innocenti report card 8 - the child care transition: a league table of early childhood education and...

8/4/2019 Innocenti Report Card 8 - The Child Care Transition: A league table of early childhood education and care in econo

1/40

The child care

transitionA league table o early childhood education

and care in economically advanced countries

UNICEFInnocenti Research Centre

Report Card 8


2/40

ThisInnocenti Report Card was written by Peter Adamson drawing on

research, data and background papers provided by John Bennett. The

project was coordinated by UNICEFs Innocenti Research Centre and

assisted by an international panel o advisors (see page 36). Research

orReport Card 8 was completed at the end o April 2008.

Full text and supporting documentation, including two background

papers to this report, can be downloaded rom the UNICEF Innocenti

Research Centre website: www.unice-irc.org

Any part o theInnocenti Report Card may be reely reproduced using

the ollowing reerence:

UNICEF, The child care transition, Innocenti Report Card 8, 2008

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.

The United Nations Childrens Fund, 2008

The support o the German Committee or UNICEF in the development

oReport Card 8 is grateully acknowledged. Additional support was

provided by the United Kingdom Committee or UNICEF, and by the

Andorran National Committee or UNICEF.

TheInnocenti Report Card series is designed to monitor and compare

the perormance o the OECD countries in securing the rights o their

children.

The UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre in Florence, Italy, was

established in 1988 to strengthen the research capability o the United

Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) and to support its advocacy or

children worldwide.

The Centre (ormally known as the International Child Development

Centre) generates research into current and uture areas o UNICEFs

work. Its prime objectives are to improve international understanding

o issues relating to childrens rights and to help acilitate the ull

implementation o the United Nations Convention on the Rights o the

Child in both industrialized and developing countries.

The Centres publications are contributions to a global debate on child

rights issues and include a wide range o opinions. For that reason, the

Centre may produce publications that do not necessarily reect

UNICEF policies or approaches on some topics.

The views expressed are those o the authors and do not necessarily

reect the policy or views o UNICEF.

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

Piazza SS. Annunziata, 12

50122 Florence, Italy

Tel: (+39) 055 20 330

Fax: (+39) 055 2033 220

[email protected]

www.unice-irc.org


3/40

UNICEF

Innocenti Research Centre

A great change is coming over childhood in the worlds

richest countries.

Todays rising generation is the frst in which a majority are

spending a large part o early childhood in some orm oout-o-home child care.

At the same time, neuroscientifc research is demonstrating

that loving, stable, secure, and stimulating relationships

with caregivers in the earliest months and years o lie are

critical or every aspect o a childs development.

Taken together, these two developments conront public

and policymakers in OECD countries with urgent questions.

Whether the child care transition will represent an advance

or a setback or todays children and tomorrows world

will depend on the response.

I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 8 1


4/40

Benchmark 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Num

bero

benc

hmarksach

ieve

d

Paren

talleaveo

1yeara

t

50%

osa

lary

Ana

tiona

lp

lanw

ithpriority

or

disa

dvan

tage

dc

hildren

Su

bs

idize

dan

dregu

lated

childcareserv

ices

or

25%

oc

hildrenun

der

3

Su

bs

idize

dan

daccre

dite

d

earlye

duca

tionserv

ices

or

80%

o4year-o

lds

80%

oa

llc

hildcares

tatra

ine

d

50%

os

tainaccre

dite

dearly

educa

tionserv

ices

tert

iary

educa

tedw

ithre

levan

tqual

ifca

tion

Minimum

sta-to-c

hildrenra

tioo

1:1

5inpre-sc

hoo

le

duca

tion

1.0

%o

GDPspen

tonearly

childhoo

dserv

ices

Childpovertyra

teless

than

10%

Near-un

iversa

lou

treac

ho

essen

tia

lc

hildhea

lthserv

ices

Sweden 10

Iceand 9

Denmark 8

Finand 8

France 8

Norway 8

Begium (Fanders) 6

Hungary 6

New Zeaand 6

Sovenia 6

Austria 5

Netherands 5

United Kingdom* 5

Germany 4

Itay 4

Japan 4

Portuga 4

Repubic o Korea 4

Mexico 3

Spain 3

Switzerand 3

United States 3

Austraia 2

Canada 1

Ireand 1

Tota benchmarks met 126 6 19 13 15 17 20 12 6 10 8

*Data or the United Kingdom reer to England only.

Fig. 1 Early childhood services a league table

ThisReport Card discusses the opportunities and risks invoved in the chid care transition, and proposes

internationay appicabe benchmarks or eary chidhood care and education a set o minimum standards or

protecting the rights o chidren in their most vunerabe and ormative years.

The tabe beow shows which countries are currenty meeting the suggested standards, and summarizes this frst

attempt to evauate and compare eary chidhood services in the 25 OECD countries in which data have been coected.

2 I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 8


5/40

T H E C H I l D C A R E T R A N S I T I O N

A great change is occurring in the way

in which children are being brought

up in the worlds economically

advanced countries. Ater centuries obeing a predominantly private, amily

aair, the care o very young children

is now becoming, in signicant degree,

an out-o-home activity in which

governments and pr ivate enterprise are

increasingly involved. Todays rising

generation in the countries o the

OECD* is the rst in which a majority

are spending a large part o their early

childhoods not in their own homes

with their own amilies but in some

orm o child care.

The change is ar rom complete and

its pattern varies rom country to

country. But there is no doubting the

overall scale and direction o the

transition. Approximately 80 per cent

o the rich worlds three-to-six year-

olds are now in some orm o early

childhood education and care. For

those under the age o three, the

proportion using child care is now

approximately 25 per cent or the

OECD as a whole and more than

50 per cent in individual countries

(Fig. 2). Across the industrialized

nations, out-o-home child care is a

act o lie or ever more children

at ever earlier ages and or ever

longer hours.

In the last decade many OECD

countries have also begun to see sharp

rises in the numbers o inants those

under the age o one year beingcared or outside the home. Statistics

or this age group are ew. But in the

United Kingdom,** or example, a

majority o mothers are now

returning to ull or part time work

within 12 months o giving birth.i

Similarly in the United States, more

than 50 per cent o under-ones are in

some orm o child care three

quarters o them rom the age o our

months or earlier and or an average

o 28 hours per week.ii In Flemish

Belgium, more than a third o inants

are entering some orm o child care

within the rst year o lie.

Fig. 2 provides the best available

nation-by-nation snapshot o the

current picture. For our-year-olds, 16

out o the 24 countries or which data

are available have passed the 75 per

cent mark or pre-school enrolment.

In Belgium, France, Italy, and Spain,

enrolment o our-year-olds is now

virtually 100 per cent. For children

under the age o three, Denmark and

Iceland have the highest rates o

enrolment (around 60 per cent).

These data should be interpreted with

care. The percentages given refect

neither the quality nor the availability

o the services oered. The gure or

the United Kingdom, or example,

reers to children using ree earlychildhood education centres or two

and a hal hours per day (available or

nine months o the year); the gure

or Sweden, by contrast, reers to ull

working-day services (available, should

parents wish, or 11 months o the

year). It should also be emphasized

that these data reeze what is in act a

rapidly changing picture.

Driving changeThe orces driving the child care

transition are as evident as the

change itsel.

First, more than two thirds o all

women o working age in the OECD

countries are today employed outside

the home. Many are postponing

childbearing by a decade or more

compared with mothers o previous

generations and many have well-

established careers to take into

consideration. In as much as this

refects progress towards equality o

opportunity or women, it is cause or

celebration. But in as much as it

represents mounting economic

pressures, it is cause or concern. Even

among the well-paid, two incomes are

oten necessary i housing and other

expenses are to be met. Among thelow-paid, a amily o two adults and

two children will usually need a

** Unless otherwise stated, data or the United Kingdom reer

to England only.

