Preschool programs

Last update: March 2022

Topic Editor:
Edward Melhuish, PhD, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 1

Table of content
Synthesis 5

Preschool Programs: Effective Curricula 8

SHARON LYNN KAGAN, EDD, 2KRISTIE KAUERZ, EDD, 1HANNA JUNUS, MA, MARCH 2022
1

Preschool Programs for the General Population 16

EDWARD MELHUISH, PHD, JACQUELINE BARNES, PHD, JUNE 2021

Preschool Programs for Children in Disadvantaged Families 24

LAWRENCE J. SCHWEINHART, PHD, DECEMBER 2012

Preschool and Learning-Related Skills 29

PAUL LESEMAN, PHD, DECEMBER 2012

Preschool Programs: Effective Curriculum. Comments on Melhuish and 37

Barnes, Kagan and Kauerz, Schweinhart, and Leseman
JANE BERTRAND, M.ED., DECEMBER 2012

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 2

Topic funded by:

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 3

Synthesis

How important is it?

Preschool programs provide early childhood education and care for children from various cultural
and socioeconomic backgrounds in the years prior to their entry into Grade 1. Settings typically
include schools, nursery schools, childcare centres and private homes. Since the middle of the 20th
century, preschool programs have been increasingly widespread given the recognition of the
importance of learning during early childhood when brain development is very rapid. One of the
important functions of preschool programs is to help children acquire learning-related skills, such
as the ability to express thoughts, adapt behaviours to situational demands, control impulsivity,
show curiosity, remain concentrated and be socially competent. As such, school readiness is not
only about teaching children basic language and mathematics skills, but is also about promoting
self-regulation. Although beneficial for all children, these early childhood learning opportunities
are especially important for children in disadvantaged groups as they play a critical role in
reducing the impact of negative early experiences and in redirecting their development into a
more productive trajectory. Accordingly, preschool programs can help to reduce the educational
gap between children from vulnerable and more affluent families.

What do we know?

Several cognitive and socio-emotional benefits are associated with participation in preschool
programs. Not only do they tend to increase children’s intellectual abilities, positive social
behaviours, school commitment, and their likelihood of graduating from high school, but they also
lower children’s likelihood of repeating a grade and of engaging in antisocial behaviours during
their adolescence. These long-lasting positive impacts are increasingly recognized across both
developed and developing countries (e.g., Bangladesh, Uruguay), and are mostly found in high-
quality preschool programs characterized by two critical components: a) an effective curriculum
(i.e., the content of what is taught to children) and b) a positive classroom environment that
increases children’s extrinsic motivation to learn. Curriculum is central to supporting and
strengthening children’s learning and development. Yet, because children’s academic functioning
interacts with other factors (e.g., children’s temperament, family background and cultural
tradition), preschool programs that rely on custom-designed curriculum tend to provide better

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 4

outcomes as they integrate different types of approaches and take into account children’s
emerging aptitudes. Along the same lines, learning is fostered in an environment characterized by
positive student-interactions. When children feel competent, identify with their teacher and
receive appropriate feedback from them, they tend to be more motivated to learn.

Examples of preschool programs that are effective at promoting long-lasting benefits include Head
Start, PATHS and Tools, among others. The Program for Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS)
focuses on promoting self-regulation in children by a) establishing a positive classroom
environment with rules and routines; b) teaching children ways to self-soothe, cool-down, and
problem solve; and c) modelling prosocial behaviours (e.g., helping, sharing and turn-taking).
Similarly, the Tools of the Mind (Tools) is a preschool program intended to promote academic
functioning and self-regulation among children from vulnerable families by emphasizing problem
solving in small groups, peer collaboration in play, social rules through memory aids and
sociodramatic play.

What can be done?

To advance children’s development, preschool programs should promote learning-related

strategies, rely on an effective curriculum and be comprised of qualified preschool teachers.
Several educational strategies can be implemented within preschool programs to promote
children’s learning-related skills. For example, in order to bridge the gap between other- and self-
regulation, children are encouraged to use private speech to verbalize their objectives and to
evaluate their performance. It is also recommended that teachers model a few situations that
involve self-regulation (e.g., looking away from an attractive reward, holding hands under the
table) and provide memory aids to symbolize social rules. Furthermore, a useful strategy to
promote creativity, comprehension and peer cooperation is to engage children in collaborative
play, problem-solving activities, pretend play and sociodramatic play. Pretend play allows children
to negotiate what they have to do to coordinate their roles and make choices. Similarly,
sociodramatic play helps children to imagine other’s state of mind and to display different
emotions as they are switching characters’ roles. Overall, effective educational strategies are
required in early education programs to promote children’s emotional, behavioural and attention
self-regulation.

In addition to emphasize learning-related skills, high-quality preschool programs should have a

good curriculum.Itmust be structured enough, while giving enough flexibility to allow for the

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 5

different needs of children and their families. Generally, curricula are most effective when a)
children are active and cognitively engaged in their learning; b) instructional goals are clear; c)
teachers have positive and meaningful interactions with students, in turn allowing them to track
children’ progress and make the necessary changes; d) what is taught builds on children’s prior
learning; and e) it is comprehensive.

Finally, preschool teachers should receive an adequate training to become sensitive to children’s
needs, rules and routines and to the socio-emotional climate. As part of their training, they should
develop the capacity to contribute to children’s cognitive and social development and to reach out
to parents to make them full partners of children’s early education.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 6

Preschool Programs: Effective Curricula
1
Sharon Lynn Kagan, EdD, 2Kristie Kauerz, EdD, 1Hanna Junus, MA
1
Teachers College, Columbia University; 2University of Colorado, Denver, USA
March 2022, Éd. rév.

Introduction

High quality early care and education has been associated with short-term and long-term
cognitive, social, and emotional benefits for young children’s development. When quality is
discussed, it is typically measured by two dimensions: (1) process variables (e.g., the nature of
children’s interactions with adult caregivers) and (2) structural variables (e.g., the characteristics
that can be regulated by policy and that create beneficial conditions for children’s development,
including adult:child ratios, group size, and teacher training).1,2 Curriculum – or the content of what
is taught to children – cannot be overlooked; rather, it is a foundational fulcrum on which quality
pedagogy rests.

Subject

Despite its centrality to quality, curriculum has been entangled and often confused with allied
issues (i.e., beliefs, learning theories/pedagogies, and skills/standards). Yet, curriculum is different
from these constructs. For example, most contemporary curricula reflect three guiding principles
or beliefs about young children’s learning that are manifest in, but distinct from, curriculum: (a)
children are competent and eager learners whose natural curiosity yields rich learning
trajectories; (b) children learn in an integrated way, so that specific subject area learnings (e.g.,
math, science, language) best take place within the context of child-generated experiences (e.g.,
cooking, gardening, constructing); and (c) children need exposure to all domains of development –
physical and motor, language, cognitive, social and emotional – so that no single domain takes
precedence over any other.3,4

Curriculum is also different from, but closely linked to, learning theories and pedagogies, which
may lead to different curricular strategies. Behaviourist theories of child development often lead
to didactic models of direct instruction in which teachers lead learning by presenting discrete facts
to large groups of children. Maturationist theories advance pedagogy and curricula that enable
children to direct their own learning and learn at their own pace. Constructivist theories espouse

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 7

pedagogy wherein children are active partners with their socio-cultural environment, including
teachers and peers.

Finally, curriculum is different from, but supportive of the enhancement of, children’s skills and
behaviours. Curriculum is intended to encourage learning processes (e.g., attention, observation),
cognitive skills (e.g., reasoning, comparing/contrasting, classification), and the acquisition of
specific information (e.g., the names of numbers and letters of the alphabet). In this sense,
curriculum is sometimes confused with standards or expectations of what children should know
and do.

Curriculum, then, must be clearly understood for what it is and for what it uniquely contributes to
early care and education. Curriculum is the content of what is taught and what is learned.

Problems

Several broad issues continue to complicate curriculum design, implementation, and evaluation.
First, definitional ambiguity persists regarding the distinctions between curriculum, curriculum
frameworks, and pedagogy. Second, the actual desired outcomes from curricula differ, with some
privileging content-specific foci and others adopting a holistic orientation. Finally, and in light of
the two former issues, it is very difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of curricula given that its
effects are integrally related to social and contextual factors, including family background, social
class, cultural traditions, and the qualities of the classroom teacher, and the nature of the
pedagogy used to advance the curriculum.3,5

Research Context

Amidst the quest to address these challenges and to achieve better outcomes for young children,
research on curriculum thrives. One major area of inquiry focuses on the comparative
effectiveness of content-specific vs more holistic curriculum, with some findings strongly
supporting a holistic orientation that embraces children’s physical, social, emotional, linguistic,
and cognitive development and supports overall learning and development. Simultaneously,
research also supports content-specific curriculum as an elixir of school readiness skills (i.e.,
literacy and numeracy skills).6-8 The scope of curriculum research is also expanding to include a
focus on how children approach learning and their executive functioning. Recent studies examine
the relationship between curriculum and familial, environmental and contextual variables
including: (i) the importance of race, ethnicity, and gender as they impact learning and

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 8

development; (ii) the cultivation of diverse environments that honor family values, cultures, and
languages; (iii) the use and impact of digital technologies on children’s development; (iv) the
development, support, retention, and compensation of the workforce; and (v) the impact of
systemic variables (e.g., governance, funding, and accountability) on the quality, equitable
distribution, sustainability and efficiency of services. Finally, new approaches to research are
being manifest, with increasing attention being accorded qualitative and mixed methods. These
shifts in how curriculum is studied reflect widespread recognition, from practitioners and
policymakers alike, that children’s learning must be situated and understood within a broader
context of families, community, teachers, learning environments, organizations, and systems.9-12

Recent Research Results

While data have not yet fully addressed the range of issues noted above, progress related to
curriculum and pedagogy are not only being made, but are also yielding notable findings
regarding the conditions under which children learn best. Children’s learning and development is
enhanced when:3,5,6-21

Children are active and engaged. Children learn best by exploring and thinking about the
world around them. As such, children need to be active in their learning, not just cognitively,
but also physically, socially, and artistically. Effective curriculum ensures that important
concepts are taught through projects, every day experiences, collaborative activities, and an
active curriculum.

