What is high quality education and care

Quality costs
Working paper 1
What is high quality
early childhood
education and care?
Maxine Hill and Emma Knights
Daycare Trust
Report series funded by

Quality costs
What is high quality early childhood education and care?
1
Working paper 1: What is high quality early childhood education
and care?
Introduction
The Government’s vision, outlined in its Ten Year Strategy on Childcare,1
is that early
childhood education and care (ECEC) provision in this country will be among the best in the
world with a better qualified workforce; more workers trained to professional level; greater
involvement of parents in planning and delivering services; and reformed regulatory and
inspection systems. This vision marked a significant step in the development of ECEC
provision and the quality of this available provision is improving, but it is still variable and
there is still some way to go to achieve high quality ECEC for all pre-school children.
Daycare Trust has always insisted that quality is one of the foremost necessities of early
years provision but, while we acknowledge and welcome the great strides that have been
made in expanding services, it is now generally accepted that quality remains the last piece
of the jigsaw to be fully addressed. Indeed quality has risen to the top of both the policy and
practice agendas. There is now a large body of work on improving quality of provision –
which we will review here – but there has until now been no attempt to quantify the cost of
improving quality to a consistently high level. This project aims to bring the work on quality
and sustainable funding together.
This working paper is the first of a series which accompanies a final report entitled Quality
Costs. The project, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, has been carried out by Daycare
Trust in partnership with the Social Market Foundation and the Institute of Fiscal Studies.
The project is essentially formed of two halves:
• First establishing what it costs to provide good quality ECEC; and
• Setting out the issues associated with existing childcare subsidies, and what further
funding is needed to deliver that high quality ECEC.
The set of working papers which accompany this one are:
• Working Paper 2: Costing the quality model (Social Market Foundation).
• Working Paper 3: Current childcare costs.
• Working Paper 4 International models of quality and cost (Social Market Foundation).
• Working Paper 5 Funding the quality model (Institute of Fiscal Studies).
The research focuses on early years provision and does not include childcare provision for
school-age children.
We also know that parents and the home environment have the largest impact on a child’s
development. The quality of the home learning environment and the interactions between a
parent and child plays a more significant role in producing better child outcomes than
parental income, mothers’ qualifications and social class.2
Evidence also suggests that
parental intervention in children’s programmes produces modest positive effects on
children’s cognitive development.3
However this working paper is concerned with the quality
of formal ECEC, and not that provided at home. Furthermore we had hoped to be able to
include the quality of childminders; however our review of the literature showed this not to be
possible. There has not been the amount of research work carried out on this type of care as
for group care, and therefore we are unable to draw the same level of conclusion for
childminders.

Quality costs
2
Outline of this paper
This briefing paper explores what is meant by good quality ‘early childhood education and
care’ (ECEC) and examines the factors that determine quality. It proposes a ‘model’ of
quality to be costed as the next stage of the project by the Social Market Foundation.
The sections in this paper are:
• What are the aims of high quality ECEC?
• The impact of ECEC on children
• Defining quality
• Quality factors: process and structure
• Daycare Trust’s ECEC model.
Methods
This briefing paper draws on three sources:
1. A review of the literature from existing research on ECEC quality.
2. Interviews with key stakeholders including the Department for Children, Schools and
Families (DCSF), Ofsted, childcare providers’ representative organisations and two
local authorities.
3. A policy roundtable with subject experts, policy officials and representatives from the
ECEC sector.
The interviews took place in September and October 2008, followed by the roundtable held
on Chatham House terms (see Annex 2 for the list of participants). Where we refer to
stakeholders in this paper, we are referring to the participants in the interview and
roundtable. We would like to extend our thanks to all of those who participated and gave their
time generously. The project team are also supported by an advisory group of leading
academics, researchers and policy officials (see Annex 3). We also thank them for their
support to this project.
The paper does not intend to provide a full analysis of all the research on the effects of
ECEC provision on children’s development. A comprehensive literature review on the impact
of ECEC provision was undertaken by Edward Melhuish for the National Audit Office in 2004
which would be unwise to replicate. More recently, a literature review exploring a value-for-
money comparison of ECEC, including an assessment of quality, was undertaken by
researchers at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, which included
exploration of the role and impact of ECEC and factors affecting quality. These two papers
have been drawn upon and referenced where they provide a fuller account than is
appropriate to include here. Childcare nation?4
includes a more recent summary of findings
on the outcomes of ECEC for children, and we include here references to relevant research
since its publication in 2007.
What are the aims of high quality ECEC?
Before attempting a discussion of the definition of high quality ECEC, it is worth pausing to
consider what, as a society, are we aiming to achieve with our early years provision? There
are a number of different aims that are prioritised by different stakeholders, with varying
emphasis. Some aims might be:
• Ensuring children are ready for school by developing good literacy and numeracy
skills.
• Making sure children are safe and healthy.
• Keeping children happy and engaged in activities they enjoy.
• Ensuring children have good behaviour and are well-adjusted.

Quality costs
3
• Closing the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their peers.
• Enabling both parents to be in paid work.
The different definitions of quality reflect the different aims of ECEC held to be most
important by different groups (we will consider this in more detail below). The international
evidence shows that quality is measured differently in different countries depending upon the
cultural values and constructions of childhood.5
The aims can vary considerably from country
to country, making some comparisons difficult. As noted by the OECD, positive child
outcomes are a major goal for ECEC in all countries, but what differs is which outcomes are
deemed to be more important. For example, the UK, as in many other English-speaking
countries and in France, prioritises outcomes that lead to children being ‘school ready’.6
However countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Norway come from a social pedagogy
tradition which combines care, upbringing and learning, without hierarchy and with a focus on
preparing children for life more broadly, rather than focusing on school-readiness. A further
example of a different model of provision based on a different set of cultural values and
views on childhood is that in the Reggio Emilio region in northern Italy. Children there are
considered as able to think and act for themselves in order to make meaning of their own
experiences. ECEC workers therefore use an approach that takes into account those
children’s interests, experiences and choices. The value placed on certain outcomes
influences how services are developed as well as the way quality is defined and measured.
The Reggio Emilio approach is now widely written about and drawn on by many practitioners
in the UK, but it is not yet central to the approach taken in this country to measure quality.
Identifying high quality in settings
Despite the following emphasis on research covering the outcomes for children, we
appreciate that an outcomes-based approach is not the only way in which quality of ECEC
can be defined or identified. Sylva and Roberts identify three other ways in which quality in
early childhood education is described.7
Observational rating scales are used by trained
researchers (and increasingly by practitioners and those supporting practitioners): see
Appendix 1. Expert judgements from inspectors or advisers (such as those used in national
standards – see section on Ofsted below) are another way to identify quality. Finally,
stakeholder views can be used to describe quality. Munton et al in 1995 proposed a
‘conceptual framework’ as a practical way of allowing the various different stakeholders to
‘share and develop mutual understanding of the quality concept’. This paper refers later to a
number of frameworks which aim to do this – and also thereby allow assessment of
individual settings.
Integrated care and education
It had been suggested to us by some stakeholders that for this project we should consider
childcare (provided so that parents can work) and early education separately, as they may
require different models of provision with different staffing structures, qualifications and
activities. This however was greeted by other stakeholders at the roundtable as a retrograde
step, given the body of work over the past decade to integrate the care and education for
pre-school children. Melhuish in 2004 pointed out that there was ‘an overlap between the
care and education orientated settings with the distinction becoming increasingly blurred’,
with the recognition of the importance of learning in the first three years of life. In the five
years since this review, the identified overlap has increased, with the introduction of the Early
Years Foundation Stage in 2008 arguably removing any distinction completely. It can be
argued that there is a difference in terms of the different number of hours of provision
required, depending whether the aim is entirely the care and education of the child or
whether there is an additional objective of allowing parents to work for longer hours. We
return to this later, but irrespective of parents’ motives for using ECEC, we would want
children to receive the benefits associated with early education. This also fits with the
Government approach as set out in the national strategy and currently being implemented
(see below). We are therefore working in this paper towards a model for integrated ECEC.

