Chapter 3. Policies for early learning: Shaping pedagogy

This chapter reviews approaches to pedagogical practice in early childhood education and care, with a view to enhancing the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values that are central to success in the 21st century. It then looks at policies that support such pedagogies. The chapter concludes with a review of approaches to curriculum design that can facilitate a smooth transition from early learning to school.

A note regarding Israel

The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.

Pedagogy is at the heart of teaching and learning. Preparing children to become lifelong learners with a deep knowledge of subject matter and a broad set of social skills requires understanding how pedagogy influences learning. Doing so shifts the perception of teachers from technicians who strive to attain the education goals set by the curriculum to experts in the science and art of teaching. Seen through this lens, innovation in teaching becomes a problem-solving process rooted in teachers’ professionalism, a response to the daily challenges of constantly changing classrooms. The research on pedagogy and policy for early childhood education and care cited in this chapter is mostly drawn from the Early Childhood Education and Care Pedagogy Review: England (Wall, Litjens and Taguma, 2015_[1]), the report, Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education (OECD, 2017_[2]), and the conceptual framework of the OECD Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey (Sim, M. et al., forthcoming_[3]).

Approaches to pedagogical practice in early childhood education and care

A distinction is often drawn between child-centred instruction (activities are child-initiated, children engage in problem solving and enquiry-oriented learning) and didactic instruction (staff-directed, planned tasks focusing on acquiring and practicing academic skills), although in practice these approaches need not be distinct. Both approaches may boost children’s skills, and practitioners could combine different approaches depending on the purpose; but some evidence suggests the importance of including child-centred instruction at the earliest ages (Huffman and Speer, 2000_[4]). Academic, teacher-directed approaches generally have clearly defined, specific aims and strategies. This can be an advantage for practitioners, since they are easier to apply. They may also make it easier to monitor children’s development, and conduct staff self-evaluations.

Ensuring child-centred approaches are included in early childhood pedagogies can give children choices and opportunities for autonomy and may promote children’s socio-emotional abilities, such as self-regulation and self-control. These are believed to be crucial for development and success as children progress through education. Policy documents and studies generally recommend combining both approaches and practices to stimulate early development.

OECD’s work on early childhood education and care reflect a consensus view that can be characterised as social-constructivist, which stresses the importance of children’s intrinsically motivated activity and initiative as the engine of development (McMullen et al., 2005_[5]; Pramling-Samuelsson and Fleer, 2009_[6]), but acknowledges that development does not take place in a cultural void. The role of early childhood education and care staff, therefore, is not confined to creating conditions for optimal self-propelled development; staff should also deliberately introduce children to cultural domains, such as emergent skills in language, literacy, numeracy, mathematics and science. However, how this is carried out should respect developmental and motivational principles. This consensus is reflected in the concept of “developmentally appropriate practice” coined by early childhood education specialist Sue Bredekamp (Bredekamp, 1987_[7]).

That said, early childhood education and care programmes still differ in emphasis. Pressure to achieve immediate results in easily measurable domains, such as literacy and mathematics, can undermine the developmental approach and lead to a more didactic approach (Dickinson, 2002_[8]; Marcon, 2002_[9]). Some approaches to early childhood education and care pedagogy stress the importance of the staff-directed transmission of knowledge and skills related to the curriculum. This may also result in a highly didactic approach, with limited use of child-centred pedagogies, even with very young children, where direct instruction and rewards are used to reinforce learning processes with the aim of preparing children for primary school.

Pedagogical approaches and the development of academic, social and emotional skills

Research on different pedagogical focuses (Barnett et al., 2010_[10]; Eurydice, 2009_[11]; Laevers, 2011_[12]; Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997_[13]) indicates that both staff-initiated and child-initiated practices consist of elements that can be used to develop comprehensive and effective early childhood education and care programmes (Table 3.2). Academic, staff-initiated practices and approaches are more likely to improve children’s academic outcomes, including IQ scores, literacy and numeracy skills, and specific subject knowledge, and are most likely to have short-term outcomes. Child-centred practices are more likely to improve a child’s socio-emotional and soft skills, such as motivation to learn, creativity, independence, self-confidence, general knowledge and initiative, and have long-term outcomes. Research also cautions that strong, didactic, staff-directed practices may hinder the development of children’s socio-emotional skills, such as motivation, interest and self-regulation, in the long run. See, for example (Burts et al., 1992_[14]; Haskins, 1985_[15]; Stipek et al., 1995_[16]).

A Finnish study (Lerkkanen et al., 2012_[17]) looked at kindergarten (6-year-olds) teaching practices and children’s interest in reading and mathematics. It found that children were more interested in mathematics and reading when child-centred instruction was prioritised. Similarly, instruction that blended child-initiated and staff-directed instruction led to higher levels of school readiness and early school achievement (Graue et al., 2004_[18]).