Goals are clear and shared by all. Curriculum goals should be clearly defined, shared,
and understood by all adults invested in children’s learning (e.g., families, teachers, program
administrators). The curriculum and related instructional strategies should be designed to
help achieve goals in a unified, coherent way.

Teachers have frequent, meaningful interactions with children. As already noted,

curriculum and the content of what young children need to learn, know, and be able to do is
closely linked with pedagogy and how such content is delivered. As a consequence,
curriculum implementation relies primarily on teachers and the nature of teacher/child
interactions. Teachers’ engagement with children also allows them to regularly assess each
child’s progress and make adjustments in the classroom as necessary. Effective pedagogical
and assessment strategies rely to a large extent on teachers’ experience levels and
educational backgrounds. To support effective teaching, curriculum should be linked to on-

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 9

 going professional learning for teachers.

Curriculum is evidence-based. The curriculum should be based on evidence that is

developmentally, culturally, and linguistically relevant for the children who will experience
the curriculum. It should be organized around principles of child development and learning.
When subject-specific curricula are adopted, they should also meet the standards of relevant
professional organizations (e.g., the National Council of Teachers of English or the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics).

Curriculum builds on children’s prior learning and experiences. The content and
implementation of the curriculum should build on children’s prior individual, age-related, and
cultural learning and be inclusive of children with disabilities. In addition, curriculum should
support the knowledge that children gain from their families and communities and support
children with home languages other than English in building a solid base for later learning.
Effective curricula offer guidance, adaptations, and specific strategies to differentiate
teaching and classroom activities according to the characteristics and backgrounds of the
children.

Curriculum is comprehensive. Curriculum should encompass all areas of development

including children’s physical health; well-being and motor development; social and
emotional development; approaches to learning; language development, and cognition and
general knowledge. Rather than adopting a didactic, school-based approach in which each
subject is taught distinctly and at separate times, curricula in early care and education
should explicitly integrate learning across domains.

Curriculum is aligned with learning standards and appropriate assessments.

Increasingly, policy-makers and practitioners alike are concerned with improving children’s
learning experiences. This concern is manifest in the increased attention to a systematic
approach to accountability that sets specific learning outcomes (i.e., early learning
standards), guidance on what content to deliver to young children (i.e., curriculum), and
assessment procedures that document children’s progress. However, attending to each
independently is insufficient; effective curriculum is well aligned with standards and
assessments.

Curriculum frameworks exist and are designed to be locally contextualized.

Internationally, researchers and policy-makers have paid increasing attention to curriculum
frameworks as key policy levers to develop and guide quality curriculum. While these

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 10

 documents are not accountability measures, they articulate broad, overarching
developmental agreements that bind multiple providers under a common vision. Effective
curriculum is grounded in the guidelines of a framework, but must also be flexibly
individualized or localized to context.

Curriculum is flexible and honors children’s unique cultural contexts. On a national

or sub-national scale, this means that curriculum is culturally flexible so that it enables
teachers to tailor pedagogy and learning experiences to the children and their communities.
On a global scale, this manifests as a careful balance among cultural paradigms, particularly
in the face of heightened Western hegemony in early childhood research and standards.

Underlying early childhood systems are effectively functioning. For curriculum to

translate effectively to the classroom, the underlying early childhood system must also be
effectively functioning. Components of an effective system include subsystems like a
supported workforce; community and family engagement; comprehensive governance;
sustainable funding mechanisms; robust data infrastructure; and high-quality pedagogy. For
instance, in order for teachers to confidently adapt and enact curriculum, they must be well-
trained and compensated; in order for curriculum to address children’s needs, adequate
child and program-level data must be available. Although the ways in which an early
childhood system manifest will vary by context, effective systems universally require that all
its components be equally supported.

Conclusions

Curriculum, or the content of what children learn, is central to supporting and strengthening
young children’s learning and development because it is the “front line” of children’s experiences.
Curriculum is different from beliefs about children, pedagogy, learning standards, and children’s
skills. Nonetheless, curriculum is central not only to the knowledge and skills children gain, but
also to the application of particular pedagogical approaches and to the nature of
teacher/caregiver-child interactions. With increasing numbers of children in early care and
education programs, effective curriculum is crucial. Curriculum is also distinct and strengthened
when used in combination with curriculum frameworks. In the face of increased globalization,
curriculum must be guided by frameworks that build consensus on quality, be flexible to
individualize, and honor diversity.

Implications

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 11

Given the diversity of young children in early care and education programs, it is unlikely that the
field will come to consensus on the superiority of a single specified curriculum, even though a
general consensus might be reached around the elements associated with a curriculum
framework. A framework would rely on a balance between a clearly defined structure that impacts
all children and flexibility that allows for individualization for children, families, cultures, and
classrooms. Moreover, next generation research must discern which pedagogical approaches
produce educationally meaningful effects in which domains of development, for which children,
under what social conditions, and with what kinds of professional preparation for teachers. Beyond
embracing the research agenda, curricula must be distinguished from curriculum frameworks, just
as pedagogy is distinct from curriculum.

References

1. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research

Network. Child-care structure --> process --> outcome: direct and indirect effects of child-
care quality on young children’s development. Psychological Science 2002;13(3):199–206.

2. Vandell DL, Wolfe B. Child care quality: Does it matter and does it need to be improved?

Madison, Wis: Institute for Research on Poverty; 2000.

3. National Research Council. Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press; 2001.

4. Kagan SL, Moore E, Bredekamp S, eds. Reconsidering children’s early development and
learning: Toward shared beliefs and vocabulary. Washington, DC: National Education Goals

Panel; 1995.

5. Ramey SL, Ramey CT. Early childhood experiences and developmental competence. In:

Danziger S, Waldfogel J, eds. Securing the future: Investing in children from birth to college.
New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 2000:122-150.

6. Jenkins JM, Duncan GJ, Auger A, Bitler M, Domina T, Burchinal M. Boosting school readiness:

Should preschool teachers target skills or the whole child? Economics of Education Review
2018;65:107-125. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.05.001

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 12

 7. Nguyen T, Jenkins JM, Whitaker AA. Are content-specific curricula differentially effective in

Head Start or state prekindergarten classrooms?. AERA Open.

2018;4(2):10.1177/2332858418784283. doi:10.1177/2332858418784283

8. Weiland C, McCormick M, Mattera S, Maier M, Morris P. Preschool curricula and professional

development features for getting to high-quality implementation at scale: A comparative

review across five trials. AERA Open. February 2018. doi:10.1177/2332858418757735

9. Black MM, Walker SP, Fernald LCH, Andersen CT, DiGirolamo AM, Lu C, McCoy DC, Fink G,

Shawar YR, Shiffman J, Devercelli AE, Wodon QT, Vargas-Barón E, Grantham-McGregor S;

Lancet Early Childhood Development Series Steering Committee. Early childhood
development coming of age: science through the life course. Lancet 2017;389(10064):77-90.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31389-7

10. Kagan SL. Context matters: Lessons learned from the world’s highest-performing early

childhood systems. Young Children 2020;75(1):22-31.

11. Campbell-Barr V, Bogatić K. Global to local perspectives of early childhood education and

care. Early Child Development and Care 2017;187(10):1461-1470.

12. Vargas-Baron E. Building and strengthening national systems for early childhood

development. In: Britto P, Engle P, Super C, eds. Handbook of early childhood development
research and its impact on global policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.

13. Espinosa LM. High-quality preschool: Why we need it and what it looks like. New Brunswick,

NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 2002.

14. National Association for the Education of Young Children and The National Association of

Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. Early childhood curriculum,

assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs
for children birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of

Young Children; 2003.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 13

 15. Frede E, Ackerman DJ. Curriculum decision-making: Dimensions to consider. New Brunswick,

NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research; 2006.

16. OECD. Starting Strong VI: Supporting Meaningful Interactions in Early Childhood Education
and Care, Starting Strong. OECD Publishing, Paris; 2021. https://doi.org/10.1787/f47a06ae-

en

17. Melvin SA, Landsberg E, Kagan SL. International curriculum frameworks: Increasing equity

and driving systemic change. Young Children 2020;75(1):10-21.

18. Bautista A, Bull R, Ng EL, Lee K. “That’s just impossible in my kindergarten.” Advocating for

‘glocal’’ early childhood curriculum frameworks.’ Policy Futures in Education.

2021;19(2):155-174. doi:10.1177/1478210320956500

19. Campos MM. Between the politics of quality and the quality of practices. Cadernos de
Pesquisa 2013;43(148):22-43.

20. Kagan SL. The early advantage 1 – Early childhood systems that lead by example: A
comparative focus on international early childhood education. New York, NY: Teachers

College Press; 2018.

21. Landsberg E, Tucker MS. The early advantage 2 – Building systems that work for young
children: International insights from innovative early childhood systems. New York, NY:

Teachers College Press; 2019.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 14

Preschool Programs for the General Population
Edward Melhuish, PhD, Jacqueline Barnes, PhD

Department of Education, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

June 2021, Éd. rév.

