University of Delaware explores nine facets of quality ECEC

Researchers from the University of Delaware have analysed how early childhood education and care (ECEC) services across the United States meet nine quality indicators. 

The findings are of note not only in a global ECEC context, but also as a counterpoint to the Australian experience. Unlike Australia, the United States does not have a national system which is used to evaluate and measure quality, with this instead being the domain of the individual states. 

University of Delaware Assistant Professor Anamarie Whitaker worked with Gerilyn Slicker, of the University of Nevada and Jing Tang of Child Trends to analyse how over 5,000 ECEC centres met different quality indicators (such as teacher qualifications) put forth by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). 

They found that, on average, ECEC centres met approximately six of nine possible quality benchmarks, given information available in the dataset, and only 2.5 per cent of centres met all nine benchmarks.

“While we were surprised at the small percentage of ECEC centres meeting all benchmarks, it is important to recognise that each of these quality benchmarks requires financial and time investments by providers,” AP Whitaker said. 

“Without adequate public support it may be difficult for programs to meet all benchmarks. Additionally, more research is needed to understand the causal link between each quality benchmark and children’s development. Understanding these relationships will help further tailor public policy to best support high-quality early care and education.”

Given the importance of ECE, NIEER researchers developed quality benchmarks for state run pre-K programs (equivalent to the Australian three and four year old preschool experience). 

Using publicly available data from the National Survey of Early Care and Education, AP Whitaker and her co-authors matched quality indicators in the dataset with those from NIEER (to the best extent possible). 

They found that the most commonly met benchmarks among ECE centres were teacher-child ratio (with 90 per cent meeting this benchmark), curriculum use (87.4 per cent), developmental screenings for children and referrals to community providers (85.9 per cent), and maximum class size (82.7 per cent).

The least frequently met benchmarks included teacher degree (37.5 per cent) and staff professional development (30.9 per cent). Less than 6 per cent of centres met a total of under three benchmarks, and less than 3 per cent of centres met all nine benchmarks examined.

AP Whitaker and her co-authors also identified five groups of centres based on the quality indicators that they met: 

1) most quality indicators met; 

2) smaller classroom ratios, but fewer teacher education and workforce support indicators met; 

3) less screening support, but more teacher education and workforce support indicators met; 

4) fewest indicators met; and, 

5) larger teacher-to-student ratios. 

Identifying these groups among ECEC centres can help policymakers understand the patterns in how centres meet quality indicators, which can then help them develop policies that support centres in allocating their limited human and financial resources.

AP Whitaker and her co-authors also looked at program, community and policy factors that influenced how different ECEC centres tended to meet quality indicators. For example, the location of the centre influenced how ECEC centres met quality indicators. Centres located in densely populated urban areas were 7.71 times more likely to be in the ECEC group with larger class ratios.

“While more research is needed to understand the direct influence of location on quality indicators, we are seeing a tension between a strong demand for ECEC and the space and workforce limitations that allow for additional ECEC centres,” AP Whitaker said. “Adding a staff member to a centre is a very expensive endeavor, so there are clear cost limitations here as well.”

Given these results, AP Whitaker and her co-authors emphasise the importance of considering how federal- and state-level support could assist programs in weighing these difficult decisions and allocating resources.

Access the original coverage of this story here.