Research focus: Are the current definitions and indicators of structural quality in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) appropriate for policy making on national, local and operational level, and are they suitable in comparative research considering holistic experience of young children in ECEC settings?

Early Childhood Education and Care services have achieved a secure place in educational and social policy in many countries. Children, their (working) parents and the economy benefit from high quality services now and in future. However, the conceptualization of quality in ECEC is inconsistent. Recently, a drift towards a narrative of investment in human capital and of quality and high returns (Moss, 2014) and a strong focus on learning outcomes (Paananen, Kumpulainen and Lipponen, 2015) have emerged. ECEC is currently informed by a vast body of research aiming to identify high quality learning environments and their impact on positive outcomes for children, as exemplified by The Early Childhood Environment Rating System – Revised (ECERS-R) (Harms, Clifford and Cryer, 2015) and others. ECEC quality is divided into structural and process quality. Policy determines regulatable structural features which in turn impact on process quality, though the extent is debated (Burchinal, 2018). Commonly included structural features comprise staff-child ratios, group size, group composition, curriculum and staff qualifications (Howard et al., 2024; Sim et al., 2019). Internationally accepted and consistently applied definitions of indicators, like staff-child ratios do not exist (Munton et al., 2002), despite the claim that they are easily observable (Dalgaard, Bondebjerg and Svinth, 2022).

Relying on a straightforward statistical relationship (ratio) of adults and children in a group or setting, or on numerical group size, leaves other important elements related to group composition untapped. For example, Setodji, Le and Schaack (2012) demonstrate that the daily transitions of children and staff within a setting disrupt continuity of care and with that, bias data on children’s exposure to highly qualified staff. Other longer-term vertical transitions within a setting between different age or skills groups are responses to policy requirements and the aim to fill places (Cryer, Hurwitz and Wolery, 2000). However, these practices do not heed the demand for continuity of care, with its link to attachment theory, based on the assumption that strong adult child relationships are conducive to learning. Children’s accounts of their experiences in ECEC highlight the importance of their relationships with peers and staff, at times in the context of structural characteristics (Pihlainen et al., 2022).

I will discuss a range of structural characteristics, beginning with staff-child ratios and how these interact with other structural dimensions of ECEC as they have been established over time in national or local contexts, responding to statutory requirements, discourses of good practice or as they emerge in the often less tangible realm of path dependency. I will map their effects on the daily composition of groups of children and adults displaying a wide-ranging variety. It allows a shift of attention to the relational aspects, including the development of social and emotional skills often linked to school readiness, (dis)continuity of care, and the perceived role of peer relationships in ECEC. 

The insights of my paper are achieved by a mapping exercise based on research on ECEC quality as presented in peer reviewed research papers and reports of official international institutions. Literature will be examined on the inclusions of structural quality indicators, their definition and how they are measured. Results of exciting measurements are analysed to draw cautious conclusion about underpinning ECEC policies and path-dependency indicators. The starting point is Howard et al.’s (2024) systematic review “concerning the relationship between discernible characteristics of process quality in ECEC (adult-child interactions and associated context and content) and child development outcomes” (p. 5). Their PRISMA guided study resulted in 90 studies selected and represents a good breadth of relevant research, albeit all with an orientation towards consequential practical arguments for ECEC. I scrutinized these papers in respect to staff-child ratios, groups size, and group composition to retrieve definitions, ways of measuring indicators and/or resulting and included data. As a further step I will seek information on the policy context for each of the studies, including the statutory requirements or guidance regarding staff-child ratios, group size, group compositions and staff qualification. I will systematically search data bases like Web of Science, Education Abstracts, and ERIC. Search terms include a variety of labels for ECEC (like ECCE, ‘early years education’, kindergarten), ‘structural quality’, ratio*, group size, composition and so on. I anticipate that the search results in studies applying other definitions of ECEC quality, for example with an orientation towards capability theory or a focus of relational well-being (see Street, 2021) and adopt, for example, a discourse of ECEC as a right (Paananen, Kumpulainen and Lipponen, 20156). I will explore whether structural elements of ECEC feature and the role they take. Potentially relevant literature within these articles will be followed up and a critical examination of publications with focus on international comparison, like the Eurydice report (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2019), the ‘Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey 2018’ (Sim et al., 2019) and other OECD publications will be included. Where possible, I will analyse national policy (if published in English or German) and statistics on ECEC.

