Today, every nation provides early-childhood education. It may be financed by the government or privately. It may be for a privileged few or for almost every child (Georgeson & Payler, 2013).

In France, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, more than 95 percent of all 3- to 5-year-olds are enrolled in government-sponsored schools. Norway also pays for education for 1- and 2-year-olds, and 80 percent of them attend (Ellingsaeter, 2014). The reasons for the international variations are historical, economic, and political, but one message from child development research has reached almost every parent and politician worldwide—young children are amazingly capable and eager to learn.

Developmental research does not translate directly into specific practices in early education, so no program can legitimately claim to be exactly what Piaget or Vygotsky would prescribe (Hatch, 2012). It seems fair to say that developmental theories and understanding of children can inspire educators, suggest hypotheses, and advance ideas, but applications to each child depend on analysis and reflection.

Beyond the amazing potential of young children to learn, another robust conclusion from research on children’s learning seems not yet universally understood: Quality matters (Gambaro et al., 2014). If the home learning environment is poor, a good preschool program aids health, cognition, and social skills. If, instead, a family provides excellent education, children still may benefit from attending a high-quality preschool, but not as much as less fortunate children.

Indeed, it is better for children to be in excellent home care than in a low-quality, overcrowded day-care center. One expert criticizes inadequate subsidies that result in low-quality care: “Parents can find cheap babysitting that’s bad for their kids on their own. They don’t need government help with that (Barnett, quoted in Samuels & Klein, 2013, p. 21).

Quality is difficult to judge, and competition does not necessarily improve it: “[B]ecause quality is hard for parents to observe, competition seems dominated by price.” To save money and make a profit, programs hire fewer teachers—so saving money may reduce quality (Gambaro et al., 2014, p. 22).

The United States has some excellent early-childhood programs, but most are not that good (Magnuson & Waldfogel, 2014). It is a mistake to conclude that mother care is better than care by another relative or nonrelative, or vice versa. Some mothers are fabulous, others disastrous. The same is true for fathers, grandmothers, day-care centers (unless strictly regulated by the government), and so on.

Quality cannot be judged by the name of a program or by its sponsorship. Educational institutions for 3- to 5-year-olds are called preschools, nursery schools, day-care centers, pre-primary programs, pre-K classes, and kindergartens. Sponsors can be public (federal, state, or city), private, religious, or corporate. Further, children, parents, and cultures differ, so an excellent program for one child might be less effective for another.

Professional assessment of quality also seems inadequate, if the goal of preschool is to further math, reading, and social skills (Sabol et al., 2013). However, one aspect—child-teacher interaction—does correlate with more learning. A bad sign is a teacher who sits and watches; look for teachers who talk, laugh, guide, and play with the children.

In order to sort through this variety, we review here some of the distinctions among types of programs. One broad distinction concerns the program goals. Is it designed to encourage creative individuality, in which case it may be called child-centered; or is it to prepare the child for formal education, in which case it may be called teacher-directed; or is it to give skills to low-SES children so they can learn in school, in which case it is an intervention program (such as Head Start).

299

Many programs are called child-centered, or developmental, because they stress each child’s development and growth. Teachers in such programs believe children need to follow their own interests rather than adult directions. For example, they agree that “children should be allowed to select many of their own activities from a variety of learning areas that the teacher has prepared” (Lara-Cinisomo et al., 2011). The physical space and the materials (such as dress-up clothes, art supplies, puzzles, blocks, and other toys) are arranged to allow exploration.

Most child-centered programs encourage artistic expression. Some educators argue that young children are gifted in seeing the world more imaginatively than older people do. According to advocates of child-centered programs, this peak of creative vision should be encouraged; children need many opportunities to tell stories, draw pictures, dance, and make music for their own delight.

That does not mean that academics are ignored. Advocates of math learning, for instance, believe that children have a natural interest in numbers and that child-centered schools can guide those interests as children grow (Stipek, 2013).

Child-centered programs are often influenced by Piaget, who emphasized that each child will discover new ideas if given a chance, or by Vygotsky, who thought that children learn from other children, with adult guidance. Some childhood educators believe that Piaget and Vygotsky advocate opposite approaches, with Piaget less likely to want the teacher to guide and instruct the child. Both, however, seek to bring out the child’s inner strengths, so both can be considered child-centered.

300

One type of child-centered school began in the slums of Rome in 1907, when Maria Montessori opened a nursery school (Standing, 1998). She believed that children needed structured, individualized projects to give them a sense of accomplishment. Her students completed puzzles, used sponges and water to clean tables, traced shapes, and so on.

