 2)79 Sylva et al (2004) op cit (note 2)80 Mooney et al (2003) op cit (note 5): and Munton et al (2002) Research on ratios, group size andstaff qualifications training in early years and childcare settings, Research Report RR320, DfES:London81 Mathers et al (2007) op cit (note 73)

82 Phillips, D et al Within and Beyond the Classroom Door: Assessing quality in child care centres,Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, No 4 pp,475-49683 Whitebook M, Howes C & Phillps D (1989) Who cares? Childcare teachers and the quality of care inAmerica, Oakland, CA: Childcare Employee Project84 Cooke G & Lawton K (2008) For love or money: pay progression and professionalisation in the earlyyears workforce, IPPR,85 For example NAO (2004) op cit (note 49)86 Hansen K & Hawkes D (2009), Early Childcare and Child Development, Journal Social Policy 38,2,211, Cambridge University press87 Melhuish, E (2004b) op cit (note 17)88 Further requirements are also included relating to the qualification levels of additional staff and thetimes at which these ratios apply.89 See, for example, Melhuish, E (2004b) op cit (note 17); Mooney et al (2003) op cit (note 5); andMunton et al (2002) Research on ratios, group size and staff qualifications training in early years andchildcare settings, Research Report 320, London:DfES90 Sylva et al (2004) op cit (note 2)91 Mooney et al (2003) op cit (note 5)92 Mathers et al (2007) op cit (note 73)93 OECD (2006) op cit (note 6)


37

94 Daycare Trust (2008) Raising the bar: what next for the early childhood and education workforce?:Daycare Trust: London95 Munton et al 2002 op cit (note 89)96 Melhuish, E.C. (2004) op cit (note 8)97 See, for example, Garces, Thomas & Currie, 2002 Longer term effects of Head Start. NBERWorking Paper 8054; Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart, 2004 The EffectiveProvision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report, London:DfES; and Sylva, Melhuish,Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart, 2004 The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE)Project: Findings from the Early Primary Years, London: DfES.98 Melhuish, E.C. (2004) op cit (note 8)99 Sylva et al (2004) op cit. (note 2)100 Belsky et al (2007). The NICHD Early Child Care Research Network: are there long-term effects ofearly child care? Child Development 78 (2), 687-701.101 See for example, Sylva et al (2004) op cit (note 2)102 Olmsted and Montie (2001) Early Childhood Settings in 15 Countries: What are their structuralcharacteristics? High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, Michegan103 Sylva et al (2004). op cit (note 2)104 Mathers et al (2007) op cit (note 73)105 See, for example, www.attachmentnetwork.org for more details on the development of attachmenttheory106 For example see Leach, P (2009) Child care today, Wiley: Oxford107 Belsky et al (2007) op cit (note 19)108 See Hansen and Hawkes (2009) op cit (note 21)109 See both Melhuish (2004) op cit (note 8) and Butt et al (2007) op cit (note 4) for a review of theevidence on outcomes for children aged under 2 years.110 Sylva, Melhuish, Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart, 2004 The Effective Provision of Pre-SchoolEducation (EPPE) Project: Findings from the Early Primary Years, London: DfES.111 Belsky et al (2007). The NICHD Early Child Care Research Network: are there long-term effects ofearly child care? Child Development 78 (2), 687-701.112 Melhuish, E.C. (2004) op cit (note 8)113 Melhuish (2004b) Child benefits: The importance of investing in quality childcare, London: DaycareTrust114 Smith R et al (2009), Early Education Pilot for Two Year Old Children: Evaluation, DCSF ResearchReport RR134115 Mathers and Sylva (2007) op cit (note 15)116 NNI Research Team (2007) National Evaluation of the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative:integrated report, HSMO117 Sylva et al (2004b) The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Findings fromthe Early Primary Years, DfES118 Hennessy, E., Martin, S., Moss, P. and Melhuish, E. (1992). Children and daycare: Lessons fromresearch. London; Paul Publishing Company119 Hansen and Hawkes (2009) op cit (note 21)120 Melhuish, E.C. (2004) op cit (note 8)121 Schweinhart et al (2005) Lifetime effects: the High Scope/ Perry Pre-School Study Through Age 40,www.highscope.org/research/perryproject/perrymain.htm122 Garces, Thomas & Currie, 2002 Longer term effects of Head Start. NBER Working Paper 8054123 Sylva et al (2004) op cit (note 2) and Belsky et al (2007) op cit (note 19)124 Cited in Melhuish E.C. (2004) op cit (note 8)125 Butt et al (2007) op cit (note 4)126 Melhish, E. C., Lloyd, E., Martin, S. and Mooney, A. (1990) ‘Type of childcare at 18 months: IIRelations with cognitive and language development.’ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31.861-870127 Sylva et al (2004) op cit (note 2)128 Sammons, Sylva, Melhuish, Siraj-Blatchford, Taggart, Grabbe & Barreau (2007) Summary reportinfluences on children’s attainment and progress in Key Stage 2: cognitive outcomes in year 5 Instituteof Education, University of London: London.129 Sylva et al (2004) op cit (note 2)

http://www.attachmentnetwork.org

http://www.highscope.org/research/perryproject/perrymain.htm


38

130 Danziger, Sheldon and Jane Waldfogel. 2000. “Investing in Children: What Do We Know? WhatShould We Do?” In Sheldon Danziger and Jane Waldfogel (ed.) Securing the Future: Investing inChildren from Birth to Adulthood. New York: Russell Sage Foundation;and Butt et al op cit (note 4)131 Sammons et al (2007) op cit (note 128)

Daycare Trust, the national childcare charity, iscampaigning for quality, accessible, affordable childcarefor all and raising the voices of children, parents andcarers. We lead the national childcare campaign byproducing high quality research, developing crediblepolicy recommendations through publications and themedia, and by working with others. Our advice andinformation on childcare assists parents and carers,providers, employers and trade unions andpolicymakers.

Established in 1986, Daycare Trust has seen itscampaigning translate into policy change, including theestablishment of the national childcare strategy.However, access to quality childcare services is stilldependent on where families live and on their income.Daycare Trust is uniquely qualified to give a voice toparents facing a multiple range of challenges. Pleasesupport our campaign for universal quality affordablechildcare.

Daycare Trust offers a range of services which includes:� Childcare Information line – 0845 872 6251� Consultancy and training� Membership

To find out more about these services visitwww.daycaretrust.org.uk

November 2009

Daycare Trust is a registered charity: 327279and a company limited by guarantee: 02063604,registered in England and Wales.VAT registered: 830 9847 06.

All rights reserved. © Daycare Trust 2009

Daycare Trust21 St George’s RoadLondonSE1 6ESTel: 020 7840 3350Fax: 020 7840 3355

Email: [email protected]: www.daycaretrust.org.uk

The Nuffield Foundation is a charitable trustwith the aim of advancing social well-being. It

funds research and provides expertise,predominantly in social policy and education.It has supported this project, but the viewsexpressed are those of the authors and not

necessarily those of the Foundation.More information is available atwww.nuffieldfoundation.org

http://www.daycaretrust.org.uk

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.daycaretrust.org.uk

http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org

improving quality in the early years executive summary

Government & Nonprofit

quality of provision

high quality ecec

quality of childminders

quality costsworking

good quality ecec

cost ofimproving quality

care ecec provision

high level