Written evidence submitted by The Education Policy Institute
About the Education Policy Institute (EPI):
The Education Policy Institute (EPI) is an independent, impartial, and evidence-based research institute that promotes high quality education outcomes, regardless of social background. We achieve this through data-led analysis, innovative research and high-profile events.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Quality and equality:
Evidence consistently indicates that the quality of early education and care (ECEC) in the pre-school years can be instrumental in children’s experiences and development, in both the short and the long term. Attending high-quality ECEC has the potential to enhance many aspects of children’s lives and trajectories, including educational attainment, wellbeing, and socio-emotional skills.[1] Particularly for those children most disadvantaged by other life circumstances, quality ECEC can have a protective effect that stretches into adulthood.[2] Conversely, some evidence suggests that low-quality ECEC may be detrimental: either absolutely; because of the opportunity cost to activities children would otherwise be engaged in; or because it puts them at a disadvantage compared to peers who have attended higher quality settings.[3]
Throughout the psychological, educational, early years sector, and social science literature, there are controversies and various unknowns surrounding definition and measurement of ‘quality.’[4] However, there are also already some areas of general consensus and understanding in terms of what ‘quality’ ECEC can feasibly be assumed to look like.
For example, evidence suggests that quality ECEC is staffed by responsive carers / educators, with the knowledge and capacity to nourish, support, and engage with children, providing them with communication and interactions, within safe environments where learning, development, and enjoyment can thrive.[5] Low staff turnover and consistency of care are important elements to this, so that children can be secure and flourish.[6]
Evidence indicates that, on average, it is ensuring quality – not inflating levels of quantity – that is vital. In fact, research suggests that relatively higher amounts of time in ECEC might be counterproductive in some ways, for some children.[7]
Therefore, if facilitating children’s experiences, academic attainment, wellbeing, and socio-emotional development are key aims to which a successful childcare and early years system aspires, a core component of this system must be to provide high quality ECEC – and crucially, this must be available to all children. This, we believe, should be a protected non-negotiable starting point for policymaking, around which other elements of the system can be discussed and amended.
This premise leads to several recommendations for policymaking.
Recommendation 1: Quality should be more clearly defined
The first recommendation is that ‘quality’ should more clearly be defined, based on a critical review and synthesis of the literature across fields, and on ground-level sector knowledge. This will result in the factors comprising ‘quality’ experiences within ECEC being made transparent and functionally agreed, which will lead to more effective policymaking.
Recommendation 2: Quality must be prioritised
Notwithstanding this need, our second recommendation, based on our evidence-informed non-negotiable, is as follows. Reforms that threaten quality – such as the proposed loosening of ratios – should not be undertaken. They prioritise quantity at the expense of quality, and therefore are not in the best interests of children.[8] More widely, reforms that intend to extend quantity in other ways should be evaluated specifically in the light of their likely effect on quality – and reconsidered if quality will be compromised.
Recommendation 3: Tackle unequal access to quality ECEC
Our third recommendation is that there is a need to look at parity of access to quality ECEC. Evidence has indicated consistently that some groups of children are less likely to attend pre-school, at ages two, three, and four. They include those from low-income families, and families speaking English as an additional language. There is also great variation by local area.[9]
If children do not attend, there is no chance that they will experience quality ECEC. Notably, children with special educational needs and / or disabilities (SEND) are markedly underserved by ECEC, with many failing to be provided with a place. Stewart & Reader (2020) report that, ‘23% of local authorities said they had sufficient places for disabled children in 2019, compared to 21% in 2015 and 15% in 2016.’[10]
Additionally, there is evidence that ECEC options for families living in economically disadvantaged areas have disproportionately been limited to ‘weak’ and / or expensive private providers, alongside a restricted number of maintained sector nurseries.[11] In recent years, there are growing indications that children from poorer backgrounds are becoming less likely to attend these maintained settings, which have qualified teachers.[12] This seems to suggest limited and decreasing opportunities for access to quality ECEC for children from lower-income families.