Contemporary Montessori schools still emphasize individual pride and achievement, presenting many literacy-related tasks (e.g., outlining letters and looking at books) to young children. Specific materials differ from those that Montessori developed, but the underlying philosophy is the same. Children seek out learning tasks; they do not sit quietly in groups while a teacher instructs them. That makes Montessori programs child-centered (Lillard, 2013).

This philosophy seems to work. A study of 5-year-olds in inner-city Milwaukee who were chosen by lottery to attend Montessori programs found that the children were advanced in prereading (such as recognizing letters), math, and theory of mind, compared with their peers in other schools (Lillard & Else-Quest, 2006).

Some benefits became more apparent by middle school (a phenomenon called a sleeper effect, because the benefits seem to hibernate for a while) (Lillard, 2013). The probable explanation: Montessori tasks lead to self-confidence, curiosity, and exploration, which eventually motivate children to learn to read, calculate, and so on.

Another form of early-childhood education is Reggio Emilia, named after the town in Italy where it began. In Reggio Emilia, children are encouraged to master skills that are not usually taught in North American schools until age 7 or so, such as writing and using tools (hammers, knives, and so on).

Reggio schools do not provide large-group instruction, with lessons in, say, forming letters or cutting paper. Instead, “Every child is a creative child, full of potential” (Gandini et al., 2005, p. 1), with personal learning needs and artistic drives. Measurement of achievement, such as standardized testing to see whether children recognize the 26 letters of the alphabet, is antithetical to the conviction that each child should explore and learn in his or her own way. Each child’s learning is documented via scrapbooks, photos, and daily notes—not to measure progress, but to help the child and the parent take pride in accomplishments (Caruso, 2013).

Appreciation of the arts is evident. Every Reggio Emilia school originally had a studio, an artist, and space to encourage creativity (Forbes, 2012). Consequently, as more schools in many nations follow the Reggio Emilia model, they all should have a large central room with many hubs of activity and a low child/adult ratio. Children’s art is displayed on white walls and hung from high ceilings, and floor-to-ceiling windows open to a spacious, plant-filled playground. Big mirrors are part of the schools’ décor—again, with the idea of fostering individuality and self-expression. However, individuality does not mean that children do not work together. On the contrary, group projects are encouraged.

301

Often those group projects include exploring some aspect of the natural world. One analysis of Reggio Emilia in the United States found “a science-rich context that triggered and supported preschoolers’ inquiries and effectively engaged preschoolers’ hands, heads, and hearts with science” (Inan et al., 2010, p. 1186).

Teacher-directed preschools stress academics, often taught by one adult to the entire group. The curriculum includes learning the names of letters, numbers, shapes, and colors according to a set timetable; every child naps, snacks, and goes to the bathroom on schedule as well. Children learn to sit quietly and listen to the teacher. Praise and other reinforcements are given for good behavior, and time-outs (brief separation from activities) are imposed to punish misbehavior.

In teacher-directed programs, the serious work of schooling is distinguished from the unstructured play of home. According to a study of preschool educators, some teachers endorse ideas that indicate their teacher-directed philosophy, such as that children should form letters correctly before they are allowed to write a story (Lara-Cinisomo et al., 2011).

The goal of teacher-directed programs is to make all children “ready to learn” when they enter elementary school. For that reason, basic skills are stressed, including precursors to reading, writing, and arithmetic, perhaps through teachers asking questions that children answer together in unison. Behavior is also taught, as children learn to respect adults, to follow schedules, to hold hands when they go on outings, and so on.

Children practice forming letters, sounding out words, counting objects, and writing their names. If a 4-year-old learns to read, that is success. (In a child-centered program, that might arouse suspicion that there was too little time to play or socialize.) Good behavior, not informal social interaction, is rewarded—leading one critic to suggest that “readiness” is too narrowly defined (Winter, 2011).

302

Many teacher-directed programs were inspired by behaviorism, which emphasizes step-by-step learning and repetition, with reinforcement (praise, gold stars, prizes) for accomplishment. Another inspiration for teacher-directed programs comes from information-processing research indicating that children who have not learned basic vocabulary and listening skills by kindergarten often fall behind in primary school. Many state legislatures mandate that preschoolers master specific concepts, an outcome best achieved by teacher-directed learning (Bracken & Crawford, 2010).

Most developmentalists advocate child-centered programs. They fear that the child’s joy and creativity will be squashed if there are specific goals set for all children. As Penelope Leach wrote: “Goals come from the outside…. It is important that people see early learning as coming from inside children because that’s what makes clear its interconnectedness with play, and therefore the inappropriateness of many ‘learning goals’” (Leach, 2011, p. 17).

