A REVIEW OF THE STATE OF THE FIELD OF EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN CHILD CARE, KINDERGARTEN AND FAMILY

SUPPORT PROGRAMS June 2, 2006

From the Atkinson Centre for Society and Child Development Gordon Cleveland
Department of Management University of Toronto at Scarborough

Carl Corter
Atkinson Centre for Society and Child Development Institute of Child Study

Janette Pelletier
Institute of Child Study

Sue Colley
Institute of Child Study

Jane Bertrand
Atkinson Centre for Society and Child Development Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/ University of Toronto Janet Jamieson

Red River College

With contributions from Almina Pardhan, Tomoko Arimura, Danielle Brown, Sejal Patel Martha Friendly, and Michal Perlman

This State of the Field Review was funded by a contribution from the Canadian Council on Learning

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 10

2. CHILD CARE RESEARCH.................................................................................... 15

3 KINDERGARTEN RESEARCH ............................................................................ 36

4. FAMILY SUPPORT RESEARCH.......................................................................... 45

5. INTEGRATED EARLY LEARNING AND CHILD CARE SERVICES AND SYSTEMS ................................................................................. 56

6. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND EARLY LEARNING............................ 68

7. MATERNITY AND PARENTAL LEAVE ............................................................ 69

8. TRENDS AND ISSUES .......................................................................................... 70

9. METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES.............................................................................. 72

10. A RESEARCH AGENDA...................................................................................... 77

11. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 82

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 84

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................ 118

ii

EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN CHILD CARE, KINDERGARTEN AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This field review of the effects on learning and child development of early learning and child care (ELCC) programs in Canada is prepared for the Canadian Council on Learning. There are two major institutions (i.e., contexts) in which preschool learning occurs for many children. The first is the family. The second is early learning and child care programs such as kindergarten, child care centres, nursery schools, preschools, family home child care arrangements and other types of family support and related programs. The objective of this review is to determine the current state of knowledge about the effects of these types of programs on early childhood learning and development, including cognitive, language and socioemotional development, and then to recommend directions for future Canadian research to expand this base of knowledge. This review seeks to determine what is known about the key characteristics of these programs that may affect learning and development (e.g., program type and design, quality of services, age of entry and exit), the characteristics of children and families that may moderate these effects on child development (e.g., gender, family background), and factors, such as peer and parenting relationships, that may mediate early childhood learning and development. This review does not summarize literature on the effects of the family on learning in early childhood, except insofar as it is necessary to discuss the analytical and empirical separation of family and non-family effects. Instead, this study focuses on what we know about the impact of ELCC programs on childrens early learning. OVERVIEW OF ELCC PROGRAMS AND EFFECTS ON CHILDREN 1. Early Learning and Child Care Programs (ELCC programs) affect children through their cognitive, language and social-emotional development in the early years of childhood. By the time children reach school, there are striking disparities in abilities among different children according to different markers of development. These disparities are associated with differences in these childrens circumstances and experiences in the early years. Furthermore, these differences among children are predictive of future academic and life performance. 2. There is currently no co-ordinated system of early learning and child care services in Canada, outside of Quebec. Children and their families may decide to participate in a variety of scattered ELCC programs, delivered by different agencies at different levels of cost to parents and different levels of quality, and

with different sets of objectives. ELCC programs include kindergarten, child care centres, regulated family child care, nursery schools, preschools and related family support programs and are complemented by maternity and parental leave and benefits. Provinces and territories are responsible for the organization and funding of kindergarten, and for regulation, legislation and funding of regulated child care programs and family support programs. The federal government currently provides some funding to the provinces for child care services, funds maternity and parental benefits through the Employment Insurance Fund, manages some programs and sets eligibility criteria for maternity and parental leave benefits. CHILD CARE 3. Research findings about the effects of child care on childrens development can be considered under three broad headings: quality, type of care, and amount or timing of care. The key finding over three waves of child care literature spanning more than 25 years is that the quality of child care is the most consistent factor that determines the effects of child care on childrens development. Quality of ELCC has been found to affect the childs functioning within a child care program, the concurrent functioning of the child in other contexts, and long term development outcomes. Quality has positive impacts on child behaviour, on cognitive and language development, and moderates potential negative effects of other risk factors that may exist in a childs life. Child care quality is typically measured by constructed process quality scales such as the Early Childhood Environments Rating Scale (ECERS), its complement, the Infant-Toddler Environments Rating Scale (ITERS), or the Observational Ratings of the Caregiving Environment (ORCE). These measure stimulation and support provided in caregiver interactions with children and the program support provided by child care environments. 4. Caregivers in centre-based care typically have higher levels of education and training in early childhood education than in other types of care, so, on average, quality is better in centre-based care. In addition, independent of the effects of quality and amount of care, participation of children in centre-based care has been found to have significant and relatively strong positive effects on their cognitive and language development. This holds true even with selection effects of child and family characteristics controlled. 5. The amount and timing of child care use is an important factor that potentially may mediate child cares effects. The best evidence currently available suggests that early nonmaternal child care need not disrupt the mother-infant relationship. At the culmination of a lengthy debate in the literature, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) study finds that attachment between mother and infant is affected primarily by maternal sensitivity, rather than by amount of child care on its own at a very young age. Apart from the issue

of attachment security, however, there is evidence that extensive child care from very early in a childs life (particularly under 1 year of age) may have negative effects on a childs future behaviour. These effects may be related to stresses children experience negotiating with peers in group settings. 6. The existing body of research identifies several groups of variables that appear to have important effects on the quality of child care provided. First is the so-called iron triangle of group size (number of children in a class), staff-child ratio and caregiver qualifications (years of education, child-related training, and years of experience in child care). To this list, many researchers would add staff turnover or caregiver stability, caregiver wage levels, nonprofit status of the organization providing care, sensitivity to cultural and physical differences, space and materials, licensing status, and age mix of children. Curriculum is a probable important determinant of quality. However, we have very limited information about what range of curricular approaches are best for what purposes, for what children, in what circumstances. Our current knowledge about the magnitude of the contribution to quality made by different determinants is still inadequate. 7. Family background, ethnicity and child gender are three important factors that may moderate the impact of child care on child development. It is well known that children from lower-income families tend to use child care of lower quality than children from higher-income families; availability of subsidized child care services for low-income families reduces this effect. It is widely accepted amongst researchers that child care has its most positive cognitive and language effects on children from more disadvantaged backgrounds. This tends to be confirmed by the positive experimental results in early intervention programs targeted at children from low-income families. The comprehensive NICHD study, however, did not find consistent differences in child cares impacts by income level. There has been little study of ethnicity as a moderating factor for child care; so far, there is no evidence suggesting that child care quality should be defined differently for children from different ethnic backgrounds. Gender is an emerging issue in child care research. There are a number of studies that have found that boys are more sensitive than girls to having a parent who works or to spending time in non-parental child care. KINDERGARTEN 8. What happens before and during kindergarten seems to set the foundation for what is to follow in a childs school experience. Early predispositions and achievements in kindergarten predict long-term educational and adjustment outcomes. Children who begin school ahead of others in academic achievement tend to stay ahead. Furthermore, these children make greater gains over time due to the cumulative benefits of early learning, but also due to other factors such as teacher expectations, home factors and parent involvement. Despite the importance of kindergarten, there is relatively little research in areas such as program quality and curriculum effects on children's learning.

9. Apparently because kindergarten is a secure publicly-funded program, the effects of kindergarten on children has not been studied as intensively as the effects of child care. Although empirical research on curriculum in kindergarten is weak, theoretically and analytically there is a lively and important debate about where ELCC curricula should locate along the continuum of play-based-learning to didactic-learning. 10. Several quasi-experimental and descriptive studies have compared the benefits of full-day versus half-day kindergarten programs. The bulk of the literature indicates that full-day programs have better child learning outcomes, particularly in literacy, and particularly for at risk populations although the effects of the longer day cannot necessarily be considered causal. Canadian studies confirm that children who attend full-day kindergarten gain academically and demonstrate greater readiness in Grade 1. 11. In Canada, kindergarten class size varies greatly across provinces and territories. Generally, smaller class sizes are associated with greater social and academic gains among kindergarten children. The underlying mechanisms of class size effects in kindergarten have not been disentangled. 12. Over the last decade there has also been a boom in the literature on the subject of school readiness or transition to school, particularly in the U.S. There has been research on correlates of childrens preparation for school, some intervention projects, and various conceptions of readiness that range from a focus on the childs readiness to readiness support in surrounding ecological systems such as family, school and communities. Kindergarten-readiness research with readiness being defined by child characteristics is generally inconclusive. As an indicator of community-readiness, the Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a teacherreport, community-level measure of readiness for Grade 1, developed in Canada. The EDI is administered by kindergarten teachers after children have been in school for several months and provides an aggregate picture of kindergartenreadiness and readiness support in particular population sets: schools, neighbourhoods, communities and provinces. 13. Gender and family background are important factors that may moderate the impact of kindergarten experience on early learning. In the limited research on gender issues in kindergarten, two questions predominate: are boys more at risk for transition difficulty and are programs less effective for them. There are inconsistent answers to these questions. There is some evidence that family background influences a childs kindergarten performance, with children from lower SES backgrounds entering formal schooling at a disadvantage.

FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS 14. Family support programs encompass home- and centre-based programs and activities. They attempt to support families and parents to improve childrens early environments and developmental outcomes. The first wave of research on family support programs examined the question Does this program work? The second wave moved on to How does it work (what are the mediating processes) and for whom does it work and in which contexts (what are the moderators)? For example, the degree or quality of participation may be examined as possible mediators of program effects. Furthermore, contextual factors like demographic/population characteristics may act as moderators of the processes linking program and outcomes. 15. Family support programs vary in ecological locus, developmental focus and program characteristics. Ecological locus refers to program location, target population, who the participants are and how they interact. Developmental focus refers to the developmental domains and stages addressed by the program. Program characteristics include intensity, delivery mode, delivery approach, content and staffing. Parent programs may be more or less integrated with child services such as kindergarten, child care and other supports for children in twogenerational combinations. In most instances, parent support and education programs are integrated with child programs, making it extraordinarily difficult to assess the separate contribution that the parent program makes. 16. Because family-support programs are so varied, broad summaries of what is known about these programs tend to be abstract and focused on program characteristics such as specificity, intensity, and whether the program involves both parents and children. The value of specificity (providing clearly specified parental knowledge or skills that should alter the childs environment for development and learning) has emerged across large-scale studies. In combined parent and child programming, more intensity seems to be better, with more participation leading to better outcomes. The clearest effects in larger-scale projects appear to be achieved when there is early education programming for children along with parenting programming. Thus, family resource programs in the U.S., all of which offer parent programming and education, are more effective when they include direct care and education for children. Similarly, home visiting approaches that combine child-focused activities with explicit attention to parentchild interaction patterns have larger effects on cognitive development. 17. In attempting to answer the question of which family support programs work (and how, for whom, and in what context), the first thing to note is that there are many more programs than studies of what works. Although programs are quite varied, they can be roughly grouped into family literacy programs, behaviour management, home visiting programs, and parenting centre programs. There is some evidence of effectiveness in each of these areas, but there is also

inconsistency in the findings and in many cases, relatively weak effects. This evidence is mainly from the U.S. 18. In Canada, there is a rich history of family support/parenting programs but there is only scattered research exploring what works, how it works, and for whom. There are isolated examples of promising but under-evaluated programs such as Parenting and Family Literacy Centres operating in Toronto schools since 1982. There are also under-evaluated large-scale efforts including Family Resource Programs (FRPs) and Canada Action Program for Children (CAPC) programs, many of which focus on parents and the family. FRPs have a rich history of providing community-based programs for parents and children. 19. In contrast to these under-evaluated national programs, the Ontario Better Beginnings, Better Futures (BBBF) program is an intensively evaluated 25-year demonstration project of targeted services for families of children to age four in 5 community sites or with children from 4 to 8 years of age in 3 community sites. All the preschool sites included home visiting but varied in the degree to which they implemented program guidelines calling for 1) services focusing on the child 2) resident and parent participation 3) service partnerships and 4) community development. The BBBF results suggest that direct inputs to children are more likely to have effects on childrens outcomes than diffuse community inputs. Furthermore, coherent parent supports, connected to child programming, may amplify the effects of good programs for children. 20. There is also a literature on parent involvement with childrens services. The literature is largely advocacy for more parent involvement or partnerships, along with a fair number of correlational analyses, usually showing that greater parent involvement (defined in a variety of ways) is statistically associated with better outcomes for children. However, these associations do not show that parental involvement causes better outcomes. INTEGRATED ELCC SERVICES 21. Integrated early learning and child care programs include a range of services and systems that are attempting to join up. The goal of integrating ELCC programs to better support the development of young children is not a new proposal but is becoming more prevalent in Canada and internationally. Much of the scattered literature on early learning and child care integration reports on demonstration research initiatives and uses simple quantitative and qualitative methods to study the implementation, process and impact of integrating early learning and child care programs. 22. Few research studies on integrated early learning and care have reported on child development outcomes, such as readiness for school. Findings to date are only able to suggest associations and are not conclusive. All of these studies identify the need for further research. One British study concluded that integrated care and 6

education programs were beneficial for children from birth to six, particularly for children facing multiple risks. In the British study of preschool education, researchers reported that children who attended integrated early learning and care programs and those who attended nursery schools made better intellectual progress by the time they entered primary school than did children who attended regular child care centres, supervised family child care or other combinations of non-parental care and early education programs. Toronto First Duty, a program of integrated learning, care and parent support, found that reported parenting capacity, including help with learning at home and involvement with the school, was greater at the First Duty sites than in schools with a single early childhood program or with no programs on site. 23. Service and program integration has significant implications for human resources. The integration of existing kindergarten, child care and family support programs involves the responsibilities of teachers, early childhood educators and family support staff. The three broad groups of early childhood professionals have different training and education, work environments, levels of compensation and curriculum and pedagogical approaches. Most policy proposals for integrated or seamless early learning and child care programs identify the human resource issue as critical to resolve if integration activities are to succeed. Some proposals include recommendations for a common ECE/teacher credential that could be recognized in both systems and serve to blend the two sectors together. Implementation of a cross-discipline early childhood credential that would be recognized in education and child care/ECE settings would require flexible entry points and delivery models to address a number of logistical issues. More preliminary research is needed to consider the experiences of other human resource integration initiatives before proceeding. 24. The division for four- and five-year-old children between care in child care centres and education in kindergarten is a focus for attention from several policy studies in Canada and internationally. In most Canadian jurisdictions, the division is quite apparent as the same children often participate in both systems at different times in the day. The transitions between two early learning and child care environments are often identified as disruptive for children and inconvenient and cumbersome for parents. The OECD Canada Report, tabled in October 2004, focused attention on the problems created by the two solitudes: education and child care. It stressed the need to heal the rift between kindergarten programs and child care. 25. One important Canadian study found that program integration of child care and education may cost marginally less per child than two separate programs. In addition, parents, educators and policymakers were asked to give their opinions on a new program model. Three-quarters of parents supported an integrated program that would provide a combination of full-day, year-round care and education programs through the school system for children of kindergarten age.

No parents valued the current split provision. Teachers and child care staff were less supportive of a new integrated model. DATA COLLECTION AND RESEARCH AGENDA 26. Data are needed for multiple purposes- for research and for the construction of indicators that permit monitoring and accountability for the accessibility, affordability and quality of the entire range of ELCC programs, including child care centres and regulated family home child care, nursery schools, preschools, prekindergartens, junior and senior kindergartens, and family support programs. Indicators and research can play a key role in strengthening ELCC policy and programs, as well as enhancing public accountability. There are three broad categories of new data instruments that would bolster research: A cross-sectional parent survey about the use of a wide variety of ELCC services, including information about costs, income and preferences; A survey of staff and directors at ELCC facilities, covering staff education and training, compensation, experience, program organization and characteristics, characteristics of children and families, costs, revenues and user fees charged, and on-site evaluations of quality A longitudinal or panel survey linking specific characteristics, designs and quality of ELCC programs to a wide range of child and family outcomes. There are several possible models for this data collection, from randomassignment techniques to intensive data collection techniques such as used in the NICHD studies in the U.S.

In addition, there should be improvements in and links with provincial/territorial administrative data. There should be regular collection and publication of a Canadian child care policy and program database. This database would track innovations in program and policy design across Canada, providing a basis for analysis of program effectiveness. 27. The range of possible topics for ELCC programs and child care research in Canada is very broad; developing priorities for research is more than usually important. We believe the key priority for research should be to determine which practices work best in child care/preschool/nursery school/kindergarten/parent programs/ parental leave to facilitate childrens development and to facilitate parental employment and other activities. By practices, we mean curriculum, hours and location of care, education and training of staff and different education/training combinations within the classroom, staff-child ratio, and group size. We also mean what kinds of organization of services works best including integration of child care and kindergarten, different aspects of program design, the role of government regulators and monitors, the role of accreditation, of professional associations, of unions. We also mean research on commercial vs.

not-for-profit vs. public delivery of services, and research on how the working conditions, wages and benefits of caregivers affect their production of quality services for children. This would also include policy research that compares different policy and funding approaches that may be considered by different Canadian jurisdictions. 28. Policy research examining options in pan-Canadian and international context are valuable, as policy analyses carried out by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have shown. This sort of research is a crucial part of evaluating ideas on large-scale integration of early childhood services such as kindergarten and child care. 29. To make good policies work, research has to show how to implement policy and how to support practice. This requires research approaches that go beyond the policy-friendly, but necessarily simplified versions of causeand-effect explored in experimental designs. Other approaches are needed to elucidate the processes that make programs work and the differences that context and diversity introduce into the mix. These include qualitative and mixed-methods studies, which can lead to better implementation designs and that can speak to practitioners about the concrete ways programs lead to success. 30. A research agenda will also need to explore ways to engage practitioners, not just inform them. Knowledge transfer needs to include front-line staff as knowledge builders, not just as receivers of knowledge. Good practice in early childhood includes researchlike attention to systematic results for children. Professional training should include understanding of research as practice and practice as research and the value of inquiry. It could engage practitioners in the model of design research with cycles of trying out small-scale program innovations, testing results and redesign. Providing a national platform for early childhood professionals to share and improve ways of implementing curriculum or programs and to contribute to innovation could be done on a large scale with websites and virtual visitations. Providing these opportunities as face-to-face meetings in local sites is crucial to success in innovative reorganization of early childhood services as well as school reform. 31. Finally, to inform policy, the research agenda will also need to engage the public. This means local dissemination and engagement with the communities where research takes place. It also means getting the bigger picture out to an even wider audience. A variety of public awareness campaigns have put the message of the importance of the early years into the public mind. For example, public polls put the value of early childhood learning near the top of the list of ingredients for success in school. However, there is little understanding of the important ways that early childhood programs contribute to childrens learning, development and to broader social goals. Public engagement means better dissemination but also better discourse and debate on aims and evidence of where to go in early childhood.

EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT IN CHILD CARE, KINDERGARTEN AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

1.

INTRODUCTION

This field review of the effects on learning and child development of early learning and child care (ELCC) programs in Canada is prepared for the Canadian Council on Learning. There are two major institutions (i.e., contexts) in which preschool learning occurs for many children. The first is the family. The second is early learning and child care programs such as kindergarten, child care centres, nursery schools, preschools, family home child care arrangements and other types of family support and related programs. The objective of this review is to determine the current state of knowledge about the effects of these types of programs on early childhood learning and development, including cognitive, language and socioemotional development, and then to recommend directions for future Canadian research to expand this base of knowledge. This review seeks to determine what is known about the key characteristics of these programs that may affect learning and development (e.g., program type and design, quality of services, age of entry and exit), the characteristics of children and families that may moderate these effects on child development (e.g., gender, family background), and factors, such as peer and parenting relationships, that may mediate early childhood learning and development. This review does not summarize literature on the effects of the family on learning in early childhood, except insofar as it is necessary to discuss the analytical and empirical separation of family and non-family effects. Instead, this study focuses on what we know about the impact of ELCC programs on childrens early learning. The goal of this stateof-the-field review is to summarize existing research and to propose a research agenda about early learning and child care programs for Canada. 1.1.1 Framework for Study of Early Learning and Early Child Development In early life, children begin to learn to know, to do, to be and to live together (Canadian Council on Learning, 2005). More complex skills build on foundational capabilities that precede them. Sensory processing and motor control contribute to emotional and social development. Emotional maturity and social competence are the foundation of emerging cognitive abilities including the use of language. Early learning, like behaviour and health, is inextricably linked to the whole child. Early learning is largely equivalent to early development. The pace of development and learning of children in their preschool years is amazingly rapid, whatever aspect of development or dimension of learning we consider. In this period, the supporting structures of virtually every system of the human organism are constructed (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Children develop at different rates, and may fall behind one moment, yet catch up quickly the next. Despite this plasticity of

10

development, by the time children reach school, there are striking disparities among them according to different markers of development and these disparities are associated with differences in these childrens circumstances and experiences in the early years. Furthermore, these differences among children are predictive of future academic and life performance (Stevenson & Newman, 1986; Stipek, 2001; Hess et al., 1984) 1.1.2 Early Child Development and Early Experiences Children's development is the result of the interaction between biological maturation and the environment including their experiences and relationships. The basic architecture of the brain, which underpins all developmental domains, is built through an ongoing process that begins before birth, is active during the early years and continues into adult life (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Genes establish the basic blueprint for the construction of the brain but experience determines how it is constructed. Genes determine when specific neural pathways are formed and a childs experiences determine how they are formed. Genetic potential is expressed in response to the childs experiences and underlies the course of learning, behaviour and health. The impact of early experience is maintained lifelong in biological and developmental pathways. 1.1.3 Early Experiences and Social Ecology In Canada, early learning and development takes place in two major social institutions. The first is the family. The second is ELCC programs. Almost all children live in families and participate in some form of early learning and child care before they enter formal or mandatory schooling (typically grade one). Children, families and ELCC programs reside in cities, towns, remote rural regions, and in neighbourhoods and communities. All locales are influenced by public policy, structure of work, societal values and beliefs, and cultural practices. The social ecology of childhood is a culmination of interacting multiple social environments. 1.1.4 Early Learning and Child Care Programs There is currently no co-ordinated system of early learning and child care services in Canada, outside of Quebec. Children and their families may decide to participate in a variety of scattered ELCC programs, delivered by different agencies at different levels of cost to parents and different levels of quality, and with different sets of objectives. ELCC programs include kindergarten, child care centres, regulated family child care, nursery schools, preschools and related family support programs and are complemented by maternity and parental leave and benefits. Provinces and territories are responsible for the organization and funding of kindergarten, and for regulation, legislation and funding of regulated child care programs and family support programs. The federal government currently provides some funding to the provinces for child care services, funds maternity and parental benefits through the Employment Insurance Fund, and sets eligibility criteria for maternity and parental leave benefits. Child care programs include part-time or half-day programs (often known as nursery schools or preschools) full-time child care centres and regulated home-based child care. Provincial and territorial legislation stipulates requirements for the operation of programs (e.g., staff/child ratios, staff training requirements, indoor and outdoor

11

physical space, maximum group size, health and safety routines, programming and nutrition) and funding arrangements. The federal government is responsible for onreserve First Nations regulated child care and compensatory ELCC programs such as Aboriginal Head Start. Provinces and territories subsidize some or all of the costs for regulated child care for low-income parents. Eligibility requirements include parental employment or at-risk social conditions and low family income. In most jurisdictions the numbers of eligible parents exceeds the limited number of subsidies. Provincial/territorial governments also provide a range of one-time and recurring grants to regulated child care centres and family child care programs. Quebec no longer uses fee subsidies to fund child care services. It has established Centres de la Petit Enfance (CPE) to provide educational child care in centres and family child care homes for children from 0 to 4 years. CPEs receive capital and operating grants and parents pay $7/day. Low income parents may have the fee waived. Kindergarten is typically delivered within public education for five year old children and sometimes four year old children. In one exception, Prince Edward Island, kindergarten is offered by regulated child care programs. In most jurisdictions, programs are half-day or alternate full-day. In New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec, kindergarten is a full-day program. Except in New Brunswick, kindergarten is not compulsory but over 95% of all five year old children do attend. The federal government is responsible for on-reserve kindergarten programs. Junior Kindergarten is available for 4-year old children in the majority of Ontario schools and in some inner city schools in Quebec. In most other provinces, limited numbers of prekindergarten programs offered within the school system are available to four-year-old and sometimes three-year-old children, usually in low-income areas. Kindergarten programs are typically located in schools and staffed by teachers who have an undergraduate degree and Bachelor of Education. Kindergarten programs are offered free of charge to children who meet age eligibility requirements. Family support programs are typically provided by community-based organizations offering parent/caregiver education and/or adult-child activities to families with young children and caregivers. Federal, provincial/territorial and local (municipal, school and public health authorities) may be involved in the funding, planning, delivery and oversight of family support programs. Family support programs are usually offered free of charge although user fees are sometimes charged for specific program activities. Maternity and parental leave and benefits in Canada cover virtually a full-year of paid maternity and parental leave. Mothers and fathers are able to access benefits if they are eligible for Employment Insurance (i.e., more than 600 hours paid employment in previous year).

12

1.1.5 Purpose of Early Learning and Child Care Programs ELCC programs typically include the intent to support the optimal development of young children. However, there are additional purposes that may drive the establishment and operation of ELCC programs, particularly child care. Canadian arguments for ELCC have varied from life-long learning, school readiness and child development to employability, women's equality, balancing work and family, reducing poverty, alleviating at-risk status and social integration (Friendly & Beach, 2005). In addition, ELCC may be intended to support parenting capacity, recognizing the primacy of parents in shaping early development. Community-based ELCC programs often cite the goals of social cohesion and inclusion. Canada does not have a clearly articulated pan-Canadian vision or specified goals that outline the purpose for ELCC. What does exist across the country can be categorized into four broad policy goals - child development/lifelong learning, parent employment, social integration and equity (see www.childcarecanada.org for further discussion). Although the first policy goal relates directly to ELCC effects on learning, the goals of integration, employment, and equity may also have long-term, indirect effects on children's learning and development. 1.2 Analytic Approach This review is guided by a number of questions related to the impact of ELCC programs on early learning and development. The key questions are: 1. What do we currently know about how ELCC programs affect how young children learn? 2. What are the best practices in program design, structure, organization and curriculum? 3. In particular, how is learning in ELCC programs affected by demographic, environmental and family factors? How do these programs affect children and families from different backgrounds, cultures and having different learning abilities? 4. What is the impact of gender, culture and French as a minority language on early learning? What is the effect of new computer technologies on the promotion of early literacy? 5. What are the major gaps, uncertainties and weaknesses in our knowledge? In what areas does existing research not apply well to the Canadian circumstances? 6. What have been the central contributions and weaknesses of Canadian research efforts on these questions? 7. What are the key priorities for research and data collection over the next years? What are the main methodological issues, problems and solutions?

13

The review considers three somewhat distinct bodies of literature that are related to ELCC programs and early learning and development one on child care, one on kindergarten and one on family support programs. A fourth nascent literature on integrated ELCC programs and systems is reviewed briefly. The study also briefly reviews the literature on computer technology and early learning across ELCC programs and on maternity and parental leave. The review summarizes the findings, debates and discussions in the literature, noting Canadian contributions and applicability to the Canadian context. It identifies the challenges facing empirical investigations and their application to policy-making. The study concludes with a series of recommendations for a Canadian ELCC research agenda. 1.2.1 Methodology This paper is based on a collaborative review, interpretation and analysis of evidence from a wide range of studies in education, psychology, sociology and economics. The study team met regularly in September, October, November and December 2005 to craft the review analyzing these findings. By implication, this work is selective, interpretive and analytical, focusing on the best studies rather than exhaustively cataloguing all of them. Literature for each of the early learning and child care program categories (kindergarten, child care, family programs, and integrated services) has been reviewed and summarized separately. The review of Canadian contributions is more comprehensive, given their small number. Electronic indexes, accessed through the University of Toronto Library System, were keyword-searched to identify important studies dated 1990 or later. These electronic indexes included ERIC, Psych Info, Wilson Education, Medline, Google Scholar, and Scholars Portal (Social Science). Search terms were combinations of early childhood, preschool, young children; kindergarten, child care, parent* (program, support, education, training), family resource; integrated services; gender, culture, income, ethnicity, technology, French; and research, Other sources include research and data bases at the Childcare Resource and Research Unit at the University of Toronto. Databases were also searched for combinations of early childhood, preschool, and young children with French, minority and language with little yield. All hits were reviewed and the potentially most relevant items were entered into a shared on-line RefWorks database available through the University of Toronto Library System. This system allows for searches for keyword descriptors such as gender, technology, and culture. In addition to items found in the electronic sources, other items were added by scanning reference lists in review articles and from lists we had compiled in other research projects on child care, kindergarten, parenting programs, and integrated services in early childhood. References that predated 1990 were included when they were particularly relevant or represented seminal contributions. Particular attention was paid to Canadian references in all stages of the search. In addition to the academic literature, the review considered articles in Canadian professional journals, reports and websites. After additional culling for relevance, approximately 1700 items remained in the database.