Introduction

There are well-known small-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies from the US
documenting the benefits of curriculum-led experimental preschool programs for long-term
educational, occupational and social outcomes for disadvantaged children.1 Additionally, a larger-
scale quasi-experimental study in Chicago found similar benefits up to age 28 of sustained early
education in terms of improved education, socio-economic status, health and crime for a
disadvantaged population.2 Such programs are cost-effective with groups at high risk for poor
outcomes, in that the savings outweigh any costs.3 Nevertheless, besides benefits for
disadvantaged groups there is strong evidence that preschool education, whether specialized or
routine provision, can be beneficial for the general population.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) examined educational
attainment data for 65 countries, finding that literacy at age 15 was strongly associated with
preschool participation in countries where a large proportion of the population use preschool,
where preschool is for more months, and where there were measures to maintain the quality of
preschool.4 They concluded that widening access to preschool can improve performance and
equity by reducing socioeconomic disparities, but also importantly noting that this will be the case
only if extending coverage does not compromise quality.4 A meta-analysis of 125 studies
concluded that preschool was associated with substantial effects for both cognitive and socio-
emotional outcomes often through to adulthood, and educationally-oriented programs appeared
to have larger effects.5

A more recent comprehensive review has delineated how a range of factors affect the influence of
early childhood education and care (ECEC) upon child outcomes.6 Studies of population-
representative US samples reported benefits for school readiness of prekindergarten experiences,
7,8
greater if preschool started at 2 years of age.9 Similar evidence also exists in the UK10,11 and the
effects are long-term with improved qualifications, employment and earnings in adulthood.12 In

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 15

France, école maternelle provides universal, free, preschool education from age three. During the
1960s and 1970s large-scale expansion in France enrollment of 3-year-olds increased from 35% to
90% and of 4-year-olds from 60% to 100%. Analysis of state-collected data revealed sizable and
persistent effects indicating that preschool helped children succeed in school and obtain higher
wages in the labor market, with greater effects for children from less advantaged backgrounds.13
Similar population-wide evidence has been found from national data in Switzerland where
preschool expansion was associated with improved intergenerational educational mobility, with
children from disadvantaged backgrounds benefiting most.14 Further evidence comes from the
expansion of preschool education in Norway during the 1970s, where using national datasets and
examining differential local implementation found that preschool participation was associated with
strong benefits for later educational and labor market outcomes across the population.15

More recently, in the US a study of children who attended New Jersey’s public preschool program
found long-lasting educational benefits for a population of largely black and Hispanic children. The
effects persisted until age 16 and were larger for 2 years than 1 year of the preschool. Grade
retention was significantly lower and special education placements were reduced with preschool
participation.16 Similarly, a study in Oklahoma found persistent benefits on math attainment and
grade retention through middle school.17

Developing countries

Most research on ECEC has occurred in developed countries. However, some research has focused
on the potential for ECEC to improve general population outcomes for developing countries.
Sometimes the preschool program is coordinated with a health and/or nutrition program, and such
programs appear to be very successful.18 Examples of the benefits of preschool education has
been found for several developing countries across the globe. For example, preschool was found
to boost primary school achievement in Bangladesh,19 with similar results reported in a review of
studies from ten countries.20 With the expansion of preschool provision in Uruguay comparisons
were possible of a) siblings with and without preschool and b) regions varying in preschool
expansion. The study revealed clear benefits in terms of academic achievement from preschool
up to secondary school.21 Similar analyses in Argentina found that one year of preschool was
associated with primary school attainment increases by a moderate but important degree.22 Also,
a study in Chile showed that preschool attendance starting in the first two years of life had a
positive impact on cognitive skills, academic outcomes and self-regulation.23 A review of research
in developing countries24 concluded that increasing preschool enrolment is amongst the most

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 16

effective ways of improving child outcomes, with a very favourable benefit-to-cost ratio.

Quality

The long-term benefits are not evident in all research with some studies finding that children who
did and did not attend preschool programs converge on educational measures after some years,25
but there are discrepancies amongst studies. Some studies find persistent effects when preschool
and later school education is high quality.26 Others find persistent effects for children whose
alternative learning environments are not conducive to developmental progress.27 While persistent
effects are the most common finding, quality is of relevance.17 Critically, in experimental
intervention studies2,3,28 the quality of the preschool was high. General population studies from the
US29 and England10,11 have provided evidence on preschool education with greater variability in
quality and indicate that the quality of universal preschool is influential. For example, in England,
controlling for background influences, quality as measured by standardized observations, revealed
effects for literacy and numeracy that were important for later educational progress, with low-
quality preschool having virtually no beneficial effect.10,11 The beneficial effects of high quality
preschool education on educational achievement and social development have been found up to
age 18 in this English study.11 Similar results were obtained in Northern Ireland; children who
attended high quality preschool were 2.4 times more likely to attain the highest grade in literacy
at age 11, and 3.4 times more likely in mathematics, than children without preschool.30 Looking at
evidence across public preschool programs in five US states with adequate resourcing and high
quality programs (Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Oklahoma), there
were positive effects on educational attainment which was in contrast with null effects for
programs in other states without evidence of high quality provision.31 Thus, it could be concluded
that high quality programs produce benefits but poorly implemented programs may have limited
or no effects.

Effectiveness

Preschool experiences can improve children’s longer-term executive functioning,32 linked to

enhanced cognitive and social-emotional outcomes. Similar long-term effects can be seen for
specific areas of educational attainment such as mathematics,10,30,33 scientific thinking34 and
literacy.11,30 This is consistent with the proposition that later cognitive and non-cognitive skills
build upon skills learnt in early childhood, and greater early learning can put children on a more
beneficial developmental trajectory. Thus, investment in early childhood education can result in

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 17

greater benefits per unit than investment in later childhood. Similar propositions include those
that preschool education, through improving both cognitive skills in language, literacy, and math
as well as socio-emotional skills such as self-regulation, motivation/engagement, and persistence,
can improve children’s ability to maintain a positive academic trajectory.35 The size of such
preschool effects upon subsequent development has been debated often and a meta-analysis of
22 high-quality experimental and quasi-experimental studies conducted between 1960 and 2016
found that, on average, participation in preschool education leads to statistically significant
reductions in special education placement (d = 0.33 SD, 8.1 percentage points) and grade
retention (d = 0.26 SD, 8.3 percentage points) and increases in high school graduation rates (d =
0.24 SD, 11.4 percentage points).36 Such results support the proposition that preschool education
can reduce later education costs and also promote child well-being.

Determining Causality

Randomized controlled trial designs are generally not feasible with preschool provision for the
general population, and non-experimental designs are the norm. Hence it is possible that the
associations found between preschool experience and development, reflect selection effects.
These issues have been discussed extensively,37 and while it remains possible that unmeasured
variables are the basis of a selection effect (omitted variable bias) the interpretation that
associations are the result of casual effects of preschool experiences is strengthened by the
inclusion of statistical control for many possible basis-for-selection covariates, reflecting child,
family and sometimes neighbourhood characteristics, as for example in the EPPSE (effective
preschool, primary & secondary education) study.10,11

Another approach to this problem is the use of change models. If differences exist prior to
preschool experience this would support the selection effect interpretation; conversely if
developmental differences emerge after preschool this supports a casual interpretation. As
preschool experience has been found to be not only associated with post-preschool development,
but also with enhanced progress over the preschool period,38 this further supports a casual
interpretation. Similarly, “difference in differences” approaches have supported the beneficial
effects of preschool education, as in a study exploiting variation in preschool provision across birth
cohorts and municipalities amongst Norway’s population.39 Another strategy is the regression-
discontinuity design. Comparing “young” kindergarten children who had just completed preschool
to “old” preschool children just beginning preschool, the results clearly indicated preschool effects
upon school readiness test scores.40

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 18

Other evidence supportive of a casual interpretation of preschool effects comes from a study of
twins.41 Longitudinal data from a nationally-representative sample over 600 monozygotic and
dizygotic twin pairs shows the contributions of genes, shared environment and non-shared
environment to cognitive development for children varying in preschool experience. Attending
preschool was associated with reductions in shared environmental influences on academic skills at
kindergarten entry and was prospectively associated with reduced family-level influences on
academic skills. Before preschool the contribution of shared environment influences on cognition
was similar for preschool and non-preschool groups but after preschool, shared environment
influences were 43-47% of variance for the preschool group, while for the non-preschool group
they were 72-83% of the variance.

In summary the evidence overwhelmingly supports a causal interpretation of the long-term effects
of preschool education.

Research and Policy

Comparing data from before and after post-policy changes indicates that policy can improve
preschool quality and reduce variation amongst the population.42 In countries where policy has
improved leading to universal coverage of preschool education and reduced variation in preschool
quality, the effects of preschool education and particularly preschool quality effects upon child
development are less apparent, as appears to have happened in the UK,43 and possibly in Norway,
39
by largely eliminating poor quality with universal state-funded and monitored provision. This
evidence of reduced effects for preschool education, when variation in provision and quality of
preschool education amongst the population is reduced, can be interpreted as good news in that
apparently most of the population are benefitting from better quality preschool experience.

The overwhelmingly positive evidence of the benefits of preschool education has increased
interest in the universal preschool provision to improve school readiness and later educational
attainment and subsequent social, economic and occupational success.3,44 Indeed some have
argued that preschool experience is critical for children's future competence, coping skills, health,
success in the labor market, and consequently the social and economic health of the nation.45 In a
technologically sophisticated world a population’s educational competence is likely to be
increasingly important for a nation’s economic development. Hence preschool education benefits
not only disadvantaged groups but advances educational and social development for all, and
becomes part of the infrastructure for a nation’s economic and social development. This message

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 19

is increasingly being heeded by governments. In France, école maternelle has proved so valuable
for the country as a whole that from 2019 it was made compulsory for all French children over
three years of age to attend until the start of school (https://www.education.gouv.fr/l-ecole-
maternelle-11534), and France became the first country to integrate preschool education into a
compulsory education system. While in other countries, notably the Nordic countries, UK and
others, preschool education, while not compulsory, is almost completely universal resulting from
government funding of preschool facilities. This means that research in such countries can
examine variations in preschool education, but comparing preschool versus no preschool
attendance is not longer an option.

