麻豆原创

, based on analysis of six countries with highly effective comprehensive early childhood education and care systems, distills essential principles and core elements for enabling other nations to upgrade or create their own systems with similar success.

Drawing on lessons from Australia, England, Finland, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea, the report 鈥渟eeks to affect social change in scores of nations,鈥� says principal investigator of 麻豆原创. 鈥淭he goal is to catalyze action.鈥�

Kagan adds that the report is particularly 鈥渄esigned to take lessons from other countries and improve services in the United States,鈥� where the latter are 鈥渟cattershot and inconsistent鈥� compromising quality, equity, sustainability and efficiency. 鈥淲e are positing strategies that we think can be done here, with adaptations for the uniquely American context.鈥�

How the U.S. (Doesn't) Stack Up

Carousel

Titled the report was released last week at a symposium in Washington, D.C. hosted by the (NCEE).  It is the companion piece to that provided an in-depth look at the early childhood systems of each of the six countries.

Kagan, one of the world鈥檚 leading authorities on early childhood policy, is Teachers College鈥檚 Virginia & Leonard Marx Professor of Early Childhood and Family Policy, and co-director of its (NCCF).

 [Listen to a podcast of Kagan discussing the report鈥檚 findings.] 

Focus on Strategy

Bringing about social change on such a scale, Kagan notes, requires three elements first posited by her mentor, the late U.S. Surgeon General Julius Richmond, who spearheaded America鈥檚 successful antismoking campaign: a knowledge base, political will and social strategy. The new report focuses on social strategy, because the United States and many other nations have made the least progress on that front. 鈥淲e now have a pre-k movement, which is wonderful for many children, but not all of these programs are high-quality,鈥� Kagan says. 鈥淚n the frenzy to do right by young children, the United States is enacting chaotic policies and services that, lacking coherent planning and structures, often compromise quality and efficiency.鈥�  

In the frenzy to do right by young children, the United States is enacting chaotic policies and services that, lacking coherent planning and structures, often compromise quality and efficiency.

Sharon Lynn Kagan

The new report offers three headline lessons from the six countries in the study.

First, says Kagan, who has advised scores of nations on setting early childhood learning and development standards, 鈥渃ontext contours policy鈥� 鈥� that is, what works in one country may not in another. But there are important lessons from each country that have immediate salience for the USA.

Second, however, all six countries have a comprehensive approach. 鈥淎ll these countries offer far more services than we do in the United States.鈥�

All these countries offer far more services than we do in the United States...They don鈥檛 develop policies independent of each other. Rather, they develop a policy, like a national curriculum, and they use it to drive their accountability efforts, their funding efforts, and their governance efforts.

Sharon Lynn Kagan

And third, all six nations are attentive to what Kagan calls 鈥減olicy synergy鈥�: 鈥淭hey don鈥檛 develop policies independent of each other. Rather, they develop a policy, like a national curriculum, and they use it to drive their accountability efforts, their funding efforts, and their governance efforts.鈥�

The six countries were selected based on a combination of their high rankings on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and high scores on a composite measure of early childhood education and care quality based on Starting Well, a 2012 Economist Intelligence Unit report. Within this top tier, Kagan picked countries that showed a mix of approaches with respect to everything from the public/private funding mix to social welfare and curricular philosophies. South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, Finland, and England were among the topmost performers; Australia was a notch below, but its mix of market and state approaches usefully resembled that of the United States. Australia also has a comprehensive approach to quality, with diversity at its heart.

The variation in practices and philosophies among the six countries is wide-ranging, and Kagan believes that is entirely appropriate. In Finland, for instance, 鈥渢he moment you become pregnant you get a big box that contains all kinds of materials to help you through your pregnancy,鈥� she says. Families there also benefit from robust maternal and paternal leave, community based services, and 鈥渄rop-in services with no stigma attached.鈥�

Beyond this, all six of the countries in the study look across the development spectrum, Kagan says, beginning prenatally and with abundant parenting supports. All make provision for infants and toddlers and 鈥減rovide rich services for three- and four-year old children.鈥� All focus on helping families make the big transition from pre-school to kindergarten, and 鈥渃omprehensive health benefits are rather routine.鈥�

Lessons for the U.S.