14

From these, based on review of content from published abstracts, 402/371 were selected as the major references to be assessed to tell the story that appears in this Field Review. Inclusion criteria were relevance, recency and citation patterns. Some widely-cited and technically sound empirical papers were included even though they were not recent. In the case of multiple reports on results from the same project evaluations, and in cumulative reviews of the same material, we tended to include more recent papers. Relevance meant choosing papers that focused on programs and their effects on childrens learning, as well as on the mediators and moderators of those effects. We focused on empirical papers that were experimental (randomized control trials and quasi experimental designs) or that offered statistical controls in exploring possible program effects. However, we included policy reports and some descriptive papers necessary to understand context for the effects as well as mediators and moderators of possible effects. These references are listed at the end of this document. Full manuscript versions of these items were reviewed after being electronically downloaded or collected from library, CRRU, or personal collections. Of the 397 references included here approximately 10% or 41 are meta-reviews or traditional reviews, and 356 are empirical reports, descriptive studies, or policy reports. It is more difficult to categorize the references according to their focus on program type, since programs often have more than one focus. Approximately 40% of the references have a multiple focus (especially child care and parent programs), and 13 % have an explicit focus on even broader integrated services for young children and caregivers. Among the remainder, 21% are primarily concerned with child care, 10% with kindergarten, and 5% with parent programs. Even the large number of items in the database is a fraction of the potentially relevant literature in the area. For example, a recent review of preschool prevention programs, which did not include research on kindergarten or non-compensatory child care, surveyed over 5000 abstracts from the last three decades (Nelson, Westhues, & MacLeod, 2003).

2.

CHILD CARE RESEARCH

Child care includes regulated full-day and part-day centre- and home-based programs. Compensatory programs that are centre-based and primarily focused on childrens development (e.g., Head Start) are also included in this category. 2.1 Overview The research literature on the effects of early child care on children can be broadly classified (Hayes, Palmer & Zaslow, 1990) into three waves, with somewhat separate concerns. The waves are broadly chronological, but overlapping. The first wave (summarized in Belsky, Steinberg & Walker, 1981; Clarke-Stewart, 1987) focused on concerns (developing out of maternal-deprivation literature) that child care was inevitably harmful to the development of children, relative to care provided exclusively at home. This wave focused on group comparisons of children

15

in model university-based child care programs with those raised in home settings. The first wave of child care research concluded that child care is not necessarily either harmful or helpful for children, and that research should now focus on the characteristics of the care, the family and the child that might determine those effects. The second wave (Hayes, Palmer, & Zaslow, 1990) focused on the effects of variations in child care characteristics (especially quality) on children. This wave of research was conducted in ordinary community-based child care settings, often was longitudinal, did not use random assignment techniques (but rather used correlational statistical methods), and developed measures of child care quality to use in research. Generally, in this wave, there were poor controls for family factors that would have influenced the selection of child care type and quality, and there was no focus on which specific features of quality (e.g., curriculum, teacher education, etc.) produced which child development effects. The prime conclusion of the second wave of research was that quality (i.e., a composite measure of process quality assessing the nature of interactions and environment in the child care setting) is the key factor that determines child cares effects on all domains of childrens development (and that structural factors, such as caregiver education and ECE training, staff-child ratio and group size, are key determinants of process quality). The third wave of child care research (Vandell, 2004; NICHD, 2005c) aims to separate the effects of the home and family environment from the child care environment as determinants of child development. This has led to much more sophisticated and comprehensive research design, including many measures of family functioning and considerable detail about characteristics of child care use. There is particular concern about dealing with selection bias in the choice of child care arrangements and the possibility of omitted variable bias. The third wave of child care research is still in its infancy. The NICHD longitudinal data set and the Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study would be the prime examples, so far, of this new wave. The main early contribution of the third wave of research has been to challenge inferences made on the basis of past work, to shake some established verities and confirm others, and to begin to establish the relative quantitative magnitudes of different effects on child development. Virtually all of the research from the third wave is from the U.S., and this is also true of the large majority of earlier research

Several comprehensive reviews summarize research findings, most of which have been generated by U.S. researchers using U.S. data sets, on the impact of child care on child development. The Academy of Sciences in the U.S. published a very comprehensive review of literature on child care in 1990 (Hayes, Palmer & Zaslow, 1990). Michael Lamb, a senior developmental psychologist, prepared a thorough review for the Handbook of Child Psychology in 1998 (Lamb, Damon, Sigel, & Renninger, 1998).

16

A major chapter in From Neurons to Neighbourhoods The Science of Early Childhood Development (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000) was devoted to reviewing research on child care and child development. Vandell (2004), following up on Vandell and Wolfe (2000) incorporates many findings from the NICHD study into a review of recent and earlier literature on the effects of the quality, the amount, the type and the stability of child care on the development of children. Vandell asks and answers three questions: a. Does the quality of child care matter, and, if so, how much? b. Does the amount and timing of early child care matter? c. Does the type of child care matter?

Canadian research on the impact of child care environments and early learning and development is limited to a few studies that can be considered in context with the American studies. 2.2 Child Care Research Findings The question of the impacts of child care on early learning and development has received considerable attention in the past thirty years. The main finding is fairly consistent: good quality child care has positive developmental/learning effects on children. Various factors moderate the impact of good quality. A second finding is still controversial: extended amounts of time spent in child care, particularly when very young, can have negative effects on child behaviour, which may affect learning. The findings for child care studies are organized into three categories: Impacts of child care on child development subdivided into the effects of the quality of child care, type of child care and amount/timing of child care Child care program design Children from different backgrounds 2.2.1 The Impacts of Child Care on Child Development A recently published table of findings from the comprehensive NICHD study (NICHD, 2005c) can be used to indicate the scope and nature of child cares effects on six major aspects of childrens development1. Effects which are found under some conditions are indicated by sometimes; effects which are consistent across ages and specifications are indicated by all. These effects of child care are measured using statistical techniques which control for other child and family variables:

There are two other good tabular reviews of recent research on child care in Vandell and Wolfe (2000) and National Research Council and Institute of Medicine (2003).

17

Child Care Characteristic Quality Amount Type Stability

Attachment Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes

Parent-child relationships Sometimes Sometimes

Noncompliance in child care

Problem Behaviours All Sometimes Sometimes

Cognitive Development and School Readiness All All

Language Development All All

Sometimes Sometimes

The quality of care has positive developmental effects on a range of important child outcomes - consistently on cognitive and language development and on problem behaviours, and, under some conditions, on mother-child attachment and parent-child relationships. Greater amounts of child care have negative developmental effects under some conditions on attachment, parent-child relationships and problem behaviours. Type of care (generally centre care) has negative developmental effects under some conditions on non-compliance in child care and on problem behaviours and consistent positive developmental effects on cognitive and language development. Instability has negative developmental effects under some conditions on attachment and on non-compliance in child care. The ongoing NICHD study (National Institute of Health and Human Development) in the U.S. is a very comprehensive, longitudinal study of a sample of about 1300 children and families, followed from the birth of the children. Child care is the primary focus. The following aspects of child care have been tracked at regular intervals in the study, either through phone calls to the mother, interviews with the caregiver, or on-site observations of the care environment: type of care, adult/child ratio, group size, age of entry into child care, number of hours per week in child care, number of child care arrangements used, caregivers education level, caregivers years of experience in care provision, wages of caregiver, fees paid for child care arrangement, availability of learning materials, cleanliness and safety, and quality of interactions between target child and caregiver. In the NICHD study, the characteristics of the child care environment were assessed with a version of HOME (Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment) and with the Assessment Profile for Child Care Programs. Interactions between child and caregiver were assessed using the ORCE (Observational Record of the Caregiving Environment), which is a set of scales constructed specifically for this study and which can be used to assess and compare quality across a range of caregiving situations, including care by father, by a relative, by a non-relative in a child care home, and in a centre. The ORCE consists of frequency counts of specific caregiver and child behaviours plus ratings of various caregiver behaviours, adjusted for the childs age. Also, for 4-year-old children, the Classroom Practices Inventory (an observational instrument based on NAEYC guidelines for developmentally appropriate practices for 4- and 5-year-old children) was used, and other specific instruments were used in kindergarten and school.

18

Effects of Quality of Child Care A large number of studies, in both the second and third waves of child care research, have found, with substantial consistency, that the quality of child care services experienced by children is of significant positive importance in their cognitive and language development as well as in their social-emotional development. Many studies have considered the contemporaneous effects of child care on children. Evidence about cognitive development comes from the Bermuda Study (McCartney, 1984), the National Day Care Study (Ruopp et al., 1979), and the Victoria Day Care Study (Goelman and Pence, 1987). In the Bermuda Study, quality in child care predicted improved vocabulary and language skills. In the National Day Care Study, childrens change in scores from fall to spring on a school readiness test and the PPVT were related to group size, teacher qualifications and the orientation of the centre (i.e., orientation towards cognitive development and individual development). In centres with lower gains in the school readiness test, caregivers showed less individual attention to children, engaged children in more open-ended and fewer structured activities, and interacted with children more often in large than in medium-sized groups. In centres with higher gains in the school readiness test, there were more positive interactions with individual children, more often in medium-sized groups, with more teacher management of activities and more social interaction with children. Goelman and Pence (1987) found quality of care to be highly variable in family day care and to be a much more potent predictor of childrens quality development than quality in centres. Similarly, there were found to be positive effects on childrens contemporaneous social development. References include Anderson et al. (1981), Howes and Olenick (1986), McCartney and colleagues (1982), and Clarke-Stewart (1987). In the National Day Care Study (Ruopp et al., 1979), preschoolers who were assigned to classrooms in which teachers had more education and training displayed greater gains in cooperative behaviour, task persistence and school readiness over a 9 month period, compared to children in other classrooms. In all of these studies, quality (generally reflecting the involvement of the caregivers with the children) was associated with more secure, selfregulated, sociable and considerate behaviours on the part of children. Recent studies (Loeb, Fuller, Kagan & Carrol, 2003; Love et al., 2004) confirm that that higher process quality is associated with better results on language and cognitive tests, fewer behaviour problems and greater social competence. There is also evidence about longer term effects of quality. The strongest evidence here comes from experimental studies for disadvantaged children such as the Perry Preschool experiment, the Abecedarian experiment and the quasi-experimental Chicago ChildParent Centres. The Perry Preschool Program experiment began in Ypsilanti, Michigan in 1962 (Berreuta-Clement et al., 1984; Barnett, 1985, 1993, 1996; Schweinhart et al., 1985, Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993). 128 African-American children were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups. At 3-4 years of age, children received 2 hours of classroom instruction per day throughout a 30-week school year (most children received two years of program). Preschool teachers made weekly home visits lasting 90 minutes. To date, the children have been followed to age 40. The Abecedarian Intervention (Ramey et al., 2000; Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling, & 19

Miller-Johnson, 2002; Masse & Barnett, 2003) focused on children at risk for poor intellectual and social development largely based on parental I.Q., education and SES in 1972. The majority of the children were African-American. The central intervention was intensive, full-time preschool services from infancy to five years of age. The program incorporated an experimental design with families assigned to treatment and control groups. The children have been followed to age 21 to date. The Chicago Child-Parent Centres Program was a demonstration program with a comprehensive preschool and schoolage intervention, complemented by parent involvement during the preschool and early elementary years. Children were not randomly assigned to two groups, but results for participating children were compared to those in a control group. Intensive, high-quality centre-based interventions that provide learning experiences directly to the young child have a positive effect on early learning, cognitive and language development and school achievement (Barnett, 1995; Brooks-Gunn et al., 1994; Burchinal et al., 1997; Ramey and Ramey, 1998; Roberts et al., 1989). The impacts of some programs have been found to continue well into school years and sometimes adulthood (Campbell and Ramey, 1994; Currie and Thomas, 1995; Lazar and Darlington, 1982; Luster and McAdoo, 1996; McLoyd, 1997; Yoshikawa, 1994, 1995). Effect sizes range up to 1 standard deviation for outcomes for preschoolers (where 0-.3 is described as small; .3-.5 as moderate; and .5+ as large by Cohen, 1988, but see McCartney and Rosenthal, 2000, for a different interpretation). Correlational studies find similar patterns (although the magnitude of effects are generally smaller). In one study by Howes (1988), with controls for family characteristics, higher quality of child care was predictive of better academic progress, better school skills and fewer behaviour problems. Vandell and colleagues (1988) found that the quality of centre care received at age four affected social behaviour at age eight. Higher quality care predicted friendlier peer interactions, more positive affect, greater social competence and better negotiation of conflicts. High-quality care in infant and toddler years is also associated with childrens cognitive and linguistic development in correlational research (Burchinal et al., 1996; Galinsky et al., 1994; Howes & Rubenstein, 1985; McCartney, 1984; Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001). Few studies provide effect sizes; NICHD (1999) reported effect sizes of .09-.14 for cognitive and language outcomes for 3 year-olds. Of central importance to cognitive and language outcomes is the verbal environment of the child care setting (McCartney, 1984; NICHD, 2000a). NICHD (1999a) found positive developmental outcomes were produced when child care centres met professional guidelines for staff-child ratio, group size and caregiver characteristics (controlling for maternal education and parenting quality). At 4 years larger group sizes and lower caregiver education were both separately associated with lower academic achievement and lower cognitive development, controlling for family factors and childs prior cognitive functioning (NICHD & Duncan, 2003). Similar relationships have been found between structural features of care and developmental outcomes in child care homes (Clarke-Stewart et al., 2002).

20

The available evidence indicates that preschool child care quality (measured by process quality or structural features) is related to child developmental outcomes during the elementary school years. Significant relationships were more likely to be found when quality was measured at several points in time (Burchinal et al., 2000; NICHD 2000a, 2002b), than in those where quality was measured only once (Chin-Quee & Scarr, 1994; Deater-Deckard, Pinkerton, & Scarr, 1996). This is apparently due to the greater reliability of measures of average quality of care received when more readings are taken. In NICHD (2000a, 2002b, 2003a), measures of caregiver behaviour predicted childrens performance on standardized cognitive and language assessments at 15, 24, 36 and 54 months, controlling for amount and type of care and an extensive list of family covariates. In the Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001) process quality predicted cognitive, language and social development during the early years of school. Children who had had closer relationships with their preschool teachers were more sociable in kindergarten (controlling for prior child adjustment and family factors), and children who were enrolled in higher quality child care displayed better math skills prior to school entry and during kindergarten and second grade. The size of these effects is approximately half the size of the effects of parenting, or home quality, or of poverty on the development of the child (NICHD, 1999a). In other words, the size of these effects is meaningful. Further, there is good evidence that child care quality can act as a protective factor for children with depressed mothers (NICHD, 2003b) and as a buffer against the effects of poverty (McCartney, Dearing, & Taylor, 2003). There have also been findings that structural features of child care are related to longer term outcomes. Howes (1988) found relations between structural features of child care (teacher training, child-adult ratio, group size, planned curriculum and space) at 3 years of age and childs functioning in first grade. Children whose child care met more recommended guidelines had fewer behaviour problems and better work habits, controlling for family factors. Similarly, children who had experienced a history of poorquality care (measured by structural features at 18, 24, 30 and 36 months) were rated as more difficult by preschool teachers and more hostile by kindergarten teachers. The childs relationship with the care provider apparently is key for social-emotional development. The issue is the formation of secure attachments to child care providers when child care arrangements are stable leading to adaptive social development (Howes et al., 1992; Oppenheim et al., 1988; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2000; Pianta & Nimetz, 1991; Sroufe et al., 1983; Howes & Hamilton, 1993; Howes et al., 1988, 1994; Howes, 2000). Other research supports the importance of stability in child care providers and/or stability of the peer group (Barnas & Cummings, 1994; Howes et al., 1992; Galluzzo et al., 1990; Harper & Huie, 1985; Howes, 1988a, 1988b). Shonkoff and Phillips (2000) in a careful summary of findings from research conclude that quality of care is consistently linked to every measure of childs development.

21

Sometimes , associations are found with hours of care, stability of care and type of care, but generally it is the quality of the daily interactions between child care providers and children that is the primary explanation of child cares effects on childrens development. This is found in both correlational and experimental studies (Barnett, 1995; Currie, 2000; Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000; Yoshikawa, 1994, 1995). NICHD and Duncan (2003) concludes that child care quality is a modest but reliable predictor of cognitive development and academic achievement during early childhood. (p. 1470). The effect size in this study is measured at .04-.08 in different specifications, based on an increase in quality from 24-54 months of age, independent of the type of child care used (effect sizes are measured as a proportion of a standard deviation of change in the dependent variable). This contrasts, for instance, with an effect size of .20 on language and math skills found for preschoolers in the Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study as a result of an increase in quality for 9 months in a child care centre (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001) Effects of Type of Child Care This research topic refers to the different effects on children of experiences in centres, home-based child care alternatives, and care by relatives or fathers. Good research in this area is slim, largely because there are no studies in which children are randomly assigned to different types of child care. Existing studies are correlational, and it is difficult to separate the effects of family and child characteristics (e.g., age of child, work situation of parents) leading to a choice of type of child care, from the effects of the type of care itself. The NICHD is noteworthy because of the very extensive list of controls available. Arguably, studies using the NICHD have been better able to separate the effect of child care type from the effects of child care quality, amount of child care and family and child characteristics than studies using any other data set. Different types of child care (e.g., centre care, family home care) offer different experiences to children. Child care centres have more educated caregivers, more materials and activities, but also larger group sizes, more children per adult, and often more structured and educational activities. Child care homes, especially unregulated ones, have more free play, learning is more casual, and more time is typically spent watching TV or videos. A recent review of American, British and Canadian child care studies (Clarke-Stewart & Allhusen, 2005) reports that, overall, attendance in centre-based child care tends to improve childrens readiness for school learning. The American Early Childhood Longitudinal Study - Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) data indicate that centre-based preschool programs (including child care centres, preschools, and nursery school) also increase overall school readiness and lower grade retention (Magnusson & Waldfogel, 2005). In Canada, the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) studies provide a mixed report of the impact of child care centres on cognitive development for preschool children. Lefebvre and Merrigan (2002) found that earlier child care attendance

22

had no significant effect on cognitive development at age four or five years. However, Kohen, Hertzman & Willms (2002) reported that child care centre attendance had a positive impact on language development and Lipps and Yiptong-Avila (1999) found positive effects on math scores. The variation in findings may reflect the limitations of the NLSCY data in documenting types and quality of child care experiences. The NICHD (2000a, 2000b, 2002b; and NICHD & Duncan, 2003) has found that children spending more time in child care centres had higher cognitive and language scores at 24, 36 and 54 months after controlling for family background differences and the quality and amount of child care received. In the NICHD and Duncan (2003), the measured effect size for cognitive test scores is a relatively large .27. These results are also consistent with important cognitive gains found amongst disadvantaged children in centre-based programs (assessed in experimental studies) such as the Perry Preschool Project (Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993), the Abecedarian Project (Ramey, Campbell, & Blair, 1998; Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling, & Miller-Johnson, 2002), and the Infant Health and Development Project (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1994; Hill, Brooks-Gunn & Waldfogel, 2003), and from quasi-experimental studies assessing the Chicago Child-Parent Centre program (Reynolds & Temple, 1998; Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 2001). Cumulative experience in high-quality centre-based care starting in the second year of life (i.e., age one) may be particularly beneficial for children. This appears to be related to the amount of language stimulation from teachers who have more education and more specialized training in ECE. They talk and respond to children, it appears, in ways that foster language and cognitive development (NICHD, 1996a, 2000b). Some studies find that centre-based care is especially beneficial for children from lowincome families (Caughy et al., 1994), but other studies find that all children benefit regardless of their family background (NICHD, 2000a). Effects of Amount or Timing of Child Care Belsky (1986, 1988a, 1988b, 2001) has argued that early and extensive hours of child care when children are young place them at risk for future socioemotional problems. Other researchers believe that these findings are better explained by either the quality of child care (Phillips, McCartney, Scarr & Howes, 1987) or a failure to distinguish between, for instance, assertiveness and aggressiveness in assessing children (ClarkeStewart, 1989). It is not obvious how these results should be interpreted to apply to Canada. In the U.S., 72% of all infants are in regular nonmaternal care by 4 months of age (for an average of 29 hours per week). With one year of paid maternity/parental leave available to many families in Canada, patterns of early child care use are now very different in Canada than in the U.S. There are several aspects of the effects of amount or timing of child care: we consider attachment security between mother and infant, behaviour problems and social competence, and cognitive/language effects. 23

Attachment Security A major concern of U.S. child care research since the 1970s has been whether regular separations between infants and mothers would cause attachment insecurity amongst infants in child care. There is now good evidence that early child care (in the first year of a childs life) does not necessarily harm the formation of mother-child (or adult-child) attachment bonds that are necessary for healthy infant development (NICHD, 1997a, 2001a). The primary influence on attachment derives from the sensitivity of the mother (adult) in this relationship. Amount of child care led to attachment insecurity at 15 and 36 months only if children were in child care for over 10 hours per week and if the mother was also highly insensitive towards the child. For mothers providing sensitive care, nonmaternal child care did not pose a threat to attachment security of the child. Shonkoff and Phillips (2000) summarize the NICHD and other research findings in this way: [e]vidence from child care research of the 1990s is reassuring to those who have been concerned that child care might disrupt the mother-infant relationship. Not only does the mother remain the primary object of attachment for infants in child carebut also the attachment relationship appears to be largely protected from possible negative effects emanating from early entry into and extensive hours of care, as well as poor quality care. The primary influence on the attachment relationship derives not from child care but from the sensitivity of the care that is provided by the mother (namely, her supportive presence, positive regard, and lack of intrusiveness and hostility). This is equally true for children experiencing very little child care and children experiencing a lot of child care. (pp. 307-8). Behaviour Problems The NICHD (2001c, 2003c) has found evidence that more hours in a child care arrangement is associated, at 24 and 54 months and in kindergarten, with various behaviour problems. NICHD (2001c) found that more hours in child care up to age 2 were associated with more negative interactions with peers and more behaviour problems as reported by caregivers, and less social competence as reported by mothers. At 4, more hours in child care was associated with more negative play, less social competence and more externalizing behaviours. In kindergarten, this was associated with more externalizing behaviour problems and more teacher-child conflict. These effects were moderated by the quality of child care and the quality of parenting received by the child, but were still statistically significant and quantitatively important after controlling for these influences. Gunnar and her colleagues (Dettling, Gunnar, & Donzella, 1999; Tout, de Haan, Campbell, & Gunnar, 1998; Watamura, Donzella, Alwin, & Gunnar, 2003) have found that negative behavioural effects of child care appear to be related to the patterns of cortisol levels in children over the day. It is suggested that toddlers and preschoolers who are learning to negotiate with peers may experience group settings, such as child care centres, as especially socially demanding and stressful. Vandell (2004) suggests that research should consider changes in program organization, curriculum and teacher

24

training that might reduce this harmful stress. This research could use cortisol findings as an important tool to guide results (Maccoby & Lewis, 2003). The size of the negative behavioural effects of child care hours found in the NICHD studies is similar to the effects on behaviour of parenting quality, and is therefore substantial enough to be meaningful and policy-relevant. The effects on behaviour do not appear to be related to a threshold level of hours, but it is only children in child care for more than 30 hours per week over their preschool lives who, on average, had more than normal behavioural problems, and only children spending over 45 hours per week over the whole period from 3-54 months who displayed high levels of negative externalizing behaviours. A recent Canadian study (Baker, Gruber, & Milligan, 2005, 2006) has concluded that the Quebec child care reforms beginning in 1997 have had very substantial negative effects on different measures of child behaviour and parent functioning. The study has significant weaknesses, however, which lead us to discount its findings until confirmation or denial from other studies. Because of data limitations, the authors are not able to determine whether the changes in behaviours and parent functioning over the period 1994-2003 are actually concentrated in children using regulated child care arrangements and their parents, or not. The papers findings are based on the twin assumptions that the results observed across all children in Quebec are due only to those children attending regulated child care, and that observed changes in behaviour are permanent rather than transitional. Both of these assumptions are speculative. The 1970 British Cohort Study (Osborn & Milbank, 1987) on the impact of preschool experience reported some findings for behaviour outcomes. Although attendance in any form of preschool education program was associated with positive cognitive outcomes at 10 years of age, children attending Local Authority child care centres (typically serving families experiencing stress and who are involved with local child welfare) were more likely to have behaviour problems than children attending other programs or those who did not attend any preschool program (after controlling for family characteristics). The large-scale study of Effective Provision of Preschool Education in the United Kingdom is following a sample of 3000 preschool children through elementary school (Sylva et al., 2003) To date, analysis shows that preschool experience, compared to none, enhances both intellectual and social development at the time of entry into primary schooling. The longer the children had attended preschool, the greater the intellectual benefits and social abilities, although half-day or full-day attendance did not seem to make a difference. High levels of group care before age three and particularly before age two (and entry to preschool) were associated with higher levels of anti-social behaviour at age three. However, when children who were showing high levels of antisocial behaviour at age three attended quality preschool programs between ages of three and five years, their level of anti-social behaviour decreased. The finding of potential negative effects of child care on childrens behaviour do not appear to be reflected in random-assignment research on early centre-based interventions

25

with low-income or disadvantaged children. Both in part-day programs (e.g., Perry Preschool, Chicago Child-Parent Centers) and in full-day programs (e.g., Abecedarian), there are long-lasting positive behavioural effects for children receiving the intervention programs compared to control group children. Cognitive and Language Effects Cognitive competence has been extensively studied in experimental and nonexperimental studies. The experimental research has documented that out-of-home schooling can have positive and enduring effects on cognitive performance, particularly among children where home support is unstimulating. The Abecedarian project in North Carolina enrolled African-American children from impoverished backgrounds. The treatment group received full-time centre-based care from 3 months old, in a program designed to prepare them for school; the program continued to kindergarten then half the treatment group was given further programming through the first three years of school. The experiment had clear effects on childrens IQs and a series of other markers of cognitive ability. The elementary school supplement seemed to have little impact, but academic achievement, school performance, grade retention, and assessments of special needs in the school were all significantly affected by the initial treatment. Wasik, Ramey, Bryant and Sparling (1990) showed that the Abecedarian program was even more influential when supplemented by a home-based family education program (project CARE). However, the intensive home visits by themselves had no impact. Seitz (1990) has shown that home visiting has sometimes been found effective in other studies. The Infant Health and Development Program was another randomized experiment with intensive intervention for low-birthweight premature babies (Sparling, Lewis, Ramey, Wasik, Bryant, & La Vange, 1991). The program involved weekly home visits for three years after hospital discharge and high-quality educationally-oriented day care from 12 to 36 months of age, and parent meetings on a bimonthly basis. Enrollment in this program led to significant improvements in the IQs of infants at age 36 months. By 5 and 8 years of age, significant effects were only evident amongst those children who were heavier at birth. Effects were substantially more powerful for infants whose mothers had the lowest education and there were no effects on infants whose mothers had graduated from college. The magnitude of effects also varied with the extent of participation by families (suggesting a dose-response relationship) (Ramey & Ramey, 1992). This evidence suggests the importance of providing care and stimulation directly to children in out-ofhome contexts (as opposed to simple home visiting, income supplements, etc.) The evidence about cognitive effects from infant child care from nonexperimental studies is contradictory and inconsistent. Vandell and Corasaniti (1990a, 1990b) reported that extensive care beginning in infancy was associated with poorer scores on standardized cognitive measures. Others (Thornberg et al., 1990; Ackerman-Ross & Khanna, 1989; Burchinal et al., 1995) found no effects of infant child care relative to home care. Caughy, DiPietro, and Strobino (1994) reported that enrollment in day care before age 1 was associated with better reading recognition scores for 5 and 6 year old children from impoverished backgrounds, but poorer scores for children from more advantaged backgrounds. Centre-based care begun in the first three years was also associated with 26

higher math performance scores in children from poor households, but lower math scores for children coming from more stimulating home environments. However, quite different results were reported by Andersson (1989, 1992) from a Swedish longitudinal study. Children who entered child care in the second half of their first year scored significantly better on standardized measures of cognitive ability and teacher ratings of academic achievement at both 8 and 13 years of age, even after controlling for differences in family backgrounds. These Swedish results suggest (Broberg & Hwang, 1991; Hwang & Broberg, 1992) that quality of care might be an important factor in determining the effects of infant child care on cognitive outcomes (and perhaps other outcomes). Scarr and colleagues (McCartney, Scarr, Phillips, & Grajek, 1985) conducted a longitudinal study of 166 Bermudan children in day care centres which varied considerably in quality. They found that mothers employment status in the first year of the childs life made no difference (controlling for family background), but that children in high-quality centres scored better on language development and were more considerate and sociable between 3 and 5 years of age. The effects of early quality of care no longer appeared at 5, 6, 7 and 8 years, with family background and maternal IQ being better predictors (Chin-Quee and Scarr, 1994). Rosenthal (1990, 1994), Field (1991), and the Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study (Helburn, 1995) all found that children did better on measures of cognitive or language performance, with other factors controlled. 2.2.2 Child Care Program Design Child care quality is typically measured by loosely standardized process quality scales such as ECERS (Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale), ITERS (Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale) or ORCE (Observational Ratings of the Caregiving Environment). These measure caregiver interactions with children and characteristics of child care environments. There are disagreements about the best tool to measure quality, but there is also considerable positive correlation among the scales when used concurrently. The existing body of research identifies several groups of variables that appear to have important effects on the quality of child care provided. First is the so-called iron triangle of group size (number of children in a class), staff-child ratio and caregiver qualifications (years of education, child-related training, and years of experience in child care). To this list, many researchers would add staff turnover or caregiver stability, caregiver wage levels, nonprofit status of the organization providing care, sensitivity to cultural and physical differences, space and materials, licensing status, and age mix of children. Curriculum should be added as a probable important determinant of quality. However, we have very limited information about what range of curricular approaches are best for what purposes, for what children, in what circumstances. Finally, there are potential determinants of quality that have only minimally been addressed in research (overall centre size [Prescott, et al., 1970], parent involvement [NAEYC, 1984; Slaughter &

27

Kuehne, 1988], caregiver decision-making autonomy in child care centres [Tizard, Cooperman, Joseph, & Tizard, 1972; Garland & White, 1980]). Some other researchers would add a set of factors associated with the social support for child care in society at large. Although many of these factors are correlated with child care quality, it is unclear whether the relation they have with child care quality is causal. Further, the size of the impact of each variable on quality, or on eventual child development, is largely unknown. This makes it possible for policy makers to identify the components of an ideal child care system, but does not provide information about the best tradeoffs to make when resources are scarce, nor the degree of complementarity among different inputs. Nor does existing research provide evidence about the costs and benefits of different inputs to quality. Continuing research on the determinants of quality should be high on the Canadian child care research agenda. Staff, Ratio and Group Size The National Day Care Study (NDCS), a pathbreaking study, (Ruopp et al., 1979) identified group size, staff-child ratio and caregiver qualifications as primary policy variables determining child care quality. Subsequent research on these determinants has consistently confirmed the benefits of smaller groups in both family child care (Fosburg, 1981; Howes, 1983; Howes & Rubenstein, 1985; Stith and Davis, 1984; Clarke-Stewart, 1987) and centre care (Howes, 1983; Howes & Rubenstein, 1985; Holloway & ReichartErickson, 1988; Clarke-Stewart, 1987; Kontos & Fiene, 1987). The research findings on caregiver/child ratio (distinct in centre care from group size) are mixed for preschoolers (Howes & Rubenstein, 1985, Holloway & Reichart-Erickson, 1988; McCartney, 1984; Clarke-Stewart, 1987), with the importance of ratios for infants and toddlers being reaffirmed (Howes, 1983; Howes & Rubenstein, 1985; Howes et al., 1988). As for caregiver qualifications, the research after NDCS has confirmed the importance of both child-related training and overall education of the caregiver (Fosburg et al., 1981; Howes, 1983; Rosenthal, 1988; Berk, 1985; Ruopp et al., 1979). There is little indication from research that greater caregiver experience matters to caregiver/child interactions or child outcomes. According to Vandell (2004), more recent research indicates quite consistent findings on the relations between the iron triangle variables of caregiver/child ratios, group size and caregiver specialized training and measures of process quality, with some evidence that the relations are causal (Smolensky & Gootman, 2003; Vandell & Wolfe, 2000). A Canadian review (Bertrand et al., 2004) of published studies related to the child care workforce concluded that there is a significant mismatch between current compensation levels for the child care workforce and public, parental and professional expectations for quality, early childhood environments that support optimal child development. While increased educational qualifications seem desirable across all levels of the child care workforce, there are few financial incentives available and postsecondary education or professional development opportunities are often difficult to access.