References

1. Schweinhart LJ. Preschool Programs for Children in Disadvantaged Families. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV, eds.
Melhuish E, topic ed. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. https://www.child-
encyclopedia.com/preschool-programs/according-experts/preschool-programs-children-disadvantaged-families. Updated
December 2012. Accessed June 22, 2021.

2. Reynolds AJ, Temple JA, Ou SR, Arteaga IA, White BA. School-based early childhood education and age-28 well-being:
Effects by timing, dosage, and subgroups. Science 2011;333(6040):360-364. doi:10.1126/science.1203618

3. Heckman JJ. Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 2006;312(5782):1900-1902.
doi:10.1126/science.1128898

4. OECD. Does participation in pre-primary education translate into better learning outcomes at school? PISA in Focus, No 1.
Paris: OECD Publishing; 2011. doi:10.1787/5k9h362tpvxp-en

5. Camilli G, Vargas S, Ryan S, Barnett WS. Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and
social development. Teachers College Record 2010;112(3): 579-620.

6. Melhuish E, Ereky-Stevens K, Petrogiannis K, Ariescu A, Penderi E, Rentzou K, Tawell A, Slot P, Broekhuizen M, Leseman P. A
review of research on the effects of Early Childhood Education & Care (ECEC) upon child development. Brussels: European
Commission; 2015. https://ecec-
care.org/fileadmin/careproject/Publications/reports/new_version_CARE_WP4_D4_1_Review_on_the_effects_of_ECEC.pdf.
Accessed June 22, 2021.

7. Gormley W, Phillips D, Gayer T. Preschool programs can boost school readiness. Science 2008;320:1723-1724.

8. Magnuson K, Meyers M, Ruhm C, Waldfogel J. Inequality in preschool education and school readiness. American Educational
Research Journal 2004;41:115-157.

9. Loeb S, Bridges M, Bassok D, Fuller B, Rumberger RW. How much is too much? The influence of pre-school centers on
children’s social and cognitive development. Economics of Education Review 2007;26:52-66.

10. Melhuish EC, Sylva K, Sammons P, Siraj-Blatchford I, Taggart B, Phan M, Malin A. Preschool influences on mathematics
achievement. Science 2008;321:1161-1162.

11. Sammons P, Toth K, Sylva K, Melhuish E, Siraj I, Taggart BL. Pre-school and early home learning effects on A-level
outcomes. London, UK: Department for Education; 2015.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/472867/RR472A_Pre-school
_and_early_home_learning_effects_on_A_level_outcomes.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2021.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 20

 12. Goodman A, Sianesi B. Early education and children’s outcomes: How long do the impacts last? Fiscal Studies 2005;26:513-
548.

13. Dumas C, Lefranc A. Early schooling and later outcomes: Evidence from preschool extension in France. Thema Working
Paper no 2010-07. Université de Cergy Pontoise, France, 2010.

14. Bauer PC, Riphahn RT. Age at school entry and intergenerational educational mobility. Economics Letters 2009;103:87-90.

15. Havnes T, Mogstad M. No child left behind: Subsidized child care and children's long-run outcomes. American Economic
Journal: Economic Policy 2011;3(2):97-129.

16. Barnett WS, Jung K. Effects of New Jersey’s Abbott preschool program on children’s achievement, grade retention, and
special education through tenth grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2021;56:248-259.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.04.001

17. Gormley WT, Phillips D, Anderson S. The Effects of Tulsa's Pre-K Program on Middle School Student Performance. Journal of
Policy analysis and Management 2018;37:63-87.

18. World Bank. Improving Learning Outcomes through Early Childhood development. Washington DC: World Bank. 2016. World
Bank Document.

19. Aboud FE. Evaluation of an early childhood pre-school in rural Bangladesh. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2006;21:46-
60.

20. Montie JE, Xiang Z, Schweinhart LJ. Preschool experience in 10 countries: cognitive and language performance at age 7.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2006;21;313-331.

21. Berlinski S, Galiani S, Manacorda M. Giving children a better start: Preschool attendance and school-age profiles. Journal of
Public Economics 2008;92:1416-1440.

22. Berlinski S, Galiani S, Gertler P. The effect of pre-primary education on primary school performance. Journal of Public
Economics 2009;93:219-234.

23. Narea M, Arriagada V, Allel K. Center-Based Care in Toddlerhood and Child Cognitive Outcomes in Chile: The Moderating
Role of Family Socio-Economic Status. Early Education and Development 2020;31(2):218-233.

24. Engle PL, Black MM, Behrman JR, Cabral de Mello M, Gertler PJ, Kapiriri L, Martorell R, Young ME; International Child
Development Steering Group. Strategies to avoid the loss of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in
the developing world. Lancet 2007;369:229-242.

25. Duncan G, Magnuson, K. Investing in preschool programs. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2013;27(2):109-132.

26. Ansari A, Pianta RC. Variation in the long-term benefits of child care: The role of classroom quality in elementary school.
Developmental Psychology 2018;54(10):1854-1867.

27. Morris PA, Connors M, Friedman-Krauss A, McCoy DC, Weiland C, Feller A, Page L, Bloom H, Yoshikawa H. New findings on
impact variation from the Head Start Impact Study: Informing the scale-up of early childhood programs. AERA Open
2018:4(2):1-16.

28. Barnett WS. Long term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children
1995;5(3):94 -114.

29. Vandell DL, Belsky J, Burchinall M, Steinberg L, Vandergrift N. Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results
from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Child Development 2010;81:737-756.

30. Melhuish E, Quinn L, Sylva K, Sammons P, Siraj-Blatchford I, Taggart B. Pre-school experience and key stage 2 performance
in English and mathematics. Belfast: Dept for Education, Northern Ireland; 2010.

31. Bartik TJ, Hershbein BJ. Pre-K in the public schools: Evidence from within U.S. States. Upjohn Institute Working Paper 18-
285. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. 2018. doi:10.17848/wp18-285

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 21

 32. Diamond A, Lee K. Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science
2011;333:959-964.

33. Clement DH, Sarama J. Early childhood mathematics intervention. Science 2011;333:968-970.

34. Klahr D, Zimmerman C, Jirout J. Educational interventions to advance children’s scientific thinking. Science 2011;333:971-
975.

35. Heckman J, Pinto R, Savelyev P. Understanding the mechanisms through which an influential early childhood program
boosted adult outcomes. The American Economic Review 2013;103(6);2052-2086.

36. McCoy DC, Yoshikawa H, Ziol-Guest KM, Duncan GJ, Schindler HS, Magnuson K, Yang R, Koepp A, Shonkoff JP. Impacts of
early childhood education on medium- and long-term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher 2017;46(8):474-487.

37. Duncan GJ, Gibson-Davis CM. Connecting child-care quality to child outcomes: Drawing policy lessons from non-
experimental data. Evaluation Review 2006;30:611-630.

38. Sammons P, Elliot K, Sylva K, Melhuish EC, Siraj-Blatchford I, Taggart B. The impact of pre-school on young children’s
cognitive attainments at entry to reception. British Educational Research Journal 2004;30:691-712.

39. Dearing E, Zachrisson HD, Mykletun A, Toppelberg CO. Estimating the consequences of Norway’s National Scale-Up of Early
Childhood Education and Care (Beginning in Infancy) for Early Language Skills. AERA Open 2018;4(1):1-16.

40. Gormley WT, Gayer T, Phillips D, Dawson B. The effects of universal pre-k on cognitive development. Developmental
Psychology 2005;41;872-884.

41. Tucker-Drob EM. Preschools reduce early academic achievement gaps: A longitudinal twin approach. Psychological Science
2012;23:310-319.

42. Melhuish E, Gardiner J. Structural factors and policy change as related to the quality of early childhood education and care
for 3-4-year-olds in the UK. Frontiers in Education 2019;4. doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00035

43. Melhuish E, Gardiner J. SEED Impact study on early education use and child outcomes up to age 5 years: Research report.
DFE-RR953. London, UK: Department for Education. 2020.

44. Zigler E, Gilliam W, Jones S. A Vision for universal preschool education. New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press; 2006.

45. McCain N, Mustard JF, McCuaig K. Early Years Study 3: Making decisions, taking action. Toronto, ON: McCain Family
Foundation; 2011.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 22

Preschool Programs for Children in Disadvantaged
Families
Lawrence J. Schweinhart, PhD

High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, USA

December 2012, Éd. rév.

Introduction and Subject

Preschool programs are purposeful arrangements of recurrent activities that provide care and
education to children in the years before they enter school. While “preschool” logically
encompasses the entire period from birth to school entry, it sometimes refers specifically to the
year or two before school entry, which is kindergarten entry for five-year-olds in many places. Like
school programs, preschool programs typically take place in schools or centers, but can take place
in private homes as well. They can be solely for the purpose of educating children or may also
provide care for them while their parents are working or in school themselves.

Families vary in the advantages available to their children. Their advantages or disadvantages are
largely due to families’ socioeconomic status, which is largely determined by parents’ education,
employment, earnings, and wealth. Some preschool programs, such as Head Start in the U.S., are
intended to compensate for the disadvantages of children from families of low socioeconomic
status.

