Early Childhood Programs in Other Nations: Goals … Childhood Programs in...Early Childhood Programs in Other Nations: Goals and Outcomes 97 assessing the validity of the research

9494

Early Childhood Programsin Other Nations:Goals and OutcomesSarane Spence Boocock

Abstract

United States interest in the potential early childhood programs have for improvingoutcomes for children is shared by policymakers and researchers in many othernations. Throughout the world, enrollments in preschool and child care programs arerising. This article reviews international research documenting how participation inearly childhood programs influenced children’s later development and success inschool. Studies conducted in 13 nations (Australia, Canada, Colombia, France,Germany, India, Ireland, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey, and theUnited Kingdom) are included, along with key features of each nation’s provision ofearly childhood programs.

The article summarizes conclusions that are supported by research in various countries,indicating that participation in preschool promotes cognitive development and schoolsuccess, although the specific type of program attended matters little. Preschool expe-rience helps low-income children narrow, but not close, the achievement gap separat-ing them from more advantaged children. International evidence also suggests thatmaternal employment and reliance on child care do not harm children and may yieldbenefits if the child care is of good quality. The author draws insights from the experi-ence of other nations concerning such issues as defining quality, the effectiveness ofearly childhood programs in redressing social and economic inequities, and under-standing how research can influence policy.

Although most of the research discussed in this journal issue pertainsto early childhood programs in the United States, rising preschoolenrollments and increased utilization of nonparental child care are

worldwide trends. The demand for educationally oriented preschool serviceshas been fueled by the growing awareness of the developmental importanceof the early years of life; the years from three to five are increasingly seen asan auspicious time for children to begin their education. The economic pres-sures that promote employment by mothers have played a role as well. Theauthor of a recent international review of early childhood education notessimilarities between the United States and other countries: “increasing par-ticipation of mothers in the labor force, dwindling family size, and disap-

The Future of Children LONG-TERM OUTCOMES OF EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS Vol. 5 • No. 3 – Winter 1995

Sarane Spence Boocock,Ph.D., is professor of soci-ology at the GraduateSchool of Education atRutgers University.

95

pearing extended-family support are almost worldwide phenomena.”1 Theseconditions create a growing demand for out-of-home child care whichmatches that for preschool education.

The international interest in early childhood programs does not meanthat preschool facilities and services are evenly distributed, however, eitherwithin or among countries. The overall availability and quality of preschoolprograms tend to be much higher in rich industrialized nations than in poordeveloping ones, yet large differences distinguish even nations that are geo-graphically close and at similar levels of economic development. For exam-ple, almost 100% of French and Belgian children are enrolled in an educa-tional preschool program by age three, compared with 28% of Spanish andPortuguese children of that age and less than 6% of Swiss three-year-olds.2 Inmost nations, access to preschool facilities is much greater in urban centersthan in rural areas, and enrollment rates for children from upper- or middle-class homes exceed those for poor children. Finally, government involve-ment in the provision of preschool services takes different forms, from fullfunding and direct sponsorship of programs to a more modest role of regu-lating programs provided by the private sector and paid for by parents.

Only recently has systematic international research begun to documentthe linkages between national policy, early childhood programs, and out-comes for children. A number of handbooks and reports describe child andfamily policies and offer estimates of preschool enrollments in variousnations, but only a few discuss research on the effects of the programs theydescribe.3–10 The relationship between research and policy developmentvaries across countries. For the most part, early childhood policies in othernations have evolved independently of the research foundation that hasbeen so important in the development of U.S. early childhood policy.

The objective of this article is to complement the reviews of U.S. studieson the long-term outcomes of early childhood programs provided in thisjournal issue by examining comparable international research. The articlebegins with an overview of the research approaches most commonly used inthe international literature on early childhood programs. Next, the purpos-es, designs, and findings of major studies undertaken in 13 countries arereviewed to identify common themes. Among the generalizations thatemerge are these:

■ There is widespread evidence that participating in a preschool programpromotes cognitive development in the short term and prepares children tosucceed in school.

96 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN – WINTER 1995

International Research onEarly Childhood ProgramsThis review includes 15 studies of early child-hood programs conducted outside theUnited States during the past two decades,chosen particularly for the policy signifi-cance of their findings. These studies wereconducted in Australia, Canada, Colombia,France, Germany, India, Ireland, Japan,Singapore, South Korea, Sweden, Turkey,and the United Kingdom. Two studies areincluded from 2 of the 13 nations.

Definitional IssuesThere are, of course, formidable difficultiesin comparing data collected in differentcountries. Many problems arise from differ-ences in the way early childhood servicesare organized and defined. The early child-hood programs examined in these studiesserved children ranging in age from birthto elementary school entry. Some providedchild care for children with working par-ents, others prepared children for schoolentry, and others offered a broad set ofhealth, developmental, and social services.The outcomes sought by the programdesigners and, to some extent, measured byresearchers ranged from cognitive develop-ment and school success or failure to emo-tional development and social skills to thereduction of inequalities based on racial,ethnic, social class, and gender differences.Most of the effects measured pertain to

children, but a few studies also consideredimpacts on families.

In many but not all countries, a distinc-tion is made between services labeled aschild care versus preschool or kindergarten.“Care” usually refers to full-day programs forfamilies with working parents, and it is oftenavailable to children of varied ages; while“preschool education” usually refers to part-day programs with an educational orienta-tion that are reserved for children three orolder. In addition, the two types of programsare likely to be administered by differentgovernment ministries or agencies. Figure 1is a schematic diagram of the different pro-grams and settings that children may experi-ence before entering school. The distinctionbetween preschool and child care programsis used in this article, though it is importantto remember that the programs in each cat-egory vary in the age range of children whoparticipate, the services delivered, and thelevel of public versus private funding andcontrol.

Design IssuesIn contrast with the U.S. studies reviewed inseveral other articles in this journal issue(see the articles by Barnett, Yoshikawa, andSt. Pierre and colleagues), few of the inter-national studies employed an experimentaldesign with random assignment of childrento program and control groups. This lack ofrandomization adds to the difficulty of

■ There is no strong or consistent evidence that the form of the preschoolexperience (pedagogic approach, daily schedule, or setting) influences long-term outcomes for children.

■ Preschool experience appears to be a stronger force in the lives of low-income than more advantaged children.

■ Preschool attendance can narrow the achievement gaps faced by disad-vantaged children, though most of these effects appear to diminish overtime.

■ Maternal employment and participation in out-of-home child care, evenduring infancy, appear not to harm children and may yield benefits if thechild care is regulated and of adequate quality.

Finally, the article draws insights from the international literature con-cerning several issues of early childhood policy and practice that are underdebate in the United States: definitions and thresholds of program “quality,”the appropriateness of expecting preschool programs to redress socioeco-nomic inequities, and the diverse ways that research can contribute to policyformation.

97Early Childhood Programs in Other Nations: Goals and Outcomes

assessing the validity of the research findingsbecause effects that are due to self-selectionor other factors not under the researchers’control may be erroneously attributed to apreschool program. It should be kept inmind that the following discussion will drawfrom research of varying quality and fromdata sets that are not always, strictly speaking,comparable.11

The studies included in this review fallinto three major groups: large-scale surveys,studies comparing children with differentchild care or preschool experiences, andevaluations testing the impacts of particularearly childhood programs or program mod-els. Each study type is described briefly below.