Quality costs
4
What can be measured?
Research on the impact of ECEC is rightly dominated by what is beneficial to children.8
The
evidence in the – now substantial – body of empirical research shows that good quality
ECEC is associated with better child outcomes, usually in future years (for example, school-
readiness and beyond). Sylva and Roberts refer to a child outcome approach to defining
quality as a ‘post-hoc’ one as quality judgements are made retrospectively.9
While we have
an excellent body of evidence on some later ‘outcomes for children’, we do not have
measures of the experiences of children in the provision – for example, their happiness and
engagement. Do they enjoy their time in ECEC provision? There is a body of thought
attempting to bring this approach, often linked to Emilio Reggio in Italy and based on a
children’s rights philosophy, more centrally into the discussion of quality.10
We are aware in
carrying out this piece of work that the lack of empirical evidence from this point of view – on
the ‘here and now’ experience for children – makes our task more difficult.
The impact of ECEC on children
The period between birth and the age of six is crucial for children’s brain development and
learning, with the foundations being laid for later cognitive, social and emotional
development. Consequently, the quality of care – both at home and in ECEC provision – is
absolutely paramount.
There is now a large body of evidence from the UK, the US and many European countries
that has examined the impact of ECEC for children.11
(The impact of ECEC on children is
discussed in detail in Appendix 2.) The benefits are varied and include improvements in
children’s confidence, peer relationships and behaviour; their learning and development; and
breaking the cycle of poverty. However these benefits are highly dependent on the quality of
provision. Melhuish provides a substantial overview of the international research and
concluded that it is consistent in demonstrating a positive relationship between ECEC from
age three onwards and intellectual, social and behavioural development, and that the
relationship is stronger where the provision of ECEC is of higher quality. Research also
shows that poor quality ECEC provision is no more beneficial to the child than where there is
no provision at all.12
Conversely, high quality ECEC produces better outcomes for children.
In the UK, the largest, and most widely cited study is the Effective Provision of Pre-School
Education (EPPE) project which showed a significant link between higher quality provision
for children from age three and better intellectual and social/behavioural outcomes when
children enter school.13
Furthermore these effects continue throughout primary school.
Indeed research from the USA shows the effects remaining well into adulthood. The EPPE
project found that disadvantaged children in particular have much to gain from ECEC
provision – a finding that is mirrored in other research and summarised by Melhuish in his
detailed literature review of the impact of ECEC provision on children.14
Use of ECEC by
disadvantaged children produces positive cognitive, language and social development as
long as the quality of provision is high. Further, the advantages can last a substantial amount
of time (see Appendix 2 for details). Both the EPPE project and the evaluation of the
Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative (NNI)15
showed that the benefits of good quality pre-
school settings for disadvantaged children are particularly significant where they are with a
mixture of children from different social backgrounds.
Research on children under the age of three is less prevalent and less conclusive than that
for the older age group. Some research on the impact of ECEC for these children finds
positive effects, some finds quite the opposite and some finds no discernible effects. Overall
the research suggests that the quality of the care received and the number of hours spent in
ECEC settings both affect the outcomes for children. Melhuish’s review for the NAO

Quality costs
5
concluded that, for children who are not disadvantaged in their home environment, use of
high quality ECEC in the first three years has no strong effects upon cognitive and language
development. However disadvantaged children are likely to benefit from high quality
provision in the first three years, with positive outcomes in language, cognitive and social
development16
Disadvantaged children benefit from high quality ECEC whether started in
infancy or at a later age. High quality centrebased care may facilitate in particular children’s
language development, but where ECEC quality is low, children can show lower language
development than those not receiving ECEC provision during the first three years.17
This
demonstrates just how critical quality is in the development of ECEC. This has been recently
confirmed by the evaluation of the early education pilots for two-year-olds which concluded
that the overall lack of a significant impact disguises the fact that children who received high
quality ECEC have significant improvements in their vocabulary, as well as improvements in
parent/child interactions.18
There is some suggestion from other sources that long hours in ECEC provision from an
early age can lead to slightly increased externalising behaviour (aggression and
disobedience) irrespective of quality.19
On the other hand, poor quality childcare could
increase the risk of producing poorer outcomes. These are covered in some detail in
Appendix 2 and are difficult to summarise definitively in terms of hours – as different studies
are measuring slightly different behaviours and in a lot of cases the effect of behaviours is
very small and, unlike the positive effects of effective ECEC, may not last over the years.
Melhuish concluded in 2004 that long hours of group care among non-disadvantaged
children under the age of two may increase the risk of developing anti-social behaviour.
Some studies define ‘long’ as more than three days/20 hours and others only found effects
above 35 hours of group care a week. However in practice very few children in the UK
actually experience long hours in group care, especially under the age of two or even three.20
Furthermore a recent UK study using Millennium Cohort Study data on childcare use and
working mothers concluded that group settings used by a nine-month-old baby is positively
associated with school readiness scores at three years old, and found no association with
that use and poor behavioural outcomes. 21
Impact on the family
Many parents who use ECEC for their pre-school children do so as it enables them to enter
and maintain employment, and to undertake education or training. This is one of the key
goals of the Government’s childcare strategy. However, even when parents are unable to
take up paid employment, ECEC can have positive effects on the family as a whole. For
example parents whose two-year-olds participated in the free early education pilot of only 7.5
(or sometimes 12.5) hours a week reported improvements in physical, mental and emotional
health and the functioning of the whole family as they had more time to devote to other
members.22
Wider outcomes for society
ECEC provides beneficial outcomes that reach beyond the children and families using the
services. ECEC enables parents – especially mothers – to focus more consistently on their
employment when they know that their children are well cared for and secure. Consequently,
as described in the OECD’s report Starting Strong II, the outcomes help to enhance human
capital.23
Other positive externalities that early education provides include: better health,
increased labour market participation, more gender equality and workers with higher skills
levels that serve to increase the productivity of those they work with. As individual earnings
increase, so too do tax revenues.24
Further societal effects also identified by the OECD
include reduced levels of criminality and family violence, and an increase in social cohesion.

Quality costs
6
For these reasons many commentators, including Daycare Trust, argue that promoting the
use of quality ECEC provision is a public good. Cleveland and Krashinsky outlined the
theoretical bases of understanding ECEC as a public good and suggest that the rationale is
similar to those used in favour of education paid for by the state.25
The positive effects reach
beyond the individual child and the family, and the potential for market failure including low
quality and shortages of provision justify government intervention. More recently, a literature
review of early childhood services and OECD countries on behalf of Unicef, explored a range
of cost-benefit research and concluded that the demonstrated benefits of early childhood
services, to not just children and families but also governments and national economies,
justify state investment.26
These arguments are discussed in more detail in the reports by OECD and Unicef and shall
not be replicated here, as their examination does not shed any light onto the issue of what
constitutes high quality provision. But they do add weight to the argument that the fact that
the UK Government has increased substantially the expenditure on ECEC provision, means
that the quality of provision is of paramount importance – whether it is provided by the
maintained, private, voluntary or independent sector.
Defining quality
It is universally accepted that children should receive a good quality service in ECEC
provision; yet, perhaps not surprisingly, there is no common agreement of what that means.
There is no single definition of what ‘quality’ is. Although one stakeholder says ‘we would all
recognise it when we see it’, it is probable we might all have a slightly different perception of
what is the best ECEC experience.
It is apparent that the understanding of what constitutes ‘quality ECEC’ differs depending on
the individual’s perspective. For example, parents, children, ECEC staff and managers, local
authorities and politicians approach this with diverse attitudes and differ in their view of what
ECEC might be expected to deliver. These differing perspectives on quality have been
categorised by Lilian Katz as coming from a ‘outside-in’ perspective (viewed by parents), an
‘inside’ perspective (as experienced by staff), a ‘top-down’ perspective (seen by observers),
and a ‘bottom-up’ perspective (experienced by children).27
A similar view was raised several
times in our interviews with stakeholders as part of this project, where the principle of
bringing together the diverse views of stakeholders was identified as important and in this
section we aim to do that. As noted above, different countries have chosen to develop ECEC
services differently and its quality reflects the social and cultural context.
As noted by Munton, Mooney and Rowland in 1995, key stakeholders are typically looking for
a definition of a ‘global standard of care that can be universally accepted as indicative of
good quality.’28
One example of this is the current work within the DCSF on the Quality
Improvement Project outlined below. Munton et al – and many researchers since then,
including more recently Tony Bertram29
– argued that a single, universally accepted definition
of quality is unachievable as it is value-based and subjective. This principle is now widely
accepted, and our discussions with stakeholders in this project have confirmed this.
Munton et al therefore proposed a conceptual framework for evaluating quality based on a
framework developed by Avedis Donabedian for healthcare30
comprising six dimensions:
effectiveness, acceptability, efficiency, access, equity and relevance. Additional features
include: incorporating the views of stakeholders; increasing awareness of issues related to
quality and an attention to quality improvement; the capacity to clarify and expand on
people’s ways of thinking about quality; and the ability to be practically applicable. Each
dimension is further defined in terms of its structures, process and outcome. This framework