Problems and Research Context

Preschool programs have become more widespread since the middle of the 20th century for two
reasons. One is the worldwide movement of mothers of young children into the work force. The
other is widespread knowledge of the accumulating evidence of the value of good early childhood
education from recent research on the development of the human brain and evaluative research
on model preschool programs for children in disadvantaged families. Neuroscience research has
found that the brains of young children raised in high-toxic-stress settings are visibly less
developed than the brains of young children raised in low-toxic-stress settings and that children’s
brains are much more active from ages three to seven than in subsequent years.1

Recent Research Results

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 23

Evaluative program research has found a variety of important effects of model preschool
programs on participants from early childhood into adulthood.2 These studies have combined
rigorous design, long-term study, and low rates of missing data to arrive at evidence that high-
quality early childhood program experience has important positive long-lasting effects on
participants which result in substantial economic return on investment.

The HighScope Perry Preschool Study randomly assigned 123 poor children to participate in
a high-quality preschool program at ages three and four or to no preschool program and
followed these study participants through age 40. The program had teachers with college
degrees, an intentional child development curriculum, substantial engagement with parents,
and ongoing assessment of program implementation and child performance. The study
found that this program had strong positive effects on participants’ intellectual abilities,
school achievement and commitment, high school graduation, adult earnings and
employment, and avoidance of criminal activity. Economic analysis found that the program
cost $10,917 per child per year in 2011 dollars (converted from the 2000 dollars reported) at
a 3% annual discount rate, and provided an economic return to society of $16.14 per dollar
invested.3

The Carolina Abecedarian study randomly assigned 111 infants averaging 4.4 months of age
from poor families, to a special program group or a typical child care group that used the
prevalent child care arrangements in homes and centres. 4 It was found that this high-quality
child care program for children from infancy to school entry improved participants’
intellectual performance and school achievement. Fewer program participants repeated a
grade or required special services or became teen parents; and more of them graduated
from high school and more attended a four-year college. Economic analysis found that, in
2011 dollars discounted (converted from the 2002 dollars reported) at a 3% annual discount
rate, the program cost $16,530 per child per year and yielded benefits to society of $3.78
per dollar invested.5

The Chicago Longitudinal Study compared 989 low-income children who attended the city
school district’s Child-Parent Centres to a comparison group of 550 of their classmates who
did not attend these centres.6 The centres provided a part-day preschool program to three-
and four-year-olds. The preschool-program group surpassed the no-preschool-program
group in educational performance and social behaviour, with lower rates of grade retention
and special education placement and a lower rate of juvenile and adult criminal arrests and

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 24

 a higher on-time high school graduation rate and higher annual income. Economic analysis
found that, in 2011 dollars at a 3% annual discount rate, the program cost $6,155 per child
per year and yielded benefits of $7.10 return per dollar invested. 7

In the past few years, a new generation of rigorous short-term preschool studies, most randomly
assigning children to the program or no-program conditions, has produced relatively disappointing
results. These studies have looked at the effects of publicly funded preschool programs, either
typical Head Start programs or special Head Start and other federally funded early childhood
programs.

Two studies of nationally representative samples of Head Start programs deserve special mention.
The Head Start Impact Study involved random assignment of children to Head Start or no Head
Start. This study has provided results for entering three-year-olds and entering four-year-olds after
one year in Head Start and through the end of first grade.8 It found evidence of small to moderate
Head Start effects a year later on children’s literacy and social skills, but no evidence of cognitive
or social program effects on children at the end of first grade. However, only 63% of the “Head
Start group” and 50% of the control group were in Head Start by the end of the second year,
raising the question of what was compared to what in this study. The Head Start Family and Child
Experiences Survey9 looks at a representative national sample of Head Start programs in the U.S.
Relative to national norms, children made significant gains during their Head Start year in
vocabulary, early writing skills, social skills, and reduced hyperactive behaviour. Head Start
graduates showed further progress toward national averages during kindergarten.

Rigorous evaluations of several special Head Start and similar programs have found small
program effects, examining the effects of the Early Head Start program;10 the Head Start
Comprehensive Child Development Program;11 and the U.S. Department of Education’s Even Start
Family Literacy program.12 A study of the effects of five state-funded preschool programs, using a
regression discontinuity design, found statistically significant, meaningful effects on children’s
vocabulary, print awareness skills, and early mathematics skills.13

Curriculum is a critical component of preschool programs that has been studied empirically.
Several preschool curriculum comparison studies that began in the 1960s have followed preschool
participants for years afterwards. One study found that young people born in poverty experienced
fewer emotional problems and felony arrests if they attended a preschool program that used the
child development-focused High/Scope model or a traditional child-centered Nursery School model

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 25

rather than a teacher-centered Direct Instruction model.14 This study and two other longitudinal
studiesfound that children in Direct Instruction programs significantly outperformed children in
traditional and other programs on various measures of intellectual performance during the
program and up to a year afterwards, but then these gains faded out.15 The evidence continues to
accumulate that early childhood curriculum models can differ significantly in some of their effects
on children.16,17,18

Conclusions and Implications

The evidence is clear that early childhood experiences can greatly influence people’s lives, and
model preschool programs can evoke such early childhood experiences. But it is becoming
increasingly apparent that it is also possible to intervene in young children’s lives in ways that do
not tap this great reservoir of potential. Effective preschool programs need qualified preschool
teachers who know how to contribute to children’s cognitive and social development and do so.
These teachers must reach out to parents and make them full partners in educating their young
children. Many young children now attend preschool programs. Ensuring that all these programs
have qualified teachers who know how to contribute to young children’s development and
motivate parents to do the same will contribute greatly to the success and achievement of the
next generation.

References

1. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child (2005). Excessive Stress Disrupts the Architecture of the Developing
Brain: Working Paper No. 3. Available at: www.developingchild.harvard.edu. Accessed November 20, 2012.

2. Bowman, B., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.), Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, Commission on Behavioural
and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council (1999). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

3. Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The High/Scope
Perry Preschool Study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

4. Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E. P., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young
adult outcomes from the Abecedarian project. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42-57.

5. Massé, L. N., & Barnett, W. S. (2002). A benefit-cost analysis of the Abecedarian early childhood intervention. In Levin, H. &
McEwan P. (Eds.), Cost effectiveness analysis in education: Methods, findings and potential. 2002 Yearbook of the American
Education Finance Association. National Institute for Early Education Research. Available online at
http://nieer.org/resources/research/AbecedarianStudy.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2012.

6. Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S. Arteaga, I. A., & White, B. A. B. (2011). School-based early childhood education and
age-28 well-being: Effects by timing, dosage, and subgroups. Science, 333, 360–364.

7. Reynolds, A.J., Temple, J.A., Robertson, D.L., Mann, E.A. (2002). Age 21 cost-benefit analysis of the Title I Chicago child-
parent centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4, 267-303.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 26

 8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (January 2010). Head Start Impact
Study. Final Report. Washington, DC.

9. Zill, N., Resnick, G., Kim, K., O’Donnell, K., Sorongon, A., McKey, R. H., Pai-Samant, S., Clark, C., O'Brien, R., & D'Elio, M. A.
(May 2003). Head Start FACES (2000): A whole child perspective on program performance - Fourth progress report.
Prepared for the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) under
contract HHS-105-96-1912, Head Start Quality Research Consortium's Performance Measures Center.

10. Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C. M., Schochet, P. Z., Brooks-Gunn, J., Paulsell, D., Boller, K., Constantine, J., Vogel, C.,
Fuligni, A. S., & Brady-Smith, C. (2002). Building their futures: How early Head Start programs are enhancing the lives of
infants and toddlers in low-income families: Vol. 1 Final technical report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services.

11. Goodson, B. D., Layzer, J. I., St. Pierre, R. G., Bernstein, L. S., & Lopez, M. (2000). Effectiveness of a comprehensive, five-
year family support program for low-income families: Findings from the Comprehensive Child Development Program. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 5-39.

12. Planning and Evaluation Service. (1998). Even Start: Evidence from the past and a look to the future. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Available:

13. Barnett, W. S., Lamy, C., & Jung, K. (2005). The effects of state prekindergarten programs on young children’s school
readiness in five states. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University.

14. Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). The High/Scope Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study through age 23. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 117 - 143.

15. Karnes, M. B., Schwedel, A. M., & Williams, M. B. (1983). A comparison of five approaches for educating young children from
low-income homes. In Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, As the twig is bent: Lasting effects of preschool programs (pp.
133-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Miller, L. B., & Bizzell, R. P. (1983). The Louisville experiment: A comparison of four
programs. In Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, As the twig is bent: Lasting effects of preschool programs (pp. 171-199).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

16. Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., Fleege, P. O., Mosley, J., & Thomasson, R. H. (1992). Observed activities and
stress behaviors of children in developmentally appropriate and inappropriate kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 7, 297-318.

17. Marcon, R. A. (1992). Differential effects of three preschool models on inner-city 4-year-olds. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 7, 517-530.

18. Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium (2008). Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school
readiness (NCER 2008-2009). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 27

Preschool and Learning-Related Skills
Paul Leseman, PhD

Utrecht University, Netherlands

December 2012

Introduction and Subject

Early childhood programs in many countries are seeking to implement academic programs to
prepare children more efficiently for reading and math instruction in elementary school. According
to critics the emphasis on academic content and direct instruction might be at the expense of
promoting important learning-related skills, such as executive functions and self-regulation.
Recent evidence suggests that a narrow focus on academics in preschool education might be
mistaken because when the demands on comprehension, creativity, independent work and
cooperative learning increase in later years, children may not be sufficiently prepared to cope.1,2
School readiness is more than the child’s ability to sit still, hold a pencil and put on coat and shoes
independently. It is also more than having acquired phonological awareness, letter knowledge and
counting skills in preschool. School readiness includes important learning-related skills, such as
the child’s ability to express thoughts, wants and needs verbally, to control his or her emotions,
and to show curiosity, concentration, persistence and social competence.2,3

Learning-related skills in early childhood

Depending on the research tradition, learning related skills are referred to either as executive
functions, self-regulation ability, or metacognitive and meta-emotional skills, but these different
concepts are clearly related.