Large-Scale SurveysSurveys have been used in several nations toinvestigate whether exposure to preschoolprograms is associated with positive out-comes for children. The four surveysreviewed in this article have sample sizes ofmore than 1,000 children that were drawn torepresent the residents of a nation (or somesmaller jurisdiction). Some gathered dataabout the same children during early child-hood and again later. Others focused onolder children but included questions aboutthe children’s past experiences to contrastgroups with different exposure to preschoolprograms.

Comparative StudiesComparative studies of existing programsare included in this review, as well. Relativeto the surveys, these studies focus on smallersamples, and they gather more detailedinformation about children’s preschoolexperiences and later development. Thefour studies of this type took advantage ofnaturally occurring variations in children’s

enrollment in early childhood programs toinvestigate how attending those typical pro-grams contributed to, or hampered, chil-dren’s progress in school and other settings.

Evaluations of Specific Program ModelsSeven of the 15 studies examined are evalua-tions of specific program models serving lim-ited numbers of children. In some instances,several program models are contrasted; in allthese studies, control groups that receivedno early childhood program are also includ-ed. As noted earlier, the children were sel-dom randomly assigned to the program orcontrol groups which, as Barnett discusses inhis article in this journal issue, is generally

Figure 1

Early Childhood Care and Education Settings

Children ages 0 to 5

Home settings Center settings

Own home

Kin Maid /

Own parents

Informalcaregiver

Licensedfamily childcare home

Playgroup(periodic)

Child care(full day)

Preschool(part day)

Home of another

Sources: This figure was modified from a diagram that appeared in Bairrao, J., and Tietze, W. Early childhood services in theEuropean Community. A report submitted to the Commission of the European Community Task Force on Human Resources,Education, Training, and Youth. October 1993. Terminology adapted from Moss, P. Childcare in the European Community.Women of Europe. Supplement No. 31. Brussels: European Commission Childcare Network, August 1990.

“Preschool education” usually refers topart-day programs with an educationalorientation for children three or older.


considered the most rigorous researchdesign. More often the researchers foundcomparison groups in neighboring commu-nities or among slightly older children.

All three types of studies can serve policypurposes. For instance, the findings of sur-veys have helped justify the adoption ofnational policies, such as the French govern-ment’s investment in universal preschool toprepare children to succeed in publicschool.12 Research that documents the qual-

ity of diverse early childhood programs canguide decisions concerning governmentregulation and financing. And evaluationstudies can demonstrate the potential thatexemplary early childhood programs haveto improve outcomes for particular groupsof children.

Research Findings byGeographic AreaThe following sections of this article discussthe results of the 15 studies chosen forreview, by region and by country withinregion.12–27 Table 1 provides basic informa-tion regarding the studies, arrayed by theresearch approach used in each. Not sur-prisingly, the studies selected are dispropor-tionately from the wealthier, more econom-ically developed nations that can afford tosupport more early childhood programsand services, and to conduct research ontheir effects.

North AmericaCanada Because of its geographic proximity and itssimilar level of economic development andcultural diversity, Canada’s approach toearly childhood care and education seemsespecially relevant to the United States.While neither country has a national earlychildhood policy, Canada’s social welfarepolicies and programs are more inclusiveand generous than those of the United

States, though they are less so than those ofmost European countries. Systematic policyresearch is a relatively recent developmentin Canada, however.

In the late 1980s, a major comparativestudy, the Victoria Day Care ResearchProject, examined 105 children who wereusing one of the major types of child careavailable in Canada: child care centers, carein the homes of regulated family child careproviders, and care by unregulated homecaregivers.16 The Victoria study comparedthe experiences of children in those threecare settings and found high correlationsamong family resources, the quality of thechild care setting, and children’s cognitiveand social development. Children whoattended child care centers tended to havehigher levels of language development andmore highly developed play and activity pat-terns than children in family child carehomes.

The quality of care in family child carehomes was more variable than center care,and it was a more potent predictor of chil-dren’s language development—that is, chil-dren in high-quality homes developed well,while those in less adequate homes devel-oped much more poorly. Family child carethat was regulated by government authori-ties was of better quality than that offered inunlicensed homes, even though the regula-tions were “minimal” and not vigorouslyenforced.

Across settings, the quality of care exert-ed more influence on the development oflower-class than middle-class children. Theresearchers pointed out that in Canada, as inthe United States, child care often exacer-bates socioeconomic inequities rather thanreducing them. Many children in the studyexperienced the “worst of both worlds” inthat they came from low-resource familiesand attended low-quality family child care.16

To date, however, the longitudinal dataneeded to assess the long-term effects ofthese early Canadian child care experienceshave not been gathered.

Western EuropeThe most highly developed early childhoodsystems may be found among the nationscomprising the European Community plusthe Nordic nations. Outside the United

Across settings, the quality of care exertedmore influence on the development of lower-class than middle-class children.

—Canada


Table 1

International Research Studies of Early Childhood Programs Across Thirteen Nations

Country/ Birth Year Sample size Purpose of StudyRelated Endnote of Subjectsb

Numbera

Large-Scale Surveys

France12 1970 20,000+ children Identify impact of amount of preschool on retentionat end of first grade.

United Kingdom13 1970 9,000 children Identify impact of type of preschool attended (if any)on educational achievement and behavior in school.

Germany14 Late 1970s 203 schools Identify impact of availability of preschool spaceson rates of promotion and placement inspecial education.

Japan15 1956–1957 4,000 children Identify impact of attendance at preschool, child care,or no program on achievement test scores atfifth grade.

Comparative Studies

Canada16 Circa 1980 105 children Identify differences in the development of childrenattending centers or family child care.

Sweden17 1975–1976 128 children Compare school performance and behavior ofchildren who began out-of-home care in first year oflife with those who began this type of care later.

Singapore18 1977–1980 2,418 children Compare children attending programs on languageskill, cognitive ability, and social behavior.

Australia No.119 Mid-1980s 8,471 children Identify impact of early child care use on schoolreadiness and on social and emotional problems.

Evaluations

Ireland20 Mid-1960s 90 in program Assess impact of two-year preschool program on60 in control group disadvantaged children’s school and life success.

(children in controlgroup are five years older)

South Korea21 Late 1970s 121 in program Assess impacts of five kindergarten curricula on31 in control group development and school success.

Colombia22, 23 Late 1960s 301 in program Assess the effects of receiving health, nutrition, and154 in control group preschool program for one, two, three, or four years

on the health, cognitive ability, and retention in gradeof malnourished children.

India No.124 Late 1980s 120 in program Assess impacts of preschool program on children’s120 in control group health, cognitive ability, behavior, and school readi-

ness.

India No. 225 Early 1980s 214 in program Assess effects of comprehensive nutrition, health, and205 in control group preschool program on cognitive ability and

school attendance.

1,271 in program Assess effects of comprehensive nutrition, health, and436 in control group preschool program on school success.

Australia No. 226 Early 1970s 225 in program Assess impact of preschool (five alternative101 in control group approaches) on disadvantaged children’s

success in first grade.

Turkey27 1978–1980 251 across groups Assess impact of educational child care and maternaltraining on cognitive ability, school success, and attitudes.

a See the related endnote following this article for the complete citation.b Birth years of subjects were estimated based on information provided in the referenced reports.


States, this is also the area of the world fromwhich information about preschool pro-grams and their effects is most readily avail-able. The opening of national frontiers fortrade and travel has been accompanied byan increased sharing of information and col-laborative research, although each nation’spolicies and programs retain distinctive char-acteristics that reflect historical and culturaldifferences. Here, five of the most often citedEuropean studies are reviewed, includingsurveys, comparative studies, and an evalua-tion. Several studies traced the effects of var-ious types of child care and preschool edu-cation for periods up to 12 years.