* The Organisation or Economic Co-operation and

Development, the international organization o the industrialized

market-economy countries.



6/40

minimum o one ull-time and one

part-time job (at the minimum wage)

just to stay above national poverty

lines. Most single parents need a ull

time job plus benets. And the poorer

the amily, the greater the pressure to

return to work as soon as possible

ater a birth oten to unskilled, low-

paid jobs. For many millions o

mothers, thereore, rising employment

pressures refect not new opportunities

but new necessities.

Second, this great change in

childhood is being driven by

economic pressures on governments;

more women in the workorce boosts

GDP, increases income rom taxes, and

reduces welare costs.

Third, an increasingly competitive,

knowledge-based global economy is

helping to convince both governments

and parents that pre-school education

is an investment in uture academicsuccess and employment prospects

(Box 2).

Fourth, some OECD countries have

come to see child care services as a

prop to alling birth rates. I Europe is

to reverse its demographic decline, noted

the European Commission in 2005,

amilies must be urther encouraged by

public policies that allow men and women

to reconcile amily lie with work.

For all o these inter-related reasons,

the child care transition is everywhere

being acilitated by public policy. All

countries in the European Union, or

example, now guarantee at least two or

three years o pre-school. European

Union leaders have agreed that by

2010 they should be providing ree or

subsidized ull day-care or at least 33

per cent o children under the age o

three and or 90 per cent o those aged

three-to-six.* In the United States

there is at the moment no statutory

right to pre-school education beore

the age o ve, but in practice more

than 60 per cent o Americas 10

million pre-school children are in some

orm o early childhood programme.

Pre-school enrolments, says the US

National Research Council, are large,

growing, and here to stay.

These, in brie, are some o the orces

pressing both governments and amilies

in OECD countries towards radically

new patterns o child care. And despite

signicant dierences in policy and

practice, it is clear that the

industrialized nations as a whole are

moving not only towards out-o-home

care or a signicant percentage o

inants and toddlers but also towards

systems o universal education that

begin not with ormal schooling at the

age o ve or six but with early

childhood education beginning at the

age o three.

Given such pressures, there is a clear

danger that the child care transition

may ollow a course that is determinedby the needs and pressures o the

moment, uninfuenced by long term

Denmark

Mexico

Italy

Austria

Hungary

Germany

Ireland

Japan

Canada

Republic of Korea

Spain

Portugal

OECD Average

Slovenia

United Kingdom

France

Australia

Netherlands

New Zealand

Belgium

Finland

United States

Sweden

Norway

Iceland

0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Fig. 2a Enroment o 0-3 year-ods in chid care

Source: OECD Family database and OECD Education database (2004).

Fig. 2

The chid care transition, an overview

Figs. 2a, 2b, and 2c provide the best

current picture o the transition to chid

care in those OECD countries or which

data are avaiabe. Unortunatey, no

internationay comparabe data are

avaiabe or enroment under the age o

one year.

* Targets already met by Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, Finland,

Iceland, Norway, and Sweden.

I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 8


7/40

vision or choice. This Report Card

thereore attempts a broad view o the

changes coming over child care in the

industrial world and highlights some o

the longer-term opportunities and risks

inherent in changing, on such a scale,

the way in which a majority o our

children are being cared or in their

most ormative years.

In particular, it looks at this great

change rom the one point o view that

is in danger o being neglected and that

is so clearly set out in article

3 o the Convention on the Rights o

the Child that in all actions

concerning children the best interests

o the child shall be a primaryconsideration.

A parallel revolution

At the same time as this great change

in childhood has been stealing across

the industrialized world, a parallel

revolution in understanding the

importance o early childhood has been

quietly unolding in the less public

arena o neuroscientic research.

Box 1 summarizes some o the key

concepts to emerge rom this research.

They include: the sequence o sensitive

periods in brain development; the

importance o serve and return

relationships with carers; the role o

love as a oundation or intellectual as

well as emotional development; the

ostering o the childs growing sense o

agency; the ways in which thearchitecture o the developing brain

can be disrupted by stress; and the

critical importance o early interactions

with amily members and carers in the

development o stress management

systems. New technologies and new

research tools are beginning to

illuminate these processes in more

detail, and have led to a widespread

conviction that what is now known to

the neuroscientic community should

be made more widely known to

politicians, press and public.

Fig. 2c Enroment o 3-6 year-ods in eary education

France

Switzerland

Finland

Republic of Korea

United States

Mexico

OECD Average

Ireland

Netherlands

Australia

Austria

Slovenia

Portugal

Germany

United Kingdom

Norway

Japan

Sweden

Hungary

Denmark

New Zealand

Iceland

Spain

Belgium

Italy

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Source: OECD Family database and OECD Education database (2004).

Italy

Switzerland

Ireland

Finland

*Australia

United States

*Republic of Korea

*Mexico

Netherlands

Slovenia

OECD Average

Austria

Portugal

Germany

Norway

Sweden

Hungary

United Kingdom

Denmark

Japan

*New Zealand

Iceland

Spain

Belgium

France

0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Fig. 2b Enroment o 4 year-ods in eary education

Source: EUROSTAT (2005).

* Data rom OECD Family database (2004).



8/40

For present purposes, the chie import

o such ndings is that it is the childs

early interactions with others, and

particularly with amily and caregivers,

that establishes the patterns o neural

connections and chemical balances

which prooundly infuence what we

will become, what we will be capable

o, and how we will respond to the

world around us. Working within the

potential o genetic inheritance, it is

early experience that is the architect

o the human brain, putting in place

both the oundations and scaolding

or uture development. All aspects o

adult human capital, rom workorce skills

to cooperative and lawul behavior, build on

capacities that are developed during

childhood, beginning at birth, concludes a

recent report by the US National

Scientic Council. iii

In other words, neuroscience is

beginning to conirm and explain the

inner workings o what social science

and common experience have long

maintained that loving, stable, secure,

stimulating and rewarding relationships

with amily and caregivers in the earliest

months and years o lie are critical or

almost all aspects o a childs

development.

In relation to the change currently

coming across childhood in the

economically developed world, the

signicance o these ndings can

hardly be overestimated. This report

will argue that it is the coming

together o these two dierent

developments the mass movement

towards out-o-home child care and

At the heart o recent research into the development o

the human brain is something that seems about as ar

away rom hard science as it is possible to get. The way

that most parents respond to babies the baby-talk, the

back-and-orth smiling and gurgling, the repeating o

sounds, words, gestures, the besotted rejoicing over every

small step in the inants progress all this does not lend

itsel easily to scientifc analysis. Yet it is exactly this kindo intimate, loving one-to-one interaction that, along with

adequate nutrition, constitutes the essential input to the

childs emotional, physical and cognitive development.