Together, this all points to a fundamental issue: there is incomplete and unequal access to quality ECEC. On the basis that all children should have the opportunity to access quality ECEC, there is a pressing need to focus policy on ensuring the feasibility of attending an adequate number of properly funded hours, in good provision, for all – before beginning to consider other changes aimed at increasing the quantity of provision for some.
Recommendation 4: Implement a basic entitlement to ECEC that best serves children’s interests
Our final, related recommendation is that closer attention should be paid when developing policy in this area to the issue of optimal and sub-optimal numbers of hours and attendance patterns in ECEC, explicitly in terms of the impacts of these for children’s experiences, development, and longer-term outcomes. Alongside other evidence, the Department for Education’s recent SEED study indicates a mixed picture regarding relationships between hours attended and children’s development, which varies according to the outcome considered and family background context.[13]
Therefore, it would be useful intentionally to formulate a more exact, evidence-informed target in terms of sufficient, ideal quantity in access to high-quality ECEC. This ought to include determining whether and how quantity should vary according to family disadvantage and circumstances, in order to best serve children. Once this basic entitlement in children’s best interests has been set in stone, other components of support for childcare and the early years can be built around it.
In conclusion:
January 2023
6
[1] Bonetti & Blanden, 2020. ‘Early years workforce qualifications and children’s outcomes.’ https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/EY-grads-and-outcomes_EPI.pdf
Melhuish & Gardiner, 2021. ‘Study of Early Education and Development (SEED): Impact Study on Early Education Use and Child Outcomes up to age seven years.’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1029529/SEED_Age_7_Impact_Report.pdf
Eadie et al (2022). ‘Domains of quality in early childhood education and care: A scoping review of the extent and consistency of the literature.’ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131911.2022.2077704
ASPE, 2000. ‘Child Care Quality: Does it Matter and Does It Need to be Improved?’ https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/child-care-quality-does-it-matter-does-it-need-be-improved
[2] Bustamante et al, 2022. ‘Adult outcomes of sustained high-quality early child care and education: Do they vary by family income?’ https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.13696
Varshney et al, 2022. ‘Early Education and Adult Health: Age 37 Impacts and Economic Benefits of the Child-Parent Center Preschool Program.’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9273114/
Bailey et al, 2021. ‘Prep School for Poor Kids: The Long-Run Impacts of Head Start on Human Capital and Economic Self-Sufficiency.’ https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20181801
Garcia et al, 2021. ‘The Dynastic Benefits of Early Childhood Education.’ http://humcap.uchicago.edu/RePEc/hka/wpaper/Garcia_Bennhoff_Leaf_etal_2021_dynastic-benefits-early-childhood-education.pdf
Baker et al, 2005. ‘UNIVERSAL CHILDCARE, MATERNAL LABOR SUPPLY AND FAMILY WELL-BEING.’ https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w11832/w11832.pdf
Hobbs & Mutebi, 2021. ‘The impact of early childhood education and care on children’s outcomes, and the sustainability of the sector.’ https://post.parliament.uk/the-impact-of-early-childhood-education-and-care-on-childrens-outcomes/
Melhuish & Gardiner, 2021. ‘Study of Early Education and Development (SEED): Impact Study on Early Education Use and Child Outcomes up to age seven years.’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1029529/SEED_Age_7_Impact_Report.pdf
McCartney, online. ‘What Do We Know About the Effects of Early Child Care?’ https://www.purdue.edu/hhs/hdfs/fii/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/s_mifis01c03.pdf
Bonetti & Brown, 2018. ‘Structural Elements of Quality Early Years Provision: A Review of the Evidence.’ https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Early-years-structural-quality-review_EPI.pdf
Bury et al, 2020. ‘Understanding the Early Years Workforce.’ https://www.natcen.ac.uk/media/1857585/Understanding-the-Early-Years-Workforce.pdf
Eadie et al (2022). ‘Domains of quality in early childhood education and care: A scoping review of the extent and consistency of the literature.’ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131911.2022.2077704