FranceA prime example of how survey research cancontribute to policy development is provid-ed by the studies conducted by the FrenchMinistry for Education in 1983 and 1990 togauge the effects of large-scale expansion ofthe preschool system on later success inschool.12 The French école maternelle, or nurs-ery school, is now attended by close to 100%of all three- to five-year-olds and a growingnumber of two-year-olds.28 Preschool teach-

ers in France have the same training, civilservice status, and salaries as primary schoolteachers. The popular full-day programsemphasize academic activities, and groupsizes and child-teacher ratios tend to be largeby American standards. (The average is 25children per class with one teacher, but asmany as 35 may be included.)

The impetus for the expansion of theécole maternelle system during the 1970s and1980s was concern over the large number ofchildren who had to repeat first grade orwho otherwise fell behind in primary educa-tion. (See the article by Entwisle in this jour-nal issue for discussion of similar concerns inthe United States.) To discover whether par-ticipating in preschool influenced retentionin first grade, the government launched a

survey of a national sample of 20,000 stu-dents who were sixth graders in 1980, com-paring those who had attended preschoolfor one, two, or three years before enteringschool.12

The survey findings indicated that everyyear of preschool attended reduced the like-lihood of school failure, especially for chil-dren from the most disadvantaged homes.Each year of preschool narrowed the reten-tion rate gap between children whosefathers were in the highest occupational cat-egory and those with unemployed orunskilled fathers. That gap was 30% for chil-dren with one year of preschool, 27% forthose with two years, and only 24% for thosewith three years in preschool. (Those differ-ences may seem small, but the very largesample size makes them quite reliable esti-mates of truly different experiences.)

The survey showed that children fromhigher-status homes and children in urbanareas had the most preschool experienceand were more likely to be promoted onschedule; however, the subsequent expan-sion of the école maternelle is likely to havereduced these disparities. Now most Frenchchildren participate in preschool.

United KingdomA similarly massive survey, the Child Healthand Education Study (CHES), examinedthe effects of naturally occurring preschooland child care programs in the UnitedKingdom, a nation with a much morediverse early childhood system than theFrench. Estimates are that 44% of Britishthree- and four-year-olds attend public orprivate nursery schools, and many childrenenter public school classes at age four.29

Public investment in full-day child care islimited; many families rely on individualcaregivers, called childminders, who may ormay not be registered with the government.Children who have a parent at home duringthe day often attend organized play groupsseveral times a week.

The CHES is a longitudinal study that fol-lowed the development of all the approxi-mately 9,000 children born during one weekin 1970. Researchers collected data on cog-nitive functioning, educational achievement,and behavior ratings by mothers and teach-ers when the children were 5 and 10 years

The French école maternelle is nowattended by close to 100% of all three- tofive-year-olds and a growing number oftwo-year-olds.

—France


old.13 Comparisons among children whoattended play groups, private or public nurs-ery schools, or no preschool at all showedthat experience in any preschool (includingplay groups) contributed to cognitive devel-opment and school achievement through-out the period studied. Disadvantaged chil-dren gained slightly more from attendingpreschool than did more advantaged chil-dren. Contrary to the researchers’ expecta-tions, preschool experience did not affectaspects of children’s socioemotional devel-opment, such as self-concept, skill in gettingalong with other children, or their ability toapply themselves to schoolwork.

The researchers concluded that pre-school experience per se had more influenceon children’s subsequent development thanthe type of preschool attended: “Providedthe child receives proper care, has interest-ing activities and other children to play with(which are common elements in the majori-ty of preschool institutions), the actual typeof preschool experience matters very little.”30

GermanyA related policy study using different meth-ods was conducted in 1987 in the formerWest Germany, a country where 65% to 70%of children between three and six attendhalf-day preschools (called kindergartens)that are provided by the government at nocost to parents.31 To evaluate whether pro-viding preschool opportunities increases ele-mentary school success, researchers ana-lyzed statistics routinely collected by schools,including the percent of children retainedin grade or assigned to special education ingrades one to four, as well as community fac-tors such as population density, socioeco-nomic status, and the number of preschoolplaces available in the school district. Thestudy combined data from 203 elementaryschools in one West German state, and itproduced results very similar to the Frenchand British surveys described above.14

Elementary schools in districts with highpreschool availability had lower rates ofretention in grade and assignment to spe-cial education, suggesting that attendingpreschool improved children’s readiness forschool and promoted their educational suc-cess. Paralleling the British study findings,no other factor studied (including socioeco-nomic status) influenced school outcomes

as consistently as having some preschoolexperience. The German researchers con-cluded, like their French colleagues, that amajor benefit of a well-established preschoolsystem is to ease the transition into elemen-tary school.

Sweden Systematic studies of Swedish child care—sometimes called the most advanced systemin the world—have been carried out sincethe mid-1960s.32 Given that 86% of Swedishmothers with preschool-aged children areemployed,33 it is not surprising that pro-grams offering full-time child care are thecenterpiece of the Swedish early childhoodsystem. Local governments provide carefullysupervised, subsidized child care throughcenters and family child care homes toapproximately 47% of children betweenbirth and school entry at age seven,although many infants are cared for by theirparents during paid parental leaves.

By comparison with the French, British,and German surveys described above, mostSwedish studies use small but carefullydesigned samples, and they collect data thatallow detailed comparisons of existing pro-grams. Often, researchers treat child care as

just one among several environments thataffect children’s development and well-being, and they attempt to examine theinfluences of child care and home caresimultaneously.

Chosen for this review is a study that fol-lowed a sample of 128 Swedish childrenborn in 1975 from age 3 to age 13 (with an89% retention rate).17 The mothers report-ed their children’s child care experiencesduring infancy. The results show distinctadvantages to children of participating inearly nonparental child care. Whether theyattended centers or family child care homes,children placed in out-of-home care beforeage one had greater verbal facility and wererated as more persistent and independent,

Preschool experience per se had moreinfluence on children’s subsequent develop-ment than the type of preschool attended.

—United Kingdom

less anxious, and more confident than chil-dren cared for at home or children placedin child care at a later age. The study’s leadinvestigator concluded that “early entranceinto day-care tends to predict a creative,socially confident, popular, open, and inde-pendent adolescent.”34

Two other Swedish studies have yieldedsimilar findings.35,36 Together, these stud-ies suggest that nonparental care of ade-quate quality, even for infants and for longperiods of time, need not have adverseeffects on children’s development andwell-being.

These impressive outcomes partly reflectthe fact that Sweden has a national policy ofproviding public child care that is well fund-ed and supported by regulations regardingstaffing patterns and training, group size,daily routines, and the design of the child’senvironment. This does not mean that allcenters are identical; indeed, Swedish child

care environments differ considerably insuch characteristics as group composition,atmosphere, and staff experience and work-ing methods. Government funding andoversight ensure that variations betweenprograms stay within specified limits and donot fall below an agreed-upon threshold ofquality.33

Overall, the Swedish studies found thequality of care provided in children’s ownhomes a better predictor of subsequent de-velopment than variations in preschoolexperience or the more crude measure offamily socioeconomic status. These studiesused fine-grained measures of the quality ofhome care, focusing on interactions betweenparents and children rather than on simplemeasures such as whether the mother works.The surprising finding that family socioeco-nomic status is relatively unimportant mayreflect the fact that in Sweden differences

between families in socioeconomic status,like differences in the quality of preschoolfacilities, are relatively small. By contrast, inCanada and the United States, both familysocioeconomic status and program qualityvary widely, and research shows that bothvariables have substantial effects on chil-dren’s development. Research findings likethese can serve to remind policymakers ofthe importance of ensuring that positivedevelopmental experiences are available tochildren wherever they spend their time.