In an attempt to describe this process in more scientifc

terms, researchers have developed terms such as

maternal/paternal sensitivity/responsivity, mutuality and

reciprocity. They also requently employ analogies such

as the dance o mutual responsiveness or the serve and

return process. This last, or example, is described in The

Science o Early Childhood Developmentby the Center on

the Developing Child at Harvard University:

Serve and return happens when young children naturally

reach out or interaction through babbling, acial

expressions, words, gestures, and cries, and adults

respond by getting in sync and doing the same kind o

vocalising and gesturing back at them, and the process

continues back and orth. Another important aspect o the

serve and return notion o interaction is that it works best

when it is embedded in an ongoing relationship between

a child and an adult who is responsive to the childs own

unique individuality. Decades o research tell us that

mutually rewarding interactions are essential prerequisites

or the development o healthy brain circuits andincreasingly complex skills.1

Box 1 Neuroscience: serve and return

A second core concept is the identifcation o sensitive

periods in the sequential development o the human

brain. Each o these periods is associated with specifc

areas o neurological circuitry and with specifc human

abilities. And each builds on the circuits and skills laid

down in the previous period. It is this process that sets

the stage or all uture cognitive and emotional

development a stage that is either sturdy or shakydepending on the kind and quality o interactions with

primary caregivers in the earliest months and years o lie.

Related to this is the fnding that care and education are

not separate processes. The close emotional interaction

between parent and child is as essential or intellectual as

or emotional development. Purely didactic eorts aimed

at developing a childs cognitive abilities are likely to

undermine what they seek to promote i emotional needs

are neglected. The studyEager to Learn,2 or example,

concludes that Care and education cannot be thought

o as separate entities in dealing with young children.

Neither loving children nor teaching them is, in and

o itsel, sucient or optimal development.

Research has also drawn attention to the importance o

stress levels in the early months and years o lie.

According to Proessor Jack Shonko, Director o Harvard

Universitys Center on the Developing Child, excessive

levels o stress hormones literally disrupt brain

architecture.

Too much or too prolonged stress at this time and the

lack o a amiliar, trusted adult to provide the prompt,

intimate reassurance that helps bring stress hormonesback to baseline levels can result in a mis-setting o the



9/40

todays greater understanding o

what is happening to the human

brain in the early months and years

o lie that now present public and

policymakers with large and urgent

questions. Whether the child care

transition will represent an advance

or a setback both or todays

children and tomorrows world

will depend on the wisdom o the

response. That response must begin

with increased concern or, and

closer monitoring o, this great

change as it gathers momentum

and begins to spread to other parts o

the world.*

Benchmarks

As a contribution to this process, this

Report Cardadvances the idea o an

internationally applicable set o

minimum standards by which the

rights o young children might be

protected as the transition to child

care gathers momentum.

The 10 benchmarks suggested, drawn

up in consultation with government

ocials and academic experts rom

OECD countries in Asia, Europe,

and North America, with additional

input rom both UNICEF and the

World Bank,** represent a rst

attempt towards evaluating and

comparing early childhood services

* It should be noted that the ormer centrally-planned

economies o Eastern and Central Europe invested heavily in

child care acilities in the decades beore 1990.

** The cooperation o governments in this initiative is much

appreciated. It is recognized that governments can accept no

responsibility or the interpretation o the inormation supplied

or or the selection o the benchmarks themselves. The

inormation provided by governments is complemented by

ofcial data supplied to the OECD, and by urther discussions

with academic experts at national level.

Core conceptsFour core concepts important to devising sound

social policy toward early childhood have emerged

rom decades o independent research in economics,

neuroscience, and developmental psychology. First,

the architecture o the brain and the process o skill

ormation are infuenced by an interaction between

genetics and individual experience. Second, the

mastery o skills that are essential or economic

success and the development o their underlying

neural pathways ollow hierarchical rules. Later

attainments build on oundations that are laid down

earlier. Third, cognitive, linguistic, social, and

brains stress levels. In particular, the persistent elevation

o the stress hormone cortisol is known to be damaging to

the delicate architecture o the developing brain, and is

related to stress-related illness in later lie. Mental health

requires stress management systems that boost the level

o the stress hormones in response to perceived threats

and reduce them again when the challenge has passed.

Beginning even beore birth, it is in early childhood that

these chemical balances are set.

Finally, research has also drawn attention to the childs

emerging sense o agency the eeling o being able to

inuence events and situations. I this is encouraged by

adult responses, then motivation, confdence and

competence will tend to ourish. I it is not reinorced, or

i it is actively discouraged by negative reaction or

punishment, then these essential aspects o psychological

development are likely to be compromised.

For all o these reasons, the relationship between inants

and parents or primary caregivers is critical to the childs

emotional, psychological and cognitive development.Developmental and behavioural problems oten

1 National Scientifc Council on the Developing Child, The Science o

Early Childhood Development: Closing the gap between what we

know and what we do, Center on the Developing Child at Harvard

University, Cambridge MA, 2007, p. 6.

2 National Research Council,Eager to Learn: Educating our pre-

schoolers, Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, Bowman, B. T.,

M. S. Donovan and M. S. Burns (eds.); Commission on Behavioral and

Social Sciences and Education, National Academy Press, Washington,

D. C., 2001, p. 2.

3 National Research Council and Institute o Medicine,From Neurons

to Neighborhoods: The science o early childhood development,

Committee on Integrating the Science o Early Childhood Development,

Shonko, J. P. and D. A. Phillips (eds.), Board on Children, Youth and

Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences andEducation, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 2000, p. 28.

continuing into later lie most commonly arise rom

disturbances in that relationship.3

All o this has clear implications or the care and

upbringing o very young children. And in the transition

towards early childhood education and care, it is essential

that fndings such as those described here should become

part o political and public awareness.

emotional competencies are interdependent; all are

shaped powerully by the experiences o the

developing child; and all contribute to success in the

society at large. Fourth, although adaptation continues

throughout lie, human abilities are ormed in a

predictable sequence o sensitive periods, during which

the development o specic neural circuits and the

behaviors they mediate are most plastic and thereore

optimally receptive to environmental infuences.

Heckman J. J, Skill Formation and the Economics o Investing

in Disadvantaged Children,Science, vol. 312. no. 5782,

pp. 1900-1902, 30 June 2006.



10/40

in the 25 countries in which data have

been collected. The resulting

benchmarks table (Fig. 1) shows which

o those countries are currently

meeting the suggested standards and

which are not.

Overall, Sweden tops the table by

meeting all 10 benchmarks, ollowed

closely by Iceland which meets 9, and

by Denmark, Finland, France, and

Norway which meet 8. Only three

countries Australia, Canada, and

Ireland meet ewer than 3.

At this stage, there is an inevitable

crudeness about such a table, born o

the act that the selection o indicatorsand the evaluation o country

perormance are circumscribed by the

availability o data. A number o

important caveats are thereore

necessary:

The benchmarks represent basic

minimum standards rather than a

guarantee o high quality early

childhood services.

They relate, or the most part, to

out-o-home, centre-based child

care rather than to inormal, home-

based or neighbourhood day-care

centres.

They take no account o other

signicant services such as social

welare programmes, home visiting

programmes designed to reach out

to children at risk, or programmes

aimed at supporting goodparenting.

They oer no measure o parental

involvement in early childhood

services.

They are directed towards what

governments can do to ensure that

the child care transition is managed

in the best interests o both

children and their societies utures.

This last point is particularly

important. It is parents who carry the

main responsibility or the education

and care o their children, and in the

OECD countries today parents are

making use o a wide variety o

inormal and oten unrecorded child

care arrangements (Box 3). Those

arrangements are largely beyond the

scope o this report except to note

that that new knowledge about the

importance o the early childhood

period applies to all orms o early

childhood education and care; today,

care without education is not care.

Common standards

Despite these limitations, the

proposed benchmarks represent an

initial step towards an OECD-widemonitoring o what is happening to

children in the child care transition. I

this process can be continued, and

rened through better denition and

data collection, then there is much to

be gained.