Quality costs
7
can be a useful tool as it allows different definitions of quality, reflecting different values and
interests.
Before moving on to discuss some of the various indicators of quality identified by research,
this paper will consider the views of quality in more detail from the perspective of key
stakeholders.
Government view of quality
The OECDs international review of ECEC services argues that voluntary approaches to
quality improvement need to be reinforced by a proactive approach from governments who
‘have a pivotal role in defining and ensuring programme standards and in creating strong and
equitable early childhood systems’.31
In the UK, the Ten Year Strategy for Childcare outlined
the Government’s increased awareness of the importance of quality and the necessity of
government intervention, brought about by the evidence on child development, which:
‘tells us that government involvement in childcare provision cannot be limited to
securing adequate supply to support labour market participation. Government needs
to care about the quality of childcare. The longer term benefits of getting the early
years right will pay dividends for both individuals and for society as a while as
children grow to adulthood.’32
It is worth quoting in full the Government’s definition of quality childcare provision, as set out
in the Ten Year Strategy: 33
‘To meet the Government’s vision, childcare must become part of a partnership with
parents to meet the cognitive, social, emotional and physical needs of children. For
too long there has been a false distinction between ‘education’ and ‘care’ in early
years services that is reflected in different qualifications and regulatory systems. For
children, such a distinction has no meaning. Children need a safe and stimulating
environment at all times, whether this is provided in their own home, in a nursery
school, a day nursery or a childminder’s home. A modern childcare system should
deliver high quality services for children that enable them to learn, develop social and
emotional skills, and explore through play.’
This definition leads onto various policy initiatives intended to improve the quality of ECEC
based chiefly around reforming the workforce and introducing a robust regulation and
inspection regime.
The OECD noted that as governments spend more money on ECEC, there is also a growing
concern about quality.34
It is evident that this has occurred in the UK with the Government
initially focusing the childcare strategy on investing in the supply and subsidy of childcare
places, primarily to provide ECEC for working parents and to help meet their child poverty
targets, alongside providing free, early education to improve children’s outcomes. After
identifying several strategies for quality improvement in their Ten Year Strategy for Childcare
(which will be further discussed below) there is now a much wider and clearer focus on
improving the quality of provision.
Five years on from the launch of the strategy, most of the policy initiatives related to quality
improvement have been implemented, at least partially. These include:
• Reform of the ECEC workforce, led by the Children’s Workforce Development
Council, including: a commitment to a graduate led workforce in all full daycare
settings by 2015; creation of the Early Years Professional Status (EYPS); and a new
single qualifications framework providing more opportunities for existing staff to
increase their skills, supported by the Graduate Leader Fund (following on from the

Quality costs
8
Transformation Fund), which aims at raising the quality of provision by supporting the
private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sector in recruiting and training qualified
staff.
• A new regulatory framework and inspection regime for all ECEC services.
• A single quality framework – known as the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) –
providing an integrated approach to care and education and setting the national
standards for learning and development from birth to age five.
The Government reported progress on the Ten Year Strategy in January 2009, in its Next
Steps for Early Learning and Childcare document. This gives an update on the EYFS and
EYPS, and reasserts the Government’s vision of ‘high quality...highly skilled practitioners
delivering excellent play-based learning adapted to the development needs of each individual
child.’35
The document also outlines plans to attract more new graduates into the ECEC
workforce, through a scheme like Teach First in schools.
Every Child Matters and the outcomes duty
From the Government’s perspective the quality framework for ECEC, as with all children’s
services, is driven by the Every Child Matters (ECM) programme.36
ECM covers five areas to
ensure that all children have the support needed to:
1. be healthy;
2. stay safe;
3. enjoy and achieve;
4. make a positive contribution;
5. achieve economic well-being.
These five outcomes are now enshrined in the outcomes duty in the Childcare Act 2006
which places a duty on English and Welsh local authorities to reduce inequalities and
improve the well-being of all young children in their area through the planning and delivery of
integrated early childhood services. Meeting the requirements of this duty requires a wide-
ranging and inclusive strategy and various guidance materials are now available to assist
local authorities and providers in meeting their duties.
Ofsted
Since the introduction of the free entitlement to early education in 1998, Ofsted has been
responsible for inspecting the quality of education provided by all establishments eligible to
deliver this, including the private, voluntary and independent sectors. Since September 2001,
Ofsted has been also the regulatory body responsible for ensuring minimum standards of
quality and safety are met within the sector. ECEC settings are graded according to the ECM
outcomes (outlined above). From September 2008, Ofsted introduced a new inspection
regime across the ECEC sector to ensure that all providers of the EYFS will be reported on
in the same way. Although Ofsted also works with providers to construct strategies for
improvement, in practice local authorities play a more significant role.
The most recent inspection statistics show that between July 2007 and August 2008, 66 per
cent of full daycare providers were rated as good and 4 per cent outstanding. The results for
childminders are a little lower with 54 per cent being rated as good and 5 per cent
outstanding. The lowest rating of inadequate was given to 3 per cent of both full daycare
providers and childminders. The remainder were rated as satisfactory.37
The inspection
ratings for early education settings (nursery schools and classes) are better, with 10 per cent
rated outstanding and 61 per cent rated as good.
Ofsted produced a more detailed exploration of the evidence over a three-year inspection
cycle during the three years to March 2008.38
The report found that 60 per cent of all settings
were good or outstanding although the quality does vary widely across the sector. More full
daycare (65 per cent) and sessional daycare (64 per cent) settings were rated good or

Quality costs
9
outstanding compared with creches (50 per cent). The report states that the poorer quality in
the latter settings is due to low staff ratios and the number of qualified leaders and staff.
The latest Ofsted Annual Report39
suggests that the Government has had some success in
improving quality. For example, in 2001 when inspections began, almost 40 per cent of
providers did not fully meet the minimum standards expected, but now the figure is just 4 per
cent. However, while many providers sustain or improve their standards between
inspections, almost as many drop sharply in the opposite direction. Ofsted rightly views this
volatility as unacceptable. Also of great concern is the fact that, although some local authorities have
bucked this trend, provision is generally of poorer quality in the most disadvantaged areas, thus providing a
poorer foundation in later life for these children than for their more affluent peers.
Ofsted outlined in their report Early Years Leading to Excellence some of the key aspects
that inspectors are looking for when determining good quality organisation, leadership and
management within a setting. Best practice in this area is shown to be where:
• children are at the heart of all that happens;
• adults have a robust approach to keeping children safe;
• providers further improve on already outstanding practice;
• stimulating environments enable children to thrive safely; and
• records are used extremely well to support children.
Although criticisms are often levelled at Ofsted inspections (some of which were raised in our
stakeholder interviews), the existence of Ofsted and the duties it carries out are in contrast to
some countries. The regulation and inspection of ECEC services in different countries vary
considerably, and the OECD remarked that ‘the level of regulation of services for children
under 3 gives rise for concern’. There however remains in the UK much feeling that the
standards inspected do not represent high quality, but rather a floor of minimum standards
which need to be built on in order to provide high quality provision which would be accepted
as such by all who saw it.
Early Years Foundation Stage
The EYFS which took effect in settings in September 2008, sets the national standards for
learning and development from birth to age five. It amalgamates the previous Ofsted National
Standards, the Foundation Stage and Birth to Three Matters to create an overarching
framework for the provision of care and education for children from birth until completion of
their reception year. The EYFS covers two key areas: the welfare and development of
children.
The welfare section sets out the safety and general standards of care that children receive
such as ensuring that appropriate staff are in place, and that facilities and equipment are
safe for children. It also covers the quality of the environment and recommends that there
should be access to outdoor space.
The development section outlines some of the key milestones that most children should have
reached by the age of five, such as interacting with other children and adults and the
recognition of simple, written words. These milestones are intended to guide those working
with children and to help them to identify when a child needs more help. The EYFS is
founded on the importance of play and enables each child to develop at their own pace.
The EYFS was developed over a number of years after wide consultation and is to be
reviewed in 2010. Although there has been a campaign against the EYFS in some quarters,
it is predominantly welcomed by the ECEC sector. Interviewees for this project felt that EYFS
will make a substantial contribution to improving quality in the ECEC sector, and this was
substantiated both by work Daycare Trust has carried out in the last year (for example, a

Quality costs
10
survey of attendees at Daycare Trust’s annual conference 2008 and work with local
authorities for The Government Office for the South East) and in a number of recent ‘one-
year on’ reports.40
At the end of the EYFS children’s development is measured against thirteen scales and the
2009 profile results published in October 2009 show that over the last year, the achievement
gap between the bottom 20 per cent and the rest has narrowed slightly from 36 per cent to
34 per cent, and the proportion of five year olds reaching a ‘good’ level of development
increased from 49 per cent to 52 per cent.41
ECEC workforce
Acknowledging the importance of the ECEC workforce in raising the quality of provision, the
Government have invested substantial finances into developing the workforce. In 2005 they
created the Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC) to develop and
professionalise the ECEC workforce and to contribute to the Government’s target of having a
graduate leader in every full daycare setting by 2015 (two in disadvantaged areas) and in
every children’s centre by 2010. There is consideration of making this a requirement, rather
than just a target. The CWDC is responsible for developing the Early Years Professional
Status (EYPS) – a role equivalent in level to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), but not
necessarily in pay and conditions and without identical training requirements. Finally, to
support the PVI sector in recruiting and training more highly qualified staff, the Government
introduced the Transformation Fund in 2006, which has since been superseded by the
Graduate Leader Fund, worth £305m over the three years 2008/09 to 2010/11. Local
authorities are also expected to use their Sure Start, Early Years and Childcare Grant to fund
the training and development of the ECEC workforce. They also undertake qualification
audits of their provision.
The Government’s Next Steps for Early Learning and Childcare document signals that a
requirement for all ECEC staff to be qualified to Level 3 may come on board from 2015. The
Next Steps document also identifies the need to create a more consistent continuous
professional development framework, setting out a Continuous Professional Development
(CPD) entitlement so that all of the workforce, not only graduates through the EYPS, can
expect training and development.
Quality assurance and improvement schemes
A plethora of quality assurance (QA) schemes for ECEC settings have been developed since
the publication of the National Childcare Strategy in 1998. The (then) DfES benchmarked
such schemes under an accreditation programme established in 2002 called ‘Investors In
Children’ until 2007. One example of such a scheme used by ECEC providers is ‘Aiming for
Quality’, operated by the Pre-school Learning Alliance. The scheme intends to improve and
maintain high levels of quality, and the Alliance suggests that participating will make the
provider more attractive to both parents and staff. Aiming for Quality incorporates three
stages of accreditation and covers a range of practices, including curriculum planning,
assessment of progress towards early learning goals, quality of curriculum, quality of
teaching, equality and diversity, staff retention and parental involvement. However a large
number of other QA– or more often now described as QI (quality improvement) – schemes
have been developed at local authority level.
The recent Ofsted report on early years inspections comments that those settings
participating in a QA scheme generally provide higher quality ECEC. 74 per cent of daycare
settings taking part in a QA were rated good or outstanding compared with 62 per cent of
those that were not. Among childminders, 85 per cent of those in QA schemes provided good
quality or outstanding care compared with 59 per cent who were not. The report also states
that outstanding settings that are in QA schemes have similar features to other outstanding