IrelandThe last study from Western Europe differsfrom the others in examining an experi-mental program that targeted children liv-ing in an impoverished area of Dublin.Based upon developmental theory and influ-enced by U.S. compensatory education pro-grams like those described in this journalissue, the Dublin project offered a two-year,half-day preschool program to 90 childrenwho were age three in 1969. The purpose ofthis program was to enhance the children’scognitive development, learning skills, andpersonality and social development, and itsought to involve parents in their children’spreschool experience by including home vis-its by teachers and social workers.20

Measures of cognitive development,school achievement, and parent involve-ment were collected at ages 5, 8, and 16 onthe program participants and a controlgroup of 60 children from the same neigh-borhood. The participating childrenshowed significant improvements on stan-dardized tests at age 5. The greatest bene-fits appeared among the least able childrenand among girls rather than boys. At age 8,however, most of those initial gains werenot maintained.

By secondary school, the preschool par-ticipants were more likely than nonpartici-pants to remain in school, and they weretwo to three times more likely to take theexaminations required for further educa-tion. However, there were no differencesbetween the groups in employment or inthe percent who had been in trouble withthe police (about 20% of each group).These mixed results led the researchers toconclude that “the extent of the prob-lems—social as well as educational—whichchildren experience in a disadvantaged


Government funding and oversight ensurethat variations between programs staywithin specified limits and do not fall belowan agreed-upon threshold of quality.

—Sweden


area” limits the power of a single interven-tion to bring about change.37

SummaryAs noted earlier, Western Europe offers a rel-atively solid research foundation for policy-makers who make decisions concerningearly childhood programs. The large-scalestudies of French, British, and Germanpreschool systems provide evidence thatpreschool attendance, under the “normal,everyday conditions of a well establishedpreschool service,” can have strong positiveeffects on children’s school readiness andtheir subsequent academic performance.38

This seems to be true whether the preschoolsystem is relatively uniform, as is true of theFrench école maternelle, or is characterized bymuch greater diversity in institutions andprograms, as occurs in Germany and Britain.More focused studies of the development ofSwedish children who entered child careearly in life confirm that early childhoodprograms can benefit children—especiallywhen these programs are high in quality.

The evidence from Ireland on a com-pensatory program targeted at disadvan-taged children reveals a mixed pattern ofeffects similar to many early childhood inter-vention evaluations in the United States.Initial positive effects on children’s cognitivedevelopment and school performancetapered off over time, leaving some long-

term effects on schooling but few impacts onemployment or crime.

East Asia and the Pacific RimEast Asia and the Pacific Rim contain someof the world’s most highly developed nations,educationally as well as economically. InJapan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong,and Taiwan—nations that share a commonheritage of Confucian values in a context ofrapid industrial growth—most childrenattend preschool by age three, and many

preschool programs focus on preparing chil-dren for the academic demands of school.For example, the participation of more than90% of Hong Kong’s three- to six-year-olds inpreschool has been explained this way: “Thishigh proportion reflects the value that theChinese traditionally attach to education, butit also reflects the economic and educationalsituation. . . . Formal schooling is an impor-tant avenue to social and economic mobility,and preschool is perceived as the first step

© L

ars

Ba

hl/

Imp

ac

t V

isua

ls

Formal schooling is an important avenue tosocial and economic mobility, and preschoolis perceived as the first step along thisavenue.

—Hong Kong

along this avenue.”39 When attendance atpreschool programs is so high, the attentionof policymakers and researchers turns toquestions of program design and approach,and the studies from Japan, Singapore, andSouth Korea reviewed here all compare theeffects of different preschool programs onchild outcomes.

This region of the world also includesAustralia and New Zealand, nations thatshare a heritage and style of governmentwith the United States, Canada, and theUnited Kingdom. There the demand for

full-time child care to assist working parentsis strong, but the government role inpreschool and child care programs hasgrown more slowly.

JapanIn a pattern that resembles many NorthAmerican and Western European countries,the Japanese system of early childhood ser-vices is broken into two parts: (1) yochien, orpreschools, are primarily private, part-dayprograms designed to prepare three- to six-year-old children for elementary school; and(2) hoiku-en, or child care programs, are gov-ernment-subsidized, full-day programs forchildren of all ages from families deemed“in need” by government authorities. Table2 is a comparison between the two types ofJapanese preschool service. Currently, morethan 90% of Japanese children attend oneor the other program before they enter ele-mentary school.40

Although Japanese government agen-cies maintain accurate records on enroll-ments, staff, and equipment, and there is averitable flood of philosophical works onchild rearing and early childhood educa-tion, virtually no research has been con-ducted on the effects of different types ofpreschool programs. In 1975, a retrospec-tive study of 4,000 fifth graders addressed

the question of whether preschool experi-ence is associated with higher scores onnational achievement tests.15 The sampleincluded about equal numbers of childrenwho had attended yochien, hoiku-en, or nei-ther type of program.

The study found that children withpreschool experience of either type hadhigher test scores than those who attendedno preschool, but that this relationship wasaffected by family economic status. Overall,children who attended yochien preschoolsreceived the highest test scores. Lower-classchildren did best if they had attended thefull-day subsidized hoiku-en, and they werenot helped by attending the yochien. Theauthors speculated that the academicpreschool programs were less suited to theneeds of lower-class children than the full-day programs which offered a range of ser-vices. This conclusion echoes the Canadianstudy by emphasizing the fit between theneeds of low-income children and the char-acteristics of the early childhood programsthey attend.

SingaporeSingapore is a highly urbanized, multiethnicsociety with three official languages. Nearlyall children attend preschool, most (morethan 70%) participating in programsoffered by the dominant political party,though programs operated by other partiesand by private organizations are consideredmore innovative.

In 1983, a nine-year study was launchedby the national Institute of Education to pro-duce a developmental profile of the nation’spreschool children, compare the outcomesof different types of preschools, and developa plan for improving preschool curriculumand teacher training. A sample of 2,413three- to six-year-olds, randomly selectedfrom Singapore’s preschools, were observedand tested over a two-and-one-half-year peri-od.18 The study’s results indicated thatpreschool experience prepared children tohandle academic tasks in elementary school,and it improved children’s skills at sharingand cooperating—a valued benefit in a soci-ety in which most children come from one-or two-child families.

The study also focused on mastery ofEnglish because it is the language used in


Preschool experience prepared children tohandle academic tasks in elementary school,and it improved children’s skills at sharingand cooperating.

—Singapore

most Singapore elementary schools.Children who attended private preschoolsperformed better on English language tasksthan their peers in the dominant party’spreschools, perhaps because those whoattended private preschools had better-educated parents who spoke English athome. By age six, all the children had begunto learn English, and the researchers con-cluded that this bilingualism does not hin-der the cognitive and social development ofSingapore’s children.