Executive functions

Executive functions refer to systems in the brain that increasingly come to control information
processing and behaviour in the course of development.1,4 Commonly, three basic executive
functions are distinguished: working memory (also called updating), inhibitory control and
flexibility (also called shifting), but there is a debate whether these functions are already
distinguishable in young children.5 Working memory refers to the ability to hold a limited amount
of information temporarily active for processing and updating. Inhibition refers to the ability to

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 28

inhibit a predominant (but inadequate) response and to resist interference by distracting stimuli.
Flexibility refers to the ability to switch between rules or strategies, and to change the mind-set. In
addition, higher order executive functions are distinguished such as planning, monitoring and
creativity. All executive functions share involvement of executive attention, a brain network that
controls allocation of resources (“activation”) to different information processing systems in the
brain.6

Emotional self-regulation

Self-regulation refers to adapting behaviour to situational demands in view of important goals

while inhibiting the impulse to obtain immediate rewards. Individual differences in delay-of-
gratification have remarkable long-term predictive value.7 Observing how young children cope
with delaying gratification reveals the involvement of working memory (holding goal
representations temporarily active), shifting attention (looking away from the attractive reward),
and behavioural inhibition (holding the hands behind the back or under the table). Development of
self-regulation in early childhood is related to the development of executive attention – the ability
to deliberately shift attention to cognitions that can counter-act undesirable thoughts or actions
and can motivate to desirable thoughts or actions.6

Self-regulation in learning

Self-regulation in the education tradition incorporates both general metacognitive knowledge of

how to approach a learning task or a problem and domain-specific metacognitive knowledge of
appropriate problem-solving strategies.8 Also in educational approaches, self-regulation includes
the ability to postpone immediate satisfaction to attain long-term goals, the ability to mobilize
energy and to sustain attention, to resist distracting information and to shift flexibly between mind
sets. Ideally, learning is driven by intrinsic motivation, that is, by an authentic interest in the
subject matter and in the activity of learning, but truly intrinsic motivation may be rare among
students. Internalized extrinsic motivation means that a student has come to attach positive
emotion to educational activities, feels competent in learning and identifies with the teacher.
Fostering this type of motivation might be an important objective for education and may strongly
depend on positive social relationships with the teacher, a positive classroom climate, balance
between student and teacher concerns, appropriate feedback and experiences of competence.9,10

Self-regulation in Vygotskian theory

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 29

Self-regulation is also an important concept in Vygotskian theory where developmental progress
from being regulated externally by others (e.g. parents, teachers, peers) to self-regulation applies
to a broad range of skills, not just cognitive and emotional control, and captures how well a child
integrates knowledge, skills and problem-solving strategies with goal-directedness, motivation,
persistence, planning and control. The transition from other-regulation to self-regulation in
Vygotskian theory involves observation, imitation, dialogue and co-construction through
coordination of looking, gestures and overt negotiation. In instructional interactions with an
experienced teacher, verbalized metacognitive thinking, for example planning, monitoring and
switching, is modeled. Internalization of expert skills may involve an intermediate stage involving
private speech, or “self-talk,” that resembles the explicit metacognitive thoughts of the expert.11
Self-talk and internalized speech are important tools of children’s cognitive and emotional control.

‘Hot’ and ‘cool’ executive functions

Are control functions for cognitive behaviours (‘cool’ executive functions) and emotional
behaviours (‘hot’ executive functions) related? And how does motivation influence learning? A
study with preschoolers using assessments from the cool and the hot tradition suggests
considerable overlap, with both cool and hot executive functions predicting early academic
achievement.12,13 A central role in cognitive and emotional control is attributed to executive
attention. When adapting to situational demands, executive attention allocates resources to
cognitive versus emotional processing. For example, the presence of strong emotional cues can
hamper learning by withdrawing resources from cognitive processing,14 whereas mild positive
emotions and positive mood states may increase resources for cognitive processing and improve
learning.10,15

Promoting learning-related skills

Early measures of executive functions and self-regulation predict academic achievement in

reading and mathematics better than IQ16 and also behavioural adjustment and well-being in the
classroom, empathy, moral reasoning and prosocial behaviour.17 Promoting learning-related self-
regulation, therefore, should be a core objective in early childhood programs. Different
approaches are possible: training of specific executive functions underlying self-regulation,
providing interaction settings that foster the transition from other- to self-regulation, and creating
classroom practices that are conducive to self-regulation development.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 30

Executive function training

Programs have been developed to foster executive functions in at risk preschool children with
poor working memory or executive functions or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Research shows sizeable effects of computerized training on executive functions if the difficulty
level, or “working memory load,” is adaptively increased, on nonverbal intelligence and on parent
reports of self-regulation behaviour in children with ADHD, but evidence for transfer to academic
achievement and classroom behaviour is not fully consistent.18

Settings that foster self-regulation

In the Vygotskian approach, early development of self-regulation is related to peer interaction in

pretend play.19,20 Pretend play requires children to establish a shared imagined world. They
negotiate what to do, coordinate their roles and reconcile differing motives, decide on the global
plan, while updating the plan as the play evolves. In more mature pretend play, children
frequently switch between in-play talk and meta-play talk to coordinate their behaviours, showing
metacognitive regulation. Sociodramatic play is a variant of pretend play in which children
become part of the symbolized order and change their identities as they take up roles.
Sociodramatic play requires imagining others’ state of mind and allows trying-out emotions and
appears to be related to emotional self-regulation.21

Using knowledge about learning and monitoring the process of learning in order to self-regulate
learning behaviour occurs already with three- to five-year-olds, especially in situations allowing
children choice and control of the level of challenge.22 Analysis of videotaped interactions
revealed several factors promoting metacognitive self-regulation. More metacognitive self-
regulation occurred when children worked in small groups on tasks requiring a plan. Involvement
of the teacher increased metacognitive self-regulation. In unsupervised small group activities,
children showed high levels of shared metacognitive and meta-emotional regulation, using
emotion knowledge. In solitary activities, enhanced emotional self-regulation –to stay motivated
and persistent– was observed. Making preschool teachers aware of metacognitive strategies in the
planning, execution and evaluation phases of learning activities influenced preschoolers’
metacognitive knowledge of how to approach learning tasks, how to regulate the learning process
and how to evaluate outcomes.23

Classroom practices

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 31

High preschool classroom quality promotes a range of child outcomes, cognitive as well as social
and behavioural,24 and the development of executive functions and self-regulation appears to be
an important mediating link.25 A randomized controlled experiment26 studied the joint effects of the
Program for Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) and an interactive storybook reading
intervention added to a regular Head Start curriculum. PATHS is intended to increase emotional
self-regulation, social problem solving skill and social competence. The main components are: 1)
establishing emotionally positive classroom rules and routines; 2) lessons in self-soothing, self-
rewarding, cooling-down and social conflict solving; 3) teacher modeling of helping and sharing
behaviour, turn-taking and emotional coaching; and 4) storybook reading focusing on dialogue
and the use of open-ended questions and complex language. The intervention increased
executive functioning in task behaviour and academic knowledge.

The Tools of the Mind (Tools) program27 stands in the Vygotskian tradition. It is intended to
promote academic skills for preschoolers from disadvantaged backgrounds, and uses instruction
and interaction formats that support transition from other to self-regulation. The main
components are 1) teacher-guided learning and problem-solving in small groups in which children
are stimulated to verbalize their plans and evaluate the problem solving, 2) peer collaboration in
play and problem-solving, with children alternating the role of tutor, 3) the use of memory aids
symbolizing social rules, such as attentive listening and waiting for one’s turn; and 4)
sociodramatic play to promote emotional self-regulation. A study with random assignment of 5-
year-olds to either Tools or an academic-focus program, found Tools superior both in academic
outcomes and in executive functions.28

The importance of allowing children initiative and control over activities is supported by findings
on Montessori kindergartens, whose curriculum had an emphasis on student-chosen work and a
mix of individual and small group instruction in academic and social skills. Children attended
multi-age classrooms and classroom rules induced children to wait for their turn and to be
considerate towards younger children. Due to a waiting list, three-year-olds, mostly minority
children, were randomly assigned to Montessori or other preschools. At age 5, Montessori children
outperformed controls in academic skills, executive functions, social competence, moral reasoning
and creative skills.29

Conclusion

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 32

Early childhood education programs can help develop learning-related skills, in particular self-
regulation and executive functions. Instructional activities with academic content can promote
self-regulation by encouraging children to verbalize plans and evaluate their performance, with
self-talk functioning as a bridge between external and self-regulation. Modeling metacognition and
self-regulation by the teacher, providing memory aids and stimulating the use of private speech
can support the transition from other- to self-regulation.

Allowing children choice and control of the level of challenge stimulates metacognitive awareness
and metacognitive self-regulation. The use of collaborative play and problem solving activities,
pretend play and sociodramatic play promote self-regulation in young children. Existing programs
can benefit from rules and routines that improve the social-emotional classroom climate. Training
teachers to become more sensitive to children’s needs, to avoid negativity and to establish secure
social relationships with children is also important. Explicitly addressing emotions, using stories
with emotional content, providing emotion knowledge and demonstrating emotional self-
regulation, improves emotional self-regulation.

To conclude, the issue is not abandoning academic content that includes rich vocabulary, world
knowledge, insights in physical phenomena and in human mental and emotional life. The issue is
mostly about pedagogical approaches, the ways of conduct in the classroom, the quality of the
social relationships, children’s choice of activities, the forms of interaction for children, and
features and activities, such as pretend play, that specifically support memory, executive function
and self-regulation development.30

References

1. Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and intervention: The promotion of self-regulation as a
means of preventing school failure. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 899-911.