28

A British review analyzes a number of linked studies of the child care workforce (Cameron, Mooney, & Moss, 2002) noting the highly gendered nature of the work, low pay and high job satisfaction, and how the work is understood. It suggests that at a time of increasing demand for workers in both child care and social care work and increasing alternative job opportunities for women, the current situation is not sustainable in the longer term Stability Howes and Stewart (1987) found the number of family child care arrangements had negative associations with play, and Howes (1988a) found long term association of stable care with school adjustment in first grade. Multiple changes in child care arrangements have been found to be associated with higher rates of insecure attachment to mother (Vaughan, 1980; Suwalsky et al., 1986). It also seems that attachment with the caregiver matters. Cummings (1980) and Anderson and others (1981) found that childrens involvement with particular caregivers was associated with more secure behaviour in child care. One study using NLSCY data reported that 23% of infants and toddlers and 25% of preschool children in nonparental care experienced a change in their care arrangement in the previous 12 months (Kohen, Hertzman, & Willms, 2002). The changes were most often (about 35%) because the arrangement was terminated. A recent study of regulated child care in British Columbia reported that one half of the family child care facilities and one third of the centres operating in 1997 had closed by 2001 (Kershaw, Forer & Goelman, 2004). Curriculum Both the Bermuda Study and the NDCS (McCartney, 1984; Ruopp et al., 1979) found that the degree of organized learning activities in a centre is positively correlated with cognitive and language development. Royce and colleagues (1983) and Schweinhart and colleagues (1986) both found that a range of quality preschool curricula can foster intellectual development. Specifically, any of the tested curricula is better than no program at all, arguing for a principle of specificity in programming (Royce, Lazar, & Darlington., 1983, p. 718). However, the social development of children is, apparently, sensitive to the type of curriculum. The High Scope Preschool Study (Schweinhart et al., 1986) reported that randomly assigned children to preschools with different curricula reported that children in a teacher-directed preschool program adapted less well socially than in a program favouring child-initiated learning activities in an environment prepared by teachers. This suggests that it is not just the content of a curriculum that matters, but also the process through which learning occurs. Facilities Howes (1983) found that the degree to which the space in family day care is designed for children, rather than being adult-oriented, matters for caregiver behaviour, affecting restrictiveness and responsiveness to children, establishment of a positive emotional climate and ability to facilitate positive social relations. The causal basis for this association is unclear. In centres, Holloway and Reichhart-Erickson (1988) and Clarke-

29

Stewart (1987) found that specific aspects of the physical environment affect childrens activities and skill development. Parent Involvement Osborn and Milbank (1987) reported that parental involvement as a volunteer participant in a preschool program appeared to be associated with improved cognitive or educational attainment if the childs own mother was involved. These results were independent of the type of preschool attended, the childs own family social and economic circumstances and the parental interest in the childs education. Although these associations do not prove cause, the researchers conclude that the findings support the principle of parental involvement in preschool institutions. Licensing and Age-Mix in Family Child Care Regulatory status in family day care was important in the National Day Care Home Study (Fosburg et al., 1981). The study looked at family day care homes organized into networks, regulated family day care homes on their own, and unregulated family day care homes. Unregulated homes showed the lowest levels of caregiver interactions. During about 26 minutes of every hour, caregivers in unregulated homes were uninvolved with the children. In sponsored family day care homes, there was more caregiver teaching, language activities, fine-motor, music and dance activities. Goelman and Pence (1987) found similar differences by regulatory status in family day care homes in Victoria, B. C. Nearly all of the high quality family day care homes were licensed while nearly all of the low-quality family day care homes were unlicensed. Rosenthal (1988) confirms the importance of supervision/networking of caregivers in family child care homes. Child Care Quality in Canada Recent findings from Canadian studies are not encouraging about the level of quality of Canadian child care under current circumstances (Doherty, Lero, Goelman, LaGrange, & Tougas, 2000; Doherty, Lero, Goelman Tougas, & LaGrange, 2000; Goelman et al., 2000; Jacobs, Mill, & Jennings, 2002). Reports of quality child care indicate that Canadas child care programs range from programs that support optimal early child development to ones that offer mediocre, custodial services to meet childrens basic physical needs. The 1998 You Bet I Care! (YBIC) Canadian study of child care staff and quality in child care centres used standardized measures of quality such as the Caregiver Interaction Scale (CIS) (Arnett, 1989) and Infant-Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS) or Early Childhood Environment Rating ScaleRevised (ECERS-R) to assess 122 infant-toddler rooms and 227 preschool rooms in 234 centres across six provinces and one territory (Goelman et al., 2000). The ECERS-R, ITERS and Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS) are rating scales designed for preschool, infant/toddler and family child care settings (Harms, Clifford & Cryer, 1998; Harms & Clifford, 1989; Harms & Clifford, 1990; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). The rating scales are used to assess curriculum, environment, adult-child interactions and teaching practices and to support improvements to the quality of programs. The findings reveal that the majority of centres provided physically safe environments

30

with caring adults. Only 44.3% of preschool rooms and 28.7% of toddler and infant rooms offered the types of stimulating activities and responsive, nurturing, stimulating adult interactions that are likely to enhance early learning and development, based on the measures of quality used in the study. The YBIC study of regulated family child care (Doherty, Lero, Goelman, Tougas, & LaGrange, 2000) collected data from 231 regulated family child caregivers across six provinces and one territory using the Caregiver Interaction Survey and the Family Day Care Rating Scale. Similar to child care centre staff, family child caregivers typically provided physically safe environments with caring staff, but only 36.8% provided stimulating activities. The quality tended to be lower for infants under 18 months.

In a recent study, Friendly and Beach (2005) have summarized results from several Canadian studies on factors that are associated with increased quality in child care centres (Drouin, Bigras, Fournier, Descrosiers, H. & Bernard, 2004; Friesen, 1992; Goelman, et al., 2000; Jacobs, Mill & Jennings, 2002; Lyon & Canning, 1995.) Level of teacher ECE training, level of teacher salary, adult-child ratio, and auspice are found to be key contributors across the studies. 2.2.3 Children From Different Backgrounds Regulated family and centre-based child care/early childhood education programs have different impacts on different children. Some centre-based child care programs are designed for specific groups of children. Child Care as Early Intervention Reviews of early intervention studies consistently find positive outcomes for children when the intervention includes compensatory centre-based child-directed programming. The Consortium of Longitudinal Studies (1983) followed participants in 11 early intervention studies using uniform measures. They found that effects on IQ faded quickly after graduation from these programs. However, other aspects of school performance such as retention in grade and premature school leaving were strongly affected. A review of 36 model early intervention studies found evidence linking high quality early intervention centre-based programs designed for low income, disadvantaged children with better academic achievement and prevention of delinquency (Barnett, 1995).The National Research Councils report (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000) concluded that high quality centre-based early intervention programs have a positive effect on childrens cognitive and language development as well as on their social and emotional development. The programs produced the largest benefits for the most disadvantaged children (Wildfire, 2005). Despite causal evidence about the impact of centre-based programs on children from low-income families, it remains uncertain whether disadvantaged (generally low-

31

income, African-American) children benefit more from good-quality child care than do middle or upper class children. Somewhat unexpectedly, the NICHD research network did not find evidence that quality and other characteristics of child care have differential effects across children from different income groups (NICHD, 2000b, 2001b, 2003c). However, this may have been due to underrepresentation of lowincome families in the NICHD sample. Brooks-Gunn (2003) summarizes the general agreement among American researchers on three conclusions related to centre-based early intervention: early interventions have potential to alter academic developmental trajectories; child centre-based interventions are more effective than other types of early interventions; and, preschool effect sizes diminish over time.

The strongest evidence base to link early education centre-based programs and long-term positive child outcomes comes from the few well-designed experimental and quasiexperimental studies, including the Abecedarian Project, Perry Preschool Study, and Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP). Intensive, high-quality centre-based interventions that provide learning experiences directly to the young child have been found to have a positive effect on early learning, cognitive and language development and school achievement (Barnett, 1995; Brooks-Gunn et al., 1994; Burchinal et al., 1997; Ramey & Ramey, 1998; Roberts et al., 1989). The impacts of some programs have been found to continue well into school years and sometimes adulthood (Campbell & Ramey, 1994; Currie & Thomas, 1995; Lazar & Darlington, 1982; Luster & McAdoo, 1996; McLoyd, 1997; Yoshikawa, 1994, 1995). Effect sizes range up to 1 standard deviation for outcomes for preschoolers. Children in the Perry Preschool Study had higher achievement scores at 9 and 14, were more likely to graduate from high school, were more likely to be employed, earned more, were less likely to go on welfare, and were less likely to have a history of frequent arrests. The program was a high quality and expensive program ($15,895 child per year in 2002 real dollars as estimated by Bruner (2004). In the Abecedarian intervention researchers collected measures of childrens development, particularly measures that tested their cognitive development and IQ. By 12 months they found that the performance of the two groups began to diverge. The children in the child care centre scored higher than the children in the control group. This pattern continued throughout the preschool period and into adulthood at age 21, although IQ differences had diminished (Campbell et al., 2002). Children who received both the early intervention and after school enrichment program maintained higher academic achievement than children who had only the early intervention. Children who only received the after school enrichment program did better than the control group but not as well as children who received the early intervention. In the Infant Health and Development Program, at age 3 the I.Q. of children in the treatment group attending group child care centre programs and whose mothers had less than a high school education were raised by 20 points. Children in the treatment

32

group whose mothers had graduated from college showed no increase (Brooks-Gunn, Gross, Kraemer, Spiker & Shapiro, 1992). Overall the children attending the child care centres demonstrated improved vocabulary and fewer behavioural problems than the children who had not attended. By age five years only the heavier low-birthweight infants continued to show gains in comparison with the control group (Brooks-Gunn, 2004) and by age 8 event the gains of the heavier infants had been diminished (McCarton et al., 1997). The Chicago Child-Parent Center Program was a large scale, multi-site, federally funded intervention operating in Chicago public school beginning at age three and extending into elementary years to age 9 in 24 sites. Studies of the intervention carefully matched child and families but did not use random assignment. Fuerst and Fuerst (1993) and Reynolds (1992a, 1993, 1994) found that, with family background controlled, graduates had better reading and math achievement scores, were less likely to be retained in grade, were less likely to be referred for special education, and were more likely to graduate from high school than children receiving traditional schooling. Participation in the preschool component had significant effects through the sixth grade (but not much difference between one-year and two-year enrollments in the program). Parental involvement played an important role in ensuring long run continuity of effects (Reynolds, 1992b). Reynolds (1994) found that participation in the elementary school component of the program had positive effects separate from the preschool component. All of this suggests that an early intensive and continuing intervention has the most chance of success. A cost-benefit analysis of this intervention and using data from the ongoing Chicago Longitudinal Study following a cohort of children born in 1980 found that the economic benefits of preschool participation, school-age participation and extended program participation exceeded costs. (Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 2002). The preschool program provided a return of $7.14 for every dollar invested. The extended intervention program provided a return of $6.11 and the school-age only program yielded a return of $1.66.

The National Research Councils study Eager to Learn (2001) considered investigations of model early intervention programs with long-term effectiveness. They reported Fredes (1998) investigation of centre-based preschool experiences for low-income children that provided written descriptions of their curriculum and practices. The NRC concluded that the following factors are present: Curriculum content and learning processes that cultivate school-related skills and knowledge, with a heavy focus on language development Qualified teaching staff who use reflective teaching practices aided by highly qualified supervisors Low teacher-child ratios and small class sizes, Intense and coherent programming, and Collaborative relationships with parents (National Research Council, 2001, p. 133) Head Start was initially viewed as a means to raise IQ scores; however, this IQ advantage was found to fade rapidly after the children left the program and entered the school

33

system. Public school enrichment programs, such as Program Follow Through, were designed to attenuate this IQ decline, but they have not been widely funded. The first year results of a randomized study of Head Start show its positive impact on cognitive performance for three and four year olds and a reduction of behaviour problems and hyperactivity in three year olds (Puma el al., 2005). These findings are consistent with non-experimental studies of Head Start which find significant long-term academic effects for white children (for example, see Currie & Thomas, 1995, 1999). In Canada, Aboriginal Head Start (AHS), a Health Canada initiative, began in 1995 with the aim of improving child development outcomes of Aboriginal children living in urban and northern communities and it was expanded to on-reserve communities in 1998 (Health Canada, 2000, 2001). More than 70% of AHS program staff are Aboriginal. Typically early childhood educators work closely with Elders, language specialists and traditional teachers and parents. The overall goal of the program is to enhance child development and school readiness in young children within culturally appropriate contexts. Presently there are 126 AHS sites across Canada. Generally AHS programs are half-day preschool programs for 2 to 5 year olds that emphasize culture and language, education and school readiness, health promotion, nutrition, social support and parent/family involvement. To date, evaluative information on these programs consists mainly of yearly administrative reports from all regions which are a collection of demographic and descriptive data. However, the National Impact Evaluation measuring child and parent outcomes will be released in early 2006. AHS projects are locally controlled allowing for experimentation but presenting challenges for evaluation. Child Care and Disadvantaged Children Overall children living in socially and economically disadvantaged families are less likely to attend early learning and child care programs (Osborn & Milbank, 1987), unless specific subsidy programs are able to encourage them to use these services. For example in the United States it is estimated that only 45% of three- to five- year olds from lowerincome families are enrolled in some kind of preschool program, compared with 75% in more affluent families (Neuman & Peer, 2002). Children from disadvantaged backgrounds receive care of poorer quality than children from more advantaged backgrounds (Clarke-Stewart, 1987; Goelman & Pence, 1987a and 1987b; Clarke-Stewart, Gruber & Fitzgerald, 1994; Howes and Stewart, 1987; Kontos , Howes, Shinn, & Galinsky, 1997; Japel, Tremblay & Cote, 2005; NICHD, 1997c, 1997d, 2005a). Generally, there is a curvilinear relation between income and quality in centre care. Centres serving higher-income and lower-income (subsidized) children typically provide care of higher quality, and poorer quality centre care is used by middle income families (Phillips, 1994). Children from middle-income families are especially likely to attend for-profit centres (Phillips, Howes and Whitebook, 1992). It appears that children of parents who possess fewer resources, but who do not qualify for subsidy, receive lower quality child care. Bainbridge, Meyers and colleagues (2005) looked at the enrollment of 3, 4 and 5 year olds in early education in the U.S. (including centre-based care, Head Start, nursery

34

school, pre-kindergarten, and kindergarten) and found a strong link between enrollment in early education and family income for 3 and 4 year olds. Enrollment differences for 5 year olds have virtually disappeared with the expansion of public kindergarten services; they have been reduced for 4 year olds as public pre-kindergarten programs have expanded. These income differences are most pronounced for 3 year olds. In a Canadian study using data from the Quebec Longitudinal Study of Child Development (ELDEQ), researchers found that participation in child care programs protected children living in high-risk, disadvantaged families (Borge, Rutter, Ct, & Tremblay, 2002). Among two- and three-year olds living in families in which parents had less than high school education, low socioeconomic status and poor psychological functioning, children who attended regulated child care were less likely to develop high levels of physical aggression than children living in similar families who were cared for at home by a mother. In Quebec, the rapid expansion of regulated child care programs maintains inequities between low income and more affluent families in accessing regulated child care spaces (Japel, Tremblay, & Ct, 2005). A higher percentage of middle and upper income families are using $7/day spaces than poorer families. However, the overall rapid expansion has increased access for all income groups - therefore, a higher percentage of children are attending regulated child care programs than were attending previous to the child care funding reforms in the late 1990s. Child Care and Ethnicity Burchinal and Cryer (2003) investigated the question of whether the features that one should consider as quality in child care vary with ethnic and cultural background of users. Data from the Cost, Quality and Child Outcomes Study and the NICHD Study of Early Child Care were used to test whether standard measures of quality were less reliable or valid predictors for African-American and English-speaking Latino children than for white children. Results did not show different effects; children from all three ethnic groups were found to develop better cognitive and social skills when caregivers were measured as sensitive and stimulating. Childrens skills were not related to matching ethnicity between the caregiver and the child, nor even matching of childrearing beliefs between the mother and the caregiver. Researchers in Canada have studied the participation of newcomer families in regulated child care programs. A key finding is that child care staff are often unaware of the disconnect between their program goals and child rearing values and those of newcomer, minority families (Bernhard, 1995; Bernhard, Lefebvre, & Kilbride, 1998) Boys and Girls There is very little child care research which has focused on gender patterns as a main topic. Hiedemann, Joesch, and Rose (2004) found, using the 1990 U.S. National Child Care Survey that families with white mothers make different child care decisions for sons than for daughters before children start school. In particular, girls are significantly more

35

likely than boys to be in regular nonrelative care when they are between three and six years old. The issue of whether girls are affected differently by child care, or have different experiences in child care is still cloudy. Tonyan and Howes (2003) suggests that gender affects the specific pattern of experiences chosen in child care. Burchinal, PeisnerFeinberg, Bryant, and Clifford (2000) did not find evidence that gender moderated the relation between child care quality and child cognitive and social outcomes. There are, however, a number of studies that have found that boys are more sensitive than girls to having a parent who works or to spending time in non-parental child care (for overviews, see Ahnert & Lamb, 2003; Bornstein, Hahn, Haynes, & Haynes, 2006; Crockenberg, 2003; Langlois & Liben, 2003). Whether or not child care has differential effects by gender, it seems clear that there are very important gender differences in behaviour by the time school starts. For instance, Cryan, Sheehan, Wiechel, & Bandy-Hedden (1992) evaluated the effects of kindergarten schedule and prior preschool attendance on elementary childrens success in school in a statewide longitudinal study in Ohio. Results indicated that children who attend preschool prior to kindergarten experienced greater success in elementary school. Of particular interest, the authors write the the impact of gender on kindergartners classroom behaviour as rated by teachers is perhaps the strongest of any variable in this study (p. 195) with girls being rated more positively on every score. Bono (2003) analyzes the NICHD data to look at self-regulation, one of the central processes that are thought to influence school-readiness. They find that girls were more likely to be in the high self-regulation group, have higher language ability, receive better parenting and be more ready for school than boys. Further, Howes and colleagues (2000), in a three year longitudinal study ending after kindergarten, found that teachers reported greater closeness and more dependency in their relationships with girls than with boys.

3.

KINDERGARTEN RESEARCH

Kindergarten is a universal, publicly funded program that has not been subjected to the same kind of research scrutiny as has child care. Fundamental questions, such as Is kindergarten good for children?, are not asked. Although there are studies on how various child contexts may affect kindergarten experiences, little sustained research has focused on determining the key components of a successful or high quality kindergarten program. As an example of the gaps in kindergarten research on learning, most kindergarten teachers would say they use play as an important medium for classroom learning, often structuring it with particular goals in mind (Gillis & Hardacre, 1993; Pelletier, Park, & Power, 1993) but there are few studies exploring the links among learning, play and program curriculum in early childhood programs. In fact most of the limited research on play and learning predates 1990. Traditional views of the importance of play in early childhood as a constructivist medium for active learning are undoubtedly valid at some level. However, there is a limited evidence base to guide how play can be used in practice and extended to new areas, such as play with technology.

36

Play-enriched early childhood curriculum is also seen as being at risk, with the pushdown pressures of skill and testing education reform such as No Child Left Behind in the U.S. (Cooper, 2005). 3.1 Overview Kindergarten research consists mainly of isolated studies of curriculum and teacher practice in small-scale studies at the classroom level, with some clusters of research on half-day versus full-day programs, class size and readiness. The recent rapid expansion of prekindergarten programs operated within the school system in the United States has fueled considerable research activity over the past decade, including larger-scale studies. Most of the literature is from the U.S.; Canadian literature is cited where appropriate. Even in the U.S. more systematic research on kindergarten, as an important transition point in childrens lives, is badly needed (Vecchiotti, 2003). 3.1.1 Population-based Surveys The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to provide national data on children's status at birth and at various points thereafter. The study is designed with two overlapping cohorts, selected at birth and kindergarten age, and aims to provide data about the effects of a wide range of family, school, community, and individual variables on children's development, early learning, and early school performance. The birth cohort follows a sample of children from birth through kindergarten entry. The kindergarten cohort follows a sample of children from kindergarten through the twelfth grade. This data set is now being mined to answer questions such as: what are the effects of kindergarten retention on children and their classmates? (Hong & Raudenbush, 2005), and What are the effects of phonics and whole language literacy instruction in kindergarten? (Xue & Meisels, 2004). For example, Xue and Meisels found results supporting the not-too-surprising conclusion that kindergarten literacy instruction was most effective when it balanced phonics and integrated approaches incorporating meaning. Nevertheless the rich survey data base provides for considerable nuance in exploring qualifying factors such as instructional intensity and child ability level. The NLSCY and ELDEQ described in the child care section of this review also provide limited data relevant to kindergarten experiences. 3.1.2 Government and Sector Reports Administrative data and policies related to kindergarten are reported in Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada in 2004 (Friendly & Beach, 2005) and the Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care ( OECD, 2004). The growing prevalence of pre-kindergarten programs connected to the education system in the United States has triggered numerous related government and professional journal publications. 3.2 Kindergarten Research Findings The findings from the kindergarten literature can be summarized under four broad headings: Overall effects of kindergarten and predictions for later child development Kindergarten program design, structure and curriculum

37

School-readiness The effects of kindergarten on particular groups of children.

3.2.1 Overall Effects of Kindergarten and Predictions for Later Child Development What happens in kindergarten seems to set the foundation for what is to follow in a childs school experience. Early predispositions and achievements in kindergarten predict long term educational and adjustment outcomes (e.g., D'Arcangelo, 2003; Tremblay, 1996). Children who begin school ahead of others in academic achievement tend to stay ahead (Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2001; Speer & Esposito, 2000; Taylor, Anselmo, Foreman, Schatschneider & Angelopoulos, 2000). Furthermore, these children make greater gains over time due to the cumulative benefits of early learning, but also due to other factors such as teacher expectancies, home factors and parent involvement (Kuklinski & Weinstein, 2001; Taylor et al., 2000). For example, children who, in kindergarten, are motivated to read and enjoy books, who begin to develop phonological awareness and look for meaning, are become better, faster readers with deeper comprehension (Stanovich, 1986; Walberg & Tsai, 1983). This in turn, enables these children to benefit in other learning areas. On the other hand, children who fail to become literate by Grade 3, are likely to fall further and further behind. In general, across a variety of indicators, early advantages accumulate as do early disadvantages. Studies using NLSCY data have found similar patterns; four-and five-year old children entering kindergarten with low vocabulary scores were more likely to have poor reading scores at ages eight and nineyears (Hoddicott et al., 2002). With regard to negative and positive behaviours in kindergarten, highly aggressive kindergarten children are at risk for a variety of life-long social problems including later involvement with the legal system (Bennett, Brown, Boyle, Racine, & Offord, 2003; Pagani, Tremblay, & Vitaro, 1998; Pagani, Larocque, Tremblay, & Lapointe, 2003; Tremblay, 1996). Aside from the later social costs of unchecked aggression, problems in childrens self-management in the early years of schooling limit their opportunities for effective learning and may also affect their classmates learning. The reverse observation is supported as well. Bennett et al. (2003) examined the relation between reading achievement at school entry and conduct problems 30 months later in a representative, non-clinical sample of kindergarten and Grade 1 children. The study showed that an eight-point increment in reading scores was associated with a 23 percent reduction in the risk of conduct problems 30 months later (Bennett, 2003). It was concluded that reading problems may contribute to early onset of conduct disorders (Bennett, 2003). On the other hand, Calabrese (2003) has found that, through play experiences in kindergarten, children can develop positive peer networks and friendships which in turn predict better school adjustment and performance. Both of these results, along with most others in this literature are correlational, not necessarily causal.