Quality costs
11
settings, but those with a quality assurance award have ‘a clearer focus on excellent
commitment and systems to improve quality’.42
Since 2005 QA schemes have been monitored by the National Quality Improvement Network
(NQIN) supported by the National Children’s Bureau (NCB) with DCSF funding. In 2007, the
NQIN published a guidance document to provide guiding principles by which the wide
number of schemes for ECEC services should be evaluated, covering a broad range of
issues.43
The original 12 principles have now been clustered into five themes aimed to work
alongside new guidance and tools provided by National Strategies. The themes are:
1. Early years and childcare settings improve outcomes.
2. Values and principles are inclusive and address quality.
3. Continuous self-evaluation and reflective practice.
4. Effective leadership and workforce planning.
5. Effective monitoring and evaluation of practice and outcomes.
The term ‘Quality Assurance’ has now largely been superseded by ‘Quality Improvement’ to
emphasise the important role in improving quality the schemes play. The sheer number of
schemes available arguably makes it difficult for any one to be immediately recognised by
customers (eg parents) as an assurance of quality.44
Although Ofsted reports that settings
that have embarked on such schemes appear to have improved the quality of their services,
it is considered by some that the better settings are more likely to opt to do this in the first
place. Furthermore some stakeholders suggest that the schemes largely produce an
improvement in policies and process which do not automatically translate into better quality
experiences for children; this view was confirmed by work carried out by Daycare Trust with
local authorities and settings in the South-East who rated QA schemes low in terms of tools
to improve quality practice.45
However as well as ensuring that settings have good policies
for all aspects of their work, good QI schemes focus should focus settings on self-evaluation
and reflective practice.
Quality Improvement Programme
The DCSF’s Quality Improvement Programme (QIP) takes forward the ‘vision’ set out in the
Children’s Plan in December 2007, to make this country the best place in the world for
children to grow up in. The QIP has three key themes:46
1. Communicating quality: aims to develop a universal view of the characteristics of high
quality ECEC provision to combat the different views of parents, providers, local
authorities and other stakeholders.
2. Driving quality improvement through the system: local authorities working with
settings to improve quality and raising standards above the Ofsted minimum.
3. Supporting the workforce to rise above the minimum standards: providing funding,
including the Graduate Leader Fund (GLF), training for leadership skills and an
expanded programme of CPD.
The QIP identifies three elements of high quality provision with the individual child placed at
the centre:
1. Workforce: graduate led; Level 3 as standard; continuing professional development;
opportunities for staff to improve skills and qualifications.
2. Content and environment: adult-child ratios; the EYFS providing challenging,
appropriate play-based content; safe and stimulating physical environment.
3. Practice: clear educational goals; warm responsive relationship between adult/child;
parents involved in children’s learning; meeting individual child’s needs; sustained
shared thinking.

Quality costs
12
Support from local authorities
Local authorities have a key role to play in the implementation of the QIP and use a variety of
tools in working with settings to improve quality:
• development officer/early years adviser/setting improvement partner time working
with settings, particularly those which are struggling to provide high quality;
• training programmes;
• raising qualifications and Graduate Leader Fund;
• using Early Years leaders to spread better practice (for example, networking,
mentoring, buddying, visits to high quality settings, modelling good practice within
struggling settings);
• support for QA and QI schemes (see ‘Quality assurance and improvement schemes’
above); and
• attaching quality conditions to funding streams – this has not been used to a
significant extent in the past, but will be used increasingly in the future (for example,
quality standards apply to the free places for two-year-olds).
We carried out a number of interviews with local authorities in the South-East on their role in
raising quality in early 2009. There was complete agreement among early years leads that
workforce was key and that it in turn influences the other elements of quality. All local
authorities mentioned issues with quality of leadership and management. In some settings
the ethos was not as it should be, and there was not always a commitment to CPD. There
was unanimous approval of the move to graduate leaders and the EYPS. Local authorities
also singled out the quality of adult/child relationships and the nature of the engagement.
Outside facilities were often mentioned as often leaving room for improvement.

Quality costs
13
Parents’ views of quality
Parents are arguably the principle ‘customer’ of ECEC services on behalf of their children.
Some research has found that parents do not always accurately judge the quality of the
provision they use47
and this view is often expressed by Government and local authority
officials.48
Some similar views were expressed in the stakeholder interviews conducted for
this project with several interviewees commenting that many parents choose ECEC based on
factors associated with convenience and accessibility rather than on quality. One interviewee
from a local authority commented that, for parents, quality is much lower down the priority list
than location and affordability. Another representative from a different authority said:
‘I think parents’ views are formed by all sorts of different things…it’s very hard for a
parent to find out what is quality, and is that a good place for my child to go, and
sometimes the urgency of their need to have the childcare, and the practicalities of
where it is, and affordability dominate their decision…I’m accepting that parents differ
in priorities, especially if the urgency is the need to bring in an income, to work etc.
But I think it’s also quite hard for parents to make a judgement on quality, and some
parents are bowled over by lots of new equipment, but if they can talk to somebody
about it, to actually look at the quality of what goes on there they need some help to
do that, because they often haven’t got that background to do it.’
Another interviewee succinctly said: ‘I think their views of quality are restricted by what their
needs are.’
The conflicting drivers of parents’ needs have emerged in the research evidence. The
National Audit Office surveyed parents in 2004 who were using ECEC services and found
that the most commonly cited factor influencing parents’ choice of provider was staff
references and reputation (47 per cent), closely followed by location (44 per cent). Well
qualified staff and good facilities were both only mentioned by 10 per cent of parents.49
However in a MORI survey conducted for Daycare Trust in the same year 51 per cent of
parents said well qualified, experienced and well paid staff were most important when
choosing childcare, the same percentage as said reliable and trustworthy staff, followed by
good reputation (43 per cent), hygiene and safety (42 per cent), and warm and caring
environment (41 per cent).50
Parents in qualitative research conducted by Daycare Trust
showed that they rated highly the safety of the environment and the happiness of their child
in using the setting, and lone parents in particular prioritised these issues over and above
cost and location.51
Trust and recommendations by people they knew were considered very
important, with many parents strongly averse to leaving children – particularly those who are
very young – ‘with a stranger’. This translated into many parents being more wary of
childminders than group settings, where they felt that the presence of more (albeit unknown)
adults and organisational processes would reduce any risk of harm to the child.
The DCSF’s Quality Improvement Programme identified that parents’ main driver in choosing
ECEC tends to be personal recommendation, trust and convenience; with some parents –
but still very much a minority – using Ofsted reports to guide their choice of provider. The
DCSF conducts a regular large-scale survey of parents’ use, views and experiences of
ECEC. The most recent survey found that the quality of ECEC and educational opportunities
were key. The most commonly cited reasons for parents using group care were:
• the setting had a good reputation;
• the parent felt they could trust them; and
• it provided education as well as care (all were cited by 15 per cent of parents).
The DCSF survey showed that the responses in relation to ‘trust’ changed with the age of the
child:
• when the baby was not yet one-year-old trust was mentioned by 28 per cent of parents;
• this fell to 17 per cent for parents of children aged two and three; and
• fell further to 14 per cent for parents of children aged four and five.