South KoreaA longitudinal study of kindergartens con-ducted in South Korea during the mid-1980salso explored the effects of different earlychildhood educational models on children’sdevelopment. This study examined 121 chil-dren who attended four urban kindergartenclassrooms using different educationalapproaches, and compared them with 31children who had no kindergarten experi-ence.21 Data about the children’s cognitiveand socioemotional development and abouttheir school achievement were gathered inkindergarten and at grades four and seven.Although the research design is weakenedby nonrandom assignment of children tothe different classes, the study has an eight-

year follow-up period and the retention ratewas high.

The study results show that, during thekindergarten year, the four curricularapproaches yielded different patterns ofschool readiness, but the distinctionsbetween the programs faded by fourth gradeand were gone by seventh grade. However,significant benefits distinguished the kinder-garten groups from the control group on allthe measures except the children’s intelli-gence quotient (IQ). The study’s conclusionthat the long-run advantages of anypreschool experience are large relative tothe differences between forms of preschooleducation unites this South Korean studywith the British and German research dis-cussed earlier.

Australia and New ZealandThe Pacific Rim nations that are closest tothe United States racially, linguistically, andculturally—Australia and New Zealand—have both experienced sharply increaseddemand for early childhood programs. InNew Zealand, 42% of children under fiveattend part-day preschool programs, 16%attend full-day child care programs, andanother 23% are enrolled in part-time play


Characteristic Preschools Child Care Centers

Jurisdiction Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health and WelfareScience, and Culture

Basic role Academic instruction Welfare facility for working parents

Children to be Preschoolers over age three Infants and preschoolers in need ofadmitted child care

Hours per day Four hours a day is standard Eight hours a day in principle

Admission criteria Private contract with parents Placement by municipalitiesor guardian; sometimes there through the assessment ofare entrance examinations parents’ or guardians’ income

Curricular content Promoting children’s health, Basic care, emotional stability,social relations, care of the health, social relations, environment,environment, language, and language, and expressionexpression

Number of children 2,041,820 (May 1988) 1,784,193 (October 1987)served

Table 2

Source: Adapted from Noguchi, I., Ogawa, S., Yoshikawa, T., and Hashimoto, S. Early Education in Japan: From ancienttimes to the present. In International handbook of early childhood education. G.A. Woodill, J. Bernhard, and L. Prochner,eds. New York: Garland, 1992, pp. 317–25, table on pp. 320–21.

Comparison of Preschools and Child Care Centers in Japan


centers operated by parents.41 In Australia, itis estimated that 32% of children ages threeto five attend part-day preschool programsand another 20% are in child care centers.42

Both countries have also undertaken sys-temic reforms, propelled by increasing ratesof maternal employment and the growinginsistence of indigenous peoples and otherdisadvantaged groups that their preschoolneeds be met.

Two Australian studies are included inthis review. The first evaluates a program fordisadvantaged families which resemblesmany United States compensatory educa-tion programs. The second is a larger studyof links between the early experience ofchild care and children’s socioemotionaldevelopment.

The Mt. Druitt Project was launched inthe mid-1970s to serve families living in alow-income public housing project.26 A totalof 225 children received a year of preschoolservices through one of five models (includ-ing a home-based approach as well as fourcenter-based models), although assignmentto the groups was not randomized. The chil-dren were followed by researchers until theend of first grade and compared with con-trol children identified during preschooland kindergarten.

The Mt. Druitt study results showed thatthe preschool children performed betterthan the control groups when they enteredpublic kindergarten, but their superiority

dissipated by the end of first grade. Anunexpected family-level benefit alsoemerged: the parents who participated inthe home-based program established a net-work to organize other social, educational,and welfare activities independent of theproject. The study outcomes must be inter-preted with caution because assignment to

experimental or control groups was not ran-dom and the children were not followedpast first grade. However, the positive butshort-lived effects that attending preschoolhad on children’s cognitive developmentparallel those found in the Dublin projectdescribed earlier.

A second Australian study reflects theattention paid in Australia and New Zealandto the effects of child care availability andquality on women’s lives. The AustralianEarly Childhood Study gathered data from8,471 urban mothers of first-year elementaryschoolchildren, focusing on children’s socialand emotional problems that are symptom-atic of a lack of readiness for school.19 Theresults indicated that participating in non-maternal child care, even in the first year oflife, did not put children at greater risk ofdeveloping these problems. Family back-ground factors and the mothers’ satisfactionwith their lives had greater effects on thechildren’s socioemotional development andschool readiness than did maternal employ-ment and the exposure to child care that fol-lows from it.

A New Zealand review of research on theoutcomes associated with children’s partici-pation in early childhood programs (called“educare”) found a number of benefits forparents, including enhanced relationshipswith children, alleviation of maternal stress,upgrading of education or training creden-tials, and improved employment status.43

Studies such as these can play an importantpolicy role by increasing acceptance of out-of-home child care for young children.

SummaryThis review of studies conducted in Asianand Pacific Rim countries illustrates the widevariety of policy questions that are addressedthrough research on early childhood pro-grams. The Japanese, Singapore, SouthKorean, and Mt. Druitt studies focused onthe impacts that participation in preschoolprograms had on school success, either bycomparing two broad types of early child-hood programs (child care and academicpreschool in Japan), or examining a varietyof specific preschool models. These studiesconfirmed the European research findingthat attending preschool yields benefits, butthe particular character of the preschoolprogram matters less.

Some 42% of children under five attendpart-day preschool programs, 16% attendfull-day child care programs, and another23% are enrolled in part-time play centersoperated by parents.

—New Zealand


The Australian study of maternal employ-ment and out-of-home child care echoesfindings of Swedish child care research thataspects of the home environment affect chil-dren’s social and emotional development asmuch as or more than the experiences theyhave in child care.

Developing Nations in LatinAmerica and AsiaThe past two decades have seen a multipli-cation of efforts to expand preschool ser-vices in the developing nations of LatinAmerica, Asia, and Africa, where prepri-mary education is sometimes viewed as astrategy for promoting national develop-ment. Preschool projects in the develop-ing world are often funded by outsidesources (private foundations, the WorldBank, or UNESCO and UNICEF), andthey are increasingly employing anapproach that engages local communitiesin the design, operation, and evaluation ofthe programs.44

One of the major barriers to school suc-cess for poor children in developingnations is that many suffer from malnutri-tion and health problems, and preschoolprograms often link nutritional supple-ments and health education with programsoffering cognitive or psychosocial stimula-tion.45,46 This review includes examples ofseveral early childhood studies conductedin developing nations that have adequateresearch designs and include data abouteffects on children. All of these are evalua-tions of specific programs, not assessmentsof widely available services, because theavailability of early childhood programs inmost developing nations remains limited.

ColumbiaThe most systematic intervention andresearch program in the developing worldhas focused on malnourished, low-incomechildren in Cali, Colombia. The CaliProject is a preschool program integratingnutrition supplementation, health surveil-lance, child care, and educational compo-nents.22,23 A sample of 301 malnourished,extremely poor children were randomlyassigned to groups who began receivingthe program at ages three, four, five, or sixyears, or not at all. The longitudinal evalu-ation compared these children with con-trol groups and examined how the dura-

tion of the treatment affected physicalgrowth, cognitive development, and reten-tion in grade until the children reached 10years of age.

All the experimental groups in the CaliProject improved more in cognitive abilitythan the control group of low-income chil-dren, and the size of a child’s cognitivegains was related to the length of thetreatment the child received. Modest IQgains persisted to age eight, and treatmentgroup children were somewhat more like-ly to be promoted throughout the firstthree grades in school. Children whoreceived nutritional supplements withoutparticipating in the preschool activitiesmade significant gains in height andweight, but their cognitive abilities did notimprove until they entered the preschoolpart of the program.