38

In a limited look, Pagani et al. (2003) used the NLSCY data to compare areas of Canada with and without four-year-old kindergarten programs, with statistical controls, and found no advantage for children on a variety of behavioural outcomes. A more positive picture emerges from the limited research on studies of U.S. pre-K for four-year-olds (Rueda & Yaden, 2005). With the press of the United States federal mandates on readiness and literacy, the majority of states now offer large scale, publicly funded pre-K programs. The majority of these programs are targeted to disadvantaged children, but an increasing number are universal. There is also variation in other dimensions (Gormley, Gayer, Phillips & Dawson, 2005). Staff qualifications vary from a child development certificate to a college degree plus early childhood certification. Program intensity varies from 2.5 to 10 hours per day. Some of these programs are just getting underway and others have a longer history. The availability and quality of evaluation also varies greatly. In one of the more systematic evaluations, Xiang, Schweinhart, Hohmann, Smith, Storer, & Oden (2000), have carried out a quasi-experimental longitudinal investigation of the targeted Michigan pre-K School Readiness Program which has been in operation since 1985. In comparing participants to an income-matched group of non-participants and to a group of Head Start participants, these investigators found a host of differences favoring the pre-K program, but could not rule out effects of selection bias. Many of these differences appeared in teachers ratings but other effects such as reduced grade retention were also found. In a more sophisticated analysis of the effects of Oklahomas universal pre-K program for 4 year-olds, which controlled for selection effects, Gormley et al. (2005) found positive effects on childrens literacy and problem solving development as assessed by the Woodcock Johnson Battery. According to the investigators, this is a high quality program with the highest staffing standards and highest penetration in the nation, reaching the majority of children in the state, with either half day or full-day programming. 3.2.2 Program Design, Structure and Curriculum Kindergarten Schedules Several quasi-experimental and descriptive studies have compared the benefits of full-day versus half-day kindergarten programs (for example, da Costa & Bell, 2000, 2001). The bulk of the literature indicates that full-day programs have better child learning outcomes, particularly in literacy, and particularly for at risk populations, although the effects of the longer day cannot necessarily be considered causal. (Baskett, Bryant, White, & Rhoads, 2005; Nelson, 2000). Canadian studies confirm that children who attend fullday kindergarten gain academically and demonstrate greater readiness in Grade 1 (da Costa & Bell 2001; Elicker & Mathur, 1997; Zakaluk & Straw, 2002). Unbroken learning time and fewer transitions may contribute to the full-day kindergarten advantage but these structural factors are not well understood. The Exemplary Kindergarten Study (Corter & Park, 1993) surveyed parents and educators in three Canadian provinces over a decade ago and, at the time, found mixed attitudes towards full-day kindergarten. Parents and educators in schools with half-day programs thought that full-day was too long for young children. However, in schools with full-day programs, parents and educators thought it was better and did not report

39

concerns with the day being too long. This suggests that people dont want what they dont know. Little is known about other variants such as full alternating-day versus half-day every day kindergarten, both of which are prevalent in Canada. Alternating day programs have the advantage of lower busing costs, an important consideration in rural areas. Several questions arise: Does the full-day program require a rest time whereas the half-day program would not? Does this mean children in the full alternating-day kindergarten are receiving less learning time than children in half-day kindergarten? What are the effects on children and on parents of multi-transition experiences imposed by some kindergarten schedules? How are children (and their parents) who are enrolled in child care, as well as kindergarten, affected by different schedules? Graue (1999) suggests that rather than focus on kindergarten schedules per se, we should consider the needs of children and families with regard to care and education, i.e., what is the desired outcome and will it be cost effective? Class size In Canada, kindergarten class size varies greatly across provinces and territories. Generally, smaller class sizes are associated with greater social and academic gains among kindergarten children (Allhusen et al., 2004). In a sample of US classrooms, these authors determined that smaller classrooms showed higher quality instructional and emotional support, although children were somewhat less likely to be engaged. Children in smaller classes performed better on literacy skills than did children in larger classrooms. This effect is more pronounced for children from groups who may be considered as having some disadvantage (Graue, 1992a; Tourkin, et al., 2004) The underlying mechanisms of class size effects in kindergarten have not been disentangled. There is evidence that the issue of class size is complex, with various teacher characteristics being important intervening variables (Vanderlee, 2004). A skilled teacher may be effective in a large class and even more effective in a smaller class. Having too many people in a classroom (adults and children), even if the teacher/pupil ratio is high, could have detrimental effects. More research focused on specific variables is needed before definitive statements about class size in kindergarten can be made. Curriculum There are a number of empirical studies of the effects of variations in kindergarten curriculum, but they are scattered and are not part of a cumulative research agenda. Methodologically, these studies are typically too weak to draw conclusions about the effects of alternative curricula. Theoretically and analytically, however, there is a lively and important debate about where ELCC curricula should locate along the continuum of play-based-learning to didactic-learning. Kindergarten curriculum encompasses a set of principles that guide practice, a set of standards that guide program, a set of knowledge, dispositions and values that children will learn and a set of pedagogical approaches (Bennett, 2004). In Bennetts view there are two predominant approaches that guide early childhood practice: the Social

40

Pedagogic and the Pre-Primary. While Social Pedagogic practices are characterized by broad developmental goals and little emphasis on assessment, Pre-Primary practices are characterized by an articulated curriculum with prescribed goals and outcomes and more emphasis on assessment. In the U.S., several theoretical orientations to curriculum implementation have received the most consideration in the literature. One is the National Association for the Education of Young Children guidelines for Developmentally Appropriate Practice (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1984). Many research studies employ this framework to examine kindergarten practice and childrens developmental outcomes (Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson, Mosley, & Fleege, 1993; Stipek & Byler, 1997). A number of studies have tried to demonstrate that allowing children play time in differing contexts such as enriched, with adults, less enriched, and so forth can have differential impacts on childrens achievement. For example, Vukelich (1994) carried out a randomized field experiment related to literacy development in kindergarten classes in which children were assigned to one of three contexts: 1) exposure to print during play in a print-enriched setting, 2) exposure to print with an adult in an enriched setting and 3) play in a non-enriched setting. Enriched settings were considered to have signs and labels bearing messages. Results showed that exposure to print during play in enriched contexts was beneficial but functional print experiences with an adult were the most beneficial. There have been other studies linking exposure to concepts through play prior to adult teaching as more helpful to childrens learning. In another example with a longitudinal correlational design, Pellegrini (1992) examined kindergarten factors, including play behaviour, as predictors of success in grade 1. Over a period of two years, kindergarten children from a public school were observed on their school playground during recess. Seventy-five percent of the variance in their first grade achievement was predicted with measures of kindergarten achievement, object play and peer interaction. Childrens object play predicted traditional aspects of school including performance on a math scale. Pellegrini suggested that more longitudinal research should be done to explore how different facets of object play might contribute to learning. 3.2.3 School Readiness Over the last decade there has been a boom in the literature on the subject of school readiness or transition to school, particularly in the U.S. There has been research on correlates of childrens preparation for school, some intervention projects, and various conceptions of readiness that range from a focus on the childs readiness to readiness support in surrounding ecological systems such as family, schools and communities (Janus & Offord, 2000; Pianta, Kraft-Sayre, Rimm-Kaufman, Gercke, & Higgins, 2001). Transition to School One of the most difficult and still unanswered questions about the transition to school is, what does it mean to be ready for school? Indeed, the prevailing view equates readiness with transition (Rimm-Kaufman, 2004). Teachers consider readiness to be linked to a childs good health and social-emotional functioning, Additional factors in

41

school readiness are the childs ability to communicate needs, regulate behaviour and having a disposition to be curious. In contrast, parents often view readiness as their childs academic preparedness for an academic curriculum (Rimm-Kaufman, 2004). This disconnect can lead to miscommunication and misunderstandings between home and school. Although school readiness is an area of great concern for teachers, parents and administrators alike, understanding how to effectively measure readiness in individual children as well as how to help children become readier is limited. As with all features of early childhood development, the idea of readiness for school should be based on a holistic model rather than a narrow skill set. Self-regulation, social/emotional security, language and cognition, as well as pre-academic learning are all involved (Blair, 2002; Rimm-Kaufman, 2004). In the United States, the focus on readiness testing of children predominates as a corollary to the pervasive testing of older children as part of the No Child Left Behind policy (Wasik & Hindman, 2005). However in the emerging systems view of readiness, community support, parent involvement, ready schools, and culturally contextualized views of readiness are all important (Cassidy, Mims, Rucker, & Boone, 2003; Pianta, 1999; Pianta et al., 2001) Measuring Readiness Kindergarten-readiness research that is based on child characteristics is generally inconclusive. In a comprehensive meta-review of 70 longitudinal studies, La Paro and Pianta (2000) report that assessments of children's skills and abilities are not adequate to determine readiness but claim, in accord with Meisel and Fearons (1999) view, that childrens social and emotional development may be more predictive of subsequent adjustment. This perspective holds that readiness-for-school is the childs ability to selfregulate. The development of regulatory abilities is rooted in both genetics and in early childhood experience. Children who are anxious, with elevated cortisol levels, are less able to attend to tasks, less able to develop positive relationships with peers and adults and less able to enjoy the kindergarten experience (Blair, 2002). Children who like and are liked by others have greater opportunities for interaction and thus greater opportunity to learn. Correlates of childrens adjustment to and early success in school, ranging from age of entry to neurobiological factors, social skill with peers, and prior experience in early childhood programs have been examined in a number of smaller studies. High quality child care is associated with childrens subsequent academic and social competence along with smoother transitions (Vandell, 2004). Some research shows that early entry (birthdate close to the kindergarten entry age cutoff) is associated with more difficulties, particularly for boys (DeMeis & Stearns, 1992; DiPasquale, Moule, & Flewelling, 1980). Indeed boys and children with close-to-cutoff birthdays are more likely to be held back from entering kindergarten by their parents before kindergarten (Stipek, 2002). Dietz & Wilson (1985) claim that school entry age alone is not associated with subsequent achievement, but there is a negative effect of early entry for boys. However, kindergarten retention is not an adequate solution either, as research has shown that

42

kindergarten retention does not result in long-term achievement gains for children (Hong & Raudenbush, 2005). There is an assumption that older kindergarten children can better meet the demands of formal schooling and older children are more often referred to programs for gifted learners (DeMeis & Stearns, 1992). However, according to Graue (1992), most differences attributed to age at entry alone diminish by Grade 3. In the United States, many state preschool programs designed to improve school readiness that are targeted to at-risk groups with mixed evidence of effectiveness (Zill & Resnick, 2005). Ackerman and Barnett (2005) note that the US: School Readiness Indicators Initiative provides a list of indicators that can inform policy to enhance readiness. They argue that the most promising strategy is not only to increase access to high quality centre-based early childhood education programs for 3 and 4 year olds from low income families, but to provide support to middle class children as well (see also Ackerman-Ross & Khanna, 1989; Schulman & Barnett, 2005). However, universal onesize fits all models could actually increase achievement gaps if they are taken up at a higher rate by more affluent families (Ceci & Papierno, 2005). Although the bulk of the research does view transition to kindergarten as linked to childrens readiness, other researchers consider that this transition actually begins much earlier, that is, in the first three years (Love et al., 2004). In this view transition encompasses more than the qualitative shift in context that occurs at school entry. From infancy, children learn to negotiate transitions such as signalling parents to meet needs or adapting to brief or prolonged parent absence. Thus, by the time children enter kindergarten, they have a well-established pattern of coping (or not) with transitions. Similarly, family processes, including attachment security, parenting style, and home environment factors influence childrens transition to kindergarten (Estrada, Arsenio, Hess, & Holloway, 1987; Pianta & Harbers, 1996; Ramey & Campbell, 1994). Parent engagement and involvement in childrens preschool programs has been associated with increased readiness scores, especially for higher-needs families and with parents feelings of greater self-efficacy, particularly for recently immigrated and secondlanguage families (Pelletier, 2002a; Pelletier & Brent, 2002. Another important impact on childrens transition to school includes preschool or child care experience itself; of particular note is the variable of quality of child care. High child care quality is associated with childrens subsequent academic and social competence along with smoother transitions (Vandell, 2004). The Early Development Instrument (EDI) is used in many parts of Canada as a teacherreport, community-level measure of readiness for Grade 1. The EDI measures kindergarten childrens 1) physical health & well-being, 2) emotional maturity, 3) social competence, 4) language and cognitive development, and 5) communication & general knowledge. The EDI was developed at McMaster University (Janus & Offord, 2000) and is widely used across Canada, particularly in Ontario, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. It is a population-based measure based on developmental domains rather than on curriculum-based benchmarks. The EDI is a rating system used by kindergarten teachers after children have been in school for several

43

months and provides an aggregate picture of kindergarten-readiness in particular population sets: schools, neighbourhoods, communities and provinces. The instrument can be viewed as measuring community support for readiness. The EDI has been a standard tool in the national Understanding the Early Years (UEY) project conducted at 12 community sites across Canada (Brink & Bacon, 2003). In UEY, community mapping is used to chart patterns of risk and supports, and to inform efforts to maximize outcomes. For example, in the Peel District School Board (PDSB, 2003) using the EDI as an outcome measure, it was found that: 1) in higher-risk communities, childrens scores on EDI were lower, especially physical health & well-being, 2) boys are considered less ready than girls, and 3) English Second Language children are considered less ready than English First Language children. 3.2.4 Kindergarten and Particular Groups of Children Boys and Girls In the limited research on gender issues in kindergarten, two questions predominate: are boys more at risk for transition difficulty and are programs less effective for them? There are inconsistent answers to these questions. For example, of the children who are retained in kindergarten, more tend to be boys from disadvantaged homes; additionally, they are often from the group of children who are born in the latter half of the year prior to the entry age cut-off date (Stipek, 2002). Other studies show that it is neither age nor gender per se that are related to retention decisions, but rather, teachers ratings of childrens immaturity (Bergin, Osburn, & Cryan, 1996). Interestingly, more boys than girls tend to be rated as immature (Bergin, 1996). Parents and teachers perceptions of gender differences manifest themselves in the opinion that boys are less task-persistent than girls (Ready, LoGerfo, Burkam, & Lee, 2005). In kindergarten, the overall results of teacher assessment using the Early Development Instrument (Janus & Offord, 2000) indicate that girls are less likely to have a developmental difficulty than boys across the five developmental areas (Favaro, Gray, & Russell, 2003). However, another study (Pelletier, 2002b) reported that while teachers rate boys as less ready academically, direct measures of kindergarten childrens performance showed no significant gender differences in academic ability. International findings suggest that in later school years, on average, girls achieve higher literacy scores than boys while boys are slightly ahead in math performance (OECD, 2001). Despite extensive advocacy to promote gender equity, there is no conclusive evidence that anti-bias programming efforts have resulted in observable differences in kindergarten childrens attitudes about gender (Powlishta, Serbin, & Doyle, 1994). Culture/Second Language and Kindergarten In Canada, many children enter kindergarten with little or no knowledge of the primary language of instruction. An analysis of exemplary and effective kindergarten programs (Thouin, Corter, & Park, 1993) included consideration of the effect that being schooled in

44

a second (or third language) has on children. This analysis included (a) French-speaking children in English-language environments, which may include French-language schools (FFL), (b) English-speaking children in French-language environments (FSL) and (c) non-English-speaking children in English language schools (ESL). The difficulties of other language minority children are probably due to factors beyond language of instruction. The issues include childrens developing identities as well as learning per se (Tardif, 1990). Thouin et al. (1993) observed that providing a strong first language home environment was a challenge for French minority families in Northern Ontario who were immersed in an English language environment. Those children who attended French language schools were reported to be bombarded with English in television and daily life, weakening their ability to learn in French. However, early French Immersion (FI) studies generally show that FI children fare well compared to their English-schooled counterparts and of those who continue in the program, most become functionally bilingual (Lapkin, Hart, & Swain, 1991). Recent teacher ratings of kindergarten children on the EDI in Manitoba found that children whose first language was not the language of instruction in school were as well prepared as their counterparts in physical health and well-being, but were not as schoolready in the other four areas, especially in communication skills and general knowledge (Government of Manitoba, 2003). Children from non-mainstream ethnic backgrounds may experience challenges adapting to a classroom because they do not share the experiences assumed by the teacher. Additionally, the cultural backgrounds of some parents may mean that they are not familiar with schooling in Canada; consequently, these parents may not play a visible role in their childrens education (Corter & Park, 1993). The Exemplary Kindergarten Report (Corter & Park, 1993) recommended that kindergarten programs recognize and honour childrens and parents cultural identity and that societal support for effective kindergarten programming is vital to enable children from minority groups to have a strong start in school. This is particularly important as Canada continues to grow as a pluralist society. Low Income The data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort, indicates that children of lower SES begin school at a cognitive disadvantage, scoring lower on reading and mathematics achievement tests (Lee & Burkam, 2002). Also children from lower SES backgrounds were twice as likely to repeat kindergarten as children from more affluent backgrounds.

4.

FAMILY SUPPORT RESEARCH

Family support programs encompass wide variation in home- and centre-based programs and activities. Their focus may include children as well as adult caregivers. They are based on the premise that families, particularly parents or other primary caregivers, are the most salient influence on early development. Therefore supporting families and

45

parenting is likely to improve childrens early environments and developmental outcomes. 4.1 Overview

Family support program research includes experimental, quasi-experimental and observational/descriptive studies that appear in peer-reviewed publications as well as numerous studies and reviews conducted by academics, professionals and family support program staff that have appeared as sector and government publications. In the examination of programs for families and parents, there have been two waves of research over the last two decades (Guralnick, 1997; Powell, 2005). The first wave generally examined the question Does this program work?. The second wave moved on to How does it work (what are the mediating processes) and for whom does it work and in which contexts (what are the moderators)?. In the first wave, programs were tested against outcomes with little attention to how they worked. Now process is a major concern. For example, the degree or quality of participation may be examined as possible mediators of program effects. Furthermore, contextual factors like demographic/population characteristics may act as moderators of the processes linking program and outcomes. For example, cultural differences may affect both the level of participation and the impact of that participation on outcome (Powell, 2005; Reynolds, 2004). Methodologically, the examination of process is leading to a variety of types of studies to complement Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental designs in order to get inside the black box of both successful and unsuccessful programming. These include descriptive studies, mixed-methods studies, and more sophisticated statistical analyses. For example, Reynoldss (2004) model of Confirmatory Analysis shows how theorybased statistical designs (correlational regression or pathway analysis) may help uncover cause. In this model, correlations that follow patterns or pathways of influence predicted by theory and previous research are more trustworthy than simply using correlations to fish for associations which may be taken to imply cause-and-effect. As an example, one of the predictable pathways is that amount of program participation affects degree of outcomes for children in linear fashion. This dosage-response gradient has been reported in a number of successful programs including the Chicago Child-Parent Centers (Reynolds, Chang, & Temple, 1998) and the Abecedarian Project (Campbell & Ramey, 1995). When there are a number of related studies meta-analytic approaches may be used to explore the predictors of outcomes as a function of program types, and may also examine moderators and mediating processes. An example is a comprehensive meta-analysis of early parenting intervention effects on home environment (Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, & Bradley, 2005), as measured by the HOME inventory. This analysis is

46

relevant to understanding the possible mediating pathways connecting parent programs to child outcomes since the HOME inventory measures both quality of interaction and the non-social environment, including learning materials provided by parents. Overall effects for programs were found, with average effect sizes of .13 for RCT designs and .58 for non-randomized designs on total HOME scores. In the 40 studies with RCT designs, subscales of parental involvement and provision of learning materials were significantly enhanced (effect sizes of .19 and .20) whereas physical environment was not affected. However, the link between these mediators and child outcomes was not explored in the analysis. Furthermore, findings on target population moderators run counter to the general early childhood findings that interventions are more effective for children who are more at risk. Instead, this meta-analysis showed that interventions were more effective in changing middle-class home environments and less effective for changing the homes of adolescent mothers. There are broad social forces behind more parent/community involvement in all services (Corter & Pelletier, 2005) and these are unlikely to abate in the near future. There is also considerable interest in family programs among parents and good client satisfaction among those who participate. In broad terms these programs may have value in fostering recognition of the importance of parenting and in creating a sense of community and support for families, potential payoffs that are hard to quantify. Despite the limited evidence for effects on child development and learning and for clear policy directions, family support and parenting programs will likely continue at current levels. Given that these programs will continue to dot the landscape, how can research help make them more effective for childrens learning and development? In addition to calling attention to programs that work and effective process, research needs to support better implementation and adaptation to varying contexts and populations. We need implementation trials as well as small-scale RCT efficacy trials. We need attention to ways of integrating parenting programs and good early childhood education programs in child care, preschools and kindergarten. We need to know how to bring programs to those most in need-how to solve the problem of outreach. These issues are explored further in the concluding section on methodology. 4.1.1 Government, Professional and Sector Reports There is limited information about Canadian family support programs in the OECD (Bennett, 2004) review or the survey of programs in Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada 2004 (Friendly & Beach, 2005). Family Resource Programs Canada is a nonprofit organization that has carried out a number of qualitative studies and reviews related to community based family support programs including program evaluation, utilization and human resources. 4.2 Findings The findings from family support are organized into five categories: Program dimensions and their effects Types of programs Large-scale Canadian programs

47

Parent involvement Different Children

4.2.1 Program Dimensions And Their Effects Looking across the range of parent programs, they seem to be an answer to Maos 1956 dictum to Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend. There are many variations in family/parent programs. Often programs have multiple aims that go beyond fostering child development via more effective parenting. Programs also may address parental needs, with a variety of goals from fostering parental literacy, to improving mental health, reducing social isolation, and increasing the employability of parents. These aims may also have the secondary aim of helping children by helping their parents. The dimensions across which programs vary can be summarized in terms of Ecological Locus, Developmental Focus and Program Characteristics. Ecological Locus Ecological Locus refers to how a program fits into the social systems and community surrounding the child. It can be defined by program location, target population, who the participants/staff are and how they interact. The parent may be targeted in isolation, the child may be included in parent training through parent-child interaction, or the child may be targeted in separate but parallel child programming. In some cases, such as behaviour management and literacy, Early Childhood teachers may be trained along with parents in a common approach. The intended population may be universal (all children across different neighborhoods or within heterogeneous neighborhoods), or may be targeted (generally to high-risk groups within homogeneous neighborhoods, although some programs have been evaluated in middle class neighborhoods). Finally, the location of the programming may be in the home, the school, in other community centres or a combination of these locations. Developmental Focus Parent programs may focus on different developmental domains in children and stages from prenatal to infancy to preschool and transition to school. They also vary in what they aim at in the parents development, from specific parenting skills, to teaching skills, to relationship-building, or even empowerment. Program Characteristics Program characteristics include intensity (frequency and duration); delivery mode (e.g., face-to-face, group, individual, self-instruction, media), delivery approach and content (e.g., instructional and skills-oriented, constructivist, relationship-building, specificity of content, etc.); and staffing (e.g., professional, paraprofessional). Parent programs may be more or less integrated with child services such as kindergarten, child care and other supports for children in two-generational combinations. In fact, in most instances, parent support and education programs are integrated with child programs, making it extraordinarily difficult to assess the separate contribution of the parent program.

48

Because programs are so varied, broad summaries of what is known about these programs tend to be abstract and focused on program characteristics such as specificity, intensity, and whether the program involves both parents and children. The value of specificity (providing clearly specified parental knowledge or skills that should alter the childs environment for development and learning) has emerged across large-scale studies comparing more, and less, successful variants (e.g., Layzer, Goodson, Bernstein, & Price, 2001; review of Family Resource Programs), comprehensive demonstration projects (Peters et al., 2000) and successful RCT trials of small-scale parenting training in literacy, (e.g., Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein, & Angell, 1994) and behaviour management (e.g., Webster-Stratton, 1998). In the successful parent-focused programs such as Webster-Strattons behaviour management program, parents are trained in behaviourist principles but the training itself, is described as collaborative. In terms of processes that mediate outcomes in successful programs, the human elements of relationships between parents and professionals and parent involvement appear to be key in a number of studies e.g., Gomby, Culross, & Behrman, 1999; Pelletier & Corter, 2005) Another focus for investigation has been intensity (frequency and duration of the program and distribution over time and developmental stages). In combined parent and child programming more intensity seems to be better. As noted earlier for the Abecedarian Project and for the Chicago Parent-Child Centers, dose-response relations with more participation leading to better outcomes have been found However, metaanalyses of some programming focused on parents suggests that programs designed with a moderate number of contacts are more effective than those with larger numbers of contacts. This suggestion of a Goldilocks phenomenon (inverted U-shaped function between intensity and effect) comes from meta-reviews of programs to foster motherinfant relationships (Bakermans-Kranenburg, Ijzendoorn, & Juffer, 2003) and to improve home environments (Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, & Bradley, 2005). One interpretation of this phenomenon is that a moderate number of sessions means that the program is more likely to have a clear focus (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al., 2005), thereby following the principle of specificity. The clearest effects in larger -scale projects appear to be achieved when there is early education programming for children along with parenting programming, often described as two-generation programs. Thus, family resource programs in the U.S., all of which offer parent programming and education, are more effective when they include direct care and education for children (Layzer et al., 2001). Home visiting approaches that combine child-focused activities with explicit attention to parent-child interaction patterns have larger effects on cognitive development (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Parent-Child centres combine child and parent programming and the evidence is that they produce tangible benefits for childrens cognitive and language development. Even effective free-standing parent programming may be enhanced when complemented by direct programming for children. For example, supplementing Webster-Strattons parent training for behaviour management with child training improves childrens peer interactions (Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2003). It makes sense that more points of attack in the childs social ecology might lead to greater depth and range of effects. This

49

principle of ecological reach also underlies programs that train both parents and teachers in the same approach, although the results are somewhat mixed (e.g., Lonigan, & Whitehurst, 1998; Gross, et al., 2003). A recent review of the impact of family support programs on child outcomes, in the Encyclopedia project of the Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development (Goodson, 2005), reported that programs with stronger effects on childrens social and emotional development share three characteristics: Targets children with a specific need that parents have identified Staff are professional rather than paraprofessional Opportunities for parents to meeting other and provide peer support In general, helping parents identify problems and access needed services was not an effective strategy. 4.2.2 Types of Programs Which programs work (and how, for whom, and in what context)? The first thing to note is that there are many more programs than studies of what works. Although programs are quite varied, a rough grouping into family literacy programs, behaviour management, home visiting programs, and parenting centre programs allows us to conclude that there is some evidence of effectiveness in each of these areas, but there is also inconsistency in the findings and in many cases, relatively weak effects. This evidence is mainly from the U.S. although there is scattered literature from Canada and other countries including the U.K. and Australia. Family Literacy Parent programs for literacy development in young children come in two general forms. In one form - parent literacy educator - parents are trained and deliver a program to the child. Successful programs of this type include those of Whitehurst and colleagues (Whitehurst et al., 1994) and Jordan, Snow, and Porche (2000). Whitehursts small-scale studies of training parents in dialogic reading, an interactive approach to storybook reading, reveal fairly consistent and meaningful effects, mostly for targeted populations, in a number of replications across the U.S. (Zevenbergen & Whitehurst, 2003). However, longer-term impacts are not usually assessed in these studies. Studies of parent training in language development programs for young children with language disorder show some evidence of success, particularly when interventions have specific goals (Girolametto, 2004). In the second form of programming, commonly known as family literacy programs, the parent and child are both targets of the intervention. The parents own literacy development may be supported while she is also supported to educate the child or enrich the home literacy environment and the child is also supported with direct programming. These programs are therefore two-generational with overlap in program focus (literacy) for both parent and child.

50

The U.S. Federal Even Start program, established in 1990 is the major large-scale example of family literacy programs and has been evaluated in several rounds across many sites (e.g., St. Pierre, Swartz, Murray, & Deck, 1996). This approach combines adult basic education with learning activities for children who are considered higher risk than the general population served by Head Start. Although the program has continued to expand since its establishment in 1989, a control comparison in 1993 had shown that children in the program did not outperform the control group on literacy and language. More recent evaluations reveal little or no effect (e.g., St Pierre, Ricciuti & Rimdzius, 2005) and the possible explanations include insufficient participation and inadequate quality of instruction. There is scattered evidence of effectiveness in smaller trials of family literacy approaches. Brief interventions targeting parents and young children during pediatric clinic visits have been reported to have short term effects (Diener, Wright, & Julian, 2003). Findings on TLC3, a Canadian demonstration project with varied programming at a number of national sites are reported to be promising (Martin, Cohen, Nerlich, & Heinz, 2004). Learning and school readiness were the focus with parent-child interactional approaches, classroom activities and consultation for children 0-6 and their parents. New programming was combined with existing programs such as Parent-Child Mother Goose and Parents as Teachers. Sites included francophone and Aboriginal communities. In general there is a huge literature on parent/family literacy programs but a relatively small proportion of this considers evidence on outcomes for children. Examples of interesting but empirically untested programs are described in another Canadian publication (Thomas, Skage, & Jackson, 1998). There is also evidence that parents can play a role in early numeracy (e.g., Bjorklund, Hubertz, & Reubens, 2004) but almost no research on effective programs despite the recent growth of family numeracy programs in schools. Home Visiting Home visiting has a long tradition in early childhood programming, including single visits by public health nurses to smooth the transition to parenting and single visits by kindergarten teachers to smooth transition to school. Over the last decade and a half, home visiting has been included in a number of more intensive and focused prevention programs and has also been used as an adjunct to other forms of programming including Early Head Start (Love et al., 2002) and parent child centres (Johnson & Walker, 1991). The extensive implementation of these approaches and a fairly large research literature have fuelled a number of reviews (e.g., Gomby, 1999; Kitzman, 2004; Sweet & Appelbaum, 2004). Olds small-scale Elmira project (Olds, Henderson, Chamberlin, & Tatelbaum, 1986) sparked an early rush of enthusiasm for home visiting approaches based on good evidence of success. The Elmira project focused on Nurse Family Practitioners (NFP) supporting the mother-child relationship and prevention of abuse in high-needs families with very intensive visiting over the early years.

51

Other home visiting programs span a variety of aims. The HIPPY program aims at literacy and other child development goals and early successes were reported for this program (Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1993). However, in widespread replication or scaling-up trials of this approach and other home-visiting strategies, mixed evidence of efficacy is reported, and when effects are found the effect sizes are often small. When programs do work, the parentpractitioner relationship often emerges as a possible mediator, and professionals as opposed to paraprofessionals are often said to be another key (Baker, Piotrkowski & Brooks-Gunn, 1998; Gomby, 1999; Gomby, 2005) On the other hand, Sweet and Appelbaums (2004) meta-review reports inconsistent connections between staffing (professional, paraprofessional and nonprofessional) and success. Although professional staffing generally appeared to be more effective than nonprofessional, paraprofessionals may be equally or more effective for some types of home visiting, such as programs targeting abuse. Sweet and Appelbaum (2004) also reported that home visiting alone can have statistically significant effects which may not be strong enough to be of practical value. Other investigators suggest that home visiting combined with centre-based programs appears to work better than home visiting alone, and better than centre-based programs alone. For example, in the evaluation of Early Head Start (Love et al., 2002) Mixed programs combining home visits and centre-based programs had broader impacts on children than either approach alone. Aside from the principle of ecological reach, the investigators also suggested that the combination offered more flexible options for engaging a variety of families, a reminder that one-size rarely fits all. Behaviour Management and Social Development There is a wide variety of programs in this area with evidence of short-term success. For example, a meta-review of attachment interventions with parents of infants and toddlers (Bakermans-Kranenburg, Ijzendoorn, & Juffer, 2003) found good evidence for changes in parent sensitivity and child security. However, these studies do not follow children to look for longer lasting benefits, for example, as children enter school. There is good, replicated evidence for parent training approaches to behaviour management in both Webster-Strattons work and in research on the Triple P programs (Sanders, Turner, & Markie-Dadds, 2002), which have been put through a variety of RCT tests by the Australian originators and is now being adapted in some regions of Canada. However, for these kinds of programs there is limited evidence on how barriers to scaling-up can be overcome, and problems are reported ranging from how organizations come together in delivering the programs to maintaining parent participation (e.g., Manby, 2005; Moran & Ghate, 2005). There are many Canadian programs that are untested and which may be pushed aside in the global evidence market, even though they could have value (e.g., Health Canadas Nobodys Perfect). Canadian research by Cunningham and colleagues goes beyond determining what works in behaviour management training to explore who is served by parent programs. In one RCT study (Cunningham, Bremner, & Boyle, 1995) both an expensive individual clinic version of parent training and an approach using group training in community sites produced improvement in parent-assessed problems, as compared to a waiting list control

52

group. However, immigrant and minority language families, as well as those who had children with the severest behaviour problems were more likely to take up the offer of community programs than to attend clinic programs. Nevertheless, subsequent study showed that putting programs into the community is not a complete answer to the outreach issue (Cunningham et al., 2000). This study asked whether parent training for handling disruptive disorders in 5-8 year-olds would work as a universally available option in elementary schools. In a sample of 1498 prospectively screened children, between 28% and 46% of parents who had reported that their child had high externalizing problems took up the intervention. Predictors of greater utilization included being a first-time parent and having a high school education. Lower participation was predicted by lone parent status, immigrant status and less engagement in extra-curricular activities in the neighborhood. Participation did not vary with low SES, family stress or dysfunction, and parental depression. Parents explained that nonparticipation resulted from being busy, having conflicting schedules, and other logistical problems. According to the investigators, these patterns suggest that there needs to be a judicious balance among universal, targeted and clinical programs. It also suggests that targeted outreach must be fine-tuned, since some risk factors promoted participation, some interfered and some were neutral. Centre-Based Parent-Child Programs These programs combine parent and child programming and they have yielded promising results. However, there are relatively few empirical studies (Houston, Chicago, and Ontario) so the relatively consistent picture of success should be viewed with caution. The results of the Houston project came from an RCT design (Johnson & Walker, 1991). In both the Chicago Child-Parent Centres (Reynolds, Mavrogenes, Bezruczko, & Hagemann, 1996) and Peel Parenting Centres in Ontario (Pelletier & Corter, 2005), the quasi-experimental designs also included examination of process, revealing that parent relationships with staff and involvement were linked to school outcomes. Confirmatory analyses also revealed dose-response relations. In the Chicago analyses, length of participation predicted the degree of benefit for children and parent involvement added to the prediction of longer-term success in school. In the Peel project, higher quality ratings across parent-child readiness centres predicted higher academic readiness scores the following year for children who were from minority language families. In all three projects, there was early education for children as well as parent support. In fact in the Peel Parenting Centres, teachers and parents delivered kindergarten curriculum together. 4.2.3 Large-Scale Programs In Canada In Canada, there is a rich history of family support/parenting programs but there is only scattered research exploring what works, how it works, and for whom. There are isolated examples of promising but under-evaluated programs such as Parenting and Family Literacy Centres operating in Toronto schools since 1982 (Gordon, 2000). There are also under-evaluated large-scale efforts including Family Resource Programs (FRPs) and Canada Action Program for Children (CAPC) programs, many of which focus on parents and the family. FRPs have a rich history of providing community-based programs for parents and children.