Quality costs
14
It is noteworthy that for parents using childminders, trust was by far the most important factor
(cited by 46 per cent).52
The evidence therefore indicates that parents are quite aware of the importance of quality in
ECEC settings, but do not tend to use the same language of quality as ECEC professionals,
instead talking about the importance of their child being safe, happy, mixing with other
children and learning. Research has identified that parents rate ‘good staff, warm and caring
atmosphere, quality of buildings, health and safety’ as the most important aspects of quality,
and the benefits for their children of attending provision as ‘improving their social skills,
preparing them for school and having an opportunity to play with children from varied
background’.53
They thought their children valued ‘making friends, having a range of fun
things to do and having warm and caring staff’ (which, apart from parents undervaluing the
importance of outdoor play, does correlate well with children’s own views – see Children’s
views of quality below).
There is some evidence that parents find it hard to judge quality54
and may rate the provision
that their children use higher than independent assessors.55
Parents cannot necessarily be
expected to know what elements of the provision contribute to their desired outcomes, for
example they tend to set a lower importance on staff qualifications than the sector itself, and
this may be both due to the relative importance given to particular outcomes and to the
understanding of what qualifications contribute. However if parents are to be the ‘purchasers’
of quality the ‘childcare market’, some will need support to consider more fully what might
constitute quality and the relative value of its different components. This in no way represents
a disregard for the outcomes which parents hold to be most important, but recognises the
right of parents to have information as to what is required for particular outcomes to be likely
in a setting. Some interviewees, in particular those with a government or quasi-government
perspective, felt that the EYFS and the new Ofsted inspection regime should help, as parents
will be able to compare like with like much more easily.
Penelope Leach notes that that ‘we do not know as much as we should, partly because high
demand for scarce childcare in many countries makes it difficult for parents who have
obtained places to be openly critical of them or to vote with their feet by moving children out
of care they regard as ‘poor’. Daycare Trust will be returning to this issue with further focus
groups and a policy paper on the subject of Parents and Quality Childcare in 2010.
Children’s views of quality
Children’s views on ECEC and what they want from it are increasingly being explored,
although there is arguably more evidence available that covers older children and young
people. Clark and Moss developed a multi-method approach – the Mosaic approach – to
explore children’s perspectives on their early years settings.56
Children placed great
importance on their friendship groups, and also on outdoor play and on having adults present
to resolve any conflicts that arise. A literature review found that as well as time to spend with
their friends, young children valued a range of activities, caring staff who took children’s
concerns seriously, ample space, access to outside and clean toilets.57
Pre-school children
were most likely to complain about not having enough toys or having to sit on the carpet for
too long. Campbell-Barr also looked at children’s views more recently and found children did
not identify with an educational element of ECEC provision.58
Penelope Leach identifies that for young children, good quality ECEC primarily consists of a
good relationship between the adult and the child, followed by stability of care (as discussed
earlier in this paper). She also identifies the importance of being with other children
(especially stable groups of children, rather than just mixing with children in parks and
playgrounds). In order for children to be able to integrate well in these settings with other

Quality costs
15
children, there must also be adequate time for them to settle in. Adult-planned activities and
routines are important so that all children can benefit from a wide range of activities, but
these must be flexible to take children’s preferences into account.59
No conceptual framework or set of standards can guarantee each and every child a high
quality experience; it is of course possible for one child to have a poor quality experience in a
supposedly ‘outstanding’ setting if, for example, their relationships with the workers were not
good. However it is expected that this should be far less likely in a setting which has met high
standards when observed and inspected.
Quality factors: process and structure
We have two clear conclusions from the literature review. First the difficulties in defining
quality of ECEC, due to its subjective nature and the influence of cultural values, are widely
acknowledged.60
Second, much of the research on ECEC draws a distinction between
‘structural’ and ‘process’ aspects.61
Melhuish’s review of the literature on the impact of ECEC
provision defined these two aspects as:
1. Process dimensions, which are ‘the characteristics of the child’s experience e.g.
interactions with others, learning experiences, variety in stimulation, responsiveness
in environment’.
2. Structural dimensions which focus on ‘aspects of the environment that are fixed, e.g.
accommodation, group size, adult-child ratio, training of staff, health and safety,
stability of staff, management structure.’62
In a policy paper written for Daycare Trust, Melhuish expanded on these descriptions and
commented that structural aspects tend to be focused on where legislation of daycare quality
exists, as these are easier to inspect and control. 63
These dual dimensions of quality are now widely accepted. The OECD report, Starting
Strong II, included process and structural aspects in their evaluation of early childhood
systems – but they also identified a further six factors. Arguably, some of these could be
classified as either process or structural dimensions, but also it could be argued that the last
three (in the list below) are actually of a different type. The additional six aspects of quality
identified by the OECD are:
1. Orientation quality: the type and level of attention a government brings to early childhood
policy and which can include: direction to a market or public system or a mixed economy;
and care of children while parents work or a more developmental approach.
2. Educational concept and practice: a national curriculum framework that guides the
concept and practice of centres. This differs between countries and across time, although
a common conviction is emerging that focuses on highly trained staff.
3. Operational quality: management that focuses on quality improvement, local need and
effective team building, and which relies heavily upon the professional competence of
centre leaders and local administration.
4. Child outcome quality or performance standards: positive child outcomes are a key target
in all countries, although there are differences in which targets are the focus (as outlined
above). The UK and France prioritise language and logico-mathematical skills, which
require regular assessments to prepare the child for school
5. Countries that do not use formal assessments, such as Sweden, which evaluate centre
performance and national sample evaluations.
6. Standards pertaining to parent/community outreach and involvement: these tend to
emerge in targeted and local early education programmes and include issues such as
outreach to parents, services that encompass cultural values and participation in
integrated services.

Quality costs
16
Process factors have been explored widely in other research,64
and are clearly fundamental
to delivering high quality ECEC. Research evidence suggests that the quality of provision for
the under threes relies on affection, communication and responsiveness. The relationships
children have with both the adults and other children – and the nature of the interactions
between them - are crucial. For children aged over three, the learning opportunities and
education aspects of provision also become increasingly important.65
Melhuish’s comprehensive literature review of the impact of ECEC provision on young
children from 2004 highlighted the following factors as key for enhancing children’s
development:66
• Adult-child interaction that is responsive, readily available and affectionate.
• Well-trained and committed staff.
• Facilities that are safe and sanitary and accessible to parents.
• Group sizes and ratios that facilitate appropriate staff-child interaction.
• Supervision that maintains consistency.
• Staff development that ensures stability, continuity and improving quality.
• A developmentally appropriate curriculum with educational content
Indeed, the EPPE study, which we consider further below, is one large scale example that
has identified several ‘process’ factors indicating quality in pre-school settings:67
• the quality of child-staff interactions is of particular importance with children making more
progress in settings where staff were warm and responsive to the children’s individual
needs;
• higher quality settings view educational and social development as complementary and
equal in importance; and
• better quality settings were those that encouraged ‘shared sustained thinking’ interactions
between staff and children as well as child-initiated activities.
However we are not here providing a review of the literature on process factors, as the aim of
this paper is to produce a model of quality ECEC in order for it to be costed. Process factors
– such interpersonal relationships and adult-child interactions – do not appear to have a price
tag attached to them which are separate from any structural issues. No stakeholder
suggested any additional costing associated with improving the process factors, apart from
training costs.
Our failure to explore the issues surrounding the ‘process’ aspects of quality is not a lack of
appreciation of their fundamental importance. It is simply that, as we are chiefly concerned in
this project with how funding can be used to improve the quality of ECEC provision, this
directs us to explore how financial investment could lead to an improved quality of provision,
and it is the ‘structural’ aspects that directly require additional funding. However it is likely
that the improvement of structural factors will act through improving the process factors. We
should bear in mind Melhuish’s point:
‘Structural factors seem to provide the necessary conditions for process quality such
as positive staff/child interaction. They facilitate but do not guarantee good quality
experiences for the child.’
An individual child could have a poor experience at a high quality setting if, for example,
his/her relationships with the adults there were not good. However by improving the
structural aspects of the provision, the evidence suggests that this improves also the process
aspects of the children’s experience, making this scenario less and less likely.
Quality factors and the stakeholder discussions