Early childhood education and care programmes for low-income and ethnic minority children using direct academic instruction have been reported to be effective in obtaining desired cognitive and academic goals (Dickinson, 2011_[19]; Gersten, Walker and Darch, 1988_[20]; Justice et al., 2008_[21]; Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997_[13]). Focusing on children primarily from low-income and minority families, (Marcon, 1999_[22]) compared three preschool approaches for their effect on children’s development and mastery of language, literacy and mathematics at the end of preschool. The results revealed that children who attended a child-centred preschool that followed developmentally appropriate practice demonstrated greater mastery of basic skills at the end of preschool than children in programmes using a didactic approach. However, the advantage of child-centred over academic preschools was small, and both programmes had far better results than a mixed-model approach that combined elements of both. In a follow-up study, a more complex picture was found. Marcon (Marcon, 1999_[22]) concluded that children from child-centred and mixed preschools were better prepared to face new challenges in grade four.

In another study, Stipek et al. (Stipek et al., 1995_[16]) found that although children in didactic, teacher-directed programmes showed better skills in a letters/reading achievement test than children enrolled in child-centred programmes, they showed relatively negative outcomes on most of the socio-emotional measures, including dependency on adults, self-esteem, and beliefs in their own accomplishments. In line with those findings, Goldberg (Goldberg, 2000_[23]) stressed that children in more academically oriented preschool programmes do better in achievement tests, since that is the focus of academically oriented approaches, but that child-centred preschool programmes enhance children’s socio-emotional development. In general, children in such programmes show greater self-efficacy, less dependency on adults, more pride in their own accomplishments, and have less concern about school later on. Since socio-emotional development is found to be related to later academic success (e.g. self-regulation), this area is important to include in early childhood education and care.

Critical to the issue of developmental versus didactic approaches is whether programme effects are assessed in the short or long term. Schweinhart and Weikart (Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997_[13]) compared the High/Scope curriculum1 with a didactic, basic skills-oriented programme and a traditional approach, characterised as “laissez faire”. In the short term, the didactic programme and the High/Scope curriculum were equally effective in the cognitive domain. But over the long term, additional advantages of the High/Scope curriculum became evident, with better self-regulation, work attitude, motivation, and social and behavioural adjustment resulting in superior social outcomes in adulthood (e.g. less crime, more economic independence) compared to the other approaches. These later social outcomes are similar to those reported for the Perry Preschool Project, the predecessor of the High/Scope curriculum.

The evidence suggests that a developmental approach provides a strong educational foundation for young children, whereas older preschool children should be gradually prepared for the learning tasks they will encounter in primary school. An academic orientation on basic knowledge and skills (for instance, concerning phonological awareness and letter knowledge) can be embedded in a curriculum of playful activities in small groups, including episodes of shared dialogical reading and talking, with the early childhood education and care staff, to foster children’s vocabulary, comprehension skills and world knowledge (Bus, Leseman and Neuman, 2012_[24]; Dickinson et al., 2003_[25]).

A later emphasis on academic knowledge and skills after a predominantly developmental approach may provide better support for the transition to primary school. Evidence for such an age effect is reported by Stipek et al. (Stipek et al., 1998_[26]) who compared four groups of mainly low-income and ethnic minority children attending either a developmentally appropriate-practice preschool or a basic skills-oriented preschool from age 3 to 5, and after preschool, either a developmental or a basic skills-oriented kindergarten from age 5 to 6, before starting primary school. The results indicated that a developmentally appropriate-practice curriculum in preschool up to age 5 produced positive developmental effects in both academic and social-emotional domains, regardless of the type of kindergarten attended in the third year. However, a greater academic focus in kindergarten (age 5 to 6) after two years in a developmentally appropriate practice-focused preschool, had slightly better learning outcomes in primary school, and no negative social-emotional outcomes compared to programmes with a continued focus on developmentally appropriate practice. The latter programmes were slightly better for problem solving and language comprehension.

Table 3.1. Overview of pedagogical approaches and practices and their effects
Pedagogical approach/practice	Description	Effects
Play-based learning	Different forms of “play-based learning”. Traditionally, free-play activities are initiated and freely chosen by the child.	Some play activities, such as puzzles and games, are more engaging than others, for example playing in sand and dressing up.
		Play partners and sensitive adults are important to help children reflect on play situations and understand what they have learnt.
		The role of practitioners in play situations is important. In high-quality situations, adults listen to and extend children’s thoughts and knowledge.
Sustained shared thinking	“Two or more individuals work together in an interrelated way to solve a problem, clarify a concept, evaluate an activity, etc.” (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2012)	Children have been noted to make greater progress generally in settings where more sustained shared thinking took place.
Scaffolding	Involves helpful, structured interaction between an adult and a child, with the aim of helping the child achieve a specific goal.	Children in scaffolding-focused learning environments demonstrated in one study greater overall positive effects on their development than children in teacher-directed and children-centred environments.
Child-directed	Method of learning that prioritises child-initiated activities, i.e. activities that are chosen by the child. Few staff-initiated activities.	Child-directed practices are likely to improve children’s socio-emotional and soft skills, such as their motivation to learn, creativity, independence, self-confidence, general knowledge and initiative.
Teacher(staff)-directed	Classic method of learning with activities mainly initiated by the teacher, which include frequent repetition.	French children taught in chiefly teacher-led environments performed better on spatial organisation and rhythm tests than German children from child-centred environments.
Teacher(staff)-directed		Marcon (2002) concluded that the development of children who are teacher-led at the early childhood education and care stage is slowed because the introduction of formalised learning experiences is too early for children’s developmental status at this age.
Sources: Anders (2015); Dohrmann et al. (2007); Dunn and Kontos (1997); Haan, Elbers and Leseman (2004); Lilliard (2012); Lilliard and Else-Quest (2006); Miller (1975); AEYC (2009); Schmidt et al. (2007); Siraj-Blatchford et al. (2002); Stipek et al. (1995); Sylva et al. (2004).