Interpreting these long-term effects isdifficult because the children attended 93different elementary schools that varied incurriculum and quality, but this study pro-vides the best evidence available regarding

© S

ea

n S

pra

gu

e/I

mp

ac

t V

isua

ls

the potential of well-designed, comprehen-sive preschool interventions for fosteringboth physical and mental growth amongchronically deprived children.

IndiaThis review includes two studies from Indiabecause the contrast between them illus-trates a basic dilemma facing a populousnation attempting to upgrade its preschoolsystem. Education at all levels is a criticalchallenge in India, where only about 50% ofthe children enrolled in school completethe first year, in part because child laborremains prevalent, and girls often stay hometo care for their younger siblings.47 Thesestark conditions provide the context intowhich Indian preschool programs must fit.

The Village Preschool Study evaluatesthe effectiveness of a set of 49 relatively high-quality, foundation-funded child care cen-ters. A two-year longitudinal study compared120 children in six villages who attended theprograms with a matched sample of 120 whodid not attend.24 The pattern of findingsshowed more favorable results on a variety ofdevelopmental measures for the children

who attended the centers, but many of thedifferences were not statistically significant.Even more conclusive results from a privateprogram serving only 2,200 children, howev-er, would have had little resonance in anation as large and challenged as India.

A clear contrast to the demonstrationprogram approach is offered by the Indiangovernment’s effort to provide servicesthrough the massive Integrated ChildDevelopment Service, started in 1975.Paraprofessional workers gather between 20and 40 children in anganwadi (literally,courtyard) centers for several hours eachweekday for supplementary feeding, healthcheckups, and educational activities. This

program is the largest of its kind in theworld. In 1987–88, there were more than88,400 centers, reaching 4.6 million chil-dren from birth to six years old.25

Studies of hundreds of children conduct-ed in 1986 and 1987 gathered informationabout the health and school performance ofparticipants and comparison children.Results suggest that the programs can claimsome successes in reducing infant mortality,malnutrition, and morbidity, as well asschool repetition and dropout. Still, most ofthe anganwadi centers operate at “a mini-mum level of quality,”10 and estimates arethat only 12% of India’s children arereached by any early childhood assistance.47

TurkeyA strong emphasis on education is com-mon to many developing nations, includ-ing Turkey, where free, compulsory prima-ry schooling is provided for children 6 to14 years old. Less than 2% of childrenunder 6 now attend an organized preschoolprogram, although government planningdocuments embrace the goal of enrolling10% of the nation’s children in preschoolprograms.48

During the late 1980s, researchers de-signed a study to test the effects on childrenand parents of two interventions: (1) anadaptation of Home Instruction Programfor Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY), a homeenrichment program in which paraprofes-sionals train mothers to work with theirpreschool-aged children on educationalactivities, and (2) participation in existingchild care programs offering either educa-tional or only custodial care.27 The longitu-dinal study included 251 low-income fami-lies with children 3 to 5 years old whoreceived different combinations of treat-ments, and data about the children’s cogni-tive development, social development, andschool achievement were gathered 4, 7, and10 years later.

Overall, the findings showed that chil-dren who attended the educational childcare programs outperformed children incustodial child care and home care onalmost all measures of cognitive develop-ment. Similarly, children whose mothersreceived the HIPPY training surpassed con-trol groups of children on cognitive devel-


Paraprofessional workers gather between20 and 40 children in anganwadi (literally,courtyard) centers. In 1987--88, there weremore than 88,400 centers, reaching 4.6million children from birth to six years old.

—India

opment and school achievement. Thegroup that experienced both educationalchild care and home instruction by mothershad the highest scores. The maternal teach-ing program was especially beneficial forchildren who did not have access to a quali-ty preschool program. Of course, the resultsof this study must be interpreted with cau-tion because assignment to groups and treat-ments was not random.

The analysis also found direct effects ofthe HIPPY training on mothers: “. . . com-pared with the control group of mothers,trained mothers were found to enjoy a high-er status in the family vis-à-vis their greaterparticipation in decision making in the fam-ily as well as more role sharing and commu-nication with their spouses. They also hadmore say in child discipline.”49 The authorsconclude that their findings offer supportfor a model of “intersecting needs of womenand children” rather than for a model thatassumes conflicting needs.

SummaryWhile these studies from developing nationswere all designed to evaluate the effects ofspecific programs on outcomes for children,the character of the programs evaluatedand, hence, the study findings differ consid-erably. Studies in Colombia and India foundthat multidisciplinary programs providinghealth, nutritional, and developmental ser-vices to young children promoted physicalgrowth, health, and performance in school.

A smaller demonstration project in Indiasuggested that early childhood educationmodels originally developed for industrial-ized, Western nations can be adapted forcountries at different stages of development.The Turkish project demonstrated the ben-efits of combining developmental child carewith activities designed for parents—an out-come that links it with the research onmaternal employment and child care con-ducted in Australia and Sweden.

In many ways, the findings of the inter-national research reviewed here confirmbasic conclusions drawn in the research onearly childhood programs conducted in theUnited States. Attendance at preschool pro-grams is associated with cognitive gains andimproved performance in school the worldaround, and it also appears that having some

preschool experience matters more to chil-dren than exposure to any particular cur-riculum or program model (as long as theprogram is not of very poor quality, as aresome forms of child care in the UnitedStates). Researchers in other countries havealso found that disadvantaged groups bene-fit more from early childhood programsthan do children from more advantagedbackgrounds, so that early childhood pro-grams can help close the gaps in achieve-ment that separate children from differentsocioeconomic strata. This, of course, is theidea that lay behind the Head Start programin the United States.

Lessons for AmericansIt is ironic that the United States—thenation that has made the largest investmentin rigorous research on the effects of earlychildhood programs—should have one ofthe world’s most fragmented systems foradministering those programs.50 Someobservers see good reasons for the varietyand complexity of U.S. early childhood poli-

cy and programs: “In the United States, withour many ethnic subpopulations, our vasturban-rural differences, our large variationin abilities to afford preschool services, it ismost likely that a greater variety of types ofprograms is necessary and appropriate.”51

Others, however, argue that those featurescan undermine the conclusiveness of U.S.research.50

A New Zealand reviewer claims that“analysis of the complex and fragmentednature of administration of early childhoodeducare in the USA, its extreme variations inquality, and its limited availability, throwsNew Zealand’s more systematic approachinto favorable relief as one which is muchcloser to obtaining the optimal outcomesfrom early childhood educare.”52 Heedingthat suggestion, U.S. policymakers,researchers, and professionals might be wiseto look to other nations for the insights theyhave gleaned from their early childhood


U.S. policymakers, researchers, and profes-sionals might be wise to look to other nationsfor the insights they have gleaned from theirearly childhood programs and policies.

programs and policies. This article closes byoffering examples of lessons from othernations regarding three challenging issuesin U.S. early childhood policy.

What Constitutes “Quality” inEarly Childhood Programs?There is now ample evidence from well-designed studies in a number of countriesthat experience in early childhood pro-grams of good quality does not harm chil-dren, even very young ones. On the con-trary, well-established preschool servicesprovide numerous benefits to children andtheir families. The most positive outcomes,however, have been found in countries witha national policy of providing preschool ser-vices to all children and a tradition of ensur-ing the quality of those services throughenforceable regulations. These conditionsdo not now exist in the United States.