Quality costs
17
Daycare Trust undertook a number of stakeholder interviews as part of the process of
researching this paper. All interviewees identified that the workforce was the main crucial
aspect in determining quality, as this then has an impact on all aspects of a setting: highly
qualified and motivated staff will know about staff development and so will do their best to
relate well to children; they will recognise the importance of healthy food, stimulating toys
and a good environment; they will have quality interactions with adults and children alike; and
they will be willing to learn and contribute to a high quality ethos in the setting. Alongside
qualifications there needs to be professionalism. Some noted that in order for ECEC workers
to be highly valued, there needs to be better pay.
A number of people also emphasised that a quality workforce was not just about
qualifications, but also about confidence, skills, knowledge and competence levels.
Interviewees noted the importance of in-depth training, rather than the odd day here and
there. Child development was seen as an important part of the training, and this should be
given more emphasis within NVQs. Modelling good adult-child interactions within the settings
improved the quality of other staff. Reflective practice was mentioned numerous times, so
that practitioners are able to continuously improve their practice and identify areas that they
can work on. Some felt that EYPS may not be enough to achieve this; that its distinction as a
status, rather than a training course or qualification, might hinder its impact.
A management approach understanding and promoting quality through the whole
organisation was seen as critical. A good leader or manager makes a big difference in a
setting, as they will be able to always strive for the best for the children in their setting – for
example, having higher ratios if that is what the particular children need. High quality settings
are those that are working to the quality standards set by government as minimum
standards, and exceeding those where possible.
When discussing the research that indicates that the maintained sector has higher quality
provision, all the interviewees indicated that it was important to drill down into this finding to
see what it is about the maintained sector that brings quality. Interviewees suspected that it
comes back to the workforce and their qualifications, training and status. The workforce in
the maintained sector tends to be more qualified. Some local authority representatives also
felt that having a dedicated building with the sole purpose of caring for and educating
children, rather than having to adapt other space to meet their needs (as usually is the case
for sessional care), was important. The maintained sector may also find it easier to have a
long-term view and not have the same concerns about sustainability.
The Early Years Foundation Stage and its bringing together of the care and education
aspects was welcomed and seen a step forward – especially as care professions are
traditionally undervalued. Bringing the frameworks together for birth to age three and early
education for three- and four-year-olds was seen as essential as children can’t learn if they
aren’t cared for effectively – for example, a child won’t learn if he/she is hungry. ECEC needs
to be interested in the whole child and how he/she fits into society, as well as how his/her
family are supported in doing that. DCSF mentioned that EYFS should be the minimum
standard, with the best providers offering more than that.
Key changes identified in the interviews as needed to improve quality were:
• good leaders/managers in the PVI sector (ie not just EYPs), so that they can instil an
ethos of quality, as well as manage change and ensure sustainability;
• encouraging staff to be reflective practitioners so that they can constantly improve;
• further improvements to the qualifications of staff; and
• more information to parents about judging quality so that they can make informed
decisions and ‘buy’ quality provision, thereby ensuring that the ‘childcare market’
values quality.

Quality costs
18
This view that the structural dimensions provide a precondition of quality ECEC but must not
be seen as the ‘be all and end all’ was raised several times in our interviews with
stakeholders and in the roundtable at which these factors were discussed. There was a
strong view that the importance of child-staff interactions, centre practices and other process
features – which are notably harder to measure and regulate – need to be acknowledged
alongside the structural factors in order to ensure that they are not overlooked by those
working in settings to improve the experience of children.
Quality factors and the research evidence
In terms of the evidence base in the UK, and also internationally, the research on ECEC has
shifted its focus across the years. Influenced by attachment theory first developed by Bowlby,
for several decades research tended to focus on whether ECEC provision was bad for
children.68
It has since shifted from analysing the effect of ECEC on children’s developmental
outcomes (for a fuller discussion see Appendix 2) to the impact of the quality of provision on
children’s development.69
We now turn to what this research has to say about each of the
factors which influence quality in ECEC settings, and we are limiting the review to that of
structural factors for the reasons given above.
We have reviewed the three main studies on ECEC that have been carried out in England
over the past decade:
1. the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS);
2. the Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative (NNI) evaluation; and
3. Effective Pre-School Education (EPPE) study.
For further information, see Appendix 2. Here we summarise the structural factors that these
studies identify as quality indicators in early years provision.
From the MCS, in rank order:
FACTOR BETTER QUALITY
Sector - Maintained
Group size - Larger groups
Staff qualifications - Higher qualifications
Children’s Centre status - Children’s Centre
Ages - Older children
Staff-child ratios - Fewer children
Links with SSLP - NO links with SSLP or Health Services
Centre size - Smaller centres
Manager’s qualifications - Higher qualifications
The NNI evaluation identified the following overall predictors of quality as:
Sector - Maintained
Children’s Centre status - Children’s Centre
Centre size - larger
Age of children - mixed age groups
Staff qualifications - better qualifications
Finally, the EPPE study found the following key factors as essential in influencing quality:
Setting type - Integrated care and education, and nursery schools
Staff qualifications - Higher qualifications

Quality costs
19
Manager’s qualifications - Higher qualifications
Type of children - mix of children from a range of social backgrounds
There are no studies which contradict these findings, and others add weight to the
conclusions that these are the structural factors which influence quality (for example, Jane
Waldfogel has identified staff-child ratios and education levels of staff70
).
The following section takes a closer look at the evidence on these structural factors.
Sector
The evidence suggests that maintained status is a strong predictor of quality. Using the
ECERS measure (see Appendix 1), the EPPE study found that children attending nursery
classes, nursery schools and integrated centres (combining care and education) have better
intellectual outcomes; in addition nursery classes and integrated centres also result in better
social outcomes. Playgroups, private day nurseries and local authority day nurseries scored
lower in their ECERS ratings.71
The MCS also found that maintained status was linked to
higher quality in most dimensions including better interactions, language and reasoning
skills, curricular quality for literacy, maths, science and diversity.
Similar findings emerged from the NNI evaluation which found that fully maintained local
authority provision gave children the most stimulating environment to develop their language
and educational abilities, and also the highest quality physical environment. The evaluation
reported that mainstream support systems and access to ‘educational infrastructure’ provide
advantages to the maintained sector and speculated that the differences in pay and
conditions for staff may contribute to the differences in quality between sectors.72
Although it is clear from the research that the maintained sector provides a higher quality of
ECEC provision across a range of outcomes for children, it is not possible from those studies
to ascertain the additional expenditure which leads to the observed higher quality. However it
can be seen that better staff pay and conditions would contribute to higher costs. In the MCS
the effect on interactions and maths was only apparent after staff qualifications were
removed from the regression model, suggesting that qualifications could be influencing the
higher quality obtained by the maintained sector.73
This suggestion was supported by the
stakeholders interviewed. However some of those interviewed or attending the roundtable
were sceptical that any factor other than qualifications and premises costs existed; in other
words they put the demonstrated higher quality entirely down to higher staffing and premises
expenditure.
Children’s centre status
Both the NNI evaluation and the MCS found children’s centre status to have a positive
impact on the quality of provision, with both showing it to be a stronger influence than that of
sector on specific issues. For example, the MCS found that children’s centres had a positive
relationship with provision for science, diversity and personal care routines, and the
relationship was independent of sector. The NNI found higher quality scores in children’s
centres related to interactions (between staff and child and also peers) and daily schedule
(eg appropriate group activities, time for free play), rather than to education provision. The
MCS report comments that the positive impact resulting from children’s centre status may be
because most were in the maintained sector; however personal care routines, science and
diversity were all areas with a positive relationship on quality and were independent of
sector.
Group size and size of centre
The MCS found that rooms with larger groups of children present were of the highest quality,
once other factors had been taken into account. These offered better curricular provision,
higher quality interactions and provision for children’s language and reasoning skills.

Quality costs
20
However earlier studies showed that smaller group sizes produced a range of better social
and cognitive outcomes for children.74
The MCS study also identified that groups in larger centres (ie greater numbers of children
registered at the centre) provided lower quality interactions for three- and four-year-olds.75
Yet this contradicts findings from the NNI evaluation which found that larger centres had a
significant and positive relationship with higher quality provision for children under the age of
three and a half.76
Care routines, language and programme structure were all found to be
higher quality. The evaluation report surmised that larger centres have the benefit of
economies of scale so can offer a wider range of facilities and resources for children and
staff.
Staff and manager qualifications and training
There is much evidence to show that staff qualifications and training are a key indicator of
quality, and as we saw earlier the Government has recognised the centrality of the workforce
and qualifications in raising the standards of provision. In a briefing paper for Daycare Trust
in 2004, Melhuish identified six factors related to staff characteristics that support quality
ECEC:77
1. higher levels of staff education;
2. in-service training;
3. staff experienced in working with children;
4. low staff turnover;
5. adequate staff pay; and
6. a trained centre manager to provide staff support and supervision.
In terms of the evidence from the three UK research studies we are focusing on, the EPPE
study found that the most effective ECEC provision that produced better outcomes for
children had highly qualified staff, mostly graduate teachers:78
‘Children made more progress in pre-school centres where staff had higher
qualifications, particularly if the manager was highly qualified. Having trained teachers
working with children in pre-school settings (for a substantial proportion of the time,
and most importantly as curriculum leader) had the greatest impact on quality…’
The EPPE study found a significant positive relationship between the percentage of Level 5
(graduate) staff hours and children’s social and behavioural development. However, the
researchers pointed out that the complex interdependency between factors such as staff
qualifications, ratios and the quality and type of provision suggest that it could be more useful
to consider the impacts of packages of provision rather than trying to identify the impact of a
specific factor.79
This confirmed earlier conclusions that the three factors of staff
qualifications and training, group size and staff-child ratios work together, rather than operate
independently, to have a positive influence on children’s outcomes.80
The MCS report also found staff qualifications to be a strong predictor of quality, which had a
significant impact on children’s academic progress, language development and interactions.
Manager qualifications were also showed to be related to quality of provision.81
Similar
findings emerged in the NNI evaluation which highlighted the importance of a well-qualified
workforce for the provision of high quality care-giving and for child outcomes. Children with
access to a qualified teacher were significantly more cooperative and sociable, and displayed
fewer worried and upset behaviours than those with no access to a trained teacher
Pay
There is little research exploring the effects of staff pay directly on the quality of ECEC
provision. One exception is a study conducted in the USA by Deborah Phillips et al which
explored a range of quality indicators in centre-based childcare in 104 centres in