Shaping pedagogy through policy

A key policy lever influencing pedagogy is the curriculum. All the cases studied for the OECD Early Childhood Education and Care Pedagogy Review: England (Wall, Litjens and Taguma, 2015_[1]) have some form of curriculum or framework set at the national level, and its prescribed learning areas and goals influence the pedagogical approaches and practices early childhood education and care providers espouse.

Curricula specify what is valued at a particular level of education, potentially including learning objectives, content, methods (including assessment) and materials for teaching and learning, in addition to arrangements for teacher training and professional development (OECD, 2018_[27]; Sylva et al., 2016_[28]). A curriculum framework is an overarching document that articulates the scope of a curriculum within the broader context of the education system. Curriculum frameworks often provide principles to help staff organise their pedagogical work to address developmental goals or learning standards (OECD, 2018_[27]).

The curricula for early childhood education and care often contrast with those used in primary schooling, partly because the latter tend to focus on the content to be taught, while the former typically rely on psychological and educational theories that inform pedagogical practice, i.e. how to teach, rather than what to teach (Frede and Ackerman, 2007_[29]).

Most OECD countries have designed and implemented curricula for early childhood education and care services, especially for ISCED 02 (OECD, 2011_[30]), and adoption of such curricula is increasingly accepted (Bertrand, 2007_[31]). But there is still strong debate about what constitutes appropriate curricula and pedagogy for younger children (Chazan-Cohen et al., 2017_[32]; Sylva et al., 2016_[28]).

The literature on early childhood education and care curricula highlights the importance of children engaging in experiential and relational activities. Research shows that child-centred practice and small-group activities that allow children to engage in active discussions and interactions are associated with higher process quality in early learning settings (Sylva et al., 2016_[28]). Curriculum implementation can be considered an aspect of process quality.

In early childhood education and care, a constructivist approach is often the preferred curriculum model as it advocates the importance of attending to children’s overall development (Copple and Bredekamp, 2009_[33]; Frede and Ackerman, 2007_[29]). This is based, in part, on research showing that the economic benefits associated with attending high-quality preschool programmes (e.g. better labour-market and health outcomes, among others, in adulthood) come from a combination of socio-emotional and academic competencies (Boyd et al., 2005_[34]; Frede and Ackerman, 2007_[29]). Yet, there is a wide variety of designs and focus of these curricula. Often, early childhood education and care curricula are described as whole-child, holistic curricula or as skill-specific curricula (Boyd et al., 2005_[34]; Frede and Ackerman, 2007_[29]). The first emphasises a child-centred approach and tends to be associated with the arrangement of the classroom and materials to promote active learning. Skill-specific curricula, by contrast, focus on promoting learning in specific areas, including academic (particularly literacy and mathematics) and socio-emotional skills (Jenkins and Duncan, 2017_[35]). These curricula are often influenced by standards set to measure child development and learning; as such, they reflect a more structuralist approach to teaching and learning.

However, in practice, the dichotomy between holistic and skill-specific curricula is not always relevant. That is, even when curricula include a specific focal area, they can also promote child-centred, active learning and children’s development in areas beyond the focal domain (Weiland et al., 2018_[36]). Conversely, curricula that take a more holistic approach without specifying focal content areas can also contribute to children’s learning and development in specific areas (Marshall, 2017_[37]). The effects of curricula can be difficult to evaluate given their influences (intended or otherwise) on both specific and global aspects of child development, and their importance for short-term learning gains and longer-term well-being. How curricula are implemented appears to be of central importance for children’s learning, development and well-being.

The overlap of and similarities between skills-specific and holistic curricula notwithstanding, research in Europe shows that holistic, child-centred curricula with a recognition that children learn through play are predominant (Sylva, Ereky-Stevens and Aricescu, 2015_[38]). This finding is consistent with that in countries outside of Europe, including the United States (NAEYC/NAECS-SDE, 2003_[39]), New Zealand (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2017_[40]), Australia (DEEWR, 2010_[41]), Canada (Ontario Government, 2007_[42]), Japan (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan, 2017_[43]) and in Latin America and the Caribbean (Harris-Van Keuren and Rodríguez Gómez, 2013_[44]). There also appears to be a shared understanding that a curriculum for early childhood education and care should set common goals within an open framework, providing a good balance between education and care aimed at promoting children’s development, well-being and learning. The values of this type of approach to curriculum are generally shared by parents, staff and policy makers (Moser et al., 2017_[45]).