Many developmentalists resist legislative standards and academic tests for young children, arguing that social skills and creative play are essential for healthy development but difficult to measure. (Developmental Link: Children’s play is discussed in Chapter 10.) Finding the right balance between formal and informal assessment, and between child-centered and teacher-directed learning, is a goal of many educators as they try to ensure that each child has the learning environment that works best for him or her (Fuligni et al., 2012).

Teachers’ classroom behaviors do not necessarily follow what developmentalists recommend (Tonyan et al., 2013). Even teachers who say they are child-centered—especially if they are novice teachers—tend to be quite teacher-directed. They might tell children what to do instead of asking them their ideas. Teachers with more experience or training are more often consistent in belief and behavior—and teacher-directed (Wen et al., 2011).

The pressure for teachers to instruct, not facilitate, also comes from many parents. Those who are immigrants from Africa, Asia, and Latin America are particularly likely to want their children to learn academic skills and respect adult authority. Thus, they often seek teacher-directed preschools instead of child-centered ones. That may explain enrollment statistics from Norwegian preschools, which tend to be child-centered. Although Norwegian schools are free beginning at age 1, among immigrants, 92 percent of Western European, North American, and Australian 1- to 5-year-olds attend, compared to only 70 percent of those from other continents (Ellingsaeter, 2014).

Cultural differences may be crucial. Historically in China, teacher-directed curricula were the norm, with expectations for basic skills that every child should learn. Preschool children still wear uniforms, follow schedules, and so on, all set by the teachers and higher authorities, in accord with the culture. Recently, the Chinese government decided that young children needed to be more creative (Vong, 2013). However, implementation of creativity in China is not what a North American teacher would expect.

One teacher thought she was following that new directive by allowing the children to draw their own pictures. First, she fried an egg in view of the class and asked the children to draw an egg. “Most children drew a big one and colored the centre of the egg a bright yellow color. Some drew several small ones. When a child mixed yellow with white colors, the teacher corrected her” (Vong, 2013, p. 185).

303

Several programs designed for children from low-SES families were established in the United States decades ago. Some solid research on the results of these programs is now available.

In the early 1960s, millions of young children in the United States were thought to need a “head start” on their formal education to foster better health and cognition before first grade. Consequently since 1965, the federal government has funded a massive program for 4-year-olds called Head Start.

The goals for Head Start have changed over the decades, from lifting families out of poverty to promoting literacy, from providing dental care and immunizations to teaching Standard English. Although initially most Head Start programs were child-centered, they have become increasingly teacher-directed as waves of legislators have approved and shaped them. Children learn whatever their Head Start teachers and curricula emphasize. Not surprisingly, specific results vary by program and cohort.

For example, many low-income 3- and 4-year-olds in the United States are not normally exposed to math. After one Head Start program engaged children in a board game with numbers, their mathematical understanding advanced significantly (Siegler, 2009).

A 2007 congressional reauthorization of funding for Head Start included a requirement for extensive evaluation to answer two questions:

The answers were not as dramatic as either advocates or detractors had hoped (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). Head Start improved literacy and math skills, oral health, and parental responsiveness during early childhood. However, many academic benefits faded by first grade.

One explanation is that, unlike when Head Start began, many children in the comparison group were enrolled in other early-childhood programs—sometimes excellent ones, sometimes not. Another explanation is the elementary schools for low-SES children were of low quality, so the Head Start children sank back to the norm.

The research found that benefits were strongest for children with the lowest family incomes, for those living in rural areas, and for those with disabilities (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010). These children were least likely to find other sources of early education. Most Head Start children advanced in language and social skills, but by elementary school, the comparison children often caught up, with one exception: Head Start children were still ahead in vocabulary.

304

That finding also supports what you know about language development. Any good preschool will introduce children to words they would not learn at home. Children will fast-map those words, gaining a linguistic knowledge base that facilitates expanded vocabulary throughout life.

A recent study of children born in 2001 found that those who went to Head Start were advanced in math and language, but, compared to similar children who had only their mother’s care, they had more behavior problems, according to their teachers (R. Lee et al., 2014). Of course, one interpretation of that result is that the teachers reacted negatively to the self-assertion of the Head Start children, rating the children’s attitude a problem when really it was the teachers who had the problem.

National data have discovered something that even defenders of Head Start find problematic. Many Hispanic children are from low-income families and hence eligible for Head Start. However, relatively few of them participate.