53

Programs are quite varied in the ecological locus and developmental focus of activities. Frequently included are activities such as parent workshops, resource and toy libraries, home visits, home play groups, prenatal classes, infant stimulation, breakfast clubs, community kitchen, clothing exchanges, child care, parent advocacy and job preparation activities. . Aims include building relationships and self-efficacy of parents and supporting and stimulating children. Despite the richness of program descriptions and qualitative evidence of parent and staff satisfaction, there are few empirical reports on effects on children in Canada. In contrast, there has been a national evaluation of federally-funded family support programs in the U.S. indicating that on average these programs have small but significant effects in certain domains such as childrens cognitive development. The evaluation included 158 studies in a meta-analysis database, allowing the investigators to tease out program predictors of effect sizes (Layzer et al., 2001). Examples of findings include bigger effect sizes on cognitive development for programs that focus on children with special needs, that provide early childhood education directly to children, and that provide group sessions with peer support for parents as opposed to home visiting. In Canada, large scale targeted programs are offered through CAPC and Canadian Prenatal Nutrition Program. In these, provincial/territorial governments provide and/or support a range home visiting programs, family resource programs, and parenting programs. There have been some local and regional evaluations but these are mainly qualitative and generally do not give concrete details on outcomes (e.g., Sylvestre, 1999) although they do show client and professional satisfaction with many of the programs. A national impact evaluation comparing communities with and without CAPC in terms of NLSCY measures did not find benefits of the CAPC programming (Boyle & Willms, 2002). Choice of outcome measures may not have tapped all of the aims of these diverse programs but the authors suggest that the programs may not have had specific enough aims to influence childrens outcomes and also note that more diffuse community inputs do not necessarily trickle down to children. Even if the overall conclusion is correct, there may be successful individual programs that remain anonymous in a world of evidence-based approaches. In contrast to these under-evaluated national programs, the Ontario Better Beginnings, Better Futures (BBBF) program is an intensively evaluated 25-year demonstration project of targeted services for families with children to age four in 5 community sites, or with children from 4 to 8 years of age in 3 community sites. All the preschool sites included home visiting but varied in the degree to which they implemented program guidelines calling for 1) services focusing on the child 2) resident and parent participation 3) service partnerships and 4) community development. Effects on children across all five preschool sites were modest with several sites reporting decreased emotional problems according to junior kindergarten teacher reports and improved performance on one of a number of direct tests of cognitive functioning. Somewhat more impressive effects on childrens development were found at two sites

54

with more specific inputs into child development. One of these sites invested considerable resources in improving child care quality and in providing a variety of informal child care options. In the second site, the majority of participants were attending a high quality child care centre by 4 years. In this same site, approaches to parenting support were also more coherent with home visiting flowing into preschool playgroups and coordinated programming with the local parent-child centre. This was the only site where parenting was observed to improve. These results suggest again that direct inputs to children are more likely to have effects on childrens outcomes than diffuse community inputs. Furthermore, coherent parent supports, connected to child programming, may amplify the effects of good programs for children. Interestingly, another general finding about site differences is that the preschool sites, as a group, had less impact on children than the sites focusing on 4 to 8 year olds. Peters et al. (2004) suggest that schools may provide a platform for allowing new supports to reach a tipping point of altering childrens environments, and that quality child care programs could serve the same function for preschoolers. 4.2.4 Parent Involvement In addition to the literature on family support or parenting programs, there is a literature on parent involvement with childrens services where involvement varies naturally and associations with outcome may be observed, or where involvement is augmented in some way and outcomes are assessed. There is great deal of this literature on schools and kindergarten (Corter & Pelletier, 2005) but there is less on child care and other preschool services for children (e.g, Castro, Bryant, Peisner-Feinberg, & Skinner, 2004). The literature is largely advocacy for more parent involvement or partnerships, along with a fair number of correlation analyses, usually showing that greater parent involvement (defined in a variety of ways) predicts better outcomes for children. However, these correlations do not show that involvement causes better outcomes. For example, an alternative interpretation is that involvement is merely a marker for other causal factors such as better parenting at home or socioeconomic advantage that contribute to good outcomes. In addition, there is evidence that parent involvement in governance is not productive in producing child outcomes, and may even be counterproductive for achieving program aims (Borman, Hewes, Overman, & Brown, 2003; White, Taylor, & Moss, 1992). On the other hand, there are the fairly consistent qualitative findings that good parent-staff relationships moderate successful parenting interventions as noted previously. 4.2.5 Family Support Programs and Different Families Culture In prevention programs, targeting to risk has been the main dimension of difference or diversity in the examination of program effects on children and their parents. In some cases there have been explicit attempts to extend tests beyond initially homogeneous risk groups to new populations and settings as has happened in some of the studies on scaling up, as in the research on home visiting (Gomby, 2005) and with some successes and failures. The literature documents that cultural barriers to program uptake and retention

55

do exist (Cunningham et al., 2000; Powell, 2005), with issues ranging from location, scheduling, program content, and parent-staff relationships. French as a Minority Language We have not located research connecting particular parenting programs with a French minority language focus to outcomes for young children. The success of some family literacy programs, which include fostering minority home languages, even when these do not match the language of instruction, suggest that there may be approaches that could apply to this context. Along this line, franco-ontarian educators interviewed in the Exemplary Kindergarten Study (Corter & Park, 1993) believed that minority French language parents could and should be supported to build French language literacy environments in the home. Boys and Girls The childs gender has not been an important dimension in most findings on program effectiveness even in programs targeting aggressive behaviours. However, a gender gap looms large on the parent side of programs. Most parent participants are women. There is also a gender gap on the staffing side of these programs (and other ELCC programs) as well. There have been some studies of how to get partners more involved in early childhood programs (e.g., McBride, Rane, & Bae, 2001), but successes are limited and impacts on children unexplored. There is no systematic evidence that the parent and staff gender gaps have detrimental outcomes for children, or that different outcomes are produced for boys and girls. However, the gender gap in staffing calls attention to the disparities in their wages and status.

5.

INTEGRATED EARLY LEARNING AND CHILD CARE SERVICES AND SYSTEMS

Integrated early learning and child care programs include a range of services and systems that are attempting to join up. The goal of integrating ELCC programs to better support the development of young children is not a new proposal but is becoming more prevalent in Canada and internationally (Corter, 2001; Pelletier & Corter, 2005; Colley, 2005; OECD, 2004). Several reports and publications discuss possibilities and actual implementation of programs that integrate the delivery of child care with other service streams such as family resource programs and kindergarten (Beach & Bertrand, 2000; Haddad, 2002; Johnson & Mathien, 1998; Kyle, 1999; OECD, 2001; Taguchi & Munkammar, 2003.). The interest in integration includes the aim of bringing parents and communities into new alliances with programs to support children. 5.1 ELCC Integration Research The emerging literature documenting ELCC integration is diverse, reflecting different perspectives and understanding of integration. This review includes:

56

A limited number of peer-reviewed articles that report on the impact of service integration on child outcomes and family (some of which are included in earlier sections of this review); Descriptive studies that document the process of service integration Large-scale service and system integration research, community-level reports that combine child outcome, socio-economic characteristics and developmental resources to create an integrated understanding of childrens early environments. (Typically, Canadian community early child development reports include data from the Early Development Instrument as a measure of first five years of development before entry into Grade One.) Policy analysis reports prepared for government, professional and academic publications

Much of the literature on early learning and child care integration is rooted in large and small scale demonstration research initiatives that use quantitative and qualitative methods to study the implementation, process and impact of integrating early learning and child care programs. Better Beginnings, Better Futures (discussed earlier in section 4) was an ambitious comprehensive, community-based research demonstration project for young children and their families living in eight disadvantaged communities in Ontario. Begun in the early 1990s, the initial goals included service integration. The comprehensive small, rigourous early intervention studies described in earlier sections of this review are also integrated approaches that combined child-centred programming with family support programs (for example, the Abecedarian program and the Perry Preschool Program). Toronto First Duty is a research demonstration project designed to measure the impact and describe the process of ELCC program integration in five communities (Corter et al., 2002). Several large-scale demonstration projects in Canada and elsewhere are attempting to integrate ELCC programs and have mounted extensive research studies to monitor the process and the impact on children, families and communities. For example: Sure Start in the United Kingdom is integrating early education, child care, health and family support programs to support children, families and communities. Sure Start local programs are based in areas of disadvantage and serve children under four years and their families. Sure Start began in 1999 and initial implementation and impact findings from the national evaluation study have been released. Smart Start in North Carolina is a state-wide initiative that is aiming to enhance child care centre quality and ensure partnerships with family support programs. Launched in the early 1990s, researchers have examined the impact on program quality, development of cross-sectoral partnerships and child outcomes ,

57

Healthy Babies Healthy Children is an Ontario-wide program launched in 1998. It is primarily a family support program that was intended to be a catalyst for communitylevel service integration - particularly health and social services and community plans (Hill, 1998; Wade & Fordham, 2005). Research findings have documented the process and preliminary findings related to impact. Community Action Programs for Children (CAPC) are joint collaborations among family support and early childhood agencies and programs. Individual program and across program and jurisdiction research provide some information although (as noted earlier in this review) the initiative is under evaluated to date.

The interest in the integration of programs between education and child care was stimulated in recent years by the OECD Thematic Reviews of Early Childhood Education and Care. The thematic reviews cover early childhood education and care in 18 countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium (two reports), Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States conducted between 1997 and 2005. To summarize the findings of the review, the OECD published Starting Strong (2001), a comparative analysis of major policy developments and issues in twelve OECD countries from 1997 to 1999. The review highlights innovative approaches and proposed policy options with regard to social context, access and quality that can be adapted to varied country circumstances wishing to promote equitable access to quality early childhood education and care. Community-level research in Canada is considering the impact of the interdependent mix of community places, ELCC programs and networks on childrens development and social infrastructure (Hanvey, 2004). These initiatives include the Community Asset Mapping Project in British Columbia (Hertzman, 2002) and the federal governments Understanding Early Years project. 5.2 Findings The findings related to the integration of ELCC programs and systems are organized into five categories Impact of integration on children and families Process of integration Community early child development reporting System integration Child care and kindergarten 5.2.1 Impact of Integration on Child Development and Families Many early learning and child care initiatives identify improved child outcomes, particularly readiness for school, as a goal. Yet few research studies on integrated early learning and care have reported on child development outcomes. Findings to date are only able to suggest associations and are not conclusive. All of these studies identify the need for further research.

58

One international study of early years integration studies concluded that integrated care and education programs were beneficial for children from birth to six, particularly for children facing multiple risks (Penn et al, 2004). The North Carolina Smart Start initiative reports that children who are attending Smart Start centres to do better on measures of cognitive, language and social skills, regardless of family or cultural background (Smart Start Evaluation Team 2003). In the British study of preschool education, researchers reported that children who attended integrated early learning and care programs and those who attended nursery schools made better intellectual progress by the time they entered primary school than did children who attended regular child care centres, supervised family child care or other combinations of non-parental care and early education programs (Sylva et al, 2003). Toronto First Duty early findings report that parenting capacity (including reported confidence in helping learning at home and involvement with the school) was greater at the First Duty sites than in schools with similar socioeconomic characteristics and traditional early childhood programs (e.g., child care centres and/or family support programming) on site (Toronto First Duty Research Team, 2004; Patel & Corter, 2005).

In Ontario, a web-based survey of human service agencies providing programs to young children and their families found that higher levels of service integration among social services and public health programs for children and families appear to have a positive impact on the delivery of services (Ryan & Robinson, 2005). The results were unrelated to the respondents' personal beliefs about service integration. 5.2.2 Process of Integration Integration is a general term that has several different meanings. It may refer only to different types of services working alongside one another, in adjacent spaces, loosely coordinated, but without any significant change; or it may mean a coherent service equally accessible to all potential users, with a common costing, staffing, health, pedagogic and curricular framework for all programs. Or, it may mean combining care and health (or welfare), but not care and education programs. Coordination-Collaboration-Consolidation Continuum The goal for resolving the fragmentation of the childs day requires more than coordination; it requires both structural and conceptual integration. But the route to achieving it will, in all likelihood, involve a process of greater coordination and collaboration ultimately leading to full integration. Several service integration initiatives have developed a continuum scale to measure the integration process (Konrad, 1996; Ryan & Robinson, 2002 in Browne et al., 2004; Toronto First Duty Research Team, 2003; Vanderwoerd, 1996). Typically the continuum begins at the minimal and informal end with activities such as information sharing and

59

communication, moves through co-operation to cooperation and collaboration and finally to integration or consolidation of services, programs and agencies. The Service Integration Scale developed in Ontario as part of the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children Program uses a variation of this continuum (Ryan, 2005) A recent study about how service providers perceive and understand service integration in Ontario reports that is usually defined as a process along an integration continuum defined by five domains: awareness, communication, cooperation, collaboration and fusion (Ryan, 2005). Developing New Programs Versus Service Integration Without clear incentives to integrate existing services the tendency is to develop new programs without changing the existing service structures or operations. For example, the project proposal for Better Beginnings Better Futures (BBBF), prepared in 1989, recommended an integrated model for primary prevention. It stated within a given community, services to children and families must blend and unite. Integration at a minimum means service providers will develop common goals, objectives and collaborative plans for meeting these intents. Conceptually, the integrated model moves beyond coordination of service to a full integration of service planning and delivery. (Ontario Ministry of Community Services, 1989; p. 111). The document called for an integration of systems providing prenatal/infant development programs with preschool programs and an integration of systems providing preschool programs with the primary school system at both the local and corporate level. A second document describes seven major characteristics in 1994 (Peters & Crill Russell, 1994) including Integration: Successful prevention programs link with other programs, schools and community activities. This requires developing common goals, objectives and collaborative plans for sharing human, financial and material resources (p. 3). Between the project design in 1989 to the end of the initial five-year implementation in 1998, the emphasis shifted from integration (blending and uniting programs & services) to linking local services and finally to partnerships to enhance services. There does not appear to have been a shift of resources, financial or human, from service agencies to local BBBF programs. While BBBF was funded and supported by up to five ministries, there were no changes in the program systems operated by those ministries. Local services (schools, child care, child welfare, childrens mental health, Public Health Unit) continued to report to their respective ministries and funding remained within traditional mechanisms. There were no new provincial policy directives to support or encourage service integration in the BBBF communities. Early findings reports for Sure Start in Britain (National Evaluation of Sure Start Team, 2002) and Toronto First Duty (Toronto First Duty Team, 2004) found that starting new program activities was easier than joining up existing ones. Integrated Models of Service Delivery South-East Grey Community Organization (SEGCO) was established in rural Ontario as a delivery model that could offer accessible, sustainable child care, junior kindergarten and family support services in a rural community (Ferguson & Murray (1998) It created a hub model to deliver a slate of programs and services tailored to the communitys

60

requirement. The disbursement of funding and the organization of staffing are done geographically, rather than on a program-to-program basis (Grey County Board of Education, 1996). SEGCO has become a significant model for early childhood services. It has been formally recognized by the Childrens Aid Society as a partner in the prevention of child abuse. It is featured as a case study in Canadian family resource programs: Supporting families, children, and communities (Kyle & Kellerman, 1998). As well, it was the sole exemplar of a community-based and community-created early child development and parenting program in the Ontario Early Years Study (McCain & Mustard, 1999). Despite its rural setting, the SEGCO integrated hub model influenced the initial design of Toronto First Duty (Corter et al., 2002). The Toronto First Duty is a demonstration research project that aims to integrate and expand early education, family support and child care activities in five neighbourhoods. It is designed to demonstrate and study how existing early childhood and family programs can be transformed into a system for children 0-6 years. The five sites engage in activities to bring together and integrate early years services to children and families in their respective communities. The combined resources of all partners now support 30 different early years activities serving children in the five sites. The activities and number of children served continue to increase. The evaluation of Toronto First Duty provides ongoing information on the progress of integrated learning and care. Data points include intake and tracking of the participation of children and families, surveys of staff and parents, focus groups of parents and children, scan of policy impact, economic analysis, environmental observation, organizational change and direct child observation. Human Resources The direction of service and program integration has significant implications for human resources. Most policy proposals for integrated or seamless early learning and child care programs identify the human resource issue as critical to resolve if integration activities are to succeed. One Canadian study surveyed parents, kindergarten teachers, and child care centre teachers to identify their top priority objectives for children in each group and their response to an integrated child care/kindergarten service delivery mode (Johnson & Mathien, 1998). Parents were more enthusiastic about the proposed model than were teachers and child care staff. Parents, kindergarten teachers and child care staff identified similar priority objectives. Despite different training streams, kindergarten teachers and child care staff share a similar knowledge base and values. Parents perceived that kindergarten programs are more academic and promote early learning to a greater extent than child care settings. Early findings from Toronto First Duty indicate that there are similar knowledge bases, including goals for childrens learning and development, importance of early experiences and environments and the primacy of families in the lives of young children among practitioners but different pedagogical approaches (Toronto First Duty Team, 2004; Ioannone & Corter, 2005). Front-line staff recognize that significant professional and

61

labour issues must be resolved if integration of early childhood programs is to move forward. Some proposals include recommendations for a common ECE/teacher credential that could be recognized in both systems and serve to blend the two sectors together (Bertrand, 2001). The review of the literature is compiled as a preliminary research phase of a feasibility study to consider the development of a transdisciplinary undergraduate degree program in Child Studies (Lohans, 2002). Findings indicate a number of logistical barriers in bringing together the teacher education, social work and early childhood education postsecondary education streams. Implementation of a crossdiscipline early childhood credential that would be recognized in education and child care/ECE settings will require flexible entry points and delivery models to address a number of logistical issues. One of the greatest barriers to such changes may be inertia and investment in the status quo. More preliminary research is needed to consider the experiences of other human resource integration initiatives before proceeding with a common training qualification. 5.2.3 Community Early Child Development Reporting Several Canadian initiatives aim to develop community capacity to organize priorities and service delivery. Reporting on community-level child development indicators and outcomes is a proposed strategy to build synergy across communities and allow a more integrated, holistic service delivery system to emerge (Connors & Brink, 1999; Trojman et al., 2001; Hertzman, 2002) For example the Understanding the Early Years project included a community component that was intended to provide community organizations research and community information about existing resources, child development and family and community environments. The information is intended to promote increased collaboration for early childhood programs among community organizations and shared planning for a joint action plan for the allocation of resources for early childhood programs (Conners & Brink, 1999). Using Data The process of gathering needed evidence about why coordinated services are important and what an effective integration process looks like presents a significant challenge for system-building efforts because of the difficulty of getting good and informative data, yet presentation of such data is a key part of garnering support. In Canada there is increasing interest in the idea of community readiness to support children. The Early Development Instrument (EDI) data provide a useful broad picture of how kindergarten children are doing in specific regions and communities, which, in turn, can inform planning, research and policies. The EDI views readiness as a measurable construct depicting the state of children in kindergarten. The questionnaire is scored by the five developmental domains. The bottom 10% of scores on the EDI is used as a cutoff for vulnerability status. This means that children who fall below the 10th percentile are determined to be vulnerable in terms of school readiness. The EDI is a population or group level measure. Although the EDI is completed for each individual child, it is interpreted at the group level (i.e., for a whole class, school or neighbourhood). There

62

should be a minimum of 35 children within each group or neighbourhood sample (Smit Alex & Grant, 2005). Community Mapping Community mapping is a tool that can enhance community capacity to support children and families, including the provision of early learning and child care programs. Maps allow volumes of data to be presented in an easily understood format that illustrates the relationships between factors that influence early child development and the allocation of developmental opportunities, including ELCC programs. The Human Early Learning Partnership (HELP) is an interdisciplinary collaborative research network that hosts the Early Child Development Mapping Project that brings together academic, government and community partners to better understand early childhood development in British Columbia neighbourhoods. To date, HELP has mapped child development measures, socio-economic circumstances and community assets and resources in partnership with local coalitions in 491 BC neighbourhoods (HELP, 2005). Understanding Early Years (UEY) is a national research initiative supported by the federal government. It is based in the belief that communities will use community specific research to make the case for the allocation of resources to provide opportunities for young children. Data are collected in the community about what resources are available, childrens readiness to learn at school entry (using the EDI) and child, family and community context using the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. The data are reported at the community level and attempt to give a moving picture about how children are doing at school entry and what resources are available in that community to support early child development. Thirteen communities in Canada have been involved in this initiative and another 100 communities will become UEY communities over the next three to five years. Five of the sites are participating in an extensive program review that will provide detailed case studies of how the data are interpreted and used and what changes take place (Ritch, 2005). To date, there have been no reports of the impact on child outcomes as measured by community EDI or NLSCY surveys and measures. Impact on Children, Families and Communities Community reporting of early child development has highlighted information about the distribution of vulnerable children in regions across Canada. In most communities the neighbourhoods that have the highest proportion of vulnerable children are usually not the neighbourhoods that have the greatest absolute numbers of vulnerable children. While the highest risk for vulnerability is often found in the poorest neighbourhoods, most of the total number of vulnerable children are spread more thinly across more affluent neighbourhoods (Hertzman, 2002). The ECD Mapping Project in British Columbia is reported to have influenced over 110 projects in 41 school districts (Mort, 2004) including increased programming and partnerships and linkages among early childhood professionals.

63

Community early child development reporting has been recommended as a strategy to support integrated early child development planning. Using EDI results as a baseline, communities can set targets to reduce inequalities in childrens development at the local, regional and/or provincial level (HELP, 2005). For instance in Vancouver (Hertzman, 2002) the inequality of percentages of vulnerable children (children likely to have difficulties in meeting academic and/or behavioural expectations in grade one) in Vancouver nieghbourhoods ranged from 6% to 38%. In Toronto the range is similar for children attending junior kindergarten in the public schools (City of Toronto, 2004). Approximately less than 10% of children had difficulties in one-third of the schools while more than 25 percent of the children had difficulties in one third of the schools. Both cities can now set targets to reduce the gap in how children are doing in some neighbourhoods compared to others. The EDI in context with other demographic, child outcome, administrative data about services and programs and socioeconomic data provides a way to track if integrated community ELCC initiatives seem to make a difference. The review of UEY concluded that the initial five sites did disseminate research evidence as a catalyst for community action. Individuals, organizations, groups and governments used research evidence from the project for capacity building and mobilization processes (Ritch, 2005). Willms (2005) has suggested that community reporting could help mobilize resources in low-income communities to reduce inequities in childrens readiness for school learning. The emergent research to date suggests that a community approach to monitoring and tracking early child development involves a high degree of inter-sectoral collaboration, multi-disciplinary approaches, coordination of programs and services and stronger community support networks (Hanvey, 2004). 5.2.4 System Integration An integrated system of early learning, child care and family support programs is often promoted as a method to combine better availability, affordability and quality in programs for young children and families (Beach & Bertrand, 2000; Child and Youth Officer for British Columbia, 2005; Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, 2003; Johnson & Mathien, 1998; McCain & Mustard, 1999; Mustard & McCain, 2002; Taguchi & Munkammar, 2003). In Canada the 1999, the Early Years Study (McCain & Mustard, 1999) proposed a plan for the integration of all early child development programs into a network of communitybased early child development and parenting programs, which would be available to all young children and their families in five years. The report documents the needs for a system of early child development supports, the research rationale including an extensive overview of recent biological and social science research, how children are doing, what communities are doing and what previous reports have (including many of those identified earlier in this document) recommended. The recommendations of the Early Years Study are consistent with those of other reports over the past 20 years but are presented in a compelling framework and context that gained considerable public

64

attention in Ontario, across Canada and internationally. The report is somewhat like a chameleon. Its intent and recommendations can be interpreted quite differently and are used to support very different visions and proposals for early childhood and family programs. Two major National Research Council reports in the U.S. recommended the integration of child care and education. What do we mean by child care? It is not just day care, given the growing numbers of children who require supervision while their parents work nontraditional and shifting hours. It is also not just care. Beneficial outcomes for children in child care are associated with settings that provide both nurturance and support for early learning and language development. Accordingly, the previous distinctions between early education or preschool and day care have unraveled. (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000, p. 299) Education and care in the early years are two sides of the same coin. Research suggests that secure attachment improves both social competence and the ability to exploit learning opportunities Young children who are living in circumstances that place them at greater risk for school failure - including poverty, low level of maternal education, maternal depression, and other factors that can limit their access to opportunities and resources that enhance learning and development - are much more likely to succeed in school if they attend well-planned, high-quality early childhood programs (National Research Council, 2001, pp. 306, 308) In Canada and the United States, numerous policy studies and reports recommend the coordination and/or amalgamation of fragmented programs and systems into a more holistic approach to early learning and child care. The proposals can be considered in two categories: alignment/coordination and consolidation. A few examples follow. Alignment and Coordination State Early Childhood Technical Assistance Network and the Build Initiative propose an early learning system that is a system of systems including health and nutrition system, special needs/early intervention systems, family support systems and early learning and education system (Bruner, Wright, Gebhard & Hibbard, 2004). Health care, child welfare and special education already exist but need better coordination while child care, preschool and family support must be constructed as systems through the coordination of existing program administrative units, funding and regulations. Leaders with vision and a collaborative approach are identified as critical to making a governance structure work. The Child and Youth Officer for British Columbia (2005) has recommended a neighbourhood hub approach that will encourage local child care, family support, family health, and early intervention programs to work coordinate efforts, possibly co-locating in primary school space. The report stipulates that regulated child care should be a central component of the hubs and that a funding envelope with appropriate accountability mechanisms should be given to community tables for planning and program delivery.

65

A community-research project conducted from 2003 to 2004 found promising practices in three groups of First Nations in Canada that are working to coordinate early child development programs. The findings suggest a model of ELCC that views the programs as a hook for mobilizing community involvement in strategies to support young children and families and as a hub for organizing coordinated, intersectoral service delivery (Ball, 2005). Consolidation In 2004 La Commission nationale des parents francophones conducted a pan-Canadian tour to determine the needs of its members and their communities related to early child development. The tour identified strong support for an integrated services model that was summarized as universal access to high quality, affordable services within a community structure managed by parents (Lafreniere-Davis, 2005). Similar conclusions had been reached in multiple stakeholder consultations among fracophones in Ontario (Deloitte & Touche, 2000). Nine OECD countries have now integrated their entire ECEC systems for children from birth to age 6 under one government department and now regard early childhood education and care as an essential part of preparation of children for public school, an important component of the supports to families with special attention to those with employed parents, and as a venue for identifying children and families who will need special services (OECD, 2001). There has been very little research and evaluation of these system changes. The OECD thematic reviews considered curriculum issues in national policy making for integrated ELCC. Much consensus is found across the countries reviewed in terms of curricular principles and aspirations, and with regard to official content. Differences emerge, however, in the practice of curriculum, especially with respect to the emphasis placed on broad developmental goals or on focused cognitive skills. From this and other differences, two broad approaches to curriculum and pedagogy can be discerned: the approach adopted in the social pedagogy tradition and the traditional pre-primary school approach. The broad features of each system are described, but a caveat is raised about excessive contrasts being drawn as exceptions to the rule are found in each tradition. As discussed earlier in the kindergarten section of this review, major and common obstacles to curriculum quality and implementation are structural failings (lack of financing, unfavourable child/staff ratios, poorly qualified and poorly remunerated staff) and inadequate pedagogical theory and practice. Against this background, three emerging issues are discussed: accountability and the new learning standards; the expansion of literacy practices and the re-positioning of educators in the early childhood field. Some options for progress are proposed for consideration. New Zealand has developed an integrated curriculum framework (Smith, 2005), integrating education and care into the education system in 1986. The New Zealand curriculum, Te Whariki, has become an important element in the integration of care and education, which was developed in a bicultural partnership with Maori. The aims of Te

66

Whariki include: well-being; belonging; contribution; communication and exploration. Implementation requires staff understanding of theory and reflective practice. It has been incorporated into teacher education, professional development and ECE resources. More recently, the New Zealand Government has developed a strategic plan emphasizing improving quality and collaborative relationships. Although divisions still exist, integration is based on theory, philosophy, research and political action. Status, recognition and support for ECE have increased greatly and the system has moved from an ad hoc to a planned approach. 5.2.5 Child Care and Kindergarten The division for four- and five-year-old children between care in child care centres and education in kindergarten is a focus for attention from several policy studies in Canada and internationally. In most Canadian jurisdictions, the division is quite apparent as the same children often participate in both systems at different times in the day. The transitions between two early learning and child care environments are often identified as disruptive for children and inconvenient and cumbersome for parents (Johnson & Mathien, 1998; Lero, Goelman, Pence, Brockman & Nutall, 1992) The OECD reports (Doherty, Friendly & Beach, 2003; OECD, 2004) focused attention on the problems created by the two solitudes: education and child care. The OECD review team stressed the need to heal the rift between kindergarten programs and child care and emphasized the need to: Build bridges between child care and kindergarten education, with the aim of integrating ECEC both at ground level and at policy and management levels(OECD, 2004, p.7). In preparation for moving towards the seamless day model of integration, Johnson and Mathien conducted a study (1998) that compared kindergarten and child care programs in New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Alberta (Johnson & Mathien, 1998). The study investigated how kindergarten and child care combine to meet the needs of children and families. It documented similarities and differences in kindergarten and child care. It obtained the views of parents, teachers, child care staff and key informants on current early childhood education and prospects for the future. Parents, educators and policymakers were asked to give their opinions on a new program model. The model was described as providing a combination of full-day, year-round care and education programs through the school system for children of kindergarten age, using trained teachers and early childhood educators and incorporating parental choice on the length of the day. Three-quarters of parents supported an integrated program which would provide a combination of full-day, year-round care and education programs through the school system for children of kindergarten age. No parents valued the current split provision. The parents were even more favourable if there was no fee, if the program involved more government funding and if all 4- and 5-year-olds could attend. Teachers and child care staff were less supportive of a new integrated model. The study found that program integration of child care and education may cost marginally less per child than the costs for two separate programs.