As discussed above, policies determining the qualifications, and the education and training of staff can also affect pedagogical approaches (Table 3.2). Practitioners need a number of professional competences and skills to be able to offer high-quality learning opportunities for young children. England has emphasised this issue. Higher staff qualifications are now expected, such as the requirement that one educator in an early childhood education and care setting must have Early Years Professional status. France demonstrates the influence of qualifications on pedagogical approaches and practices in another way. Teachers in both primary schools and preschool settings in France have the same qualifications and training, and similar pedagogical approaches are used in both settings. Questions remain as to how appropriate primary school pedagogy is in preschool settings, given children’s levels of learning and development. This is particularly relevant for England, given the push to employ primary teachers in early childhood education and care.

Table 3.2. Key pedagogical approaches and practices in case-study countries
	Key Pedagogical Approaches	Main features	What evidence are pedagogical approaches and practices based on?	Which policies direct or affect pedagogical approaches?
United Kingdom	Child-centred	Adults provide a stimulating yet open-ended environment for children to play within.	Research Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years (REPEY - 2002) Early Years Foundation Stage Review (2011)	The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), the Early Years National Curriculum Staff qualifications Monitoring and Quality Assurance: Ofsted inspections
	Teacher-directed	Teacher initiated, programmed learning approach.
	Constructivist/Interactive Approach	Views learning as an active exchange between the child and environment that progresses in ‘stages’, with adults and peers providing important stimulus in learning.
	Play-based	Guided play opportunities are offered to children.
	Sustained shared thinking	Two individuals work together in an intellectual way to perform activities such as solving a problem or clarifying a concept - both parties must contribute to the thinking and develop and extend it.
	Scaffolding	Process in which the child is seen as a learner, rather than passive entity, and the adult acts respectfully, allowing the child to enter ‘flow’ a period of high concentrated play.
Japan	Guiding Child Care Theory	Children learn best when they feel ‘free’ and are supported by the teacher in a sympathetic way.	Inspiration drawn from Montessori, Reggio Emilia, and Developmentally Appropriate Practice.	Course of Study for Kindergartens/Guidelines for Nursery Care at Day Nurseries Staff qualifications Monitoring and Quality Assurance: external and internal evaluations
Japan	Theory of three activities in preschool (play-based)	Activities comprise of free play and guidance aimed at developing daily life skills. Elements are extracted from child’s play and re-constructed to be educational. Directly teach linguistic, mathematical or artistic concepts and skills.
France	Didactic Pedagogy/Direct Instruction	Classic method of learning with mainly teacher-initiated activities including repetition.	The theories and ideas of Piaget, Vgotsky and Bruner. Recent research studies on for example effective literacy, numeracy and phonology practices	National Curriculum Staff qualifications Monitoring and Quality Assurance: National and local inspections Alignment with formal schooling
France	Constructivist/Interactive Approach	Views learning as an active exchange between the child and environment that progresses in ‘stages’, with adults and peers providing important stimulus in learning. Learning is organised so that it constantly builds on what has already been taught.
Denmark	Child-centred	Adults provide a stimulating yet open-ended environment for children to play within.		Curriculum Staff qualifications Parent Board
Denmark	Socio-pedagogic	Emphasis on dialogue between adults and children, as well as creative activities with discussions and reflections.		Curriculum Staff qualifications Parent Board
Germany	Situation-orientated	Emphasis on learning in social situations, mainly play-based.	Theoretical ideas from Friere, Robinson, Zimmer. Pedagogical approaches from Humbolt, Fröbel, Montessori, Piaget. Statistical evaluations and qualitiative research on effective practices, particularly language stimulation.	Curriculum Staff qualifications Parent Board
	Constructivist/Interactive Approach	Views learning as an active exchange between the child and environment that progresses in ‘stages’, with adults and peers providing important stimulus in learning. Learning is organised do that it constantly builds on what has already been taught.
	Sustained shared thinking	Two individuals work together in an intellectual way to perform activities such as solving a problem or clarifying a concept - both parties must contribute to the thinking and develop and extend it.
	Child-centred	Adults provide a stimulating yet open-ended environment for children to play within.
New Zealand	Te Whāriki	Adopts a specific socio-cultural perspective that acknowledges the different culutral and social contexts in New Zealand. A social and interactive way of learning is highly important.	Te Ao Māori (the Maori culture) Pedagogical approaches and theories from Vygotsky, Bronfenbrenner, Rogoff. Priorities for Children’s Learning in Early Childhood Services: Good Practice	Curriculum Staff qualifications Monitoring and Quality Assurance: National inspections and internal self-review
Sources: Anders, Y. (2015), Literature Review on Pedagogy, OECD Publishing, Paris; OECD (2014), “Survey on pedagogy”, internal document, OECD, Paris.