First, the benchmarks begin the

process o establishing a common

core o minimum standards or early

childhood services. In elds such as

health care, employment law, and the

education o older children, common

standards have stimulated and

supported sustained progress. Backed

by good data, cross national

monitoring can: highlight the

strengths and weaknesses o individual

countries; illustrate what can and

should be expected rom advanced

economies; show what leadingcountries have been able to achieve in

practice; and direct attention towards

the importance o managing the child

care transition rather than allowing its

course to be determined only by

short-term pressures.

Second, the establishing o

benchmarks is a step towards

monitoring the Convention on the

Rights o the Child as it applies to

very young children (Box 6). Child

rights do not begin at the age o ve;

yet the rights o very young children

have oten been overlooked and

accountability is not possible without

a clear set o minimum standards or

early childhood services.

Third, the proposed benchmarks may

increasingly become useul to non-

OECD nations in which the child

care transition is already underway. The

indicators proposed are likely to be

relevant or most countries, although

the particular values attached to such

indicators might need to be

recalibrated in order to refect dierent

economic levels and dierent stages in

the development o early childhood

services.

The positive potential

Despite the concerns that will be

raised in this report, it should be said

rom the beginning that the move

towards early childhood education and

care brings with it an enormous

potential or good. Box 2 briefy

summarizes several o the studies that

demonstrate this potential.

For the children themselves, child care

can mean enjoying and beneting

rom interaction with other children

and with child care proessionals.

Cognitive, linguistic, emotional, and

social development can be enhanced,

and the eects appear to be long-

lasting. For immigrant and second

language children, good quality child

care can help with integration andlanguage skills and reduce disadvantage

on entry into the ormal education

system (Box 5). For many millions o

women, child care can erode one o

the last great obstacles to equality o

opportunity. For many millions o

parents, child care can help reconcile

the competing demands and pleasures

o income-earning and amily lie. For

national economies, the availability o

child care that allows parents to return

to work can increase GDP and public

revenues, cut poverty rates, reduce



11/40

welare budgets, and boost returns on

public investments in education.

Most important o all, early childhood

education and care also oers an

opportunity or societies to attempt a

urther signicant reduction in poverty,

inequality, and disadvantage.

As previous reports in this series have

shown, educational disadvantage is

strongly associated with home

background and becomes measurable

even beore ormal schooling begins.

Three-year-old children o more

educated parents, or example, oten

have double the vocabulary o children

rom poorer, less educated homes andare signicantly more likely to achieve

higher qualications by the age o 15.iv

Potentially, the transition to early

childhood education and care could

help to break this cycle; it could help

to give all children, not just the

winners in the lottery o birth, a

strong start in lie. And in so doing, it

could help to reduce the educational,

developmental and behavioural

problems that are so oten aced by

disadvantaged children and their

societies.

Common sense and a signicant

body o research supports the idea

that extending the benets o good

quality early education and care to all

children tends to reduce disadvantage.

In a detailed review o the costs andbenets in OECD countries, or

example, Canadian researchers

Cleveland and Krashinsky ound that:

Although early childhood education and

care benets all children, much o the

evidence suggests that the largest benets

fow to children rom the most

disadvantaged amiliesgood childcare

can compensate, at least partially, or a

disadvantaged home lie. v

Similarly, a report by the US National

Research Council concludes that child

care can protect children rom amily-

based risk and rom the detrimental

eects o both poverty and maternal

depression as well as domestic confict.

Careully designed interventions, says

the report, have been shown to

infuence the developmental trajectories o

children whose lie course is threatened

by socioeconomic disadvantage, amily

disruption, and diagnosed disabilities. vi

The same conclusion has been reached

by the 2006 review o early childhood

services by the OECD: Research rom

a wide range o countries shows that

early intervention contributes signicantly

to putting children rom low income

amilies on the path to development andsuccess in school. vii

Disadvantaged children can be

identied by the accumulation o well-

established warning signs. Individual at

risk signals include: a home in which

there is persistent poverty and

unemployment; or in which parents

have little education; or in which there

is a history o substance abuse, mental

illness or depression; or in which

amilies are struggling to be integrated

into the prevailing language and

culture. Identication o the at-risk

child is thereore not the primary

problem. And i the child care

transition is to narrow rather than

widen inequalities o opportunity, then

it is at-risk children who must be

given priority in the planning o early

childhood services. As a recent (2007)report rom the Center on the

Developing Child at Harvard

University puts the case: The need to

address signicant inequalities in

opportunity, beginning in the earliest

years o lie, is both a undamental moral

responsibility and a critical investment in

our nations social and economic

uture.viii

The practical diculties o realising

this potential are ormidable. Home

background is and will continue to be

the single most powerul infuence on a

childs development, and even high

quality early childhood education and

care cannot be expected to compensate

ully or poverty or poor parenting. But

i disadvantaged children are given rst

call on early childhood services, i those

services are o suciently high quality,

and i services also reach out to

communities with parenting support,

then countries undergoing the child

care transition have a rare opportunity

to mitigate the eects o poverty and

disadvantage on the utures o many

millions o children.

In practice this will be a long and

dicult road. But no challenge makes amore legitimate claim on societies

ingenuities and resources than the task

o using what is now known about early

childhood development to ensure that

all children have the best possible start

and the best possible chance to become

all that they are capable o.

Nor can it be convincingly argued that

it cannot be aorded. Cost-benet

analyses o early childhood interventions

have shown, in dierent settings, that

the returns on early childhood

education and care can be as high as $8

or every $1 invested. The conclusions

rom such studies are perhaps best

summed up by James Heckman in a

landmark article in Science(2006):

Investing in disadvantaged young

children is a rare public policy initiativethat promotes airness and social justice

and at the same time promotes productivity

in the economy and in society at large.

Early interventions targeted toward

disadvantaged children have much higher

returns than later interventions such as

reduced pupil-teacher ratios, public job

training, convict rehabilitation programs,

tuition subsidies, or expenditure on police.

At current levels o resources, society over

invests in remedial skill investments at

later ages and under invests in the early

years. ix



12/40

Evidence or the advantages o high quality early

childhood education and care is accumulating as long-

term evaluations become available. Some examples:

Sweden

One o the frst long-term studies o the eects o early

childhood services was conducted in Sweden in the early1990s. Based on an assessment o children in 128 low and

middle income amilies in two o Swedens largest cities,

the study concluded that early childhood education and

care was associated with an improvement in academic

perormance at the age o 13. Study director Bengt-Erik

Andersson concluded: early entrance into day-care tends to

predict a creative, socially condent, popular, open and

independent adolescent.

France

A study o more than 20,000 pre-school children ound that

the longer the child attended pre-school, the more positivethe results in all grades o elementary education. Positive

eects were lasting being greater in fth grade than in

frst and the benefts were greatest or children rom

disadvantaged homes.

United States

A 2005 study o the eectiveness o theEarly Head Start

(EHS) programme in the United States, based on a random

sample o over 3,000 amilies in 17 EHS programmes, has

shown that participating children have better cognitive and

language development, are more capable o sustained

attention, and behave less aggressively towards others.

Surveying all o these and other long-term studies, Canadian

researchers Cleveland and Krashinsky conclude:

Overwhelmingly, these studies have ound that good child

care can have very positive eects on these children and

that these advantages can be long-lasting. In particular, good

child care can compensate, at least partially, or a

disadvantaged home lie.

North Carolina, United States

A generation ago, the North CarolinaAbecedarian Project

enrolled 112 disadvantaged children in a fve year, ull day,

fve days a week programme o child care beginning, insome cases, when the children were only three months old.

Box 2 Benefts: the evidence

Those selected or the programme were judged to be at

high risk o developmental problems.