This does not mean that there is a globalconsensus on what constitutes a quality pro-gram (see the article by Frede in this journalissue for a discussion of U.S. conceptions ofquality). One fundamental disagreementcontrasts a child-centered or “developmen-tally appropriate” model of early childhoodeducation which emphasizes play with a viewof preschool as a downward extension of for-

mal schooling which introduces children toserious learning as early as possible. Thechild-centered model originated in Westernsocieties and is not embraced by some othercultures. For example, free play is explicitlyrejected in New Zealand preschools operat-ed by Maori groups, and by many parentsand teachers in industrialized Asian nations.

Moreover, a number of the indicators ofquality considered most essential byAmerican evaluators are accorded lessimportance elsewhere. For example, U.S.research on quality in early childhood pro-grams routinely includes data about staffingratios and group sizes and compares existingpractices to the standards set by professionalorganizations. Small groups and low child-

to-staff ratios are considered hallmarks ofquality. In contrast, many high-quality pro-grams in other countries—including theFrench école maternelle, most Japanese yochien,and the highly regarded program in theItalian town of Reggio Emilia—routinely useclass sizes and child-to-staff ratios that violateU.S. standards.

Conceptions of what constitutes qualityin early childhood programs may also reflectthe values that are promoted in differentsocieties. In Barnett’s review of U.S. researchon early childhood programs in this journalissue, he found that the outcomes of chil-dren’s cognitive development and schoolachievement were emphasized more heavilythan their development of social skills. In1970, Urie Bronfenbrenner, a leading schol-ar who observed programs in the UnitedStates and the Soviet Union, warned thatprograms in the United States were missingimportant opportunities by “failing to utilizethe constructive potential of the peer groupin developing social responsibility and con-sideration for others.”53

Similarly, a more recent ethnographicstudy comparing a single preschool in theUnited States (Hawaii) with ones in Japanand the People’s Republic of China con-cluded that what set the Asian preschoolsmost apart from the American one was theimportance they placed upon group life.Japanese parents, for example, “send theirchildren to preschool not just for child careand not just so the children can learn tomodify their behavior to conform to thedemands of society but, more profoundly, tofacilitate the development of a group-orient-ed, outward-facing sense of self.”54 Even tak-ing into account differences in cultural val-ues, evidence from several East Asiannations indicates that it is possible to makechildren’s socialization to group life a cen-tral focus of preschool programs without sac-rificing later academic success.

Can Early Childhood ProgramsReduce Educational Inequities?Research from a number of nations that varyeconomically, socially, and politically sug-gests that large-scale national efforts toexpand preschool systems at reasonable lev-els of quality can reduce rates of early schoolfailure. Preschool experience also seems todo more to boost the performance of disad-


Many high-quality programs in other coun-tries routinely use class sizes and child-to-staff ratios that violate U.S. standards.

1. Olmsted, P.P. A look at early childhood education in the United States from a global perspec-tive. Paper commissioned by the National Center for Educational Statistics, 1989, p. 34.

2. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Education at a glance:OECD Indicators 1993. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 1993.

vantaged children than of those who are bet-ter off. At the same time, there is little evi-dence that either typical preschool pro-grams or experimental interventions canreduce the unequal opportunities that oftenconfront children from different social andeconomic backgrounds.

This is not surprising given that suchsocial inequalities are affected by policy deci-sions that are made on political grounds.The most disadvantaged groups tend to havethe least political power, and so their needs—even for high-quality early childhood pro-grams—often go unmet. For instance, oneresearcher who has reviewed early childhoodprograms from an international perspectiveoffers this analysis: “Although early interven-tion programs are part of many nations’plans for social and political reform, in manyinstances insufficient funding and an inade-quate vision result in a system of under-staffed, ill-equipped, and poorly housed pro-grams. . . . the result is often a substandardpublic system of early education that servesthe needs of a few poor children and theirfamilies, and a separate usually higher quali-ty private service for the middle and upperclass.”55 Providing substandard programs todisadvantaged children is unlikely to changetheir lives.

Can Research Make aDifference?It was noted earlier that the United Statesdominates the world in the quantity andquality of its research on early childhoodprograms, yet the weight of empirical evi-dence showing the benefits of such pro-grams has not produced the political will tosupport a universal system of high-qualityservices. Researchers who have comparedchild and family policies in the United Statesand several European nations concludedthat research has played the largest role inguiding policy and practice in those nationswhere it “starts with a policy choice madeand uses child effects as the vantage pointfor designing ever more satisfactory pro-grams.”56 This review of research from dif-

ferent nations illustrates the varied ways inwhich research can influence policies andunderscores the importance of paying closeattention to the political processes by whichpublic policy is created and carried out.(See, for example, the article by Zervigon-Hakes in this journal issue.)

Most reviews of research on early child-hood programs end with a call for moreresearch with large and representative sam-ples, using experimental designs and long-term follow-ups. This review suggests thevalue of combining a variety of researchapproaches. Pure experimental designs withrandom assignment to experimental andcontrol groups are rarely found, especially innations with limited resources to devote toearly childhood services, so it is important toglean knowledge from other types ofresearch as well. Long-term follow-ups offermany advantages, but they risk diminishingrelevance: what “worked” for children in thesocioeconomic context of the 1970s may notapply to children in the 1990s. Large-scalesurveys like the British and French studiesare informative, yet their findings are morevaluable if they are complemented by small-er-scale studies involving detailed observa-tions that reveal the processes by which long-term outcomes are produced.57,58

As this review suggests, much can begained from between-nation exchanges ofinformation and collaboration on researchprojects. Decisions about early childhoodpolicy and programs are, increasingly, madeunder conditions that are truly internationalin scope and impact. For instance, intensepressures to economize on preschool ser-vices by reducing government support orrelaxing standards are being felt worldwide,even in nations like Sweden and Francewhere programs are well established andhave wide public support. A greater willing-ness to learn from the experiences of othersmay be the only way to gain the knowledgeneeded to design preschools that can with-stand the social, political, and economicforces that affect children’s lives everywhere.


3. Olmsted, P.P., and Weikart, D.P., eds. How nations serve young children: Profiles of child care andeducation in 14 countries. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 1989.

4. Olmsted, P.P., and Weikart, D.P., eds. Families speak: Early childhood care and education in 11countries. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 1994.

5. Cochran, M.M., ed. International handbook of child care policies and programs. Westport, CT:Greenwood, 1993.

6. Woodill, G.A., Bernhard, J., and Prochner, L., eds. International handbook of early childhood edu-cation. New York: Garland, 1992.

7. Bairrao, J., and Tietze, W. Early childhood services in the European Community. A reportsubmitted to the Commission of the European Community Task Force on Human Resources,Education, Training, and Youth. October 1993.

8. Moss, P. Childcare in the European Community. Women of Europe. Supplement No. 31.Brussels: European Commission Childcare Network, August 1990.

9. Feeney, S., ed. Early childhood in Asia and the Pacific: A source book. New York: Garland, 1992.

10. Myers, R.G. The twelve who survive: Strengthening programs of early childhood. New York: Routledgein cooperation with UNESCO, 1992.

11. For a fuller discussion of these issues, see note no. 3, Olmsted and Weikart, and note no. 5,Cochran, especially the introductory chapter. The best comparative statistics can be found inUNESCO, World education report 1993. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 1993. See also note no.2, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

12. McMahan, I.D. Public preschool from the age of two: The école maternelle in France. YoungChildren (1992) 47, 5:22–28.

13. Osborn, A.F., and Milbank, J.E. The effects of early education: A report from the Child Health andEducation Study. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1987.