With this rich comparative knowledge base, how should policy-makers in the United States (or any other country) proceed? Kagan and colleagues offer a 鈥渞epertoire of ideas鈥� rather than a how-to recipe, arguing that contextually devised and contoured solutions are essential. More specifically, they break down the challenge into five core pillars, all essential to a successful social strategy:

• Strong policy foundations. 鈥淎ll six countries are fairly stable, they have contexts that are adaptive, and they think about policies that apply transcendentally to all programs,鈥� Kagan says. This contrasts with the United States, where federally-organized Head Start and assorted state, local, public and private approaches operate in parallel but rarely in concert.
• Funding and governance. All countries have adopted approaches to financing that are consisted with their context. So in Finland, with its strong social welfare system, all funding is public. In contrast, in the Asian countries, there is considerable private-sector funding for direct services while public money is used to support the operational infrastructure that provides strong monitoring and intense quality improvement efforts. Moreover, Kagan notes that all six countries in the study have a clear governance structure, with some having centralized federal agencies responsible for young children. In the United States, 鈥渨e could be a lot more innovative in our approaches to funding and governance,鈥� Kagan says.
• The human factor. By different methods, each country is highly attentive to workforce development and family engagement. Some focus on teacher competencies 鈥� either instead of, or in concert with, a bachelor鈥檚 degree, for instance. 鈥淲e鈥檝e got a lot that we can learn about competency-based approaches to early childhood that could deliver high-quality services,鈥� Kagan says.
• Pedagogy. Attention to what gets taught and how is very high in all six countries. 鈥淎ll of them acknowledge the importance of play and active involvement as a means of provoking children鈥檚 curiosity, and all countries have comprehensive frameworks that help improve pedagogy.
• Data. 鈥淎ll the study countries use data more effectively than we do,鈥� Kagan says, a practice that enables rigorous, continual improvement. Moreover, she notes, 鈥渁ll have national commitments to research enterprises that focus on early childhood, so there is a corpus for regenerating the knowledge base in perpetuity.鈥�
• time, because system-building of any kind is slow work;
• structures, meaning that no matter the administrative model, there must be a clear structural design;
• multiplicity of possible approaches and their trade-offs; and
• people, meaning children, those who teach and care for them, and parents; and for national culture and context.

While countries seeking to build comprehensive early childhood education and care systems will apply these approaches in different measure, all must commit to a guiding ethos of respect, Kagan argues. Specifically efforts must reflect respect for: 

鈥淐ountries, armed with their distinct values, commitments, and histories, should be regarded as unique and capable of contouring their own early childhood services to their contexts,鈥� Kagan writes.

Kagan hopes the report will have a threefold impact in the United States: stimulating American policy-makers to find and scale up what is already working best here; providing a litmus test for assessing new proposals by local leaders and national political candidates; and forcing researchers and advocates to face 鈥渋nconvenient truths鈥� in the field. In particular, the country needs to rethink its default stance of looking to the government for solutions in a culture where public-private hybrids are becoming more prevalent and are often more effective.

We have a very unique social history. From age five on, we have the most comprehensive system of education in the world, but for children just a few months younger we don鈥檛 feel a social obligation.

Sharon Lynn Kagan

Ultimately, Kagan says, the United States faces a paradox. 鈥淲e have a very unique social history. From age five on, we have the most comprehensive system of education in the world, but for children just a few months younger we don鈥檛 feel a social obligation.鈥�

Inconvenient Truths

In a presentation she has given on her findings, Kagan outlines a series of 鈥渋nconvenient truths鈥� about the United States. The country ranks 11^th globally in investment in pre-primary education as a percentage of government expenditures on education; 22^nd in presence of well-defined quality guidelines to cover basis early childhood education and care needs; and 31^st on availability of preschool for family.

Kagan also argues that America also needs to confront its own 鈥渋nconvenient presumptions鈥�: for example, that it is the government鈥檚 responsibility to fully funded early childhood education and care when we know 鈥渋n our hearts and minds that the government alone will never be able to fund the levels of quality and equity we need.鈥�

Most damning of all is her description of America鈥檚 鈥渋nconvenient context鈥� 鈥� that:

• Under the 鈥渢ruth鈥� of democracy, a partisan system of governance reigns.
• Under the 鈥渢ruth鈥� of freedom and justice, slavery, Jim Crow, racism, sexism, and a host of other 鈥渋sms鈥� persist.
• Under the 鈥渢ruth鈥� of loving children and honoring families, the USA fails miserably.

鈥淭he ending of the book says, 鈥楢merica, wake up鈥� It does really come down to making our nation more committed and more respectful of the importance of the early years.鈥� 鈥� Siddhartha Mitter

Kagan鈥檚 co-editor on the report was Eva Landsberg, Research Assistant at NCCF. Her co-investigators in the six countries were:

Kathy Sylva (England), Emeritus Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Oxford;

Nirmala Rao (Hong Kong), Serena H.C. Yang Professor in Early Childhood Development and Education;

Kristiina Kumpulainen (Finland), Professor of Education and Vice Dean for research at the Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Helsinki;

Mugyeong Moon (The Republic of Korea), Director of Policy Research Team and also Director of Trend Analysis and International Cooperation Team of the Korea Institute of Child Care and Education;

Rebecca Bull (Singapore), Professor of Numeracy Studies at Nanyang Technological University.

In Australia, the original investigator, Colette Tayler, Chair of Early Childhood Education and Care, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, at the University of Melbourne passed away midway through the study, and the Australia work was completed by Bridget Healey and Tricia Eadie.