Researchers have since ollowed their progress through

school and into adult lie. Compared to similar children who

did not have the beneft o the programme, the

Abecedarians showed higher levels o intelligence andschool achievement, higher earnings (an additional $13,000

when projected over a working lietime), better health, and

less dependence on welare.

With sta-to-children ratios o 1:3 or inants, 2:7 or

toddlers, and 1:6 or our and fve year-olds, the costs o the

project were high ($1,000 per child in 2002 dollars higher

than the equivalent costs or secondary education).

Nonetheless, the experiment is estimated to have yielded a

return o $ to every $1 o public money invested.

Ypsilanti, Michigan, United States

ThePerry Pre-school Projectran rom 1962 to 1967 and

brought pre-school education to Arican-American three and

our year-olds rom poor backgrounds. Most o the children,

who were judged to be at high risk o school ailure,

participated in the project or one year, attending each

weekday morning or two and a hal hours. Aternoon visits

by teachers to the homes o participating children were also

a regular part o the programme.

Comparing 6 children who participated in the project with

6 similar children who did not, a long-term evaluation ound

that thePerry Projectchildren had higher IQs, averaged

almost a year extra in education, had a per cent higher

chance o graduating rom high school, and spent an

average o 1.3 ewer years in special education services.

Followed up at age 27, they were ound to have had a 50

per cent lower rate o teenage pregnancy and were almost

50 per cent less likely to have spent time in jail (with a one

third lower arrest rate or violent crime).

Monitored again at age 0, they were ound to have a

median income that was 0 per cent higher than the

control group. They were also more likely to own their

own homes and 26 per cent less likely to have receivedwelare payments.

1 0 I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 8


13/40

Summing up

In a presentation to the United States Congress in

2003, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Proessor o Child

Development at Columbia University, New York,

summarized the benefts o early childhood education

as ollows:

High quality centre-based programmes enhance

the school-related achievement and behaviour o

young children.

These eects are strongest or poor children and

or children whose parents have little education.

Positive benefts continue into late elementary

school and high school years, although eects are

smaller than they were at the beginning o

elementary school.

Programmes that are continued into primary

school, and that oer intensive early intervention,

have the most sustained long-term eects.

I properly linked to other services, early childhood

services can be expected to deliver additional

outcomes, such as enhanced maternal

employment, less amily poverty, better parenting

skills and greater amily and community cohesion.

ThePerry Pre-school Projectwas intensively managed

and well-resourced. Sta-to-children ratios averaged 1:6,

with all sta educated to degree level and trained as

public school teachers. Sta also made regular once-a-

week home visits to support mothers and to invite their

involvement in reinorcing the pre-school curriculum at

home. Overall, the cost was approximately $11,300 perchild per year (in 2007 dollars). A 1995 evaluation

suggested that the returns mainly in the orm o

reduced welare and reduced costs or coping with crime

amounted to approximately $7 or every $1 invested in

the project. A urther evaluation published in 2006

calculated the beneft-cost ratio (the ratio o the

aggregate project benefts over the lie o the child to the

input costs) at more than $8 or every $1 invested.

Caliornia, United States

The 2005 report The Economics o Investing in Universal

Preschool Education in Caliornia ound that children whoattended pre-schools were more likely to graduate rom

high school, earned higher salaries as adults, and were

less likely to become involved in crime. The authors

claim that even i only 25 per cent o Caliornias children

benefted rom universal pre-school education, the state

could still expect a return o $2 or every $1 invested.

New Zealand

The latest (200) survey o the Competent Children

Projectin New Zealand shows that 12 year-olds who

participated in high quality early childhood education

perormed better in reading and math. The dierences

remained even ater amily income and parental

education were taken into account.

United Kingdom

TheEective Provision o Pre-school Education (EPPE)

is a long-term study o young childrens development.

Based on a random sample o the UKs child population,

the 2003EPPEreport concludes that pre-school

enhances childrens cognitive and social development

and that the eects are greatest or disadvantaged

children especially i pre-schools bring together

children o mixed backgrounds. Benefts are positively

correlated with measures o programme quality andsta qualifcations.

These and other studies on the eectiveness o early childhood

education and care are summarized and reerenced in chapter III o the

background paper to this report Early Childhood Services in the OECDCountries, Innocenti Working Paper 2008-01 (www.unice-irc.org).

I N N O C E N T I R E P O R T C A R D 8 1 1


14/40

The potential or harm

Alongside the potential or good, it

will be equally evident that the

transition to child care also brings

with it the potential or harm.

Box 1 shows that, or babies andinants, a lack o close interaction and

care with parents can result in the

mis-setting o the bodys stress

management systems in ways that can

make it more dicult or the child to

regulate his or her responses to the

world. In some instances, and or some

children, the long-term eects may

include depression, withdrawal,

inability to concentrate, and other

orms o mental ill health. In a larger

number o less obvious cases, the

result is likely to be less than optimal

cognitive and linguistic development

and underachievement in school.

Concern has also been expressed

about whether child care may weaken

the attachment between parent and

child, and whether it may not be

putting at risk the childs developingsense o security and trust in others.

Doubts have also been raised about

possible long-term eects on

psychological and social development,

and about whether the rise o child

care may be associated with a rise in

behavioural problems in school-age

children.

Today, a number o long-term studies

are beginning to clariy these issues.The earliest o these initiated in

1991 by the US National Institute o

Child Health and Human

Development (NICHD) has

monitored the child care experiences

and later outcomes o over 1,300

children in the United States. Overall,

the study ound that child care was

associated with relatively small

dierences, negative or positive, on

either abilities or behaviours. However,

it noted among its conclusions:

The more time children spent in child

care rom birth to age our-and-a-hal,

the more adults tended to rate themas

less likely to get along with others, as

more assertive, as disobedient and as

aggressive.x

This negative association appears to be

related to the length o time spent in

child care and holds good whatever

the quality o the care experienced;

but it is worth repeating that the

eects recorded were not large and

that the quality o parenting was ound

to be a ar more signicant infuence

than time spent in child care (indeed

negative eects were not ound at all

in children who beneted rom goodparenting).

Some have argued that the eects

noted in the NICHD study are too

small to be signicant. Others have

countered that even a small but

widespread rise in aggressive and

disruptive behaviours could have

signicant eects on classroom ethos,

on the diculties aced by teachers,

and on the learning environment or

all children.

Europes rst major long-term study

was launched in 1997 in the United

Kingdom with the aim o tracking the

progress o over 3,000 children rom

age 3 to age 7. In its nal report

Eective Provision o Pre-school

Education the study ound that pre-

school education or three and ouryear-olds improved both cognitive and

social skills, but noted that high levels

o group care beore the age o three

(and particularly beore the age o two)

were associated with higher levels o anti-

social behaviour at age 3. xi

The degree to which such ndings are

relevant to countries other than the

United Kingdom and the United

States is debated. But as yet, ew other

countries have conducted long-term

studies on the eects o child care.

Penelope Leach, child care specialist

or more than our decades and co-

director o another large-scale UK

study Families, Children and Child

Care oers the ollowing overview

o the evidence to date:

It is airly clear rom data rom dierent

parts o the world that the less time

children spend in group care beore three

years, the better. Inants spending as little

as 12 hours a week in day nurseries

showed slightly lower levels o social

development and emotional regulation

(less enthusiastic cooperation,

concentration, social engagement and

initiative) as toddlers. Somewhere ater

two years, as the children begin to relatemore to each other than to the adult,

then high-quality, group-based care

becomes an unequivocal benet. xii

At present, thereore, the most

important generalization to be made is

that the younger the child and the

longer the hours spent in child care

the greater the risk. In particular, long

hours o child care or those under the

age o one year is widely regarded as

inappropriate. Inadequate care at this

most critical o all stages may result in

weak oundations and shaky

scaolding or uture learning; and

what is true o cognitive and linguistic

skills is also true o psychological and

emotional development.