Quality costs
21
Massachusetts, Virginia and Georgia.82
The study found that the quality of provision was
more strongly associated with the wages of staff, and particularly the highest wage paid to
full-time teachers, than any other structural dimension of care. The National Childcare
Staffing Study found that higher quality centres have higher staff wages, a better adult work
environment and lower teacher turnover – as well as a more highly educated and trained
staff.83
What is less understood is why staff wages play such a strong role in the quality of
provision. It could be speculated that higher staff wages first increases the pool of candidates
for jobs and then staff retention, contributing to the stability of care for children and helping to
drive up quality. Qualitative work with practitioners concluded that the perpetuation of low
pay undermines efforts to raise the quality of the ECEC workforce and the services it
provides.84
Stability of staff group
The importance of consistency of care has been highlighted by a number of commentators,85
illustrating that a low turnover of staff contributes to high quality. A recent study concluded
that stability of the staff group – as well as qualifications of staff, the structure and content of
activities, and the premises – contributes to positive child cognitive outcomes.86
The
importance of consistency of staff was emphasised by interviews undertaken by Daycare
Trust with settings in the South-East. It is however hoped that the improvements in the other
structural aspects, such as pay and career prospects, would aid retention.
Melhuish, summarising research on investing in quality ECEC said:
‘This issue of staff retention is critical to the quality of childcare. Indeed, without low
staff turnover consistently good quality childcare becomes impossible.’87
Ratios
The current legal ratio for children and staff is laid out in the Statutory Framework for the
EYFS and covers all ECEC providers. In group settings, for children aged under two, the
minimum ratio is 1:3 (i.e. one staff member for every three children); and for two year olds it
is 1:4. For children aged between three and seven it is 1:8, but where a member of staff
holds Qualified Teacher Status, Early Years Professional Status or another Level 6
qualification, the ratio is 1:13.88
Childminders may care for a maximum of six children aged
under eight, with only three children under the age of five and not normally more than one
under the age of one. The ratios are a statutory minimum requirement and some providers
do exceed them.
Research tends to use observed ratios in any group or room, rather then just the overall
ratios a setting is working to. The research evidence suggests that higher staff-child ratios
(fewer children per member of staff) are associated with better quality care and consequently
better outcomes for children.89
However, the interdependency of ratios with other quality
indicators means that ratios should not be treated in isolation. For example, as the EPPE
study showed, the lower ratios found in nursery schools and classes does not necessarily
result in poorer quality as the impact of sector type and staff qualifications tends to result in
higher quality ECEC.90
International evidence reviewed by Mooney et al for DfES in 2003
cited the example of ECEC in France where poorer ratios are offset by staff qualifications
and training and also warm staff/child interaction.91
Their analysis also identified factors such
as the number of children with special needs, the experience of staff, auxiliary help and
having explicit objectives which may all have an impact on the quality of ECEC services. The
MCS (using multiple regression analysis) also found that better ratios improve the quality of
provision once sector is accounted for.92
Although it is difficult to independently assess the impact of ratios on quality given its high
dependence on other factors (primarily staff qualifications, but also group size), the evidence
does suggest that higher staff-child ratios produce higher quality provision and better
outcomes for children. Munton et al argued strongly that making ratios dependent on staff

Quality costs
22
qualifications and group size could provide a real incentive to drive up the quality of care,
because providers could be more easily persuaded to employ better skilled staff if those staff
could in turn care for more children.
Age range
Both the NNI evaluation and the MCS found that the overall quality of provision is higher
where older children were cared alongside younger children. The NNI evaluation, which
particularly focused on provision for children aged under three and a half, found that mixed-
age rooms produced better cognitive outcomes but slightly worse behavioural outcomes. It
found that younger children in a mixed-age room benefited educationally from the presence
of older children as they experienced educational activities and higher level communication
intended for the older children. However, there was a weak but significant effect on younger
children’s worried and upset behaviour (using ASBI item 4 for example: frowning or stamping
their feet).
Premises
All reviews included premises as one of the structural aspects of quality – for example
Meluish included ‘safe and appropriate physical space’ alongside the six staffing factors
above. Furthermore it is widely accepted in the sector that outdoor play is an important
element of the experience of children; although direct access to outdoor space is not a
specific requirement in the EYFS, only that it should be provided ‘wherever possible’.
However there is no research literature that we can draw on to help us in this task.
The effect of quantity
EPPE showed that while part-time provision of 15 hours per week provided the improved
outcomes covered in detail in Appendix 2, there were no added benefits for additional
number of hours. We therefore discussed within the advisory group, and then at the
roundtable, the implication of this for our model of quality ECEC. The suggestion that we
only needed to have a high quality provision for 15 hours a week, and could continue with the
current quality level for any additional hours a child attended, was found not to be acceptable
for a number of reasons, both principled and more pragmatic:
• Children have a right to expect high quality provision for all hours.
• Given the evidence that long hours of poor provision for younger children could have a
negative impact on their outcomes, it is possible that the additional hours of poorer
provision could possibly begin to reduce the positive outcomes of the 15 hours of high
quality provision.
• Consistency of care and relationship are important, so we would want to minimise a
changing of the guard in the middle of the day.
• Much effort has been made to integrate care and education – to remove the distinction
between the two – and it would be a very retrograde step to separate them out and
attempt to work out in effect two different quality models; the aims of the provision should
be the same for the children.
• The EYFS applies to all provision irrespective of whether it is full-time or not.
• Children arrive at different times of the day and the week, and this flexibility was
important for families (indeed the Government is expecting further flexibility when free
education is extended from 12.5 hours to 15 hours a week in 2010).
• The research we are considering is based on outcomes for the future; but we would all
agree that children are more than vessels waiting for outcomes and, as we have
described earlier, there are also aims which relate to the here and now – such as children
being happy, well-occupied and relating well to the children and adults around them.
Due the responses in interviews and roundtable, we have not pursued this model. Although,
at the roundtable considering the costings ten months later, one participant suggested we

Quality costs
23
return to this in order to reduce the costs, we have not taken this advice as it was held to be
very much a minority view.
Daycare Trust’s ECEC model
Based on the strong evidence reviewed above, in particular from EPPE, the MCS and the
NNI evaluations, we developed a ‘model’ of high quality ECEC which was then costed by the
Social Market Foundation (these costings are published in Working Paper 2).
Staff qualification levels
There is strong research evidence showing the paramount importance of staff qualifications
on the quality of ECEC, which is supported by all stakeholders. It is clear that the ECEC
profession needs to be graduate-led, and that the model of high quality nursery schools and
nursery classes has a significant proportion of the staff as teacher. However what we could
not decipher from the research evidence was exactly what proportion of staff need to be
graduates to ensure the high quality. We suggest two models to be costed for each age
group:
2+ year olds
Model 1: 50% graduates, 50% Level 3 qualified
Model 2: 33% graduates, 67% Level 3 qualified
0-1 year olds
Model 1: 33% graduates, 67% Level 3
Model 2: one graduate room leader, remaining staff has Level 3 qualification
This reflects the substantial evidence showing the centrality of staff qualifications in
supporting quality ECEC provision.
Managers
Given the demonstrated importance of leadership, we suggest all managers should be
graduates and paid accordingly.
Staff pay
The model needs to adjust pay accordingly to reflect the higher qualifications and to ensure
staff can be recruited and retained.
The OECD has highlighted the low pay levels of ECEC staff across different countries.93
ECEC staff across the UK are paid at levels much below the national average. It is also
striking that the staff in state-led settings (mainly nursery schools, primary schools with
nursery classes and some children’s centres) earn considerably more than those in the
private and voluntary (PVI) provision.
DCSF’s Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey 2007 showed that staff working in full
day care in children’s centres – which is often provided by local authority (although
increasingly by PVI settings) – earned £9.30 per hour compared with £7 per hour in PVI
sessional care and £6.90 in PVI full daycare. The table also shows that in the maintained
sector qualified ECEC teachers earned £19.60 per hour, nursery nurses £10.40 per hour,
and even ‘other paid early years support staff’ received £8.70 per hour.
Fig.1 Average (mean) hourly pay
Full day
care
Full daycare in
children’s
centres
Sessional
care
All Staff £6.90 £9.30 £7.00