67

6.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND EARLY LEARNING

Todays young children are growing up in a landscape of interactive media. Both television and computers have extended their target audience programming down to infancy. Programs such as Teletubbies and Baby Einstein are designed to appeal to babies and toddlers and a myriad of others are targeted to preschoolers. Although interactive media permeate childrens lives, their effects are not well understood. For many years, research was concerned with whether media in itself, usually television, was good or bad for children. Its education potential was acknowledged as well as the impact of inappropriate content and its colonization of play and other real experience. As the pace of technological change quickens, descriptive studies of young children and technology context are likely to be outdated in a matter of a few years. By time effective programs based on RCT trials are disseminated, they may not apply to new cohorts of children as technology and children change. There is a fairly extensive literature focused on the amount of time children spend watching television, and, to a lesser extent, to the time they spend on the internet and playing video games. Higher television viewing has been associated with higher literacy achievement in preschoolers from low SES families but not for children who are advantaged. (Searls, Mead & Ward, 1985). Perhaps that is because children from all backgrounds watch more educational programs when they are under 6 with the highest levels of viewing among 2 -3 year olds (Wright et al., 2000). At this age, children are less likely to be involved in an ELCC program and therefore may watch television more. Generally, children 6 and under spend about 2 hours a day on screen media - television, computers and video games Children as young as 2-3 years old are reported to spend an average of 20 minutes a day on the computer (Rideout, Vandewater & Wartella, 2003). Even at this age, boys spend more time on video games than do girls although there are no differences in their engagement with other screen media. As with television, children under 6 play more educational video and computer games than do older children. Socioeconomic gaps with regard to home access to various media exist, but are narrowing (US Department of Commerce, 2002). Research with regard to the effects of technology on learning is inconclusive. From more than 50 years of television research, we know that content is more significant than medium. In other words, children learn from high quality television programs, do not benefit particularly from solely entertainment content, and may be harmed by violent content. (Houston, 2004). There has been much concern about the negative impact of violence and other inappropriate content in screen media. The literature shows a positive link between violent interactive media such as video games and aggressive behaviour. (Anderson & Bushman, 2001) and also that there is an increase in effect size over time that is that the games are becoming more violent and also affecting children more, or both (Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Sherry 2001).

68

Research on interactivity and learning is mixed. The nature of interactivity itself is not well understood; nor are the specific aspects of interactivity that support learning. Research on the effects of talking books on literacy in young children are mixed. While some aspects of literacy seemed to be supported (phonological awareness), others (word reading) did not (Chera & Wood, 2003). Young children are attracted to the interactive elements in talking books but this can interfere with their interest in decoding text and understanding of the story (deJong & Bus, 2002). Empirical research on the effects of interactive media on young children is still thin; at the same time, technology continues to evolve and pervade children's lives Considering how technology might be used in parenting support programs, some of the effective parenting programs have used video as a supplement or even as a primary medium of training. Direct comparisons suggest a combination of video and face-to-face training work best. Broader ways of educating parents through new forms of information communication technology have not yet appeared in the mainstream research literature on early childhood. Given the challenges of Canadian geography, the potential for virtual face-to-face groups and modeling could be explored in extending some the successful group training/centre based programs developed in urban settings. In looking to the future, it should be noted that the research literature to date does not address how parents might interact with their young children using ICT to foster learning.

7.

MATERNITY AND PARENTAL LEAVE

Over one hundred countries, including virtually all industrialized countries have adopted parental leave policies (Kamerman, 1991). Canada, with virtually a full-year of paid combined maternity (available to eligible mothers) and parental leave (available to eligible employed mothers and fathers) (i.e., those with more than 600 hours paid employment in the past year) is amongst the more generous countries measured by length of leave, although not generous in benefit levels. The United States, with only 12 weeks of unpaid leave for employed mothers working for employers having more than 49 employees and who have worked at least 1250 hours in the last year, is amongst the least generous countries. Maternity and parental leave provisions are expected to have complex effects on family decisions and outcomes. Maternity and parental leave provisions, with job guarantees, are designed to encourage labour force participation of pre-birth women, to increase labour force attachment of mothers, and simultaneously to permit some balancing of the competing demands of work and family. As Lero (2003) argues, we expect that the effects of maternal employment on very young children will be related to the stresses on and underlying preferences of mothers, whether they decide to return to work or to stay at home.

69

There has been a considerable amount of research in the U.S. on the effects of maternal employment in a childs first year on concurrent and later child outcomes. Only recently have these studies begun to control for the selection effects of mothers into employment vs. non-employment or into working long hours vs. shorter hours. Naturally enough, mothers (and their children) who decide to return to work early and work long hours are not the same as mothers who make opposite decisions. Recent studies (Desai et al., 1989; Blau & Grossberg, 1992; Parcel & Menaghan, 1994) with controls for these selection effects have sometimes found modest negative effects of maternal employment in a childs first year (offset by benefits of employment in the ensuing years). Other studies (Brooks-Gunn, Han & Waldfogel, 2002; Ruhm, 2004) have found stronger negative effects. For instance, Ruhm found a small negative effect of mothers early employment on childs verbal ability at 3 and 4 years and a larger negative effect on reading and math achievement at 5 and 6 years, with no offsetting positive effects of employment after the childs first year. There have been few studies of the potential positive effects of parental leave. Winegarden & Bracy (1995) found that entitlement to paid leave is negatively correlated with infant mortality. Ruhm (2000) found a similar decrease in infant and young child mortality rates because of parental leave. These studies do not look at other child outcomes. The objectives of governments in designing their maternity and parental leave and benefit policies are not uniform across countries. Some countries who offer particularly long leaves (e.g., 3 years) but do not offer job guarantees and place little priority on leave for fathers apparently have the objective of encouraging young mothers to stay out of the labour force. Other countries (e.g., Sweden) place priority on encouraging both mothers labour force attachment and more equal participation in parenting and parenting leaves by women and men. Instead of offering a multi-year leave, Sweden allows parents to use a component of leave over the first 8 years of the childs life. This allows parents to reduce work time in the first years of a childs life while maintaining their previous employment.

8.

TRENDS AND ISSUES

The review of ELCC and impact on childrens early learning and development in Canada identifies a number of trends and issues. 8.1 ELCC Program Design Most of the current research on ELCC does not lend itself well to answering questions about best practices to facilitate child development or learning. Most of the research focuses not on specific techniques, curricula and program designs for ELCC programs but on assessing the effects on measures of child development of type of child care, quality of interactions and environments in child care, and amount of child care used. There are exceptions, to be sure, but findings about specific techniques, curricula and program designs have typically not been well tested and debated in existing research.

70

Therefore, most research conclusions about best practices to facilitate learning and development remain preliminary and incompletely tested. Testing alternative program designs is a key component of the future research agenda on learning and development in early childhood. Although many of these factors are correlated with child care quality, it is unclear whether the link is causal. Further, the size of the impact of each variable on quality, or on eventual child development, is largely unknown. This makes it possible for policy makers to know what are the components of an ideal child care system, but does not provide information about the best tradeoffs to make when resources are scarce, nor the degree of complementarity among different inputs. Nor does existing research provide evidence about the costs and benefits of different inputs to quality. 8.2 Missed Opportunities The federal government committed significant public funding to the development of ELCC and broader ECD programs and initiatives through the Early Child Development Agreement in 2000, Multilateral Framework for Early Learning and Child Care in 2003 and the bilateral agreements in 2005. However, even if these agreements continue there are no agreements or mechanisms to collect common data on how these resources are allocated or what the impact is on children, families and communities. The natural experiment of studying 13 emerging systems across Canada is an opportunity to study the efficacy of different ELCC programs and systems. The OECD review team (2004) noted that Canadian research initiatives and directives were piecemeal. The review recommended an annual or biennial policy review as a means of focusing attention on policy issues and of confronting current practices with upto-date research and evaluation. Regular policy reviews provide an opportunity for research institutes and universities to tender for major research and to organize research more nationally. Given the potential importance of research within the context of changes in public funding the review recommends: Regular policy review and research cycle led by government and mobilizing the academic research community Public accountability mechanisms to monitor funding allocations and service provision across provincial/territorial jurisdictions Independent and regular evaluation of larger programs such as Aboriginal Head Start Annual review of policy and data in each province and territory.

8.3 Aboriginal ELCC An important issue in kindergarten curriculum in Canada concerns Aboriginal programs, which should be developed with the goal of preserving language and cultural identity. Curriculum documents for the northern territories in Canada devote considerable attention to Aboriginal customs and language. Should this kind of attention be paid to other cultural and linguistic groups in Canada, particularly in light of the current immigration policies and movement toward increasing the number of immigrants to Canada?

71

8.4 Programs for Four- and Five-Year-Olds Kindergarten programs are practically universal; therefore, statistical analysis of the effects of kindergarten is not bedeviled by confusion with family selection effects. Kindergarten (and junior kindergarten in Ontario) should be an important location for research on the effects of program variations on child development and learning. Little effort has been made to specify the influential aspects of intervention programs. The quality and intensity of these programs appear to be important to their success, but the contribution of other attributes (age of child served, concurrent parent support programs, curriculum, demographic characteristics of group of children served) is uncertain. There is inconsistent evidence about whether complementary parent programs are important in the effects on children of child care interventions. There is some evidence that child-centred programs are preferable to teacher-centred ones, but that a wide range of curricular models might have positive effects (but this certainly requires more investigation). Further, it is uncertain whether the age of entry to these programs is of key importance. 8.5 Community Early Child Development Reporting Canada is investing public funding and efforts in community-driven processes intended to forge collaborations among initiatives and services for young children and families at the local level. Understanding Early Years across Canada, cross-sectoral coalitions across British Columbia and Parent-Child Coalitions in Manitoba are nurturing community processes that are envisioned as a mechanism for more effective local planning for early child and family programs. To date, the emphasis has been on providing information and support while relying on community initiative and direction to build the early child development system. It is unknown if these efforts will be effective in creating an ELCC system and/or improving early childhood learning and development outcomes. At the community and provincial level, child care policy, administration and management appear to be operating on a parallel track to community ECD activities. Therefore the inclusion of existing and expanded licensed child care in community early child development reporting activities seems to be problematic with out accompanying provincial policy. Because of the extent of community early child development reporting, there is a need to monitor the impact on programs, children and families. Is community early child development reporting increasing quality and/or quantity of programming? Does the process seem to be related to be related to improvements in child development outcomes or parenting capacity?

9.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

Throughout this review we have noted the relatively small amount of Canadian research on early childhood programs and their effects on childrens learning and development.

72

There are scattered studies, but they dont reach critical mass. This contrasts with the substantial international empirical literature, much of it from U.S., with several decades and waves of research on child care and parenting programs. There is also considerable U.S. research on kindergarten, although it is less coherent than the research on child care and parent programs. Research on integrated programs is just emerging in North America but there is a body of relevant policy research focused on the OECD counties. Before coming to our conclusions on Canadian research priorities for early childhood programs and learning, we review some of the methodological issues in existing empirical research, identifying problems to be avoided and promising methods. A major focus is how to identify causes of good outcomes. The weaknesses of simple correlational analyses of early childhood programs are duly noted and the strengths of randomized control trials (RCTs) and alternative designs are described. Another focus is on understanding how program effects are mediated and moderated. In other words, what are the mediating processes that carry programs into the everyday lives of children and families and that lead to positive outcomes? What are the factors that moderate or qualify success- what works for whom in what contexts? These issues are considered mainly in terms of child care and family support programs since the literature on these programs is more extensive. Beyond these questions about programs and the factors that make them effective, we also note the role of research in answering questions about implementation, replication, expansion and adaptation of effective programs. With respect to these kinds of questions, policy research as well as empirical investigation is important. Consideration of these kinds of issues is a prelude to proposals about how a Canadian research agenda should be built. We note that now is a unique time of opportunity to build a research agenda that drives Canadian policy forward. 9.1 The challenges of identifying causal links between programs and child outcomes The existing child care research illustrates the challenges of finding causal connections between child care experience, or program qualities, and outcomes for children. As we noted in the earlier chapter, a first wave of research did not find evidence that child care harmed children. A second wave explored correlations between child care characteristics and various child outcomes. A third wave of research of current research uses more sophisticated methods and better data- with more subjects, more measures and longitudinal perspectives. The primary difference in the current wave is that it attempts to convincingly demonstrate causal links between different characteristics of child care and various child outcomes. Earlier correlational research did find associations but questions about cause remained. The difficulties in interpreting correlational child care research arise from two main sources. The first is the problem of omitted variables. There is a tendency across families for good things to go together or bad things to go together. So, a family using

73

preschool programs may also be living in a good neighbourhood, have a higher income, have lots of learning resources for the child, and less parental stress. Unless statistical controls are included for all of these variables, correlational analysis may falsely attribute child outcomes to attendance at preschool, when it is really more closely related to some omitted factor. Similarly, the different characteristics of child care go together, so we must have data on a wide range of child care characteristics and use more sophisticated analyses in order to separate their effects statistically. The second difficulty is related but distinct. It is the problem of selection bias. Good quality child care does not randomly happen to children. Families who choose it and who are willing to make the financial sacrifice to pay for it, may be different from other families (even if demographics such as family income, education, etc. are the same!). If good quality care is associated with good child outcomes, but no controls for selection have been included in the analysis, we may reach the wrong conclusions. It may be that difficult-to-observe family qualities such as parental competence or willingness to sacrifice are really the prime causal factors and that high child care quality would not have the same effect for children in other families. Participation in other early childhood services such as parenting programs carries the same potential for selection bias. Other complications in interpreting research are not limited to correlational designs. A common issue is whether measures adequately tap the child outcomes of interest. For example, learning cuts across the psychological domains of cognition, language, emotion and social behaviour; and health and physical development may also be of interest. Each of these domains is multidimensional. A comprehensive study will have multiple scales measuring these factors, with scales varying according to the age of the child. Another common challenge for research is that child development is longitudinal; it unfolds over time and in new settings. Perhaps child care will have immediate effects but no long-term effects, or weak immediate effects but cumulatively strong long-term effects, or negative immediate effects (less co-operative with teacher) but positive longterm effects (more independent, more innovative). Even if it is possible to disentangle child care from other factors, it is still necessary to have the data to analyze the course of development over a considerable period. It is also true that the magnitude of positive or negative effects can only really be judged in the context of their effects on the childs entire life. This means that at least some studies must have funding and organization lasting over a considerable number of years to provide a full picture. The potential complexity of effects over time also stems from the fact that the pathways connecting programs to child outcomes may be indirect, as well as direct. Thus, early childhood programs provide direct learning opportunities for children but they may also affect families and change the day-to-day lives of parents, which may also eventually affect children. For example, if high quality child care reduces parental stress and fosters feelings of efficacy and involvement, parents may be able to provide more optimal home environments for their children. This means that comprehensive research must explore

74

the processes linking programs and outcomes over time and with multiple measures of family impact as well as child outcomes. Although the issues above are described in relation to child care research, they generally apply to research on other types of early childhood programs. For example, in studies of parent involvement with EC services, more involved parents are shown to have children with better outcomes. However, these correlations do not show cause. Omitted variables, such as general parental competence, may account for the correlation. Similarly, in studies of parent or family support programs, children whose parents elect to take part may have better outcomes than other children. However, selection bias may mean that factors other than the program may explain the difference. 9.2 Strategies for clarifying effects of child care and other early childhood programs Establishing policies that optimize effects of programs requires understanding what causes what. There is no single best solution to the statistical difficulties of clarifying cause, but there are a number of strategies that can be used to control for the effects of the family and other non-program factors on child development, so that the effects of child care and other programs can be estimated. One obvious possibility is the random assignment experiment or randomized control trial (RCT). For example, children could be randomly assigned to child care arrangements of different levels of quality or employing different curricula. Unfortunately, there are problems with random assignment experiments. First, there are ethical barriers. Obviously, it would be unacceptable to randomly assign children to poor quality care although random assignment to other variations such as curriculum approach is possible. Second, there may be sampling bias in who agrees to take part in research, and who continues to participate after random assignment to different conditions. Third, experiments are expensive, especially when continued over considerable time and often involve small samples of children from a particular sub-population (e.g., disadvantaged children in a particular neighbourhood). This limits generalizability to the population of interest (e.g., the preschool child population of Canada). And small sample size also accentuates the problem of attrition over time in longitudinal experiments. A further problem with small-scale random assignment experiments is that they focus on group differences between program conditions or between program and control groups. However, different levels of quality or different curricula may affect different children differently. Ideally, we would like detailed measures that track the moderators between program characteristics and their impact on outcomes. Similarly, we would like detailed measures that monitor the mediators between programs characteristics and their impact on outcomes. These conditions are rarely met in RCTs. A second possibility is to use larger data sets collected in natural settings on families using various types of child care, with statistical controls to isolate the effects of child care characteristics. By collecting information on a wide variety of family and child covariates (things that may vary along with the choice of child care) and including these covariates in a regression which predicts some aspect of child development (ideally

75

measured pre and post-care experience), the resulting estimate of the effect of child care characteristics will be cleaner. However, there are problems with using statistical controls, too. The problem of selection bias is not eliminated. Accounting for family education, income, marital status and other basic demographic characteristics will not be sufficient to produce unbiased estimates of child cares effects, since factors like parental competence and motivation may be critical omitted variables. Including detailed measures of home environment and family functioning, as in the NICHD data base, will help control for selection bias, but most data sets do not have this level of information. Further, when variables such as family characteristics and child care quality are highly correlated, there are statistical problems even if very good controls are available. In such a regression, it is only the (small) part of quality variation that is uncorrelated with family characteristics that is tested against outcomes. This can reduce the chances of finding real quality effects. A third possibility is to use natural experiments, or other forms of quasi-experiments, to estimate the effects of early childhood programs on various aspects of child development. These analyses build on naturally occurring situations that bring families into a type of program or quality of child care that they would not normally have used. Three examples would be the Quebec $5/7 per day child care reforms, families becoming eligible for lowincome child care subsidy, and introduction of junior kindergarten services in much of Ontario. Control groups for these treatments would be similar families in other provinces/areas who were not eligible because of variations in policy or implementation. Statistical controls for any systematic differences between the treatment and control groups are still required, but the natural policy variations should make the child care decision or program participation less correlated with family factors. When and if Canadas jurisdictions engage in policy experiments in child care, there may be good opportunities for using natural experimental techniques to estimate the effects of child care. 9.3 The need to understand the process and context for program effects In addition to identifying program effects in the context of particular studies employing the designs above, we need to know the proximal processes that make the programs work. As noted earlier, there may be immediate, day-to-day learning opportunities for children, or more indirect pathways of influence such as effects on parents, which in turn affect children. We also need to understand how programs operate in different contexts with different populations and neighborhood settings. Some of this level of analysis is being delivered in the latest wave of child care research (e.g., the NICHD study) where large scale data bases permit sophisticated analysis of pathways. The current wave of family support/parenting program literature illustrates other strategies for getting inside the black box of program effects. There are a few examples of small scale RCTs that include detailed measures of proximal changes in parenting and childrens environments, which may mediate program effects. There are sophisticated quasi-experiments with detailed measures and sophisticated, conceptually-based analysis strategies specifically designed to explore the pathways for program effects. There are qualitative studies done in tandem with quantitative investigations that help to understand

76

why programs do and dont work. These include qualitative analyses of how the major actors interpret the programs they are engaged in (including professionals, parents, and, yes, even children). The examination of process is also beginning to lead to crossfertilization from research traditions beyond the traditional early childhood literature. One such area is program evaluation and its use of logic models, which clearly specify inputs, outputs and mediators. Another contributing field is the evaluation literature on CCIs (Complex Community Initiatives), since integrated, two-generation early childhood programs may fit the definition of CCIs. The relevant conceptual contributions from this field include description of theories of change on the part of program designers and practitioners and the analysis of professional, organizational, and community change required to deliver services in new ways (Weiss, 1995). Despite the methodological progress in the latest waves of research on child care and family support, we still know little about the day-to-day processes in successful programs that change childrens environments significantly enough to change their lives. Furthermore, most early childhood programs in the Canada are untested in ways that go beyond client satisfaction. Simply importing branded programs with the RCT-seal of approval will not solve the problem since implementation, adaptation to new contexts, and continuous monitoring of results are necessary to sustained success. Practitioners on the ground need to know what makes the programs work, not just that they work. Thus we believe that the power of quantitative empirical investigations to investigate cause should be supplemented with qualitative data collection approaches that help inform process understanding, implementation and ongoing assessment. Empirical investigations should also be complemented with policy analysis. The comparative policy analyses carried out by the OECD suggest what might be possible in the Canadian context, both in terms of optimal integration of services and useful approaches to evaluation that go beyond empirical analysis.

10.

A RESEARCH AGENDA

10.1 Implications of methodological issues for the Canadian research agenda What are the implications of this discussion of methodological issues for a Canadian research agenda on child development effects of child care? On the issues of causes and their magnitudes, we trust some studies more than others. These tend to be more recent studies (for example, NICHD), funded by considerable resources which have allowed for collection of the appropriate breadth of data and for a team of researchers to spend time working on better statistical analysis. Some earlier studies such as Perry Preschool, Abecedarian, the National Day Care Study used random assignment methods that also made their results more credible. Thus, in building the Canadian agenda, we should recognize an important distinction between good-quality research and poorquality research on causal questions. Good quality research should include extensive controls for maternal, home and family characteristics. Good research should investigate the processes or mediators by which child care has its effects. Good research should include examine moderators such as community context and how different groups of families are affected. It should include qualitative measures to flesh out the picture of

77

process and context. It should provide quantitative measures of relations between identifiable and policy-relevant features of programs and identifiable features of child development, including estimates of the magnitude of effects. Good research should provide some estimates of the costs and benefits of changes to child care and education policy that it recommends. Good quality research costs more, but is a more valid and convincing basis for policy making. If we look at the evolution of debates about child care in the U.S., it is the major studies, well designed and planned intellectually, often involving groups of experienced and knowledgeable academics, that have had the most influence (e.g., Ruopp et al., 1979; Whitebook, Howes & Phillips, 1990; Helburn et al., 1995; and the NICHD study). The omnibus NLSCY has played this role in Canada in relation to more general research on children, although it does not go into depth and is not well suited to research on child care and other early childhood programs (e.g., no measures of child care cost or objective measures of quality). There are other large-scale Canadian data sets such as CNCCS, YBIC, and Grandir en qualit, but none is comparable in breadth and depth to the NICHD study in the U.S. 10.2 What kinds of additional data do we need? We need improved measures, as well as a variety of research designs as noted above, to explore causation and its mediators and moderators. We also need data for multiple purposes- for research and for the construction of indicators that permit monitoring and accountability for the accessibility, affordability and quality of child care and early learning programs for all children. Indicators and research can play a key role in strengthening ECEC policy and programs, as well as enhancing public accountability. There are three broad categories of new data instruments that would bolster large scale empirical research: A cross-sectional parent survey about the use of a wide variety of ECEC services, including information about costs, income and preferences; A survey of staff and directors at ECEC facilities, covering staff education and training, compensation, experience, program organization and characteristics, characteristics of children and families, costs, revenues and user fees charged, and onsite evaluations of quality A longitudinal or panel survey linking specific characteristics, designs and quality of ELCC programs to a wide range of child and family outcomes. There are several possible models for this data collection, from random-assignment techniques to intensive data collection techniques such as used in the NICHD studies in the U.S. The NLSCY is a rich data set that offers extensive information about children and families but lacks key data necessary to analyze issues related to the impact of ELCC programs. The NLSCY dataset could be expanded to allow study of the issues identified in this review.

78

In addition, there should be improvements in and links with provincial/territorial administrative data. For example, we should be able to identify individuals in the longitudinal data set who are using specific provincial/territorial programs. There should be improved utilization and design of some existing data sources such as school readiness testing, kindergarten attendance data collected by school boards, the Consumer Price Index. There should be regular collection and publication of a Canadian child care policy and program database. This database would track innovations in program and policy design across Canada, providing a basis for analysis of program effectiveness. There should be a program of special support to ELCC research in Canada. And there should be a participatory body established to provide leadership in design and monitoring of data collection and research support in ELCC. 10.3 What are the topics for investigation? The range of possible topics for ELCC programs and child care research in Canada is very broad; developing priorities for research is more than usually important. We believe the key priority for research should be to determine which practices work best in child care/preschool/nursery school/kindergarten/parent programs/ parental leave to facilitate childrens development and to facilitate parental employment and other activities. By practices, we mean curriculum, hours and location of care, education and training of staff and different education/training combinations within the classroom, staff-child ratio, and group size. We also mean what kinds of organization of services works best including integration of child care and kindergarten, different aspects of program design, the role of government regulators and monitors, the role of accreditation, of professional associations, of unions. We also mean research on commercial vs. not-for-profit vs. public delivery of services, and research on how the working conditions, wages and benefits of caregivers affect their production of quality services for children. This would also include policy research that compares different policy and funding approaches that may be considered by different Canadian jurisdictions. The criteria for determining whether services work should include the effects on established measures of service quality and on measures of affordability and accessibility, on diverse aspects of child development, on various measures of support to family functioning, parenting, parental employment, and family incomes, as well as measures of the benefits in comparison to the costs. The criteria should encompass differences in needs of different children and families according to age of child, urban/rural situation, marital/partner status, family income level, work situation, ethnic/cultural/religious/immigrant background, and level of child ability/disability. Given these goals, examples of timely topics that might be part of our research agenda are the following: 1. research designed to evaluate the effects and the effectiveness of current policies (maternity leave and benefit, the Child Care Expense Deduction, child care subsidies directed at low income families, income supplements such as the Ontario Child Care Income Supplement, operating grants designed to increase wages)

79

2. research designed to evaluate the effects and effectiveness of new policy experiments (e.g., Quebecs 1997 child care reforms, New Brunswicks introduction of compulsory full-year kindergarten, Albertas accreditation program, the proposed Canada Child Care Allowance if it becomes law). 3. research designed to provide baseline information and to facilitate monitoring and assessment of the inputs, characteristics and outputs of ongoing child care program delivery. 4. research which addresses standard program design issues that are not yet resolved(e.g., demand side vs. supply side funding; nonprofit vs. for profit delivery; sliding parental contribution vs. flat fee vs. no parental contribution; variety in programming vs. uniformity; are religious or ethnic services acceptable/desirable? how should parents who choose not to use the services be treated?). 5. research designed to inform the likely policy and program evolution in Canada. This includes research on curriculum, research on the integration of kindergarten, care and other early childhood program, research on the appropriate length and design of maternity/parental benefits and leave, research on rural child care services, research on services for aboriginal children, research on cultural and linguistic sensitivity and variety within child care programs, research on integrated and special child care services for children with disabilities. 6. research designed to contribute to the continent-wide research agenda about child care and child development, e.g., developmental effects, effects on cognition and language, effects on behaviour, effects on low-income families, using Canadian variation/natural experiments to identify effects. 7. research designed to encourage and test curriculum innovations at the program and classroom level. Engaging practitioners and researchers in collaborative tests of new approaches at the local level can be a prelude to more systematic testing and can increase the fund of new ideas about how to improve childrens learning. Design Research (e.g., Pelletier & Corter, 2005) is a promising approach to using mixed methods in evaluating new early childhood programs. 8. Research designed to understand how new policies are put into practice. Even the most solidly evidence-based policy can fail if the implementation process is not understood. 10.4 A time of opportunity for a Canadian research agenda on early education and child care? If Canada, with increased federal funding, becomes somewhat of a laboratory of different approaches to funding, delivering and designing early learning and child care services for children, this research priority fits naturally with the opportunities available and the interest of the federal, provincial and territorial governments to figure out what is working well and which approaches are not working so well. This strategy also fits with Canadian/American differences. U.S. research covers all fronts, but much of it is

80

concerned with what the effects of child care or quality of child care or amount of child care are. This reflects the deep ambivalence that Americans have about nonmaternal child care for preschool children. These questions exist, but have been on the edges of political discourse in Canada. Most Canadians think early learning and child care experiences can be good for children. In Canada, the priority is to determine what kinds of programs, curricula, policies and forms of organization deliver the best results for services that are publicly affordable. In the U.S. most publicly supported programs are targeted but in Canada there is an interest in both universal and targeted approaches to early childhood programs and an openness to using research to help determine the best mix. The appropriate research agenda is therefore, one that is broadly designed to improve our understanding of the issues, debates and decisions about EC programs and child care and the development of children that are likely to preoccupy Canadians and Canadian governments over the next twenty years. Training early childhood to use systemic evidence in their practice can prepare them to be more than passive recipients of knowledge transfer (Ricks, 2004; Corter et al., 2005). In constructing our research agenda, we must also consider the strengths and weaknesses of the Canadian research community. This means supporting research projects that are feasible in our context while simultaneously building our research capabilities and human capital within this realm of expertise. In this context, it is important to note that there are different producers of research. Part of what we have in mind is building multidisciplinary research networks. Across Canada, there is very scattered early childhood research expertise in universities among developmental psychologists, economists, political scientists, educators, and public health and population health specialists. This expertise can be linked and amplified with Federal support. In addition to university research, there are advocates and advocacy organizations that encourage or sponsor research as part of their advocacy mission, to address particular topical issues, and to provide access to funding for these organizations. There are government branches that engage in research (e.g., researchers within Statistics Canada) for the purpose of informing policy choices they will have to make. And there are some organizations that do research on a contract basis. Some of these are non-profit social policy organizations (e.g., Canadian Policy Research Networks, Caledon Institute, YWCA, Canadian Council on Social Development). Others are organized on a commercial basis as consulting firms (e.g., MDRC , Goss-Gilroy). These organizations usually have links with academics, and may employ former or lapsed academics, former government bureaucrats, etc. Finally, organizations and professionals delivering services may be increasingly engaged in smaller scale research. This may not guide policy but it may help test how it is working at the local level and it may lead to ideas for improvements and innovations that can be tested in more formal research. The research agenda we imagine is focused but needs to be multidisciplinary, networkbased and network-building. It would not be based solely in universities, nor tied too closely to health or education. Early childhood development, care and education need to be the starting point, not an appendage.