Policies to facilitate transitions from pre-primary to primary education

The transition from early childhood education and care to primary school is a major step for children and one that curriculum continuity can facilitate. Well-managed transitions are important because they can support child well-being, ensure that the benefits of early childhood education and care endure, prepare children for school and improve equity in education outcomes (OECD, 2017_[2]). Furthermore, continuous and aligned curricula aim to provide students with consistent, progressive and holistic support for their development and learning processes (OECD, 2017_[2]). By integrating or aligning curricula across early childhood education and care, and primary school, governments can support continuity for young children while simultaneously promoting progress and setting strong foundations for later stages of education. At the same time, concerns about “schoolification” and age-appropriate practice need to be considered as curricula converge across levels.

Although the curriculum is an important tool to support transitions, there is not necessarily one best approach to the alignment and/or integration of curricula for supporting children’s learning and well-being. In addition, the contexts of individual education systems – including the organisation of the system, governance and division of responsibilities, professional continuity for staff and teachers and the over-arching goals of the education system – need to be considered.

Curriculum alignment between pre-primary and primary

Curricula commonly follow the organisation of education systems within respective jurisdictions. Looking across the 63 jurisdictions that participated in the OECD survey on transitions as well as the 7 case studies, the OECD Starting Strong V report found that curricula frameworks appear to be the rule for primary education (ISCED 1) and preschool (ISCED 02), while curricula for children under age 3 are less common(see Table 2.5 and Annex B (OECD, 2017_[2]).

A recently published OECD working paper on curriculum alignment and progression between early childhood education and care and primary school shows the spectrum of alignment and integration between the two education levels (Shuey et al., 2019_[46]).

In Japan and New Jersey (United States), different curriculum frameworks are used for early childhood education and care, on the one hand, and primary school, on the other. However, in both places, efforts are underway to align aspects of the curricula or learning standards, or otherwise provide continuity between the two levels of education. For example, in Japan, the use of the “Start” curricula aims to provide continuity from early childhood education and care during the first months of primary school. New Jersey also promotes continuity in learning standards and pre-service professional development from the pre-primary level through third grade in primary school. New Zealand and Norway have explicitly aligned models, with different curricula for early childhood education and care and primary school. In these cases, there is an explicit connection between the frameworks, in content, pedagogy and/or development goals. For instance, in Norway, the Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens defines learning areas in ways similar to those in the country’s primary school curriculum. An example of a fully integrated curriculum is Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence, which covers education for children aged 3 to 18. Luxembourg and Victoria (Australia) have integrated curricula too, although these cover a narrower age range than that in Scotland. Table 3.3 provides a more detailed overview of the organisation of curricula in the seven jurisdictions studied.

Table 3.3. Curriculum organisation in seven jurisdictions
	Curriculum ISCED 01	Curriculum ISCED 02	Curriculum ISCED 1
Japan	National Curriculum Standards for Day care Centres (0 5 years) National Curriculum Standards for Integrated Centres for ECEC (0 5 years)		National Curriculum Standards for Elementary Schools (6-12 years)
Japan		National Curriculum Standards for Kindergarten (35 years)
Luxembourg		Curriculum Framework for Pre-primary and Primary Education (312 years)
Luxembourg	National Framework for Non-formal Education of Children and Young People (0-12 years)
New Jersey (United States)	New Jersey Early Learning Pathways (05 years) Preschool Implementation Guidelines Kindergarten Implementation Guidelines		New Jersey Student Learning Standards (5-18 years) 1st-3rd-grade Implementation Guide
New Zealand	Te Whāriki (Early childhood curriculum) (0-5 years)		New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa.(the national curriculum for Māori medium schooling) (618 years)
Norway	Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens (0- 5 years)		The Knowledge Promotion Curriculum (6 18 years)
Scotland (United Kingdom)		Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) (318 years)
Victoria (Australia)	Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework (VEYLDF) (08 years)
Victoria (Australia)			Victorian Curriculum F-10 (517 years)
Source: Shuey, E. et al. (2019), “Curriculum alignment and progression between early childhood education and care and primary school: A brief review and case studies”, OECD Education Working Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Other examples of integrated curricula include Italy, the same curriculum covers the education of children between the ages of 3 and 14. By contrast, Wales (United Kingdom) has an integrated curriculum that covers a shorter period but still spans early childhood education and care, and the beginning of primary education, for children aged 3 to 7. As shown in Figure 3.1, 78% of jurisdictions (46 out of 59) reported having curricula aligned between the last year of early childhood education and care, and the first year of primary school. In 24% of the jurisdictions (14 out of 59), the curriculum framework for the last year of early childhood education and care was also fully integrated with the primary school curriculum (OECD, 2017_[2]).

Figure 3.2 shows the types of content in curriculum frameworks in jurisdictions that reported alignment between early childhood education and care, and primary school. Values and principles, and pedagogical approaches are the most common areas of alignment (OECD, 2017_[2]).

There are a number of policy approaches to support children’s transitions from early childhood education and care to primary school (Table 3.3). For instance, in Finland, in order to address a lack of pedagogical continuity, revisions were made to curricular documents for early childhood education and care and for primary education by transforming traditional primary school subjects into more general learning areas, especially during the first two years of primary education (OECD, 2017_[2]).