The analysis of the 90 papers utilized by Howard et al. (2024) showed a patchy inclusion of structural quality indicators and reflects an inherent weakness in available data. Separated from almost all information of local context, and the lack of explicit description of national policy frameworks makes it impossible to ascertain the policy influence. A descriptive map of the definitions and applications of structural quality indicators as used in ECEC research, including national policy and practice contexts, contributes to the evaluation of quantitative studies interested in the effects of service provision quality on children’s outcomes. It aims to contribute to a better understanding of inconclusive research findings on an abundance of relations between quality and outcomes. It indicates where caution in respect to compatibility in comparative studies may be advisable and contributes to the discussion on the potential or desirability of a universal ECEC quality measurement or implementation instrument. By demonstrating the complex relationships between ECEC policy, structural conditions in various settings, expectations on ECEC provision (ranging from allowing parents to work, educating children, caring for children and/or promoting school readiness) and advocating more attention to detail, the benefits of a shift towards children’s experiences arise. For example, would a social network analysis (Borgatti, Everett and Johnson, 2018) of ECEC groups/rooms highlight a variety of different learning opportunities depending on group composition considering age range, languages spoken, attendance patterns, etc? It may shed light on what supports and hinders continuity of care, and on ECEC environments favourable for developing the so-called softer elements of school readiness. I will propose an additional indicator of structural quality, capturing the fragmentation/continuity due to meeting peers and adults who care for them across a week and the longer-term internal transitions within a setting, experienced by children.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G. and Johnson, J. C. (2018) Analyzing Social Networks. 2nd edn. London: SAGE. Burchinal, M. (2018) 'Measuring Early Care and Education Quality', Child Development Perspectives, 12(1), pp. 3-9. Cryer, D., Hurwitz, S. and Wolery, M. (2000) 'Continuity of caregiver for infants and toddlers in center-based child care: Report on a survey of center practices', Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4), pp. 497-514. Dalgaard, N. T., Bondebjerg, A. and Svinth, L. (2022) 'Caregiver/child ratio and group size in Scandinavian Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC): a systematic review of qualitative research', Nordic Psychology, 75(4), pp. 397-428. European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2019) Key Data on Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe – 2019 Edition: Eurydice Report, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available at: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/sites/eurydice/files/kd_ecec_2019_report_en.pdf. Harms, T., Clifford, R. M. and Cryer, D. (2015) Early Childhood Environment Raging Scale. 3rd edn. New York and London: Teachers College Press. Howard, S. J., Lewis, K. L., Walter, E., Verenikina, I. and Kervin, L. K. (2024) 'Measuring the Quality of Adult–Child Interactions in the Context of ECEC: a Systematic Review on the Relationship with Developmental and Educational Outcomes', Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), pp. 6. Moss, P. (2014) Transformative Change and Real Utopias in Early Childhood Education: A story of democracy, experimentation and potentiality. Abington: Routledge. Munton, T., with Mooney, A., Moss, P., Petrie, P., Clark, A., Woolner, J., Barclay, L., Mallardo, M. R. and Barrau, S. (2002) Research on Ratios, Group Size and Staff Qualifications and Training in Early Years and Childcare Settings, London: Thomas Coram Research Unit, Institute of Education of London. Paananen, M., Kumpulainen, K. and Lipponen, L. (2015) 'Quality drift within a narrative of investment in early childhood education'. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(5), pp. 690-705. Pihlainen, K., Reunamo, J., Sajaniemi, N. and Kärnä, E. (2022) 'Children’s negative experiences as a part of quality evaluation in early childhood education and care', Early Child Development and Care, 192(5), pp. 795-806. Setodji, C. M., Le, V.-N. and Schaack, D. (2012) 'Accounting for movement between childcare classrooms: Does it change teacher effects interpretations?', Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 33(1), pp. 1-12. Sim, M. P. Y., Bélanger, J., Stancel-Piątak, A. and Karoly, L. (2019) 'Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey 2018 Conceptual Framework'. Street, M. (2021) 'Theorising child well-being: Towards a framework for analysing Early Childhood Education policy in England'. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 19(2), pp. 211-224.