81

11.

CONCLUSION

More depth, breadth and utility in the Canadian research agenda is needed to build effective systems to support early childhood learning and development for all children. Given the dawning federal and provincial moves to reform the early care and education system, research is urgently needed to test questions of cause, magnitude of effects and trade-offs among different options for structuring child care and for improving the effective dimensions of quality. The development of research strategies for empirically testing policy questions will increase the utility of research. These strategies include RCTs in Canadian context, sophisticated analyses of large data sets with measures on programs and childrens development, and analyses of natural experiments (Quebec) as a particular form of quasi-experiments. The questions about the effective dimensions of quality should also be applied to Kindergarten programs. Building large scale data bases in Canada should be a priority. Starting with the NLSCY and adding data on program use and quality could be a matter of tapping already existing data gathering in some areas of Canada. Using existing sources of data could also mean tapping data that some jurisdictions already collect. The research needed to inform policy goes beyond empirical methods. Policy research examining options in pan-Canadian and international context can be valuable, as policy analyses carried out by the OECD have shown. This sort of research is a crucial part of evaluating ideas on large-scale integration of early childhood services such as kindergarten and child care. Examining childrens outcomes in OECD countries with integrated services bolsters the limited empirical findings on localized Canadian demonstration projects. Informing policy is only half the story of research utility. To make good policies work, research has to show how to implement policy and how to support practice. This requires research approaches that go beyond the policy-friendly, but necessarily simplified versions of causeand-effect explored in experimental designs. Other approaches are needed to elucidate the processes that make programs work and the differences that context and diversity introduce into the mix. These include qualitative and mixedmethods studies, which can lead to better implementation designs and that can speak to practitioners about the concrete ways programs lead to success. Conceptual clarity is required in this pursuit of understanding process and context. Useful theoretical frameworks can come from many perspectives including basic developmental science, human ecology, and community health. When new programs are scaled-up and system reform is rolled out, research on organizational change and professional change can inform the process. Although we have a good research base for understanding how this can work within the school system, the challenges are much greater in early childhood education, development and care. In early childhood, there is little research and greater complexity: different professions, service organizations, and ministries of government facing the prospect of working in new ways and with each other and in closer contact with parents, often through explicit programming .

82

A research agenda will also need to explore ways to engage practitioners, not just inform them. Knowledge transfer needs to include front-line staff as knowledge builders, not just as receivers of knowledge. Good practice in early childhood includes research like attention to systematic results for children. Professional training should include understanding of research as practice and practice as research and the value of inquiry. It could engage practitioners in the model of design research with cycles of trying out small-scale program innovations, testing results and redesign. Providing a national platform for early childhood professionals to share and improve ways of implementing curriculum or programs and to contribute to innovation could be done on a large scale with websites and virtual visitations. Providing these opportunities as face-to-face meetings in local sites is crucial is crucial to success in innovative reorganization of early childhood services as well as school reform. Finally, to inform policy, the research agenda will also need to engage the public. This means local dissemination and engagement with the communities where research takes place. It also means getting the bigger picture out to an even wider audience. A variety of public awareness campaigns have put the message of the importance of the early years into the public mind. However, there is little understanding of the important ways that early childhood programs contribute to childrens learning, development and to broader social goals. Public engagement means better dissemination but also better discourse and debate on aims and evidence of where to go in early childhood.

83

REFERENCES Ackerman, D. J., & Barnett, W. S. (2005). Prepared for kindergarten: What does "readiness" mean? (Policy Report). New Jersey: Rutgers, National Institute for Early Education. Ackerman-Ross, S., & Khanna, P. (1989). The relationship of high quality day care to middle-class three-year-olds language performance. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4(1), 97116. Ahnert, L., & Lamb, M. (2003). Shared care: Establishing a balance between home and child care settings. Child Development, 74(4), 10441040. Allhusen, V., Belsky, J., Booth-LaForce, C. L., Bradley, R., Brownwell, C. A., & Burchinal, M. et al. (2004). Does class size in first grade relate to children's academic and social performance or observed classroom processes? Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 651664. Anderson, C., & Bushman, B. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal and prosocial behaviour: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12(5), 353359. Anderson, C., Nagle, W., Roberts, W., & Smith, J. (1981). Attachment to substitute caregivers as a function of center quality and caregiver involvement. Child Development, 52(1), 5361. Andersson, B.-E. (1989). Effects of public day-care: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 60(4), 857-66. Andersson, B.-E. (1992). Effects of day-care on cognitive and socioemotional competence of thirteen-year-old Swedish schoolchildren. Child Development, 63(1), 20-36. Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day care centers: Does training matter? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 10(4), 541552. Bainbridge, J., Meyers, M. K., & Tanaka, S. (2005). Who gets an early education? Family income and the enrollment of three to five year olds from 1968 to 2000. Social Science Quarterly, 86(3), 724745. Baker, M., Gruber, J., & Milligan, K. (2005). Universal childcare, maternal labor supply, and family well-being (Working Paper 11832). Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved on November 15, 2005, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11832

84

Baker, A., Piotrkowski, C.S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1998). The effects of the home instruction program for preschool youngsters (HIPPY) on children's school performance at the end of the program and one year later. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(4), 571588. Baker, M., Gruber, J., & Milligan, K. (2006, February). What can we learn from Quebecs universal child care program? (E-Brief). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: C. D. Howe Institute. Retrieved May 6, 2005 from http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_25_english.pdf Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (2005). Those who have, receive: The Matthew effect in early childhood intervention in the home environment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 126. Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 129(2), 195215. Ball, J. (2005). Early childhood care and development programs as hook and hub for inter-sectoral service delivery in First Nations communities. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1(2), 3650. Barnett, W.S. (1985). The Perry Preschool Program and Its Long-Term Effects: A Benefit-Cost Analysis. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Barnett, W.S. (1993.) Benefit-cost analysis of preschool education: Findings from a 25year follow-up. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(4), 500508. Barnett, W.S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. Future of Children, 5(3), 2550. Barnett, W.S. (1996) Lives in the Balance: Age-27 Benefit-Cost Analysis of the High /Scope Perry Preschool Program (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 11). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Foundation. Baskett, R., Bryant, K., White, W., & Rhoads, K. (2005). Half-day to full-day kindergarten: An analysis of educational change scores and demonstration of an educational research collaboration. Early Child Development and Care, 175(5), 419 430. Beach, J., & Bertrand, J. (2000). More than the sum of the parts: An early childhood development system for Canada (Occasional paper no. 12). Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto, Centre for Urban and Community Studies, Childcare Resource and Research Unit. Beach, J., Bertrand, J., Forer, B., Michal, D., & Tougas, J. (2004). Working for change: Canadas child care workforce (Labour market update study). Ottawa, Ontario,

85

Canada: Child Care Human Resources Sector Council. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.ccsc-cssge.ca/english/pdf/research/CCHRSC20main_en.pdf Belsky, J. (1986). Infant day care: A cause for concern? Zero to Three, 7(1), 17. Belsky, J. (1988a). The "effects" of infant day care reconsidered. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3(3), 235272. Belsky, J. (1988b). Infant day care and socioemotional development: The United States. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 29(4), 397406. Belsky, J. (2001). Emanuel Miller lecture: Developmental risks (still) associated with early child care. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(7), 845. Belsky, J., Steinberg, L., & Walker, A. (1981). The ecology of day care. In M. Lamb, (Ed.), Child rearing in Nontraditional Families (pp. 71-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bennett, J. (2004). The OECD thematic review of early childhood education and care policy. Educational and Child Psychology, 21(4), 67-77. Bennett, K. J., Brown, K. S., Boyle, M., Racine, Y., & Offord, D. (2003). Does low reading achievement at school entry cause conduct problems? Social Science and Medicine, 56(12), 24432448. Bergin, D. A., Osburn, V. L., & Cryan, J. R. (1996). Influence of child independence, gender, and birthdate on kindergarten teachers' recommendations for retention. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10(2), 152159. Bernhard, J. (1995). Child development, cultural diversity and the professional training of early childhood educators. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(4), 415-436. Bernhard, J., Lefebvre, L. M., & Kilbride, K. M. (1998). Troubled relationships in early childhood education: parent-teacher interactions in ethnoculturally diverse child care settings. Early Education and Development, 9(1), 1-5. Berk, L. E. (1985). Relationship of caregiver education to child-oriented attitudes, job satisfaction, and behaviors toward children. Child Care Quarterly, 14(2), 103129. Berrueta-Clement, J. R., Schweinhart, L. J., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. S., & Weikart, D. P. (1984). Changed Lives: The Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on Youths through Age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope. Bertrand, J. (2001). Working with young children In G. Cleveland, & M. Kransinsky, (Eds.), Our Childrens Future: Child Care Policy in Canada Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Bertrand, J., Beach, J., Michal, D., & Tougas, J. (2004). Literature review. In Working for a change: Canadas child care workforce (Labour Market update study). Ottawa,

86

Ontario, Canada: Child Care Human Resources Sector Council. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.ccsc-cssge.ca/english/pdf/research/CCHRSC20main_en.pdf Bjorklund, D.F., Hubertz, M.J., & Reubens, A.C. (2004). Young children's arithmetic strategies in social context: How parents contribute to children's strategy development while playing games. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(4), 347 357. Blair, C. (2002). School readiness. American Psychologist, 57(2), 111127. Blau, F. D., & Grossberg, A. J. (1992). Maternal labour supply and childrens cognitive development. Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(3), 474481. Bono, K. E. (2003). Self-regulation and school readiness: Influences of parenting, language ability and temperament. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 64(5-B), 2416. (UMI No. AAI3091473) Borge, A. I. H., Rutter, M., Ct, S., & Tremblay, R. E. (2004). Early child care and physical aggression: Differentiating social selection and social causation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(2), 367376. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125230. Bornstein, M., Hahn, C., Gist, N., & Haynes, M. (2006). Longterm cumulative effects of childcare on childrens mental development and socioemotional adjustment in a nonrisk sample: The moderating effects of gender. Early Child Care and Development 176(2), 129156. Boyle, M. H., & Willms, J. D. (2002). Impact evaluation of a national community-based program for at-risk children in Canada. Canadian Public Policy/Analyse De Politiques, 28(3), 461481. Brink, S., & Bacon, J. (2003). Understanding the early years: Research results for five pilot communities. Education Canada, 43(1), 16-17, 39. Brooks-Gunn, J. (2003). Do you believe in magic: What we can expect from early childhood intervention programs. Social Policy Report, XVII(1), 3-4, 6-7, 9, 11-14. Retrieved on May 6, 2006, from http://www.srcd.org/Documents/Publications/SPR/spr17-1.pdf Brooks-Gunn, J. (2004). Intervention and policy as change agents for young children. In P. L. Chase-Lansdale, K. Kiernan, & R. J. Friedman (Eds.), Human Development Across Lives and Generations: The Potential for Change: The Jacobs Foundation Series on Adolescence (pp. 293340). New York: Cambridge University Press.

87

Brooks-Gunn, J., Gross, R., Kraemer, D., Spiker, D., & Shapiro, S. (1992). Enhancing cognitive outcomes of low birth weight, premature infants: For whom is the intervention most effective? Pediatrics, 89(6), 12091215. Brooks-Gunn, J., Han, W., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Maternal employment and child cognitive outcomes in the first three years of life: The NICHD study of early child care. Child Development, 73(4), 10531072. Brooks-Gunn, J., McCarton, C. M., Casey, P. H., & McCormick, M. C. (1994). Early intervention in low-birth-weight premature infants: Results through age 5 years from the Infant Health and Development Program. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 272(16), 12571262. Browne, G., Roberts, J., Gafni, A., Byrne, C., Kertyzia, J., & Loney, P. (2004, May 19). Conceptualizing and validating the Human Resources Integration Measure. International Journal of Integrated Care, 4. Bruner, C. (2004, December). Many happy returns: Three economic models that make the case for school readiness (Resource brief). Des Moines, IA: State Early Childhood Policy Technical Assistance Network. Retrieved on May 6, 2006 from http://www.finebynine.org/pdf/SECPTAN_MHR_final.pdf Bruner, C., Wright, M. Gehbard, B., & Hibbard, S. (2004). Building an early learning system: The ABCs of planning and governance structures Resource Brief, Washington DC: State Early Childhood Policy Technical Assistance Network in collaboration with the Build Initiative. Burchinal, M. R., Campbell, F. A., Bryant, D. M., Wasik, B. H., & Ramey, C. T. (1997). Early intervention and mediating processes in cognitive performance of children of low-income African American families. Child Development, 68(5), 93554. Burchinal, M. R., & Cryer, D. (2003). Diversity, child care quality, and developmental outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(4), 401426. Burchinal, M. R., Follmer, A., and Bryant, D. M. (1996). The relations of maternal social support and family structure with maternal responsiveness and child outcomes among African American families. Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 1073-1083. Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Bryant, D. M., & Clifford, R. (2000). Children's social and cognitive development and child-care quality: Testing for differential associations related to poverty, gender, or ethnicity. Applied Developmental Science, 4(3), 149165. Burchinal, M. R., Ramey, S. L., Reid, M.K., and Jaccard, J. (1995). Early child care experiences and their association with family and child characteristics during middle childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(1), 33-61.

88

Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Riggins, Jr., R., Zeisel, S. L., Neebe, E., & Bryant, D. (2000). Relating quality of center-based child care to early cognitive and language development longitudinally. Child Development, 71(2), 338357. Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Bryant, D. M., Clifford, R. M. (2000). Childrens social and cognitive development and child care quality: Testing for differential associations related to poverty, gender, or ethnicity. Applied Developmental Science, 4(3), 149165. Calabrese, N. M. (2003). Developing quality sociodramatic play in the classroom for young children with language delays. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 28(3), 3336. Cameron, C., Mooney, A., & Moss, P. (2002). The child care workforce: Current conditions and future directions. Critical Social Policy, 22(4), 572595. Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achievement: A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Development: Special Issue: Children and Poverty, 65(2), 684698. Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 743772 Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 4257. Canadian Council on Learning. (2005). Developing the composite learning index: A framework. Draft discussion paper. Cassidy, D., Mims, S., Rucker, L., & Boone, S. (2003). Emergent curriculum and kindergarten readiness. Childhood Education, 79(4), 194199. Castro, D., Bryant, D., Peisner-Feinberg, E., & Skinner, M. (2004). Parent involvement in Head Start programs: the role of parent, teacher and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(3), 413430. Caughy, M., O.,DiPietro, J. A., and Strobino, D. M. (1994). Day-care participation as a protective factor in the cognitive development of low-income children. Child Development: Special Issue: Children and Poverty, 65(2), 457-471. Ceci, S. J., & Papierno, P. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap closing: When the "have-nots" gain but the "haves" gain even more. American Psychologist, 60(2), 149 160.

89

Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., & Thomasson, R. H., et al. (1993). Measuring the developmental appropriateness of kindergarten teachers' beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(3), 255276. Chera, P., & Wood, C. (2003). Animated multimedia talking books can promote phonological awareness in children beginning to read. Learning and Instruction, 13(1), 3352. Child and Youth Officer for British Columbia (2005). Special Report: Healthy Early Childhood Development in British Columbia. Victoria: Government of British Columbia. Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. (2003). Seeing and Solving the Child Care Crisis. Ottawa: Author. City of Toronto. (2004). Toronto Report Card on Children (Vol.5, Update 2003). Toronto: City of Toronto, Childrens Services Division, Children and Youth Advocate. Chin-Quee, D. S., & Scarr, S. (1994). Lack of early child care effects on school-age children's social competence and academic achievement. Early Development and Parenting, 3(2), 10312. Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1987). "The 'effects' of infant day care reconsidered" reconsidered: Risks for parents, children and researchers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3(3), 293-318. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ376702). Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1989). Infant day care: Maligned or malignant? American Psychologist, 44(2), 266273. Clarke-Stewart, A., & Allhusen, V. D. (2005). What We Know About Childcare. London: Harvard University Press. Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Gruber, C. P., & Fitzgerald, L. M. (1994). Children at Home and in Day Care. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Clarke-Stewart, K. A., Vandell, D. L., Burchinal, M., O'Brien, M., & McCartney, K. (2002). Do regulable features of child-care homes affect children's development? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(1), 5286. Cleveland, G., Colley, S., Friendly, M., Lero, D. S., & Shillington, R. (2003). The state of data on early childhood education and care in Canada: National data project (Final report). Ontario, Canada: Childcare Resource and Research Unit. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

90

Colley, S. (2005). Integration for a change: How can integration of services for kindergarten-aged children be achieved? Integration Network, Institute of Child Study, University of Toronto. Retrieved on May 6, 2006, from http://www.inproject.ca/Project_Activities/Canadian_Symposium.php Conner, S. & Brink, S. (1999). Understanding the early years: Community Impacts on Child Development. Hull, Quebec: Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.hrsdc.gc.ca/en/hip/sd/UEYPDFs/CommunityImpacts.pdf Consortium of Longitudinal Studies (Ed.). (1983). As the Twig is Bent..Lasting Effects of Preschool Programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cooper, P. M. (2005). Literacy learning and pedagogical purpose in Vivian Paleys storytelling curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Literature, 5(3), 229251. Corter, C. (2001). Integrating early childhood services and communities: A role for schools. Every Child, 7(3), 1011. Corter, C., Bertrand, J., Griffin, T., Endler, M., Pelletier, J., & McKay, D. (2002). Toronto First Duty Starting Gate Report: Implementing integrated foundations for early childhood. Toronto, ON. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.toronto.ca/firstduty/sg_report.pdf Corter, C., & Institute of Child Study staff. (2005, May 13). The Essential Research Base for Teacher Education. Teacher education for the "Schools We Need" conference, OISE/UT & Ontario College of Teachers, Toronto, Canada. Corter, C., & Park, N. (1993). What makes exemplary kindergarten programs effective?/Les programmes exemplaires de jardins d'enfants. Toronto, Canada : Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. Corter, C., & Pelletier, J. (2005). Parent and community involvement in schools: Policy panacea or pandemic? In N. Bascia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood and D. Livingstone (Eds.), International handbook of educational policy (pp. 295327). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Crockenberg, S. C. (2003). Rescuing the baby from the bathwater: How gender and temperament (may) influence how child care affects child development. Child Development, 74(4), 10341038. Cryan, J. R., Sheehan, R., Wiechel, J., & Bandy-Hedden, I. G. (1992). Success outcomes of full-day kindergarten: More positive behavior and increased achievement in the years after. Early Childhood Research Quarterly: Special Issue: Research on Kindergarten, 7(2), 187203.

91

Cummings, M. (1980) Caregiver stability and day care. Developmental Psychology, 16(1), 3137. Cunningham, C. E., Boyle, M., Offord, D., Racine, Y., Hundert, J., & Secord, M. et al. (2000). Tri-ministry study: Correlates of school-based parenting course utilization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 928933. Cunningham, C. E., Bremner, R., & Boyle, M. (1995). Large group community-based parenting programs for families of preschoolers at risk for disruptive behaviour disorders: Utilization, cost effectiveness, and outcome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36(7), 11411159. Currie, J. (2000). Early childhood intervention programs: what do we know? Working paper from the Childrens Roundtable. Washington, D. C.: Brookings Institution. Currie, J., & Thomas, D. (1995). Does Head Start Make a Difference? American Economic Review, 85(3), 341364. Currie, J. & Thomas, D. (1999). Does Head Start help Hispanic children? Journal of Public Economics, 74, 235262. da Costa, J. L., & Bell, S. (2000). Full day kindergarten at an inner city elementary school: Perceived and actual effects. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA. da Costa, J. L., & Bell, S. (2001). A comparison of the literacy effects of full day vs. halfday kindergarten. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Education Research Association, Seattle, WA. D'Arcangelo, M. (2003). On the mind of a child: A conversation with Sally Shaywitz. Educational Leadership, 60(7), 69. Deater-Deckard, K., Pinkerton, R., & Scarr, S. (1996). Child care quality and children's behavioral adjustment: A four-year longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37(8), 937948. deJong, M., & Bus, A. (2002). Quality of book-reading matters for emergent readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 144155. Deloitte & Touche. (2000). tats Gnraux sur la Petite Enfance. Report to the Ontario Ministry of Education, Toronto. DeMeis, J. L., & Stearns, E. S. (1992). Relationship of school entrance age to academic and social performance. Journal of Educational Research, 86(1), 2027.

92

Desai, S., Chase-Londsdale, P., & Michael, R. (1989) Mother or market? Effects of maternal employment on the intellectual ability of 4 year-old children. Demography, 26(4), 545561. Dettling, A. C., Gunnar, M. R., & Donzella, B. (1999). Cortisol levels of young children in full-day childcare centers: relations with age and temperament. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 24(5), 519. Dettling, A. C., Parker, S. W., Lane, S., Sebanc, A., & Gunnar, M. R. (2000). Quality of care and temperament determine changes in cortisol concentrations over the day for young children in childcare. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 25(8), 819836. Diener, M., Wright, C., & Julian, J. (2003). A pediatric literacy education program for low socioeconomic, culturally diverse families. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18(2), 149159. Dietz, C., & Wilson, B. J. (1985). Beginning school age and academic achievement. Psychology in the Schools, 22(1), 9394. DiPasquale, G. W., Moule, A. D., & Flewelling, R. W. (1980). The birthdate effect. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13(5), 234238. Doherty, G., Friendly, M., & Beach, J. (2003). OECD Thematic Review of Early Childhood Education and Care: Canadian Background Report. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Government of Canada. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.gov.pe.ca/photos/original/HSS_OECD_BG_ENG.pdf Doherty, G., Lero, D. S., Goelman, H., LaGrange, A., & Tougas, J. (2000). You Bet I Care! A Canada-wide Study on Wages, Working Conditions, and Practices in Child Care Centres. Ontario, Canada: University of Guelph, Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being. Doherty, G., Lero, D. S., Goelman, H., Tougas, J., & LaGrange, A. (2000). Caring and learning environments: Quality in regulated family child care across Canada. You Bet I Care! Ontario, Canada: University of Guelph, Centre for Families, Work and Well-Being. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED453903). Drouin, C., Bigras, N., Fournier, C., Descroisiers, H., & Bernard, S. (2004). Gardir en qualite 2003. Quebec, Canada: Institut de la Statistique de Quebec Elicker, J., & Mathur, S. (1997). What do they do all day? Comprehensive evaluation of a full-day kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(4), 459480. Estrada, P., Arsenio, W. F., Hess, R. D., & Holloway, S. D. (1987). Affective quality of the mother-child relationship: Longitudinal consequences for children's schoolrelevant cognitive functioning. Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 210215.

93

Favaro, P., Gray, E., & Russell, K. (2003). Readiness to Learn: early development instrument (EDI): Dixie Bloor Neighbourhoods, Mississauga, Ontario: understanding the early years. Canada: Success by Six Community Coalition of Peel Region. Ferguson, M., & Murray, J. (1998). Kids n us: A Review of challenges, lessons learned and strategies for community development (Independent review). Markdale, Ontario, Canada: South East Grey Community Outreach. Field, T. (1991). Quality infant day care and grade school behavior and performance. Child Development, 62(4), 863-870. Fosburg, S. (1981). Family day care in the United States: National Day Care Home Study:Volume 1: Summary of findings. (DHHS Publication number OHDS 8030282). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Frede, E. C. (1998). Preschool program quality in programs for children in poverty. In W. S. Barnett, & S. S. Boocock (Eds.), Early care and education for children in poverty: Promises, programs, and long-term results. Youth, Social Services, Schooling, and Public Policy Series: Early Childhood Education: Inquiries and Insights Series (pp. 7798). Albany: State University of New York Press. Friendly, M., & Beach, J. (2005, May). Early childhood education and care in Canada 2004 (6th edition). Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto, Childcare Resource and Research Unit. Retrieved on May 6, 2006, from http://www.childcarecanada.org/ECEC2004/#toc Friesen, B. (1992). A sociological examination of the effects of auspice on day care quality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Calgary, Department of Sociology, Canada. Fuerst, J. S., & Fuerst, D. (1993). Chicago experience with an early childhood program: The special case of the child parent center program. Educational Research, 35(3), 237253. Galinsky, E. and et al. (1994). The study of children in family child care and relative care--key findings and policy recommendations. Young Children, 50(1), 58-61. Galluzzo, D., Matheson, C., Moore, J., & Howes, C. (1990). Social orientation to adults and peers in infant day care. In N. Fox and G. Fein (Eds.), Infant Day Care: The Current Debate (pp. 183-192). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Garland, C., & White, S. (1980). Children and day nurseries. In Oxford Preschool Research Project, 4. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. Gillis, J., & Hardacre, J. (1993). Play and problem solving. In C. Corter & N. Park (Eds.), What Makes Exemplary Kindergarten Programs Effective?/Les programmes

94

exemplaires de jardins d'enfants. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. Girolametto, L. (2004). Services and programs supporting young childrens language development. In R. Tremblay, R. Barr, & R. Peters, (Eds.), Encyclopedia in Early Childhood Development. Montreal: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development. Goelman, H., & Pence, A.R. (1987). Some aspects of the relationships between family structure and child language development in three types of day care. Ablex Publishing, Westport, CT: US. Gomby, D. (2005, July). Home visitation in 2005: Outcomes for children and parents (Working paper No. 7). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Invest in Kids. Retrieved on May 6, 2006, from http://www.ced.org/docs/report/report_ivk_gomby_2005.pdf Gomby, D. (1999). Understanding evaluations of home visitation programs. The Future of Children, 9(1), 2743. Gomby, D., Culross, P., & Behrman, R. (1999). Home visiting: Recent program evaluations-analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 9(1), 426. Goodson, B. D. (2005). Parent support programs and outcomes for children. In Tremblay, R., Barr, R., & Peters, R. (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early child development (online). Montreal: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.excellence-earlychildhood.ca/documents/GoodsonANGxp.pdf Gormley, Jr., W. T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. (2005). The effects of universal pre-kindergarten on cognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 872884. Gordon, M. (2000). Home is where the start is: Parenting and family literacy centres of the Toronto District School Board. Education Canada, 39(4), 4447. Government of Manitoba (2003) EDI 2003: A snapshot of early child development in Manitoba. Winnipeg: Author, & Healthy Child Manitoba. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.gov.mb.ca/healthychild/ecd/edi2003.pdf Graue, M. (1992a) Readiness, instruction, and learning to be a kindergartener. Early Education and Development, 3(2), 92114. Graue, M. (1992b). Social interpretations of readiness for kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(2), 225243. Graue, M. (1999). Diverse perspectives on kindergarten contexts and practices. In R. C. Pianta, & M. J. Cox (Eds.), The Transition to Kindergarten. Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

95

Grey County Board of Education. (1996). Review of the Grey County Board of Education Alternative Junior Kindergarten Program. Ontario: Author. Gross, D., Fogg, L., Webster-Stratton, C., Garvey, C., Julion, W., & Grady, J. (2003). Parent training of toddlers in day care in low-income urban communities. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 261278. Guralnick, M. J. (1997). Second-generation research in the field of early intervention. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The Effectiveness of Early Intervention (pp. 320). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Books. Haddad, L. (2002). An integrated approach to early childhood education and care: A preliminary study (Occasional paper 16). Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto, Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Centre for Urban and Community Studies. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.childcarecanada.org/pubs/op16/op16.pdf Hanvey, L. (2004). Investing in social infrastructure in Canadian communities to benefit children and families. Ottawa: National Childrens Alliance. Harms, T., & Clifford, R. M. (1989). Family Day Care Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College Press. Harms, T., & Clifford, R. M. (1990). Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale New York: Teachers College Press. Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early childhood environment rating scale (revised edition) New York: Teachers College Press. Hayes, C. D., Palmer, J. L., & Zaslow, M. J. (1990). Who cares for America's children?: Child Care Policy for the 1990s. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Health Canada (2000). Aboriginal Health Canada - Projects and Participants. Ottawa: Government of Canada. National Council of Jewish Women Research Institute for Innovation in Education, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel). (1993). HIPPY: Home instruction program for preschool youngsters. Proceedings of the 1st HIPPY International Research Seminar (December 16-19, 1991), 48. Helburn, S. W. (Ed.). (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centres: Technical report. Denver, Colorado: University of Colorado, Center for Research in Economic and Social Policy. Human Early Learning Partnership. (2005). Community mapping toolbox. Vancouver: Author. Hertzman, C., McLean, S. A., Kohen, D. E., Dunn, J., & Evans, T. (2002). Early Development in Vancouver: Report of the Community Asset Mapping Project.