Table 3.4. Ensuring pedagogical continuity: Challenges and strategies
Challenges	Strategies
Differences and inconsistencies in curricula: Inconsistent attention to transition across curricular documents (Norway) Differing emphases on goals and focus of education (care) in curricular documents (Slovenia) Decentralised distribution of responsibility for early childhood education and care and primary education (Austria and Finland)	Develop an integrated curriculum framework and national guidelines (Austria, Ireland, Slovenia) Invest in local knowledge and innovations (Sweden)
Lack of shared pedagogical understanding between the two systems (Finland, Norway, Slovenia)	Reform curricula to ensure greater pedagogical continuity (Japan, Finland, New Zealand, Portugal, Scotland [United Kingdom], Sweden) Provide opportunities for staff collaboration across levels (Japan, New Jersey [United States], Norway, Portugal, Wales [United Kingdom]) Emphasise the role of primary school in receiving children (Norway, Portugal, Sweden)
Inconsistent delivery of pedagogy during the transition from early childhood education and care to primary school (Denmark, Wales [United Kingdom])	Ensure consistency in structures (Denmark) Create collaborative learning strategies (Wales [United Kingdom])
Source: Adapted from OECD (2017), Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en.

Learning areas in early childhood education and care, and primary school curricula

A comparison of two early childhood education and care policy surveys in 2011 and 2015 suggests a broadening of pre-primary (ISCED 02) curricula in 24 jurisdictions. A number of jurisdictions added health and well-being, social sciences, ethics and citizenship, information and communication technology (ICT) skills and foreign languages as learning areas during this period (Figure3.4). Notable increases were seen in the number of jurisdictions covering ethics and citizenship, from 17% of jurisdictions (4 out of 24) to almost 80% (19 out of 24), ICT skills, from 8% (2 out of 24) to 42% (10 out of 24) and those covering foreign languages, from 4% (1 out of 24) to 38% (9 out of 24). This broadening of pre-primary curricula suggests increasing alignment between pre-primary and primary curricula (OECD, 2017_[2]).

In general, learning areas of early childhood education and care relate more to child well-being and less to specific learning content, which is more commonly included in primary school curricula, as shown in Figure 3.3. In New Zealand, Te Whāriki (the early childhood education curriculum) and the New Zealand Curriculum (for schools) share alignment at a high level. Furthermore, the 2017 update of Te Whāriki links its learning outcomes with key competencies and learning areas in the New Zealand Curriculum and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, the curriculum for Māori-medium schools (Bell, 2017_[47]). Learning goals and outcomes for young children are described more broadly, embedded in the five strands of Te Whāriki (well-being, belonging, contribution, communication and exploration), while learning areas for school-aged children are described through traditional academic disciplines: English; the arts; health and physical education; learning languages; mathematics and statistics; science; social sciences; and technology (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2007_[48]).

Box 3.1. Selected reforms of pre-primary curricula

Czech Republic: The Innovation of the Framework for Educational Programme of Pre-primary education was implemented in 2012.

Iceland: National curriculum guidelines for pre-primary were implemented in 2011.

Finland: Since 2015, participation in pre-primary education, starting at the age of 6, has been mandatory (one year). The objective is to improve children’s learning prerequisites, thereby increasing educational equality. Implementation of the national core curriculum for pre-primary education, updated by the Finnish National Agency of Education, started in 2016, based on locally produced curricula. The new Act on Early Childhood Education and Care entered into force in September 2018, and the national core curriculum for early childhood education and care has been updated accordingly. The national core curricula for primary and secondary education have also been recently reformed.

Italy: The National Curriculum for early childhood education and care was revised in 2012 and included implementation of the European Framework of key competencies for lifelong learning.

Japan: Japan revised its National Curriculum of Day Care Centre Works in March 2008, clarifying the enhancement of staff quality and the expertise of all staff.

Korea: In 2012, Korea introduced the Nuri Curriculum, an integrated curriculum for early childhood kindergarten and nursery centres for 3-5 year-olds. It aims to promote the holistic development of children and establish overarching principles for becoming responsible citizens with financial support for tuition for all children, regardless of household income.

Mexico: Recent efforts to improve quality and coverage in early childhood education and care include the creation of a framework syllabus to help early childhood education and care institutions develop a curriculum that meets their specific needs.

New Zealand: The early childhood curriculum, Te Whāriki, has been updated to reflect changes in early learning contexts, theory and pedagogy since its original publication in 1996. Its original aspiration for children and bicultural framing have been retained and strengthened through the publication of two pathways – one for early childhood education services and one for kōhanga reo (an indigenous Māori curriculum model).

Norway: The 2017 revision of the Framework Plan for the Content and Tasks of Kindergartens emphasises co-operation, including with parents, and coherence in transitions from early childhood education and care to primary school.

Sweden: Improved curriculum for pre-primary education implemented in 2011.

Source: OECD (2017), Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care (OECD, 2017_[49]); Shuey, E. et al., “Curriculum alignment and progression between early childhood education and care and primary school: A brief review and case studies”, OECD Education Working Papers (Shuey et al., 2019_[46]).

Conclusions

Both didactic and child-centred instruction may boost children’s academic skills, and practitioners could combine different approaches; but there is some evidence suggesting the importance of the latter in supporting the development of socio-emotional skills, with positive longer-term outcomes.