Sim et al, 2018. ‘TEACHING, PEDAGOGY AND PRACTICE IN EARLY YEARS CHILDCARE: AN EVIDENCE REVIEW.’ https://www.eif.org.uk/report/teaching-pedagogy-and-practice-in-early-years-childcare-an-evidence-review
[5]Bonetti & Brown, 2018. ‘Structural Elements of Quality Early Years Provision: A Review of the Evidence.’ https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Early-years-structural-quality-review_EPI.pdf
Sylva et al, 2004. ‘The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Findings from Pre-school to end of Key Stage1.’ https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8543/7/SSU-SF-2004-01.pdf
Eadie et al (2022). ‘Domains of quality in early childhood education and care: A scoping review of the extent and consistency of the literature.’ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131911.2022.2077704
Melhuish & Gardiner, 2018, 2021. ‘Study of Early Education and Development (SEED): Impact Study on Early Education Use and Child Outcomes up to age four years.’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1034449/SEED-Age_4_RESEARCH_REPORT.pdf
Wall et al, 2015. ‘EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION AND CARE PEDAGOGY REVIEW: England.’ https://www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/early-childhood-education-and-care-pedagogy-review-england.pdf
Bonetti & Brown, 2018. ‘Structural Elements of Quality Early Years Provision: A Review of the Evidence.’ https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Early-years-structural-quality-review_EPI.pdf
Social Mobility Commission, 2020. ‘The stability of the early years workforce in England’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/906906/The_stability_of_the_early_years_workforce_in_England.pdf
Melhuish et al, 2020. ‘Study of Early Education and Development (SEED): Impact Study on Early Education Use and Child Outcomes up to age five years.’ e.g. p19. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/867140/SEED_AGE_5_REPORT_FEB.pdf
[8] Bonetti & Brown, 2018. ‘Structural Elements of Quality Early Years Provision: A Review of the Evidence.’ https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Early-years-structural-quality-review_EPI.pdf
Campbell et al, 2018. ‘‘Universal’ early education: who benefits? Patterns in take-up of the entitlement to free early education among three-year-olds in England.’ http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/87649/7/Campbell_Universal%20early%20education_2018.pdf
Teager & McBride, 2018. ‘AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE 2-YEAR-OLD FREE CHILDCARE ENTITLEMENT: DRIVERS OF TAKE-UP AND IMPACT ON EARLY YEARS OUTCOMES.’ https://www.eif.org.uk/report/an-initial-assessment-of-the-2-year-old-free-childcare-entitlement
Children’s Commissioner, 2022. ‘Vision for childcare.’ https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/cc-vision-for-childcare-oct-22.pdf
Save the Children UK, 2018. ‘Evidence Review: Improving the early learning outcomes of children growing up in poverty: A rapid review of the evidence.’ https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk/handle/10026.1/14977
[10] Stewart & Reader, 2020. ‘The Conservatives’ record on early childhood: policies, spending and outcomes from May 2015 to pre-COVID 2020.’ https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/spdo/spdorp08.pdf
See also Children’s Commissioner, 2022. ‘Vision for childcare.’ https://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/cc-vision-for-childcare-oct-22.pdf
Morgan & Reed, 2016. ‘Early learning and childcare delivering for disadvantaged children in England.’ https://epi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Early-learning-and-childcare-delivering-for-disadvantaged.pdf
Hillman & Williams, 2015. ‘Early years education and childcare’ https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/Early_years_education_and_childcare_Nuffield_FINAL.pdf
Stewart & Reader, 2020. ‘The Conservatives’ record on early childhood: policies, spending and outcomes from May 2015 to pre-COVID 2020.’ https://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/spdo/spdorp08.pdf
[13] Melhuish et al, 2020. ‘Study of Early Education and Development (SEED): Impact Study on Early Education Use and Child Outcomes up to age five years.’ e.g. p19.
Melhuish & Gardiner, 2021. ‘Study of Early Education and Development (SEED): Impact Study on Early Education Use and Child Outcomes up to age seven years.’ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1029529/SEED_Age_7_Impact_Report.pdf
La Valle & Jones (2020). ‘REDUCING INEQUALITIES IN THE EARLY YEARS A rapid evidence review to inform LEAP’s next five years.’ https://www.leaplambeth.org.uk/files/documents/LEAP%20EvidenceReview%20-carried%20out%20by%20NPC-.pdf