Quality costs
24
Senior
Managers
£9.80 £14.30 £8.70
Supervisory £7.10 £9.50 £7.10
Other paid
staff
£5.90 £7.10 £6.10
Nursery
schools
Primary schools with
nursery & reception
classes
All Staff £13.00 £12.70
Heads/EY
Co-ordinators
£22.10 £17.90
EY Teachers
(EYTs)
£19.60 £17.70
Nursery
Nurses
£10.40 £10.40
Other paid
staff
£8.70 £8.30
Daycare Trust published a policy paper in 2008 examining the current state of the ECEC
workforce and current Government measures aimed at improving the quality of ECEC staff.94
The paper argues that the low pay and working conditions of the ECEC workforce could
jeopardise the universally-held ambitions to improve the quality of provision and government
intervention to raise them is crucial.
In the costing calculations, we are using graduate pay to mirror primary school qualified
teachers’ pay, and Level 3 qualified staff earnings equivalent to unqualified teachers. For
details, see Daycare Trust’s Working Paper 2: Costing the quality model.
Adult-child ratios
We have seen that the research showed us that adult-child ratios are a key factor in ensuring
quality but also that they are related to staff qualifications, training and group size. A review
of the international evidence supported this and also included staff salaries as one of the
elements to which the impact of ratios was ‘inextricably linked’.95
More staff per child can
improve the nature of interactions, but again this is not the only factor in determining adult-
child relationships. The research – both from this country and others – does not lend itself to
determining ideal ratios.
We expected to hear from some stakeholders a desire to increase the current minimum
ratios in our quality model, particularly given the unease from some quarters when the ratio
was increased to 1:13 for four- year-olds with graduate staff. However this was not the case.
One manager of a small chain of full-time nurseries did feel strongly that the 1:13 ratio was
not adequate and she was not intending to implement it when her staff became qualified;
furthermore she had made the decision to reduce to 1:6 the ratio in one of her settings which
served a disadvantaged area, as she has learnt that those children required more adult
interaction that the children in more affluent areas. This perhaps confirms the EPPE finding
that socially mixed settings tend to be of higher quality; but this is not a factor we can build
into our standard model. On the other hand, we heard from nursery schools that their lower
ratios did not detract from their quality, a view which is corroborated by the research
evidence. We therefore concluded that as long as staff qualifications and pay were
increased, the current statutory adult-child ratios are sufficient to ensure high quality
provision.
Premises

Quality costs
25
We were unable from the literature to provide any definitive conclusions on what premises
costs would be in the high quality model such as this. Therefore, we have asked Social
Market Foundation to consider two extremes – the low version with premises costs remaining
at current levels and the other with premises costs increasing at the same rate as staff costs.
Conclusion
Our stakeholder interviews and roundtable confirmed the conclusion in earlier literature
reviews that there is not an agreed understanding or definition of quality in ECEC provision.
Moreover it is not possible to come to one given that it is a very subjective issue. It varies
depending on the subject’s perceived objectives for the service and, where consideration is
being given to future outcomes for children, which outcomes are being prioritised.
Despite this, it is clear that a distinction can be drawn between ‘structural’ and ‘process’
aspects:
• Process dimensions are ‘the characteristics of the child’s experience e.g. interactions
with others, learning experiences, variety in stimulation, responsiveness in
environment’.
• Structural dimensions focus on ‘aspects of the environment that are fixed, e.g.
accommodation, group size, adult-child ratio, training of staff, health and safety,
stability of staff, management structure’. 96
The research evidence shows us which of these elements have a demonstrable effect on the
outcomes for children, and to what extent. It is clear from this literature review and confirmed
by the project’s stakeholders that an increase in staff qualifications and a corresponding
increase in their pay is required if high quality ECEC provision is to be achieved in the UK.
This is not to say that a better qualified, rewarded and managed staff in itself can form a
guarantee that every child experiences high quality ECEC, but it will lay the foundations in
which the process factors can flourish. Furthermore neither current adult-child ratio nor
centre sizes would prevent high quality provision in these circumstances. We therefore
propose to cost two models of increased staff qualifications and pay, one more stretching
that the other and with a range of improvement to premises.
The next phase of this project is reported in detail in Working Paper 2: Costing the quality
model (Social Market Foundation).

Quality costs
26
Appendix 1
Observational measures of quality
Research on the impact of ECEC provision usually uses observational methods to measure
quality. The EPPE study and the MCS measured quality using:
1. The Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale – Revised (ECERS-R). This
measure was developed in the US and consists of 43 items divided into 7 subscales
of quality features: space and furnishing; personal care routines; language and
reasoning; activities; social interactions; organisation and routines; and adults
working together. Each item is rated on a seven-point subscale.*
2. The Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale – Extension (ECERS-E). This is
a UK extension to the ECERS-R developed by the EPPE project team which
assesses literacy; numeracy; science; and diversity. The scale is linked to the
curricular guidance for the foundation stage.
3. The Arnett Caregiver Interaction Scale (CIS). The scale consists of 26 items
forming four subscales measuring caregiver-child interactions: positive relationships;
punitiveness; permissiveness; and detachment.
The NNI evaluation used the CIS (described above) and an two observational methods:
• A revised version of the Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS-R).** This
measure consists of 39 items on seven subscales: space and furnishings; personal care
routines; listening and talking; activities; interaction; programme structure; and parents
and staff. Each item is rated on a seven-point subscale. The ITERS-R is designed to
assess provision for children from birth to two and a half years.
Foundation Stage Profile Assessments (FSPA): is carried out on all children, being
completed in the summer term of the child’s first year at primary school (reception) so as to
indicate their development at that point. They cover a range of issues with some areas
having several scales:
• Personal, Social and Emotional Development (3 scales)
• Communication, Language and Literacy (4 scales)
• Mathematical Development (3 scales)
• Knowledge and Understanding of the World (1 scale)
• Physical Development (1 scale)
• Creative Development (1 scale)
These assessments are intended to provide a comprehensive picture of each child’s
development as perceived by educational experts.
The Accounting Early for lifelong learning programme and assessment scale,
developed by Chris Pascal and Tony Bertram, professors at the Centre for Research in Early
Childhood, Birmingham, has been very recently launched. This ranks children on 17 items in
four domains: communication, language and literacy development; attitudes and dispositions
to learn; social competence and self-concept; and emotional wellbeing. It covers all 117 of
the EYFS profile points, but the tone is somewhat different.
* The Millenium Cohort Study used three of the seven ECERS-R subscales: personal care routines;
language-reasoning; and interaction
** Harms, Clifford and Cryer (2003) Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale, Revised Edition (ITERS-
R). New York: Teachers College Press

Quality costs
27
Appendix 2
The impact of ECEC provision on children
Between birth and the age of six is a crucial period for children when a high proportion of
learning and development occurs. Consequently, it is a time when children need high quality
care – both at home and in ECEC provision. There is now a large body of evidence from the
UK, the USA and many European countries that has shown the considerable benefits of
ECEC for children.97
In the UK, the largest, and most widely cited, is the Effective Provision
of Pre-School Education (EPPE) project. The benefits are varied and include improvements
in children’s confidence, peer relationships and behaviour; their learning and development;
and also in breaking the cycle of poverty. However, as explored in more detail later, these
benefits are highly dependent on the quality of provision.
Research shows that poor quality provision in early education and care adds no more value
than no provision at all.98
Conversely, high quality ECEC produces better outcomes for
children. The EPPE study showed a significant link between higher quality provision and
better intellectual and social/behavioural outcomes when children enter school. It also
showed that the quality of child/staff interactions were of particular importance with children
making more progress in settings where staff were warm and responsive to the children’s
individual needs.99
There is some suggestion from other sources that long hours in ECEC
provision from an early age can lead to slightly increased externalising behaviour
(aggression and disobedience) irrespective of quality,100
and we return to this below.
We also know that parents and the home environment have the largest impact on a child’s
development. The quality of the home learning environment and the interactions between a
parent and child plays a more significant role in producing better child outcomes than
parental income, mothers’ qualifications and social class.101
Evidence also suggests that
parents’ intervention in children’s programmes produces modest positive effects on children’s
cognitive development.102
Research shows that the effects of ECEC provision can differ depending on the age of the
child and the child’s socio-economic background.
Age of child
The impact of ECEC differs depending on the age of the child.
Children three years and over
There is now substantial literature on the effect of ECEC on child outcomes focused on
children aged three years and over. In the UK we now have several large-scale studies that
provide a substantial evidence base which has informed all recent strategies to develop
quality in the UK ECEC sector. The largest and most widely cited of these is the EPPE study.
The EPPE project began in 1997 and is the first major longitudinal study in Europe to
examine the effects of pre-school education for three- and four-year-olds. It is funded by the
DCSF and has provided much of the evidence base for the Government’s expansion of
ECEC provision. The first stage of the EPPE project studied the progress of 3,000 children
from differing social backgrounds in a range of different types of pre-school settings following
them from age three and evaluating their progress until age seven. The aim was to ascertain
the developmental ‘value-added’ by pre-school education and care separate to the child’s
personal and social characteristics.

What is high quality education and care

What is high quality education and care

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to What is high quality education and care

Similar to What is high quality education and care (20)

More from Family and Childcare Trust

More from Family and Childcare Trust (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

What is high quality education and care