The evidence suggests that a developmental approach provides a strong educational foundation for young children. An academic orientation on basic skills (for instance, concerning phonological awareness and letter knowledge) can be embedded in a curriculum of playful activities in small groups, including episodes of shared dialogical reading and talking with the early childhood education and care staff, to foster children’s vocabulary, comprehension skills and world knowledge (Bus, Leseman and Neuman, 2012_[24]; Dickinson et al., 2003_[25]). This can also be considered “developmentally appropriate practice” and can be integrated in “intentional teaching” in early childhood education and care (Siraj-Blatchford, 2014_[50]).

Teacher-directed approaches generally have clearly defined, specific aims and strategies, such as the development of academic skills. This can be an advantage for practitioners, since these are easier to apply. They may also make it easier to monitor children’s development and conduct staff self-evaluations. On the other hand, giving children opportunities for autonomy may promote children’s socio-emotional abilities, such as self-regulation and self-control. These are believed crucial for development and success as children progress through education, and policy documents and studies generally recommend combining both approaches and practices to stimulate early development.

While pedagogy is something that happens in staff-child interactions, policy can shape pedagogical environments, most notably through curriculum design and initial as well as continuing staff development. The OECD Starting Strong V report shows that in almost all countries, some form of curriculum or framework set at the national level is in place, and its prescribed learning areas and goals influence the pedagogical approaches and practices early childhood education and care providers espouse.

Public policy can also facilitate the transition from early childhood education and care to primary school, which is a major step for children. Well-managed transitions are important because they can support child well-being, ensure that the benefits of early childhood education and care endure, prepare children for school and for life, and improve equity in education outcomes. By integrating or aligning curricula across early childhood education and care, and primary school, governments can support continuity for young children while simultaneously promoting progress and setting strong foundations for later stages of education. At the same time, concerns about “schoolification” and age-appropriate practice need to be considered as curricula converge across levels.

References

Barnett, W. et al. (2010), The State of Preschool 2010: State Preschool Yearbook, National Institute for Early Education Research, New Brunswick. [10]

Bell, N. (2017), Update of Te Whāriki: Presentation to the 21st Meeting of OECD Network on ECEC. [47]

Bertrand, J. (2007), “Preschool Programs: Effective Curriculum. Comments on Kagan and Kauerz and on Schweinhart”, Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. [31]

Boyd, J. et al. (2005), Promoting Children’s Social and Emotional Development Through Preschool Education, NIEER. [34]

Bredekamp, S. (1987), Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8, NAEYC, Washington D.C. [7]

Burts, D. et al. (1992), “Observed activities and stress behaviors of children in developmentally appropriate and inappropriate kindergarten classrooms”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 7/2, pp. 297-318, https://doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(92)90010-v. [14]

Bus, A., P. Leseman and S. Neuman (2012), “Methods for preventing early academic difficulties.”, in APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 3: Application to learning and teaching., American Psychological Association, Washington, https://doi.org/10.1037/13275-021. [24]

Chazan-Cohen, R. et al. (2017), Working toward a definition of infant/toddler curricula: Intentionally furthering the development of individual children within responsive relationships, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. [32]

Copple, C. and S. Bredekamp (2009), Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8, NAEYC, Washington D.C. [33]

DEEWR (2010), Educators belonging, being and becoming: Educators’ guide to the Early Years Learning Framework for Australia, Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations - Australia, http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/National-Quality-Framework-Resources-Kit/educators_guide_to_the_early_years_learning_framework_for_australia.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2018). [41]

Dickinson, D. (2011), “Teachers’ Language Practices and Academic Outcomes of Preschool Children”, Science, Vol. 333/6045, pp. 964-967, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204526. [19]

Dickinson, D. (2002), “Shifting Images of Developmentally Appropriate Practice as Seen Through Different Lenses”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 31/1, pp. 26-32, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x031001026. [8]

Dickinson, D. et al. (2003), “The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: The interrelationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children.”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 95/3, pp. 465-481, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.3.465. [25]

Eurydice (2009), Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe: Tackling Social and Cultural Inequalities, Eurydice, Brussels. [11]

Frede, E. and D. Ackerman (2007), Preschool curriculum decision-making: dimensions to consider, Preschool Policy Brief Issue 12, National Institute for Early Education Research. [29]

Gersten, R., H. Walker and C. Darch (1988), “Relationship between Teachers’ Effectiveness and Their Tolerance for Handicapped Students”, Exceptional Children, Vol. 54/5, pp. 433-438, https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298805400506. [20]

Goldberg, S. (2000), Attachment and Development, Arnold, London. [23]

Graue, E. et al. (2004), “More than teacher directed or child initiated: Preschool curriculum type, parent involvement, and children’s outcomes in the child-parent centers.”, education policy analysis archives, Vol. 12, p. 72, https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v12n72.2004. [18]

Harris-Van Keuren, C. and D. Rodríguez Gómez (2013), Early Childhood Learning Guidelines in Latin America and the Caribbean, Inter-American Development Bank. [44]