2. McClelland, M.M., Cameron, C.E., Connor, C.M., Farris, C., Jewkes, A., & Morrison, F. (2007). Links between behavioral
regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43, 947-959.

3. Fantuzo, J., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., McDermott, P., McWayne, C., & Frye, D. (2007). Investigation of dimensions of social-
emotional classroom behavior and school-readiness for low-income urban preschool children. School Psychology Review,
36, 44-62.

4. Carlson, S. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 28, 595-616.

5. Van der Ven, S.H.G, Kroesbergen, E.H., Boom, J., & Leseman, P.P.M. (2012). The structure of executive functions in children:
A closer examination of shifting, inhibition, and updating. British Journal of Developmental Psychology. [online].

6. Rothbart, M.K., Sheese, B.E., & Posner, M.I. (2007). Executive attention and effortful control: Linking temperament, brain
networks, and genes. Child Development Perspectives, 1(1), 2-7.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 33

 7. Moffitt, T.E., Arsenault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R.J., Harrington, H., Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B.W., Ross,
S., Sears, M.R., Thomson, W.M., & Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public
safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 2693-2698.

8. Boeckaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom: A perspective on assessment and intervention. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 54(2), 199-231.

9. Hamre, B.K., & Pianta, R.C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes
through eighth grade. Child Development, 72, 625-638.

10. Dweck, C.S., Mangels, J.A., & Good, C. (2004). Motivational effects on attention, cognition, and performance. In D.Y. Dai &
R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Motivation, emotion, and cognition: Integrated perspectives on intellectual functioning and
development (pp. 41-54). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11. Winsler, A., De León, J.R., Wallace, B.A., Carlton, M.P., & Willson-Quayle, A. (2003). Private speech in preschool children:
Developmental stability and change, across-task consistency, and relations with classroom behavior. Journal of Child
Language, 30, 583-608.

12. Blair, C., & Razza, R.P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging
math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647-663.

13. Brock, L., Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., Nathanson, L., & Grimm, K.J. (2009). The contribution of ‘hot’ and ‘cool’ executive function
to children’s academic achievement, learning-related behaviours, and engagement in kindergarten. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 24, 337-349.

14. Mangels, J.A., Good, C., Whiteman, R.C., Maniscalco, B., & Dweck, C.S. (2012). Emotions block the path to learning under
stereotype threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7, 230-241.

15. Phillips, L.H., Bull, R., Adams, E., & Fraser, L. (2002). Positive mood and executive function: Evidence from Stroop and
fluency tasks. Emotion, 2(1), 12-22.

16. Bull, R., Espy, K.A., & Wiebe, S.A. (2008). Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in preschoolers:
Longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Developmental Neuropsychology, 33, 205-228.

17. Kochanska, G., Murray, K.T., & Harlan, E.T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents,
and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 220-232.

18. Morrison, A.B., & Chein, J.M. (2011). Does working memory training work? The promise and challenges of enhancing
cognition by training working memory. Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 18, 46–60.

19. Berk, L.E., Mann, T.D., & Ogan, A.T. (2006). Make-believe play: Wellspring for development of self-regulation. In D.G. Singer,
R.M. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play=learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-
emotional growth (pp. 74-100). New York: Oxford University Press.

20. Leseman, P.P.M., Rollenberg, L., & Rispens, J. (2001). Playing and working in kindergarten: Cognitive co-construction in
different educational situations. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 3, 363-384.

21. Elias, C.L., & Berk, L.E. (2002). Self-regulation in young children: Is there a role for sociodramatic play? Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 17, 216-231.

22. Whitebread, D., Bingham, S., Grau, V., Pino Pasternak, D., & Sangster, C. (2007). Development of metacognition and self-
regulated learning in young children: Role of collaborative and peer-assisted learning. Journal of Cognitive Education and
Psychology, 6(3), 433-455.

23. Perels, F., Merget-Kuhlmann, M., Wende, M., Schmitz, B., & Buchbinder, C. (2009). Improving self-regulated learning of
preschool children: Evaluation of training of kindergarten teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 311-327.

24. Melhuish E, Barnes J. Preschool programs for the general population. Melhuish E, topic ed. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters
RDeV, eds. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 34

 Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development; 2012:1-7. Available at:
http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/Melhuish-BarnesANGxp1.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2012.

25. Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old.
Science, 333(6045), 959-964.

26. Bierman, K.L., Nix, R.L., Greenberg, M.T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C.E. (2008). Executive functioning and school readiness
intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Development and Psychopathology, 20,
821-843.

27. Bodrova, E., & Leong, D.J. (2006). Tools of The Mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood early childhood education
(2nd edition). New York: Prentice Hall.

28. Diamond, A., Barnett, W.S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318
(30), 1387-1388.

29. Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313, 1893-1894.

30. Bus, A.G., Leseman, P.P.M., & Neuman, S.B. (2012). Methods for preventing early academic difficulties. In K.R. Harris, S.
Graham & T. Urdan (Eds.), APAEducational Psychology Handbook (Volume 3; pp. 227-250). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 35

Preschool Programs: Effective Curriculum.
Comments on Melhuish and Barnes, Kagan and
Kauerz, Schweinhart, and Leseman
Jane Bertrand, M.Ed.

Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation, Canada

December 2012

Introduction

Canadian preschool programs offer organized environments to young children prior to entry into
Grade 1. Preschool programs are early childhood education opportunities characterized by
recurrent experiences that are central to supporting and strengthening young children’s learning
and development. The curricula of these programs form the “front line” of children’s experiences –
what is taught and what is learned.1

In Canada over 50% of children between ages 2 and 4 attend a preschool program.2 Possible
settings include child care centres, nursery schools, preschools, prekindergarten, junior
kindergarten, kindergarten, child development centres, play groups and Aboriginal Head Start.2
They may be offered as part of the public education system, non-profit or commercial
organizations. A few preschool programs are offered by municipal governments or postsecondary
institutions. At age 5, all children are entitled to a kindergarten or primary program offered as the
first year of elementary schooling and approximately 95% of them participate.2

Canadians are joining others around the world in recognizing that children are young citizens who
have a right to the best possible childhood and that includes opportunities to participate in early
childhood education.

If early childhood education programs are to be equitable opportunities for all preschool children,
they must pay attention to the context of young children’s lives. Early childhood education
programs are social experiences that guide children’s learning about the world around them and
must reflect differences in culture. The social context is a critical element to take into account in
considering how children learn and develop. Family structure, social and economic characteristics,
community influences, and ethnic and linguistic backgrounds are the context for early learning.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 36

Making sure each child is welcome and each family has a sense of belonging are prerequisites to
early learning.3

In the past few years, Canadian jurisdictions have followed several international jurisdictions in
developing curriculum frameworks to support early childhood education.4 The framework
documents guide planning without enforcing a particular curriculum model or pedagogical
approach. They share common design principles that echo research findings from the United
Kingdom,5 the United States,6 New Zealand7 and the Organization of Economic and Cooperative
Development (OECD).8

Research and Conclusions

Edward Melhuish and Jacqueline Barnes5 conclude that all children benefit from participation in
high quality early childhood education programs from age 2.9 Vulnerable and disadvantaged
children may benefit more because they enter with fewer resources and assets, but children from
more affluent families and well-resourced home learning environments also benefit. Evidence
from longstanding preschools in France, Switzerland and Norway – expanded access to preschool
programs since the 1970s – has demonstrated benefits for later educational and labour market
outcomes.5

In the U.K., the Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) study in England followed a large
sample of 3,000 children from preschool to school entry and into elementary and secondary
school.10,11,12 The sample included children in a range of early childhood programs as well as those
who were at home full-time. The beneficial effects of preschool for all children remain evident at
age 14 years. The EPPE study included related qualitative case studies that identified key
elements that support effective delivery.13,14 Cognitive and social development are viewed as
complementary. Staffing includes strong pedagogical leadership and long-serving educators who
have curriculum and pedagogy knowledge and expertise. A strong educational focus is evident
and children experience a mix of child- and educator-initiative activities. Educator-child
interactions involve sustained shared thinking and educators frequently provide formative
feedback to children during activities. Learning activities are differentiated to meet individual
needs and policies support self-regulation rather than a behaviour management approach.
Parents are involved, particularly in working with educators to establish educational aims for their
children.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 37

Lawrence Schweinhart15 of the High/Scope Education Research Foundation has been a lead
researcher of the Perry Preschool Program Study since the 1970s. The goal of the Perry Preschool
Program was to improve the development and learning of young children living in disadvantaged
circumstances. The study was a randomized control trial of 123 children that has followed the
participants through age 40. Schweinhart and his colleagues found stunning results and return on
investment – $17.05 per dollar invested. The cognitively-oriented program developed for the Perry
Preschool Program Study has grown into a large curriculum resource organization that supports
curriculum development in programs in the U.S. and internationally, including Canada.

Schweinhart15 points to the role of curriculum and its implementation as a critical element in the
kinds of results that were found in the Perry Preschool Program Study and in two other model
preschool programs: the Carolina Abecedarian study16 and the Chicago Longitudinal Study of
Child-Parent Centres.17 All three programs were carefully monitored as part of the ongoing
research initiative. They employed qualified early childhood staff, had extensive parent
involvement components, and guided the implementation of well thought out, but different,
curricula approaches.18

The recent avalanche of research about preschool programs drives a strong message that early
childhood education can mitigate negative early experiences and redirect young children’s
development to more productive trajectories. Heightened awareness about early human
development, particularly early brain development in setting the foundation for life long learning,
behaviour and health2 coupled with concerns about children’s social, emotional and intellectual
developmental difficulties at school entry,19 has turned the attention of developmental and
neuroscience researchers to what children do in preschool programs.