Overall, there is a broad consensus that

child care that is too early and or toolong can be damaging.

Responses o governments

In sum, the two-way potential o the

large-scale movement to out-o-home

child care poses a challenge to all

parents and to all countries currently

going through the child care transition.

Most OECD governments have

responded by ormulating policy and

investing public resources in the

provision o early childhood education



15/40


16/40

4. A minimum level o access

or our-year-olds

The minimum proposed is that at

least 80 per cent o our-year-olds

participate in publicly subsidized

and accredited early education

services or a minimum o 15hours per week.

5. A minimum level o training

or all sta


least 80 per cent o sta having

signifcant contact with young

children, including neighbourhood

and home-based child carers,

should have relevant training. As a

minimum, all sta shouldcomplete an induction course. A

move towards pay and working

conditions in line with the wider

teaching or social care proessions

should also be envisaged.

6. A minimum proportion o

sta with higher level

education and training


least 50 per cent o sta in earlyeducation centres supported and

accredited by governmental

agencies should have a minimum

o three years tertiary education

with a recognized qualifcation in

early childhood studies or a

related feld.

7. A minimum sta-to-

children ratio

The minimum proposed is that

the ratio o pre-school children

(our-to-fve year-olds) to trained

sta (educators and assistants)

should not be greater than 15

to 1, and that group size should

not exceed 24.

8. A minimum level o public

unding

The suggested minimum is that

the level o public spending on

early childhood education and care

(or children aged 0 to 6 years)

should not be less than 1 per cent

o GDP.

These eight proposed benchmarks are

supplemented by two urther

indicators designed to acknowledge

and refect wider social and economic

actors critical to the ecacy o early

childhood services.

9. A low level o child poverty

Specifcally, a child poverty rate o

less than 10 per cent. The

defnition o child poverty is that

used by the OECD the

percentage o children growing up

in amilies in which income,

adjusted or amily size, is less

than 50 per cent o median

income.

10. Universal outreach

To reinorce one o the central

tenets o this report that early

childhood services should also be

available to the children o

disadvantaged amilies this last

benchmark attempts to measure

and compare demonstrated

national commitment to that ideal.

As no direct measure is currently

possible, the suggested proxy

measure is the extent to which

basic child health services have

been made available to the most

marginalized and difcult-to-reach

amilies.

Specifcally, the benchmark o

universal outreach is considered

to have been met i a country has

ulflled at least two o the

ollowing three requirements: a)

the rate o inant mortality is less

than 4 per 1,000 live births b) the

proportion o babies born with low

birthweight (below 2,500 grams) is

less than 6 per cent and c) the

immunization rate or 12 to 23

month-olds (averaged over

measles, polio and DPT3vaccination) is higher than

95 per cent.

Critical issues

The 10 benchmarks have been

drawn up with a core o critical

questions in mind:

At what age can out-o-home

education and care begin to

benet children?

I todays knowledge suggests that

children under the age o one are

best cared or by parents, what

policies can best support todays

parents in that task?

What should be the underlying

aims and priorities o early

childhood services?

How is quality in early childhoodeducation and care to be dened

and monitored?

What systems can make available

high quality services to all and

ensure that disadvantaged and

at-risk children are included?

Is the wider social and economic

context supportive? Or are early

childhood services being asked to

row upstream against powerulcurrents o child poverty, persistent

disadvantage, and amily-unriendly

policies in the economy and

workplace?

Parental leave

The question o the appropriate age at

which early childhood education and

care can be o benet to children is

one o the most controversial issues in

the child care debate. Many see

nothing wrong with out-o-home

child care beginning at three months

providing that the care is o an

acceptable quality. Others consider

that the cr itical developmental needs

o the rst year o lie demand

nothing less than the constant, loving,

one-to-one interaction o parental

care. And or millions o working

parents in OECD countries, this is aquestion that must be answered under

pressure o career demands and



17/40

household budgets. It is thereore a

question that is almost inseparable rom

the issue o parental leave entitlement

(Benchmark 1 and Box 3).

All but two OECD countries

Australia* and the United States

currently provide an entitlement to

some orm opaidleave to employed

parents ollowing the birth o a child.

The average duration o that

entitlement in OECD countries, at

varying levels o pay, is now

approaching one year (including pre-

natal and maternity leave).

But within individual countries,

dierent views on the age questionhave been one actor contributing to

very dierent policies and practices.

In the United Kingdom and the

United States, or example, a majority

o children under the age o one year

are now in some orm o child care or

a substantial portion o each working

day. Australia also appears to be moving

in the same direction. By contrast, in

Finland, Norway, and Sweden, out-o-

home care is now a rarity during the

rst year o a childs lie.

Where parents themselves have the

choice and the support to make that

choice real (Box 3) they have tended

to vote with their eet. In the Sweden

o 20 years ago, or example, inant

care was heavily subsidized and widely

used. But with the introduction o 12months parental leave at 80 per cent o

salary,** the use o nurseries declined

steeply and child care is today rare or

Swedish children under the age o 18

months (athers and mothers are each

entitled to 60 days parental leave with

a urther 360 days available to either

parent.)

Box 1 summarizes recent

neuroscientic support or extended

and well remunerated parental leave

entitlements. In brie, such

entitlements, in addition to supporting

breasteeding, help to create the

conditions or the constant, intimate,

reliable, reassuring, one-to-one

interaction with parents that all inants

need. It may be argued that it is not

only parents who are able to meet

such needs; but even i this point were

to be conceded in principle, there are

clearly enormous practical andnancial diculties in recruiting,

training, remunerating, retaining, and

supervising the large numbers o

skilled sta that would be needed to

guarantee adequate care and

stimulation or the under-ones. And in

countries where out-o-home inant

care is becoming the norm, it is

impossible not to question whether

todays knowledge o the critical

developmental needs o the very young

child is being ully taken into account.

In the light o both neuroscientic

advances and recent experience, it

would thereore seem that the interests

o the very young are best served by

policies that make it easier or at least

one parent to care or the child during

the rst 12 months o lie. Accordingly,

the value o the rst benchmark parental leave entitlement has been

set at a level o one years leave at

50 per cent o earnings (subject to a

foor or low-income parents and a

ceiling or the more afuent).

In line with the Convention on the

Rights o the Child, which states that

governments shall use their best eorts

to ensure recognition o the principle that

both parents have common responsibilities

or the upbringing and development o

the child, several OECD countries

have brought in an additional athers

only entitlement to parental leave.

Usually short and paid at 100 per cent

o salary, such leave is available on a use

it or lose it basis. In support o this,

benchmark 1 is not considered to be

met unless at least two weeks o

paternal leave is also specically

provided or.

As Fig. 1 shows, the parental leave

benchmark is currently met by 6 o

the 25 countries or which data are

available. Iceland is the only Nordic

country to all short o the required

standard.

Box 3 oers a more detailed picture byattempting to compare eectiveparental

leave entitlements in OECD countries

(weighting the length o leave by the

proportion o salary paid).

Unortunately, even generous parental

leave entitlement may ail to benet

many o the OECDs most vulnerable

children. New parents on low incomes

are usually under severe economic

pressure to return to work. And those

whose employment is inormal and

unregulated are o course ineligible or

parental leave entitlement. In part, this

deciency is compensated or by

benchmark 9, which refects eorts to

support low-income amilies.