14. Tietze, W. A structural model for the evaluation of preschool effects. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly (1987) 2,2:133–53.

15. Nitta, N., and Nagano, S. The effects of preschool education. Research Bulletin of the NationalInstitute for Educational Research (1975) 13:17–19.

16. Goelman, H., and Pence, A. Effects of child care, family, and individual characteristics on chil-dren’s language development: The Victoria Day Care Research Project. In Quality in child care:What does research tell us? D. Phillips, ed. Washington, DC: National Association for theEducation of Young Children, 1987, pp. 89–104.

17. Andersson, B.E. Effects of day-care on cognitive and socioemotional competence of thirteen-year-old Swedish schoolchildren. Child Development (1992) 63:20–36.

18. Sim, K.P., and Kam, H.W. Growing up in Singapore: The preschool years. Singapore: LongmanSingapore, 1992.

19. Ochiltree, G., and Edgar, D. The effects of nonmaternal care in the first twelve months of life on chil-dren in the first year of school: Preliminary findings from a two stage study (The Australian EarlyChildhood Study). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 1990.

20. Kellaghan, T., and Greaney, B.J. The educational development of students following participa-tion in a preschool programme in a disadvantaged area. Dublin: St. Patrick’s College,Educational Research Center, 1993.

21. Rhee, U., and Lee, K. The effectiveness of four early childhood program models: Follow-up atmiddle school. Journal of Educational Research (1990) 28,3:147–62.

22. McKay, H., Sinisterra, L., McKay, A., et al. Improving cognitive ability in chronically deprivedchildren. Science. April 21, 1978, pp. 270–78.

23. McKay, A., and McKay, H. Primary school progress after preschool experience: Troublesomeissues in the conduct of follow-up research and findings from the Cali, Colombia Study. InPreventing school failure. K. King and R. Myers, eds. Ottawa, CN: International DevelopmentResearch Center,1983, pp. 36–41.

24. Zaveri, S. India Village Preschool Study. Report prepared for Aga Khan Education Service(India), Center for Research and Development. India, 1994.

25. Myers, R.G. The twelve who survive: Strengthening programs of early childhood. New York: Routledgein cooperation with UNESCO, 1992, pp. 239–44.

26. Braithwaite, J. Explorations in early childhood education. Hawthorn, Victoria: Australian Councilfor Educational Research, 1983.


27. Kagitcibasi, C. The Early Enrichment Project in Turkey. Paris: UNESCO-UNICEF-WFP,February 1991.

28. Le Normand, M.T. Early childhood education in France. In International handbook of earlychildhood education. G.A. Woodill, J. Bernhard, and L. Prochner, eds. New York: Garland,1992, pp. 205–16.

29. Curtis, A. Early childhood education in Great Britain. In International handbook of early child-hood education. G.A. Woodill, J. Bernhard, and L. Prochner, eds. New York: Garland, 1992,pp. 231–49.

30. See note no. 13, Osborne and Milbank, p. 239.

31. See note no. 8, Moss, p. 10.

32. Lamb, M.E., Hwang, C.P., and Broberg, P. Swedish child care research. In Day care for youngchildren: International perspectives. E. Melhuish and P. Moss, eds. London: Tavistock/Routledge,1991, pp. 102–20.

33. Gunnarsson, L. Sweden. In International handbook of child care policies and programs. M. Cochran,ed. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1993, pp. 491–514.

34. See note no. 17, Andersson, pp. 32–33.

35. Broberg, A., Hwang, C.P., Lamb, M.E., and Ketterlinus, R.D. Child care effects on socioe-motional and intellectual competence in Swedish preschoolers. In Caring for children:Challenge for America. J.S. Lande, S. Scarr, and N. Gunzenhauser, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum,1989, pp. 49–76.

36. Cochran, M.M., and Gunnarsson, L. A follow-up study of group day care and family-basedchildrearing patterns. Journal of Marriage and the Family (1985) 47:297–309.

37. See note no. 20, Kellaghan and Greaney, p. 21.

38. See note no. 14, Tietze, p. 151.

39. Opper, S. Child care and early education in Hong Kong. In How nations serve young children:Profiles of child care and education in 14 countries. P.P. Olmsted and D.P. Weikart, eds. Ypsilanti,MI: High/Scope Press, 1989, pp. 119–142.

40. Noguchi, I., Ogawa, S., Yoshikawa, T., and Hashimoto, S. Early education in Japan: Fromancient times to the present. In International handbook of early childhood education. G.A. Woodill,J. Bernhard, and L. Prochner, eds. New York: Garland, 1992, pp. 317–25.

41. Smith, A.B. Early childhood education in New Zealand: The winds of change. In Internationalhandbook of early childhood education. G.A. Woodill, J. Bernhard, and L. Prochner, eds. NewYork: Garland, 1992, pp. 383–98.

42. McLean, S.V., Piscitelli, B., Halliwell, G., and Ashby, G.F., Australian early childhood educa-tion. In International handbook of early childhood education. G.A. Woodill, J. Bernhard, and L.Prochner, eds. New York: Garland, 1992, pp. 49–73.

43. Wylie, C. What research on early childhood education/care outcomes can, and can’t, tell pol-icymakers. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1994.

44. Philip, H.S., with Chetly, A. A small awakening: The work of the Bernard van Leer Foundation:1965–1986. The Hague: Bernard van Leer Foundation, 1988.

45. Pollitt, E., Gorman, K.S., Engle, P., et al. Early supplementary feeding and cognition: Effectover two decades. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Serial No. 235(1993) 58,7.

46. Grantham-McGregor, S., Powell, C., Walker, S., et al. The long-term follow-up of severely mal-nourished children who participated in an intervention program. Child Development (1994)65:428–39.

47. Kaul, V. Early childhood education in India. In International handbook of early childhood educa-tion. G.A. Woodill, J. Bernhard, and L. Prochner, eds. New York: Garland, 1992, pp. 275–92.

48. Gurkan, T. Early childhood education and care in Turkey. In International handbook of earlychildhood education. G.A. Woodill, J. Bernhard, and L. Prochner, eds. New York: Garland, 1992,pp. 481–89.

49. See note no. 27, Kagibcibasi, p. 17.

50. Kamerman, S.B., and Kahn, A.J. Child care, family benefits, and working parents: A study in compar-ative policy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1981.

51. See note no. 1, Olmsted, p. 24.

52. See note no. 43, Wylie, p. 27.


53. Bronfenbrenner, U. Two worlds of childhood: U.S. and U.S.S.R. New York: Russell SageFoundation, 1970, pp. 165–66.

54. Tobin, J.J, Wu, D.Y.H, and Davidson, D.H. Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and theUnited States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989, p. 58.

55. Prochner, L. Themes in late 20th-century child care and early education: A cross-nationalanalysis. In International handbook of early childhood education. G.A. Woodill, J. Bernhard, and L.Prochner, eds. New York: Garland, 1992, pp. 11–19.

56. See note no. 50, Kamerman and Kahn, p. 122.

57. Clark, M.M. Children under five: Educational research and evidence. New York and London:Gordon and Breach, 1988. See especially pp. 65 and 264.

58. Zimilies, H. Rethinking the role of research: New issues and lingering doubts in an era ofexpanding preschool education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly (1986) 1:189–206.


Documents

Early Childhood Programs in Other Nations: Goals … Childhood Programs in...Early Childhood Programs in Other Nations: Goals and Outcomes 97 assessing the validity of the research