Differences in early childhood skills strongly contribute to the intergenerational transmission of socioeconomic status (Durham et al., 2007; Skopek & Passaretta, 2021) and it has been argued that early interventions are the most effective to improve later skill formation (Heckman, 2006). A number of targeted interventions have been tested in the U.S. but other countries have implemented more largely early schooling. In France, preprimary school attendance at age 3 has been universal for many years and became compulsory in 2019. Children can further be admitted after their second birthday in preprimary schools. In 2020, around 10% of 2 year-olds children were enrolled in pre-primary education (DEPP - Ministère de l’Éducation, 2021) but this proportion varies largely across regions and is twice higher in the most socially disadvantaged areas (Abdouni, 2016).

We study the effects of participation in early schooling between age 2 and 3 on children’s development and are able to take into account a variety of developmental domains: language skills, motor skills, social and autonomy skills and non-verbal reasoning. We further investigate whether early schooling can contribute to reduce social inequalities in children development by estimating the heterogeneous effect of early schooling participation by family background. While there is some evidence that starting school early may narrow the gaps in cognitive skills for disadvantaged children (Suziedelyte & Zhu, 2015), this effect may not be systematic. In Germany, a study concludes that preschool attendance reduces ethnic educational inequalities but only when immigrant children attend preschool with a beneficial social composition (Biedinger et al., 2008).

Families who can enroll their child in preprimary school at age 2 may differ significantly from those who enroll their child at age 3, in terms of social origin and aspirations. Children enrolled in early schooling may also be positively selected in terms of development prior to school attendance. A naïve estimate of the association between early schooling participation and later skills may thus under- or over- estimate the benefits of early schooling participation. We address this selection bias by relying on a rich longitudinal survey which allows us to control for detailed indicators of family background, aspirations and home environment and, most importantly, for children’s skills measured before their potential entrance into preprimary school.

The analysis draws upon the survey “ELFE”, a national longitudinal survey following French children from the time of their birth, in 2011. The survey includes regular phone interviews with the children’s parents, home visits, and tests administered in schools for a subsample of children. Our main variable of interest is early schooling participation coded as a binary variable indicating whether the child entered preprimary school between age 2 and 3. Outcomes are assessed at age 3.5. Language, motor and social and autonomy skills are measured using a French version of the Child Development Inventory (CDI) (Duyme & Capron, 2010). Non-verbal reasoning is measured by the test picture similarities module of the British Ability Scales (BAS). The analytical sample includes 11 880 children with information on early schooling participation and outcomes. In a second step, we are planning to estimate the effect of early schooling participation on outcomes at the end of preprimary education (age 5.5) and in the first grade of primary school (age 6.5). Our control variables include information on the child (sex, twin birth, month of birth, first child, number of siblings, chronical disease and maternal age) and about his/her social background (highest degree of the mother, mother's working status, household income, foreign language is spoken at home, Immigrant background of the mother and family structure). We also control for the pre-school experience of the child, at age 2 (Main childcare, family preferences for early schooling and types of childcare, screen use). Covariates regarding the child’s environment at age 3.5 include: schooling and care experiences (schooling intensity, school sector, class size, participation in before/after school activities and out-of-school activities); parental involvement (whether the parents talk with the child about school, attendance to the parent-teacher conference, Number of home learning activities), atmosphere at home (quiet and/or tidy) and scree use. Finally, we control for language and motor skills when the child is 2, just before possible enrollment in early schooling. Language skills are assessed using a French short version of the MacArthur-Bates inventory (Kern et al., 2010) and motor skills using the sum of seven items reported by the parents. The association between early schooling and skills is estimated with OLS regression. In a second step, we are planning to use an instrumental variable to account for omitted variable bias. The variation in the supply of preschool spots within each municipality would be used as an instrument.

Preliminary results show that early schooling is associated, on average, with a higher score in the Child Development Inventory at age 3.5 (+13% of a standard deviation) but this association differs largely by developmental domain. It is larger for motor skills (a fifth of a standard deviation), language skills (+6% of a standard variation) while it is not statistically significant for social and autonomy skills nor for non-verbal reasoning. The analysis further shows that the association between early schooling and skills at age 3.5 is twice as large without controls for children’s language and motor skills prior to school enrolment. This result confirms that children who have access to early schooling at age 2 tend to be positively selected in terms of school readiness. Regarding the contribution of early schooling to reduce social inequalities, we expect its positive impact to be larger for disadvantaged families, following prior literature (Suziedelyte & Zhu, 2015). Another hypothesis which will be tested is that early schooling benefits more children who were in informal childcare (family care) than those who benefited from center-based childcare provision until age 2.

Abdouni, S. (2016). La scolarisation à deux ans: En éducation prioritaire, un enfant sur cinq va à l’école dès deux ans (No. 19; Note d’information). DEPP. https://www.education.gouv.fr/la-scolarisation-deux-ans-en-education-prioritaire-un-enfant-sur-cinq-va-l-ecole-des-deux-ans-1673 Biedinger, N., Becker, B., & Rohling, I. (2008). Early Ethnic Educational Inequality: The Influence of Duration of Preschool Attendance and Social Composition. European Sociological Review, 24(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcn001 DEPP - Ministère de l’Éducation. (2021). Repères et références statistiques sur les enseignements, la formation et la recherche. https://www.education.gouv.fr/reperes-et-references-statistiques-2021-308228 Durham, R. E., Farkas, G., Hammer, C. S., Bruce Tomblin, J., & Catts, H. W. (2007). Kindergarten oral language skill: A key variable in the intergenerational transmission of socioeconomic status. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 25(4), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2007.03.001 Duyme, M., & Capron, C. (2010). L’Inventaire du Développement de l’Enfant (IDE). Normes et validation françaises du Child Development Inventory (CDI). Devenir, Vol. 22(1), 13–26. Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children. Science, 312(5782), 1900–1902. Kern, S., Langue, J., Zesiger, P., & Bovet, F. (2010). Adaptations françaises des versions courtes des inventaires du développement communicatif de MacArthur-Bates. 14. Skopek, J., & Passaretta, G. (2021). Socioeconomic Inequality in Children’s Achievement from Infancy to Adolescence: The Case of Germany. Social Forces, 100(1), 86–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaa093 Suziedelyte, A., & Zhu, A. (2015). Does early schooling narrow outcome gaps for advantaged and disadvantaged children? Economics of Education Review, 45, 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.02.001