Finally, generous parental leave

entitlements and return to work

guarantees need to go hand-in-handwith support or employers, and

especially or small businesses, which

may otherwise be reluctant to employ

or promote women o childbearing age.

Defning aims

Most experts and most long-term

studies agree that the eects o early

childhood education and care, or most

children, become unequivocally

positive at some point between the

ages o two and three providing that

the hours are not too long and that the

* Under Australias Workplace Relations Act (1996), permanent

employees who have 12 months continuous service with an

employer have a minimum entitlement to 52 weeks o shared

unpaid parental leave ollowing the birth or adoption o a child.

In practice, many employed parents in both Australia and the

United States have the right to paid parental leave under the

terms o their employment. In addition, all new parents in

Australia are entitled to a one-o birth payment which iscurrently the most generous in the OECD.

** The period o parental leave entitlement in Sweden qualifes

as employment in the calculation o retirement and pension

rights.



18/40

Box 3 Eective parental leave: a league table

The table (right) presents a more detailed comparative

picture o parental leave entitlements or those in ormal

employment. Its measure is the level o eective

parental leave calculated by weighting the duration o

leave by the percentage o salary oered.

The resulting league table reveals striking dierences

between countries, with the index running rom a high

o 116 in Norway to a low o 0 in Australia and the

United States. Overall, the level o eective parentalleave entitlement in Norway and France, or example, is

more than fve times higher than in Australia, Ireland,

Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Portugal, the Republic o

Korea, Spain, Switzerland, and the United States.

The weighting in the table takes into account that

countries adopt dierent approaches. New mothers in

the United Kingdom, or example, are entitled to a years

maternity leave at tapering rates o pay: the frst six

weeks are paid at 90 per cent o salary (ater which a

urther 33 weeks are available at a at rate o c133

($202)*

per week ollowed by an entitlement to 13weeks o unpaid leave. In Iceland, by contrast, parental

leave entitlement is shorter (39 weeks)** but divided

equally between maternity leave, paternity leave and

parental leave (available to either parent); each o these

13 week entitlement periods is paid at 80 per cent o

earnings up to a ceiling o c6,000 ($9,112) per month

with a minimum o c630 ($957) per month (which is also

paid to women taking leave rom part-time work).

Other countries oer even longer entitlements to

parental leave at lower levels o pay. Finland, France,

Germany (paid or one year only), Hungary, Norway, and

Spain (unpaid), or example, oer leave entitlements

until the childs third birthday i parents choose not to

use early childhood services (these leave entitlements

are included in the above table).

In sum, remuneration as well as duration is critical to

the impact o parental leave entitlements on the

childbearing and child caring decisions o parents.

Although in some ways a means and measure o

continued progress towards the goal o equality o

opportunity or women, leave that is too long and too

maternal can undermine progress towards gender

equality, as extended leave may make the return to workmore difcult or both mothers and employers.

* Based on the c/$ exchange rate as at March 2008.

** The extension o parental leave to one year is currentlyunder discussion in Iceland.

Entitlement to paid maternity leave (weeks)

Length of other leave (weeks)

Effective parental leave

(duration of leave multiplied by per cent of salary paid)

United Kingdom

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

Slovenia

Hungary

Mexico

Norway

Belgium

Canada

Austria

Portugal

Iceland

Spain

France

Germany

Netherlands

Italy

New Zealand

Japan

United States

Australia

Ireland

Switzerland

Republic of Korea

31

18

18

16

8

7

58

0

29

29

19

32

23

38

0

12

27

20

95

65

116

103

48

57

53

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Source: Bennett (2008), updated rom Moss & Wall (2007).

Eective parental leave = duration o leave multiplied by per cent o salary paid.

For example, 40 weeks replaced by 100 per cent o earnings has a coecient o 40;at 50 per cent o earnings, a coecient o 20.

Please note that the calculations are approximate as parental leave in some countries

can run concurrently with maternity leave. In addition, some countries oer a

percentage o salary while others oer only a percentage o average or minimum wage.

These fgures must be interpreted with caution. In Canada and the European Union, or

example, the fgures reect statutory rights to parental leave; in Australia and the

United States (excepting Caliornia), on the other hand, there is no legal entitlement to

paid parental leave and the ratings given are a reection o what usually happens in

practice. In the case o the Republic o Korea, the fgure reects entitlements which, in

practice, are not taken up by the majority o mothers.

Eective parental leave



19/40

quality o care can be assured. But

beore looking at the critical issues o

access and quality, important

dierences in the underlying aims o

early childhood education and care

should be made explicit.

In most OECD countries it is now

widely accepted that the earliest years

o lie are a time o extraordinary

opportunity, a time when skill builds

on skill and the oundations are laid or

uture cognitive and social development

(Box 1). The older and narrower

concept o child care as a means o

liberating parents or employment is

thereore giving way to a more child-

centred approach and an emphasis onthe quality o care available.

Nonetheless, quality is being

interpreted in dierent ways.

In France, the United Kingdom, and

the United States, or example, early

childhood education and care tends to

be seen primarily as preparation or

success in school. In countries such as

Denmark, Finland, Norway, and

Sweden, more ambitious aims are

being embraced. The prevailing view

in the Nordic countries is that the

earliest years o lie are a critical

opportunity not only or the

development o cognitive and linguistic

skills but also or the social skills o

sel-regulation and a developing

awareness o the emotions, needs, and

rights o others. The planning o earlychildhood services, including the

training o sta and the development

o curricula, refects these concerns.

Early childhood education and care is

thereore conceived as an investment

not only in success at school but in

society and citizenship.

No clear correlation can yet be

established between dierent systems o

early childhood education and later

outcomes. But it is worth noting that a

broader approach to early childhood

education does not appear to

disadvantage the Nordic countries

when it comes to later academic

achievement. Finland and Sweden, or

example, despite rejecting the

schoolication o the early years and

delaying the beginning o primary

school education until the age o

seven,* regularly top international

league tables or academic

achievement at age 15. Finnish 15

year-olds outperorm the students o

every other industrialized country in

average levels o prociency in maths

and science and are outperormed in

literacy only by pupils in the Republic

o Korea. It is also worth noting that

educational disadvantage whethermeasured by the proportion o

students who ail to reach a certain

minimum standard or by the gap

between the lowest achievers and the

average is lower in Finland than in

any other OECD country.xiii

These dierences in undamental

approach to early childhood education

and care do not easily lend themselves

to measurement. Benchmark 2

thereore adopts a less ambitious

approach. It asks whether countries

have researched and published a

national plan or early childhood

services, and whether that plan

includes a strategy or ensuring that

the benets o early childhood

education and care are available to

disadvantaged children. Perhaps

unsurprisingly, 19 o 25 OECDcountries are able to answer yes to

this question, though not Australia,

Canada, Ireland, Spain, Switzerland, or

the United States.

Targeted services

Beyond these undamental

considerations, OECD governments

are also aced with a wide choice o

strategies and systems or nancing

and delivering early childhood services

that are accessible to all at an aordable

cost. Should services be targeted or

universally available? Free to all, or

subsidized according to amily income?

Delivered by government agencies or

private providers? Financed directly by

unding providers or via vouchers or

cash benets to enable parents to

purchase child care in the market

place?

To promote equity while containing

costs, many OECD countries have

decided that public spending on early

childhood education and care should

be concentrated, at least initially, on the

poorest amilies. Otherwise, it isargued, resources will be spread too

thinly and the benets, instead o

promoting equity, will accrue largely to

the better o. For these reasons, large

scale programmes such as Head Startin

the United States and Sure Startin the

United Kingdom are targeted towards

disadvantaged groups (and include

both centre-based care and parental

support programmes).