There are many plausible reasons for this. One reason is fear of deportation. Although almost all young Latinos are citizens, their parents might be afraid that enrolling them would jeopardize other members of the family. Another reason is that the parents may be unaware of the educational benefits of preschool education. A third reason may be that, since few Head Start teachers speak Spanish, parents and teachers have difficulty communicating, so parents stay away. For whatever reason, many children from Spanish-speaking homes avoid preschool and enter kindergarten with poor English language skills, creating problems that are discussed in Chapters 12 and 15.

This discussion of philosophies, practices, and programs may give the impression that the research on early-childhood cognition is contradictory. That is not true. Specifics are debatable, but empirical evidence and longitudinal evaluation find that preschool education advances learning. Ideally, each program has a curriculum that guides practice, all the adults collaborate, and experienced teachers respond to each child.

The best evidence comes from three longitudinal programs that enrolled children for years, sometimes beginning with home visits in infancy, sometimes continuing in after-school programs through first grade. One program, called Perry (or High/Scope), was spearheaded in Michigan (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997); another, called Abecedarian, got its start in North Carolina (Campbell et al., 2001); a third, called Child–Parent Centers, began in Chicago (Reynolds, 2000). Because of the political context that existed when these programs began, all were focused on children from low-SES families.

All three programs compared experimental groups of children with matched control groups and reached the same conclusion: Early education has substantial long-term benefits that become most apparent when children are in the third grade or later. By age 10, children who had been enrolled in any one of these three programs scored higher on math and reading achievement tests than did other children from the same backgrounds, schools, and neighborhoods. They were less likely to be placed in special classes for children with special needs or to repeat a year of school.

An advantage of decades of longitudinal research is that teenagers and adults who received early education can be compared with those who did not. For all three programs, early investment paid off. In adolescence, the children who had undergone intensive preschool education had higher aspirations, possessed a greater sense of achievement, and were less likely to have been abused. As young adults, they were more likely to attend college and less likely to go to jail. As middle-aged adults, they were more often employed, paying taxes, healthy, and not needing government subsidies (Reynolds & Ou, 2011; Schweinhart et al., 2005; Campbell et al., 2014).

305

All three research projects found that providing direct cognitive training, with specific instruction in various school-readiness skills, was useful. Each child’s needs and talents were considered—a circumstance made possible because the child/adult ratio was low. This combined child-centered and teacher-directed programs, with all the teachers trained together and cooperating, so children were not confused. Teachers involved parents in their children’s education, and each program included strategies to enhance the home–school connection.

These programs were expensive (ranging from $6,000 to $18,000 annually per child in 2014 dollars). From a developmental perspective, the decreased need for special education and other social services later on made early education a “wise investment” (Duncan & Magnuson, 2013, p. 128). Additional benefits to society over the child’s lifetime, including increased employment and tax revenues, as well as reduced crime, are worth much more than the cost of the programs.

The greatest lifetime return came from boys from high-poverty neighborhoods in the Chicago preschool program: The social benefit over their lifetime was more than 12 times the cost (Reynolds et al., 2011). Unfortunately costs are immediate and benefits are long-term. Consequently, some legislators and voters are unwilling to fund expensive intervention programs that do not pay off until decades later.

That may be changing. In some nations, preschool education is now considered a right, not a privilege: Young children from families of all incomes are educated without cost to the parents. Beyond those nations already mentioned, many others offer everyone some free preschool or give parents a child-care subsidy. For example, England provides 15 free hours per week, New Zealand 20, and Canada pays $100 a month for each child under age 6.

Among developed nations, the United States is an outlier, least likely to support new mothers or young children. However in the past decade, some states (e.g., Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois) and some cities (e.g., New York, Boston, Cleveland, San Antonio, Los Angeles) have offered preschool to every 4-year-old. Although this investment generally results in fewer children needing special education later on, implementation and results are controversial—a topic for further research.

As of 2012, 40 states sponsored some public education for young children—usually only for 4-year-olds. In 2012–2013, more than a million children (1,338,737) attended state-sponsored preschools, including Head Start. That is 28 percent of all 4-year-olds, twice as many as a decade earlier (Barnett et al., 2013).

Most state programs pay only for children living in poverty, but many wealthy families pay tuition for preschool education. Private schools may be very expensive—as much as $30,000 a year. Not surprisingly, in the United States, families in the highest income quartile are more likely to have their 3- and 4-year-olds in an educational program (see Visualizing Development, p. 306).

The increases in preschool for 4-year-olds is good news, but developmentalists wish more younger children were in good preschools. In contrast to years past, much more is known about what young children can learn; 2- and 3-year-olds are capable of learning languages, concepts, and much else. What a child learns before age 6 is pivotal for later schooling and adult life. The amazing potential of young children is also a theme of the next chapter, where we discuss other kinds of learning—in emotional regulation, social skills, and more.

306

307

308