Haskins, R. (1985), “Public School Aggression among Children with Varying Day-Care Experience”, Child Development, Vol. 56/3, p. 689, https://doi.org/10.2307/1129759. [15]

Huffman, L. and P. Speer (2000), “Academic performance among at-risk children: The role of developmentally appropriate practices”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 15/2, pp. 167-184, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0885-2006(00)00048-x. [4]

Jenkins, J. and G. Duncan (2017), Do pre-kindergarten curricula matter?, Brookings Institution and Duke University. [35]

Justice, L. et al. (2008), “Quality of language and literacy instruction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 23/1, pp. 51-68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.09.004. [21]

Laevers, F. (2011), Experiential Education: Making Care and Education More Effective Through Well-Being and Involvement, Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledeg Cluster on Early Child Development, Montreal. [12]

Lerkkanen, M. et al. (2012), “The role of teaching practices in the development of children’s interest in reading and mathematics in kindergarten”, Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol. 37/4, pp. 266-279, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.03.004. [17]

Marcon, R. (2002), “Moving up the grades: Relationship between preschool model and later school success”, Early Childhood Research & Practice, Vol. 4/1, pp. 1-24. [9]

Marcon, R. (1999), “Differential impact of preschool models on development and early learning of inner-city children: A three-cohort study.”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 35/2, pp. 358-375, https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.358. [22]

Marshall, C. (2017), “Montessori education: a review of the evidence base”, npj Science of Learning, Vol. 2/1, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0012-7. [37]

McMullen, M. et al. (2005), “Comparing beliefs about appropriate practice among early childhood education and care professionals from the U.S., China, Taiwan, Korea and Turkey”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 20/4, pp. 451-464, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2005.10.005. [5]

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (2017), Course of Study for Kindergarten, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Tokyo. [43]

Moser, T. et al. (2017), European Framework of Quality and Wellbeing Indicators, European Union CARE Project. [45]

NAEYC/NAECS-SDE (2003), “Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8”, Position Statement, https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/pscape.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2018). [39]

New Zealand Ministry of Education (2017), Te Whāriki He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa Early Childhood Curriculum, https://www.education.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Early-Childhood/Te-Whariki-Early-Childhood-Curriculum-ENG-Web.pdf. [40]

New Zealand Ministry of Education (2007), “The New Zealand Curriculum”, http://nzcurriculum.tki.org.nz/The-New-Zealand-Curriculum (accessed on 13 December 2018). [48]

OECD (2018), The Future of Education and Skills - Education 2030: The Future We Want, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf. [27]

OECD (2017), Starting Strong 2017: Key OECD Indicators on Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276116-3-en. [49]

OECD (2017), Starting Strong V: Transitions from Early Childhood Education and Care to Primary Education, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264276253-en. [2]

OECD (2011), Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264123564-en. [30]

Ontario Government (2007), Early Learning for Every Child Today: A framework for Ontario early childhood settings, Ministry of Children and Youth Services, http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/childcare/oelf/continuum/continuum.pdf (accessed on 13 December 2018). [42]

Pramling-Samuelsson, I. and M. Fleer (2009), Commonalities and distinctions accross countries, Springer, New York. [6]

Schweinhart, L. and D. Weikart (1997), “The high/scope preschool curriculum comparison study through age 23”, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Vol. 12/2, pp. 117-143, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0885-2006(97)90009-0. [13]

Shuey, E. et al. (2019), “Curriculum alignment and progression between early childhood education and care and primary school: A brief review and case studies”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 193, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d2821a65-en. [46]

Sim, M. et al. (forthcoming), Starting Strong Teaching and Learning International Survey 2018 Conceptual Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris. [3]

Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2014), Early Childhood Education, SAGE Publications, London. [50]

Stipek, D. et al. (1998), “Good Beginnings: What difference does the program make in preparing young children for school?”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 19/1, pp. 41-66, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0193-3973(99)80027-6. [26]

Stipek, D. et al. (1995), “Effects of Different Instructional Approaches on Young Children’s Achievement and Motivation”, Child Development, Vol. 66/1, pp. 209-223, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00866.x. [16]

Sylva, K., K. Ereky-Stevens and A. Aricescu (2015), Overview of European ECEC curricula and curriculum template, European Union CARE Project. [38]

Sylva, K. et al. (2016), Integrative Report on a culture-sensitive quality and curriculum framework, European Union CARE Project. [28]

Wall, S., I. Litjens and M. Taguma (2015), Early Childhood Education and Care Pedagogy Review, England, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/education/school/early-childhood-education-and-care-pedagogy-review-england.pdf. [1]

Weiland, C. et al. (2018), “Preschool Curricula and Professional Development Features for Getting to High-Quality Implementation at Scale: A Comparative Review Across Five Trials”, AERA Open, Vol. 4/1, p. 233285841875773, https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858418757735. [36]

Note

← 1. The High/Scope curriculum uses a developmental-constructivist approach to early education, in which adults would engage children as active learners and children would have the opportunity to initiate much of their own activities (Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997_[13]).

End of the section – Back to iLibrary publication page