There are, however, arguments against

basing early childhood services only on

targeting particular groups o children.

First, universal early childhood services

have many o the same advantages as

universally available education or older

pupils; in particular, universal services

tend to bring together children rom

dierent backgrounds rather thanreinorcing concentrations o

disadvantage. This is widely recognized

as being o signicant benet to all

children, and is regarded by many

governments as a means o preventing

social exclusion.

Second, universally available services

usually command broader and more

sustainable public support and

engender greater public concern or

quality. Too oten, services or the poor

have meant poor services.

* At age six, Finnish and Swedish children begin a transition or

preparatory school-readiness year. Until then, early education

ocuses primarily on social and emotional development and

play-based learning.



20/40

Third, universal systems can still give

priority to disadvantaged children by

channelling additional unds to child

care centres that serve low income

children or children with special

educational needs. Incentives can also

be provided to help steer the most

capable teachers to the most

disadvantaged children.

Fourth, children at risk o developing

behavioural or learning problems are

to be ound in all socio-economic

groups rather than being conned to

certain geographical areas. Programmes

targeted only on the basis o income

or geography may ail to reach the

smaller proportion but oten largerabsolute number o vulnerable

children who all outside the target

area. It has been estimated, or

example, that the Head Startand Sure

Startprogrammes in the US and the

UK are currently reaching only about

a third to a hal o their intended

target groups (though this is in part a

result o inadequate unding rather

than targeting strategiesper se).

These arguments suggest that where

possible the way orward lies down the

road adopted by countries such as the

Netherlands universal services, but

with fexible nancing systems that

can give priority to the disadvantaged

by increasing per capita expenditures

where need is greatest.

Private provision

Basic dierences in approach are also

evident in the strategies by which

dierent OECD governments und

and deliver early childhood services,

whether targeted or universal.

A mix o private and public child care

services is available in most countries.

But some governments lean towards

ree or subsidized services run directly

by government or government-unded

providers, while others avour private

provision o child care services

subsidized either directly by

government or indirectly by vouchers

or tax breaks to enable parents to

purchase child care rom pr ivate

providers. In many OECD countries,

the not-or-prot sector is also a major

provider o early childhood services

and in many cases has led the way in

promoting community involvement

and investment. It is clearly important

that such services meet the quality

standards laid down by governments;

but given that proviso, the not-or-

prot sector will continue to be

critical in increasing availability,

aordability, choice, and quality in the

provision o early childhood services.

There are also strong arguments or

partnership with private enterprise in

the provision o early childhood

services: it can inject competition,

encourage innovation, reduce

bureaucracy, widen parental choice,

attract investment, and reduce the cost

to the taxpayer. Private providers also

tend to be quicker to launch services

and to respond to parents wishes. In

principle, private services can be made

aordable to all via vouchers or other

orms o subsidy. Licensed private

providers o child care services can

then be monitored to ensure

compliance with standards o access,

quality, training, and sta-to-children

ratios (or example requiring private

child care centres to accept all children

rom a given geographical area,

including those with special needs).Finally, it can also be argued that

parents are more likely to be able to

decide what is best or their children

than governments.

For all o these reasons, the culture o

public-private partnership has become

established in many OECD countries,

and many private providers o child

care oer high quality services.

There are also arguments against the

private provision o early childhood

services. Consistent monitoring and

enorcement o standards can be both

expensive and allible. Some private

providers are tempted to reduce less

visible costs such as training, pay, and

conditions o work. And sta turnover

in or-prot services tends to be

higher (a actor which, rom the

childs point o view, translates into

instability o care).

Furthermore, what is oered by

private providers o child care is not a

consumer product but a childs once-

in-a-lietime opportunity to pass

successully through critical stages o

cognitive, emotional, and social

development. As UNICEF has arguedor many decades and in many

contexts, the childs name is today.

This gives rise to two particular

problems, both o which have to do

with the inormation available to the

consumer. First, the quality o early

childhood education and care being

provided may not always be evident to

parents either because they have

insucient knowledge o what

constitutes quality or because

providers ail to communicate

adequately the quality o the services

they oer. This problem o imperect

inormation, it may be argued, applies

to all transactions in the marketplace,

it being the responsibility o

consumers to keep themselves

inormed and make correct decisions.

But here a second danger arises; poorquality early childhood education and

care is not a product that can be

returned, repaired, exchanged, or

reunded. It may take years or the

lack o quality to show its eects; the

cause may never become apparent;

and the consequences are likely to all

not only on the child but on society

as a whole.

No one delivery strategy can be

signposted as the ideal way orward.

The one clear and common



21/40

Concerns about the child care transition have been

voiced by child psychologists and child rights activists in

many countries.

One o the most inuential critics is Australian

psychologist Steve Biddulph, whose books on parenting

have sold more than million copies worldwide.

Arguing that child care is inappropriate or under-threes,

Biddulph centres his attack on the gap between the

theory and practice o child care in the many dierent

day-care centres and nurseries he has visited:

The best nurseries struggled to meet the needs o very

young children in a group setting. The worst were

negligent, rightening and bleak: a nightmare o

bewildered loneliness that was heartbreaking to watch.Children at this age under three will want one thing

only: the individual care o their own special person.

It is a matter o balance, o getting the timing right. The

rst three years o lie are those when children are too

vulnerable, too much in need o intimate care and all it

can oer, to be let to group care by strangers.1

Oxord psychotherapist Susan Gerhardt, co-ounder o

the Oxord Parent Inant Project, has also spoken out

against child care or the very young.

What seems to be most crucial or the baby is the

extent to which the parent or caregiver is emotionally

available and present or him, to notice his signals and to

regulate his states .

The babys mother is primed to do these things or her

baby by her own hormones, and is more likely to have

the intense identication with the babys eelings that is

needed, provided she has the inner resources to do so.

Babies come into the world with the need or social

interaction to help develop and organise their brains. I

they dont get enough empathetic, attuned attention in

other words, i they dont have a parent who is interested

and reacting positively to them then important parts otheir brain simply will not develop as well.

Box 4 The critics: concerns about child care

1 Biddulph, S.,Raising Babies: Should under 3s go to

nursery?, HarperThorsons, London, 2006.

2 Gerhardt, S., Why Love Matters: How aection shapes a

babys brain, Brunner-Routledge, Scarborough (Canada) and

New York, 200.3 Biddulph, S., op. cit., pp. 32-3.

Gerhardt also comments:

It is not popular these days to spell out how great the

responsibilities o parenthood are, since women havestruggled desperately to establish themselves as mens

equals in the workplace and do not want to eel guilty

about keeping their careers or pay cheques going

while someone else takes care o their babies.2

The same point has been supported by other

commentators, including the Australian human rights

lawyer Cathleen Sherry:

No one has an absolute right to a career men or

women. I you choose to have children, your major

responsibility is to care or them properly, and i that

aects your career, it aects your career. But no onewants to acknowledge this reality.

Child care allows men to avoid responsibility or their

children. Women have to pay others to look ater the

children because men arent willing to cut back on

their work hours to do their share o the parenting. I

women go back to work, it should be men, not

children, who alter their lives accordingly.

In maternity hospitals, it is no longer the done thing to

have newborn babies lined up in a nursery with a

couple o nurses looking ater them. That is seen as

terrible. Mothers are stro

innocenti report card 8 - the child care transition: a league table of early childhood education and...

Documents