Paul Leseman20 points out the emphasis many preschool programs place on academic curricula
that are intended to prepare children for school. He proposes attention to a suite of learning-
related skills often called executive functions that are an integral part of self-regulation.Leseman20
notes that self-regulation involves attention, working memory, inhibition and shifting and higher
order planning and monitoring, as well as the ability to adapt to new situations and challenges. He
argues that these are the skills that children need to learn to acquire metacognitive awareness
and the learning to learn abilities. Preschool programs can employ a pedagogocial approach that
encourages children’s choices, collaboration with each other and explicit awareness of their own
learning and emotions. Pretend and sociodramatic play, problem-solving activities, opportunities
for risk and stories with emotional content provide experiences that contribute to emotional,

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 38

behavioural and attention self-regulation.21 Educators who are sensitive to children’s needs and to
rules and routines that improve the room’s socio-emotional climate contribute to emotional self-
regulation. Leseman20 does not advocate abandoning curriculum content related to literacy,
numeracy and inquiry in preschool programs. Rather he recommends ensuring that the content is
embedded into environments and pedagogy that promote essential learning-related skills.

Economist James Heckman and his colleagues proclaim that “skill begets skill”22 and that
investment in early child development, particularly quality early childhood education pays back a
high return on investment. Getting children on positive trajectories in Grade 1 is a proven strategy
to improve the life chances of an individual’s and a society’s human capital. The real drivers are
what Heckman calls “soft skill” or personality traits – perseverance, ability to attend and ignore
distractions, conscientiousness and sociability.23 These skills can also be viewed as self-regulation
of emotion, behaviour and attention.

Canadian24 and American25 reviews of the pedagogy of play propose that children are independent
agents who can have an active role in shaping their learning environments. The focus is on
enriching and extending learning opportunities that emerge, based on the educator’s knowledge
of child development, observation and documentation of the child’s activities, and the child’s
family and community context.

Implications for Policy and Practice

Canadian preschool curriculum frameworks exist along a continuum of adult-guided to child-

directed approaches.20 They include intentional and spontaneous opportunities for learning that
may be child-directed or adult-guided. Most early childhood programs have elements of both
child-directed play and adult-guided instruction, but it is the balance between the two that varies.

In more adult-guided approaches, early childhood educators set up the environment and select
activities related to a set of learning outcomes or expectations – for example, Montessori,
High/Scope, or Sesame Street. Kagan and Kauerz6 and Schweinhart15 point to the value of having a
curriculum approach and direction in preschool programs that prepares children for success in
their school years. They recommend a holistic, developmental approach, skilled early childhood
practitioners, clear and specific program and early learning standards. Their approaches are
consistent with pre-primary approaches prevalent in the U.S.. Across Canada, kindergarten
curricula follow a teacher-guided approach and are organized to encourage children’s attainment

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 39

of identified learning expectations.

In child-directed curriculum approaches, children’s interests and emerging skills and aptitudes
drive curriculum – for example, emergent curriculum and Reggio Emilia. Leseman20 promotes an
organized and planned curriculum direction and references specific, defined approaches, but he
does not advocate a prescribed curriculum or predetermined learning expectations. Rather, he
recommends pedagogical principles consistent with a child-directed approach that reflective
practitioners can draw on to respond to a specific group of children. .

Child-directed curriculum decisions are driven by the interests of the children within the context of
their families and immediate communities. The focus is on developmental goals, interactivity with
educators and peers, and a high quality of life in the early childhood setting. The curriculum has
broad orientations for children rather than prescribed outcomes. Goals may become less clear and
there is less accountability in achieving these goals and little emphasis on assessment of
children’s mastery of skills. Broad goals are established for each child in consultation with parents
and are informally evaluated through on-going observation and documentation unless further
screening seems advisable. The acquisition of developmental skills is perceived as a by-product
rather than as the driver of the curriculum.

The most effective curriculum is probably custom-designed for each preschool program based on
an agreed upon set of design principles and knowledge about different types of approaches. The
implementation of ready-made program models might be easier at first but they are usually less
effective (in terms of children’s outcomes) than programs that construct their own learning
environments. Having a clear program direction and specific learning goals for children and
families is more important than which program model is adopted. Putting together a custom
learning environment is more effective than trying to transplant a particular curriculum approach.

The critical element that runs across effective preschool programs is a skilled early childhood
workforce. Early childhood educators who are reflective and responsive practitioners are essential
in establishing preschool programs as effective early learning environments.

Early childhood educators intentionally guide and construct opportunities to extend children’s
learning. Pedagogical strategies across the continuum from child-directed to teacher-guided
approaches provide structure and direction for educators who support the development of
capacities and skills while respecting a child’s interests and choices. Effective educators use a

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 40

repertoire of strategies that includes sustained shared thinking and guided learning; investigation
and exploration; modelling and demonstrating; open questioning, speculating and explaining; and,
explicit or direct instruction.

Preschool children can thrive in a variety of early childhood education program models with
knowledgeable and responsive educators who are sensitive to their individual and collective
learning dispositions. As Canada moves towards offering opportunities to all preschool children,
program design will require continued commitment from educators, policy makers and families.

References

1. Preschool program - Synthesis. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV, Barr RG, eds. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood
Development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development; 2008.

2. McCain, Mustard, & McCuaig, 2011. Early Years Study 3. Toronto, ON: Margaret and Wallace McCain Family Foundation.

3. Best Start Panel on an Early Learning Program 2007. Early learning framework. Toronto, Ontario: Ministry of Children and
Youth Services.

4. Bertrand, J. Curriculum and pedagogy across Canada. Atkinson Centre, OISE, University of Toronto. In press.

5. Melhuish E, Barnes J. Preschool programs for the general population. Melhuish E, topic ed. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters
RDeV, eds. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early
Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development; 2012:1-7. Available at:
http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/Melhuish-BarnesANGxp1.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2012.

6. Kagan SL, Kauerz K. Preschool programs: Effective curricula. In: Tremblay RE, Barr RG, Peters RDeV, eds. Encyclopedia on
Early Childhood Development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development; 2006:1-5.
Available at: http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/Kagan-KauerzANGxp.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2012.

7. New Zealand Ministry of Education 1996. Te Wharki. Learning Media Limited. Available at:
http://www.educate.ece.govt.nz/~/media/Educate/Files/Reference Downloads/whariki.pdf. Accessed August 12, 2012.

8. OECD. Starting strong II: Early childhood education and care. Paris, France: OECD; 2006.

9. Barnett, W. S. (2008). Preschool education and its lasting effects: Research and policy implications. Boulder and Tempe:
Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit..

10. Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Melhuish, E. C., Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Evans, E., Dobson, A., Jeavons, M., Lewis, K.,
Morahan, M. and Sadler, S. (1999), The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project: Technical paper 6A -
Characteristics of pre-school environments. London: DfEE / Institute of Education, University of London.

11. Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B. & Elliot, K. (2004). The effective provision of pre-school
education (EPPE) project: Technical paper 11 – The continuing effects of pre-school education at age 7 years. London, DfES
/ Institute of Education, University of London.

12. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart. B. (2012) Effective pre-school, primary and secondary
education 3-14 project (EPPSE 3-14) - Final report from the key stage 3 phase: Influences on students' development form
age 11-14. Department for Education.

13. Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Taggart, B., Sammons, P. and Melhuish, E. (2008). Towards the transformation of practice in
early childhood education: The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project’. Cambridge Journal of Education,
38, 23-36.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 41

 14. Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Siraj-Blatchford, J. (2009) Improving development outcomes for children through effective practice in
integrating early years services: knowledge review 3, London: Centre for Excellence and Outcomes in Children and Young
People's Services (C4EO).

15. Schweinhart LJ. Preschool programs. In: Tremblay RE, Barr RG, Peters RDeV, eds. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood
Development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development; 2006: 1.7. Available at
http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/SchweinhartANGxp.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2012.

16. Masse L, Barnett WS. A benefit cost analysis of the Abecedarian program. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early
Education Research; 2002.

17. Reynolds, AJ, Temple JA, Robertson DL, Mann EA. Age 21 cost-benefit analysis of the title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers.
Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis 2002; 24 (4); 267–303.

18. Galinsky E. The economic benefits of high quality early childhood programs: What makes the difference? Washington, DC:
Committee for Economic Development; 2006.

19. Guhn, M., & Goelman, H. (2011). Bioecological theory, early child development and the validation of the population-level
Early Development Instrument. Social Indicators Research, 103(2), 193-217.

20. Leseman P. Preschool and learning-related skills. Melhuish E, topic ed. In: Tremblay RE, Boivin M, Peters RDeV, eds.
Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online]. Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood
Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development; 2012:1-8. Available at: http://www.child-
encyclopedia.com/documents/LesemanANGxp1.pdf. Accessed December 12, 2012.

21. Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318,
1387–1388.

22. Cunha, F., Heckman J.J. (2009). The economics and psychology of inequality and human development, Journal of the
European Economic Association, 7(2-3): 320-364.

23. Kautz, T., & Heckman, J. (2012). Hard evicence on soft skills. Working Paper Working Paper 18121. National Bureau of
Economic Research.

24. Hewes J. (2006). Let the children play: Nature’s answer to early learning. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Council on Learning,
Early Childhood Learning Knowledge Centre; 2006.

25. Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school. College Park, MD: Alliance for
Children.

26. Bennett, J. (2005). Curriculum issues in national policy-making. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
13(2), 5–24.

©2012-2024 CEECD | PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 42