96

Vancouver: University of British Columbia, Human Early Learning Partnership. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/vancouverreport.pdf Hess, R. D., Holloway, S. D., Dickson, W. P., & Price, G. G. (1984). Maternal variables as predictors of children's school readiness and later achievement in vocabulary and mathematics in sixth grade. Child Development, 55(5), 1902-1912. Hiedemann, B., Joesch, J. M., & Rose, E. (2004). More daughters in child care? Child gender and the use of nonrelative child care arrangements. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1), 154168. Hill, J. (1998). Service Integration. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Community & Social Services/Ministry of Health. Hill, J. L., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2003). Sustained Effects of High Participation in an Early Intervention for Low-Birth-Weight Premature Infants. Developmental Psychology, 39(4), 730-44. Hoddinott, J., Lethbridge, L., & Phipps, S. (2002, December). Is History Destiny? Resources, Transitions, and Child Education Attainments in Canada:Final Report. (Working Paper Series. SP-551-12-02E). Ottawa: Applied Research Branch, Human Resources Development Canada. Retrieved on May 6, 2006, from http://www.sdc.gc.ca/en/cs/sp/sdc/pkrf/publications/research/2002-000185/SP-55112-02E.pdf Holloway, S. D., & Reichhart-Erickson, M. (1988). The relationship of day care quality to children's free-play behavior and social problem-solving skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3(1), 3953. Hong, G., & Raudenbush, S.W. (2005). Effects of kindergarten retention policy on children's cognitive growth in reading and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analyst, 27(3), 205224. Houston, A. (2004). In the new media as in old, context matters most. Social Policy Report XVIII, IV(4). Howes, C. (1983). Caregiver behavior in center and family day care. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 4(1), 99107. Howes, C. (1988a) Relations between early child care and schooling. Developmental Psychology, 24(1), 5357. Howes, C. (1988b). Peer interaction of young children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (Serial No. 217), 53(1). Howes, C. (2000). Social-emotional classroom climate in child care, child-teacher relationships and children's second grade peer relations. Social Development, 9(2), 191-204.

97

Howes, C., Droege, K., & Matheson, C. C. (1994). Play and communicative processes within long-and-short term friendship dyads. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(3), 401-410. Howes, C., & Hamilton, C. E. (1993). The changing experience of child care: Changes in teachers and in teacher-child relationships and childrens social competence with peers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(1), 15-32. Howes, C., & Olenick, M. (1986). Family and child care influences on toddlers compliance. Child Development, 57, 202-216. Howes, C., Phillips, D., & Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds of quality: Implications for the social development of children in center-based child care. Child Development, 63(2), 449-460. Howes, C., & Rubenstein, J. L. (1985). Determinants of toddlers' experience in day care: Age of entry and quality of setting. Child Care Quarterly, 14(2), 140-151. Howes, C., et al. (1988). Attachment and child care: Relationships with mother and caregiver. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3(4), 40316. Howes, C., Phillipsen, L. C., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2000). The consistency of perceived teacher/child relationships between preschool and kindergarten. Journal of School Psychology, 38(2), 113-132. Howes, C., & Stewart, P. (1987). Child's play with adults, toys, and peers: An examination of family and child-care influences. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 423430. Ioannone, P., & Corter, C. (2005, April 9). Early childhood professionals experiences with collaboration in integrated care and education. Poster presentation at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA. Jacobs, E., Mill, D., & Jennings, M. (2002). Quality assurance and school age care (Final Report, 1997-1999). Montral, Quebec, Canada: Concordia University, National School-Age Care Research Project. Janus, M., & Offord, D. (2000). Readiness to learn at school. ISUMA: Canadian Journal for Policy Research, 1(2). Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.isuma.net/v01n02/janus/janus_e.shtml Japel, C., Tremblay, R. E., & Ct, S. (2005). La qualit, a compte! Rsultats de ltude longitudinale du dveloppement des enfants du Qubec (LDEQ) concernant la qualit des services de garde. Institute for Research on Public Policy, 11(4). Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.irpp.org/fr/choices/archive/vol11no4.pdf

98

Johnson, L. C., & Mathien, J. (1998). Early childhood education services for kindergarten-age children in four Canadian provinces: Scope, nature, and future models. Canadian Journal of Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(4), 6980. Johnson, D. L., & Walker, T. (1991). A follow-up evaluation of the Houston parent-child development center: School performance. Journal of Early Intervention, 15(3), 226 236 Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family literacy project on kindergarten students' early literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 524546. Kamerman, S. B. (1991). Child care policies and programs: An international overview. Journal of Social Issues, 47(2), 179196. Karoly, L., Greenwood, P., Everingham, S., Hoube, J., Kilburn, R., Rydell, P., Sanders, M., & Chiesa, J. (1998). Investing in Children: What we Know and what we Dont Know About the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Kershaw, P., Forer, B., & Goelman, H. (2004). Hidden Fragility: Closure among child care services in B.C. Vancouver: CHILD & HELP. Kitzman, H. J. (2004). Effective early childhood development programs for low-income famlies: Home visiting interventions during pregnancy and early childhood. In R. E. Tremblay, & Barr, R. G., Peters, R. DeV (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early childhood development [online] (pp. 17). Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development. Retrieved May 6, 2006, from http://www.excellenceearlychildhood.ca/documents/KitzmanANGxp-Home.pdf Kohen, D., Hertzman, C., & Willms, D. (2002). The importance of quality child care. In Willms, D. (Ed.), Vulnerable Children (pp. 261-277). Edmonton, Canada: University of Alberta Press. Konrad, E. L. (1996). A multidimensional framework for conceptualizing human services integration initiatives. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 199(69), 5-19. Kontos, S., & Fiene, R. (1987). Child care quality, compliance with regulations, and childrens development. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in Child Care: What Does the Research Tell Us? (pp. 5780). Washington, DC: National Association of the Education of Young Children. Kontos, S., Howes, C., Shinn, M., & Galinsky, E. (1997). Children's experiences in family child care and relative care as a function of family income and ethnicity. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 386403. Kuklinski, M. R., & Weinstein, R. S. (2001). Classroom and developmental differences in a path model of teacher expectancy effects. Child Development, 72(5), 15541578. 99

Kyle, I. J. (1999). Rethinking carework in home child care: Providers' perspectives in context. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(08A). Kyle, I., & Kellerman, M. (1998). Case studies of Canadian family resource programs. Supporting families, children and communities. Ottawa: Canadian Association of Family Resource Programs. La Paro, K. M., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). Predicting children's competence in the early school years: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 443 484. Lafreniere-Davis, N. (2005). Early childhood in Canadas francophone minority communities:A transformative analysis. Ottawa: Commission nationale des parents francophones. Lamb, M. E., Damon, W., Sigel, I. E., & Renninger, K. A. (1998). Nonparental Child Care: Context, Quality, Correlates and Consequences. In Anonymous (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Volume 4 (5th edition) (pp. 73133). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Langlois, J. H., & Liben, L. S. (2003). Child care research: An editorial perspective. Child Development, 74(4), 969975. Lapkin, S., Hart, D., & Swain, M. (1991). Early and middle French immersion programs: French language outcomes. The Canadian Modern language Review, 48, 1140. Layzer, J. I., Goodson, B. D., Bernstein, L., & Price, C. (2001). National evaluation of family support programs: Final report: Volume A: The meta-analysis. Cambridge, MA: ABT Associates Inc. Lazar, I., & Darlington, R. B. (1982). Lasting effects of early education: A report from the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47(23), 1151. Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. DC: Economic Policy Institute. Lefebvre, P., & Merrigan, P. (2002). The effect of childcare and early education arrangements on developmental outcomes of young children. Canadian Public Policy, 28(2), 159186. Lero, D. (2003). Research on parental leave policies and childrens development: Implications for policy makers and service providers. In R. Tremblay, R. Barr, & R, Peters (Eds.), Encyclopedia in Early Childhood Development. Montreal: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development.

100

Lero, D., Pence, A., Shields, M., Brockman, L., & Goelman, H. (1992). Parental work patterns and child care needs. Canadian national child care study. Ottawa: Statistics Canada & Health and Welfare Canada. Lipps, G. & Yiptong-Avila, J. (1999) From home to school - How Canadian children cope. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Catalogue No. 89F0117XIE Loeb, S., Fuller, B., Kagan, S. L., & Carrol, B. (2003). How welfare reform affects young children: Experimental findings from ConnecticutA research note. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 22(4), 537. Lohans, A. (2002). Working toward a transdisciplinary undergraduate program in Child Studies, University of Regina: A review of the literature. Prairie Forum: The Journal of the Canadian Plains Research Center, 27, 123. Lonigan, C. J. & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(2), 263290. Love, J. M., Constantine, J., Paulsell, D., Boller, K., Ross, C., & Raikes, H. (2004, February). The role of early head start programs in addressing the child care needs of low-income families with infants and toddlers: Influences on child care use and quality. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Retrieved on May 7, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_resrch/reports/role_ehs_cc/role_ehs_c c.pdf Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C. M., Schochet, P. Z., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Paulsell, D. et al. (2002, October). Making a difference in the lives of infants and toddlers and their families: The impacts of early head start: Volume 1: Final technical report. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Retrieved on May 7, 2006, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/ehs/ehs_resrch/reports/impacts_vol1/impacts_ vol1.pdf Luster, T. & McAdoo, H. (1996). Family and Child Influences on Educational Attainment: A Secondary Analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Data. Developmental Psychology, 32(1), 2639. Lyon, M., & Canning, P. (1995). The Atlantic day care study. Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Mount Saint Vincent University. Maccoby, E. E., & Lewis, C. C. (2003). Less day care or different day care? Child Development, 74(4), 1069-1075. Magnuson, K., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Early childhood care and education: Effects on ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. The Future of Children, 5(1), 69198.

101

Manby, M. (2005). Evaluation of the impact of the Webster-Stratton parent-child videotape series on participants in a Midlands town in 2001-2002. Children & Society 19, 316328. Martin, F., Cohen, N., Nerlich, E., & Heinz, L. (2004). Final report of the TLC3 project. Toronto: Hincks-Dellcrest Centre. Masse L., & Barnett, W. S. (2003). A Benefit Cost Analysis of the Abecedarian Program. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. McBride, B., Rane, T. R., & Bae, J. (2001). Intervening with teachers to encourage father/male involvement in early childhood programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 7783. McCain, M. & Mustard, F. (1999). The early years study: Reversing the real brain drain. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Childrens Secretariat. McCartney, K. (1984). Effect of quality of day care environment on children's language development. Developmental Psychology, 20(2), 24460. McCartney, K., Dearing, E., & Taylor, B. A. (2003). Quality Child Care Supports the Achievement of Low-Income Children: Direct and indirect Effects via Caregiving and the Home Environment. In K. McCartney (Chair), Child Care and Maternal Employment Effects in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Symposium conducted at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL. McCartney, K., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect size, practical importance, and social policy for children. Child Development, 71, 173-180. McCartney, K., Scarr, S., Phillips, D., & Grajek, S. (1985). Day care as intervention: Comparison of varying quality programs. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 6, 247-260. McCartney, K., Scarr, S., Phillips, D., Grajek, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1982). Environmental differences amongst day care centres and their effects on childrens development. In E. F. Zigler and E. W. Gordon (eds.), Day Care: Scientific and Policy Issues. Boston: Auburn House. McCarton, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Wallace, I., Bauer, C., Bennet, F., Bernbaum, J., et al. (1997). Results at age 8 years of early intervention for low-birth-weight premature infants: the Infant Health and Development Program. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(2), 126132. McLoyd, V. C. (1997). The Impact of Poverty and Low Socioeconomic Status on the Socioemotional Functioning of African-American Children and Adolescents: Mediating Effects. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

102

Meisel, S. I., & Fearon, D. S. (1999). The new leadership construct: What happens when A flat organization builds a tall tower? Journal of Management Education, 23(2), 180189. Moran, P., & Ghate, D. (2005). The effectiveness of parenting support. Children & Society, 19, 329336. Mort, J. N. (2004). The EDI Impact Study - BC School Districts: Embracing Young Children and Their Families. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Human Early Learning Partnership. Retrieved May 7, 2006, from http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/documents/EDI%20Impact%20Study%20%20Oct%201%202004.pdf Mustard, F., & McCain, M. (2002). The early years study: Three years later. Toronto: Founders Network. NAEYC (National Association for the Education of Young Children). (1984). Accreditation criteria and procedures of the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs. Position statement. Washington, DC. National Evaluation for Sure Start Team. (2002, June). Early experiences of implementing Sure Start. (Report 01). Birkbeck: University of London, Institute for the Study of Children, Families and Social Issues. Retrieved on May 7, 2006, from http://www.surestart.gov.uk/_doc/P0000118.pdf National Research Council, Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. (Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Committee on Family and Work Policies. (2003). Working Families and Growing Kids: Caring for Children and Adolescents. In E. Smolensky and J.A. Gootman, (Eds.), Board on Children, Youth and Families, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nelson, R. F. (2000). Which is the best kindergarten? Principal, 79(5), 3841. Nelson, G., Westhues, A., & MacLeod, J. (2003). A meta-analysis of longitudinal research on preschool prevention programs for children. Prevention & Treatment, 6(1) Retrieved from http://journals.apa.org/prevention Neuman, M. J., & Peer, S. (2002). Equal from the start: Promoting educational opportunity for all preschool children learning from the French experience (A welcome for every child series report). New York: French-American Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED479188)

103

NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (1996a). Characteristics of infant child care: Factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(3), 269306. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (1996b). Infant child care and attachment security: Results of the NICHD study of early child care. Infant Behavior and Development, 19(Supplement 1), 171. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (1997a). The Effects of infant child care on infant-mother attachment security: Results of the NICHD [National Institute of Child Health and Human Development] Study of Early Child Care. Child Development, 68(5), 860879. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (1997b). Familial factors associated with the characteristics of nonmaternal care for infants. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 59(2), 389408. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (1997c). Poverty and patterns of child care. In: J. Brooks-Gunn, & G. Duncan (Eds.), Consequences of Growing Up Poor (pp. 100131). New York: Russell-Sage. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (1999a). Child outcomes when child care center classes meet recommended standards for quality. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 10721077. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (1999b). Child care and mother-child interaction in the first 3 years of life. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 13991413. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (2000a). The relation of child care to cognitive and language development. Child Development, 71, 960980. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (2000b). Characteristics and quality of child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Journal of Applied Developmental Science, 4, 116135. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (2001a). Child-care and family predictors of preschool attachment and stability from infancy. Developmental Psychology, 37(6), 847862. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (2001b). Nonmaternal care and family factors in early development: An overview of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 22(5), 457492. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (2001c). Further explorations of the detected effects of quantity of early child care on socioemotional adjustment. In Early Child Care and Childrens Development Prior to School Entry. Symposium conducted at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. 104

NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (2002a). Early child care and childrens development prior to school entry: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 133164. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (2002b). Child-care structure-processoutcome: Direct and indirect effects of child-care quality on young children's development. Psychological Science, 13(3), 199206. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (2002c). Parenting and family influences when children are in child care: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (2003a). Does quality of child care affect child outcomes at age 4 1/2? Developmental Psychology, 39(3), 451469. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (2003b). Early child care and mother-child interaction from 36 months through first grade. Infant Behavior and Development, 26(3), 345370. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (2003c). Does amount of time spent in child care predict socioemotional adjustment during the transition to kindergarten? Child Development, 74, 9761005. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network (2005a). Child Care and Child Development: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. New York: The Guildford Press. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network. (2005b). Duration and developmental timing of poverty and children's cognitive and social development from birth through third grade. Child development, 76(4), 795810. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network (Ed.) (2005c). Child Care and Child Development: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. New York: The Guildford Press. NICHD, Early Child Care Research Network, & Duncan, G. J. (2003). Modeling the impacts of child care quality on childrens preschool cognitive development. Child Development, 74(5): 14541475. OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). (2001). Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care. Paris: OECD OECD, Early Childhood Education and Care Policy: Canada: Country Note, OECD Directorate for Education, 2004.

105

Olds, D., Henderson, C. R., Chamberlin, R., & Tatelbaum, R. (1986). Preventing child abuse and neglect: A randomized trial of nurse home visitation. Pediatrics, 78(1), 65 78. Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services (1989). Better Beginnings, Better Future: An Integrated Model of Primary Prevention of Emotional and Behavioural Problems. Toronto, Canada: Queens Printer for Ontario. Oppenheim, D., A. Sagi, and M. Lamb. (1988) Infant-adult attachments on the kibbutz and their relation to socioemotional development 4 years later. Developmental Psychology, 24, 427-33. Osborn, A., & Milbank, J. (1987). The Effects of Early Education. (A report from the Child Health and Education Study). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pagani L., Tremblay R. E., & Vitaro F. (1998). Does preschool help prevent delinquency in boys with a history of perinatal complications? Criminology, 36(2), 245267. Pagani, L., Larocque, D., Tremblay, R., & Lapointe, P. (2003). The impact of junior kindergarten on behaviour in elementary school children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 27, 423427. Parcel, T. & Menaghan, E. (1994). Early parental work, family social capital and early childhood outcomes. American Journal of Sociology. 99(4): 9721009. Patel, S. & Corter, C. (2005, April 9) Parents, preschool services, and engagement with schools. Poster presentation at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA. Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., & Burchinal, M. R. (1997). Relations between preschool children's child-care experiences and concurrent development: The Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 43(3), 451-477. Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., Howes, C., Kagan, S. L., Yazejian, N., Byler, P., Rustici, J., & Zelazo, J. (2000). The children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study go to school: Technical report. Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Peisner-Feinberg, E. S., Burchinal, M. R., Clifford, R. M., Culkin, M. L., Howes, C., Kagan, S. L. (2001). The relation of preschool child-care quality to children's cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Development, 72(5), 15341553. Pellegrini, A. (1992). Kindergarten children's social-cognitive status as a predictor of First-Grade success. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(4), 565577.

106

Pelletier, J. (2002). Parents come to kindergarten: A unique junior kindergarten program for four year olds and their families. Retrieved June 15, 2004 from www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/projects/fine/resources/digest/parents.html Pelletier, J. (2002). School readiness for diverse families: A unique, school based preschool intervention project involving parents. Unpublished report to the Ontario Ministry of Education. Pelletier, J., & Brent, J. M. (2002). Parent participation and children's school readiness: The effects of parental self-efficacy, cultural diversity and teacher strategies. International Journal of Early Childhood, 34(1), 4560. Pelletier, J., & Corter, C. (2005). Integration, innovation, and evaluation in school-based early childhood services. In B. Spodek, & O. Sarracho (Eds.), Integration, Innovation, and Evaluation in School-Based Early Childhood Services (3rd edition) (pp. 477496). Matwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Pelletier, J., Park, N., & Power, R. (1993). Research on excellence. In C. Corter & N. Park (Eds.), What Makes Exemplary Kindergarten Programs Effective?/Les programmes exemplaires de jardins d'enfants. Ontario Ministry of Education and Training, Toronto. Penn, H., Barreau, S., Butterworth, L., Lloyd, E., Moyles, J., & Potter, S., & Sayeed, R. (2004). What is the impact of out-of-home integrated care and education settings on children aged 0-6 and their parents? Unpublished manuscript. Peters, R. Dev., Arnold, R., Petrunka, K., Angus, D. Belanger, J., Boyce, W., et al. (2004). Better Beginnings, Better Futures: A Comprehensive, Community-based Project for Early Childhood Development. Highlights of Lessons Learned. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Better Beginning, Better Futures Research Coordination Unit Technical Report. Retrieved May 7, 2006, from http://bbbf.queensu.ca/pdfs/BBHighlights.pdf Peters, R. Dev., Arnold, R., Petrunka, K., Angus, D. E., & Brophy, K. (2000, November). Developing capacity and competence in the better beginnings, better futures communities: Short term findings report. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Better Beginnings, Better Futures Research Coordination Unit Technical Report. Peters, R. DeV. & Crill Russell, C. (1994). Better Beginnings, Better Futures Project: Model, Program and Research Overview. Toronto, Canada: Queens Printer for Ontario. Phillips, D. A. (1994). With a little help: Children in poverty and child care. In A.C. Huston (Ed.), Children in poverty: Child development and public policy (pp. 158 189). New York: Cambridge University Press. Phillips, D. A., Howes, C., & Whitebook, M. (1992). The social policy context of child care: Effects on quality. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20(1), 2551. 107

Phillips, D., McCartney, K., Scarr, S., & Howes, C. (1987). Selective review of infant day care research: A cause for concern. Zero to Three, 7(3), 1821. Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing Relationships Between Children and Teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pianta, R., & Harbers, K. (1996). Observing mother and child behavior in a problemsolving situation at school entry: Relations with academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 34(4), 307322. Pianta, R. C., Kraft-Sayre, M., Rimm-Kaufman, S., Gercke, N., & Higgins, T. (2001). Collaboration in building partnerships between families and schools: The national center for early development and learning's kindergarten transition intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16(1), 117132. Powell, D. R. (2005). Searches for what works in parenting interventions. In T. Luster, & L. Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An Ecological Perspective (2nd edition) (pp. 343373). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Powlishta, K. K., Serbin, L. A., & Doyle, A. (1994). Gender, ethnic, and body type biases: The generality of prejudice in childhood. Developmental Psychology, 30, 526536. Prescott, E., et al. (1970, July). An institutional analysis of day care program: Part II, group day care: The growth of an institution (Final report). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED043394) Puma, M., Bell, S., Coor, R., Heid, C., & Lopez, M. (2005). Head Start impact study: First year findings. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Ramey, C. T., & Campbell, F. A. (1994). In A. Huston (Ed.), Poverty, early childhood education, and academic competence: The Abecedarian experiment. (pp. 190221). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ramey, C. T., Campbell, F. A, & Blair, C. (1998). Enhancing the Life Course for HighRisk Children: Results from the Abecedarian Project. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Ramey C. T., Campbell, F. A., Burchinal, M., Skinner, M. L., Gardner, D. M., & Ramey, S. L. (2000). Persistent effects of early intervention on high-fisk children and their mothers. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 214. Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist, 53(2), 109120.

108

Ready, D. D., LoGerfo, L. F., Burkam, D. T., & Lee, V. E. (2005). Explaining girls' advantage in kindergarten literacy learning: Do classroom behaviors make a difference? The Elementary School Journal, 106, 2138. Reynolds, A. J. (1992a). Comparing measures of parental involvement and their effects on academic achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(3), 441462. Reynolds, A. J. (1992b). Mediated effects of preschool intervention. Early Education and Development, 3(2), 139164. Reynolds, A. J. (1993). Effects of a preschool plus follow-on intervention program for children at risk. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED362288) Reynolds, A. J. (1994). Effects of a preschool plus follow-on intervention for children at risk. Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 787804. Reynolds, A. J. (2000). Success in Early Intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Reynolds, A. J. (2004). Research on early childhood interventions in the confirmatory mode. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(1), 1538. Reynolds, A. J., Chang, H., & Temple, J. A. (1998). Early childhood intervention and juvenile delinquency. an exploratory analysis of the Chicago child-parent centers. Evaluation Review, 22(3), 341372. Reynolds, A. J., Mavrogenes, N. A., Bezruczko, N., & Hagemann, M. (1996). Cognitive and family-support mediators of preschool effectiveness: A confirmatory analysis. Child development, 67(3), 1119-1140. Reynolds, A. J., & Temple, J. (1998). Extended early childhood intervention and school achievement: Age thirteen findings from the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 69, 231246. Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(18), 23392346. Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2002). Age 21 costbenefit analysis of the title I Chicago child-parent centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 267303. Ricks, F. (2004). The paradox: Research as practice and practice as research. Research Connections Canada, XI.

109

Rideout, V., Vandewater, E., & Wartella , E. (2003, Fall). Zero to six: Electronic media in the lives of infants, toddlers and preschoolers. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved May 7, 2006, from http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/Zeroto-Six-Electronic-Media-in-the-Lives-of-Infants-Toddlers-and-Preschoolers-PDF.pdf Rimm-Kaufman, S. (2004). School transition and school readiness: An outcome of early childhood development. In R. E. Tremblay, R. G. Barr & R. D. Peters (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early childhood development [online] (pp. 17). Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development. Retrieved May 7, 2006, from http://www.excellence-earlychildhood.ca/documents/Rimm-KaufmanANGxp.pdf Ritch, A. (2005). Using Research Data to Engage Communities: A Community Process Research Study of the Understanding the Early Years Pilot Sites (Working draft for review). Ottawa: Social Research and Demonstration Corporation. Roberts, J. E., Rabinowitch, S., Bryant, D. M., & Burchinal, M. R. (1989). Language skills of children with different preschool experiences. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 32(4), 77386. Rosenthal, M. K. (1988). Attitudes and behaviors of caregivers in family day care: The effects of personal background, professional support system and the immediate caregiving environment. Israel. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED306040) Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper, & L.V. Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York: Russell Sage. Royce, J. M., Lazar, I., & Darlington, R. B. (1983). Minority families, early education, and later life chances. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53(4), 706720. Rueda, R., & Yaden, D. B. (2005). The literacy education of linguistically and culturally diverse young children: An overview of outcomes, assessment, and large-scale interventions. In B. Spodek, & O. Sarracho (Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children (3rd edition) (pp. 167186). Matwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ruhm, C. (2000). Parental leave and child health. Journal of Health Economics, 19(6), 931960. Ruhm, C. (2004). Parental employment and child cognitive development. Journal of Human Resources, 39(1), 155192. Ruopp, R., Travers, R.J., Glantz, F., & Coelen, C. (1979). Children at the Center: Final Report of the National Day Care Study, Volume 1. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

110

Ryan, B., & Robinson, R. (2002). Evaluation of the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program consolidated report, end of Fiscal Year 2000-2001. Unpublished document. Prepared for Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Government of Ontario. Ryan, B. (2005). Service Integration in Ontario: Critical Insights from the Service Community. Guelph: TNS Canadian Facts. Sanders, M. R., Turner, K. M. T., & Markie-Dadds, C. (2002). The development and dissemination of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: A multilevel, evidencebased system of parenting and family support. Prevention Science, 3(3), 173-189. Schulman, K., & Barnett, W. S. (2005, March). The benefits of prekindergarten for middle-income children (Policy Report). New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. Retrieved May 7, 2006 from http://nieer.org/resources/policyreports/report3.pdf Schweinhart, L. J., Berrueta-Clement, J. R., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. S., & Weikart, D. P. (1985). Effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through Age 19: A summary. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education Quarterly, 5(2), 2635. Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. (1993). Significant Benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope. Schweinhart, L. J., Weikart, D. P., & Larner, M. B. (1986). Consequences of three preschool curriculum models through age 15. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 1986, 1545. Searls, D. T., Mead, N. A., & Ward, B. (1985). The relationship of students reading skills to TV watching, leisure time reading, and homework. Journal of Reading, 29, 158162. Seitz, V. (1990). Intervention programs for impoverished children: a comparison of educational and family support models. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of Child Development: A Research Annual: Volume 7 (pp. 73-103). London: Jessica Kingsley. Sherry, J. (2001). The effects of violent video games on aggression: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 27, 409431. Shonkoff, J., & Miesels, S. J. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention (2nd edition). New York: Cambridge University Press. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. (2000). From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

111

Slaughter, D., & Kuehne, V. (1988). Improving Black Education: Perspectives on Parent Involvement." Urban League, VII(Sumemr/Winter), 1-2. (ERIC Journal No. EJ 377 100) Smart Start Evaluation Team. (2003). Smart Start and preschool child care quality in North Carolina: Change over time and relationships to childrens readiness. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG Child Development Institute. Smit, A. J., & Grant, E. (2005). Community Mapping Toolkit. Vancouver: HELP. Smith, A. (2005). Integrating care and education in New Zealand. Presentation at The Unhurried Day: Learning and Caring Seamlessly. Toronto: University of Toronto, Institute of Child Study, Integration Network. Smolensky, E. & Gootman, J. (Eds.). (2003). Working families and growing kids: Caring for children and adolescents. Washington, DC: National Research Council, Committee on Family And Work Policies. Speer, P. W., & Esposito, C. (2000). Family problems and children's competencies over the early elementary school years. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 20(1/2), 69-84. Sroufe, L. A., Fox, N., & Pancake, V. (1983), Attachment and dependency in developmental perspective. Child Development, 54, 1615-1627. St Pierre, R. G., Ricciuti, A. E., & Rimdzius, T. A. (2005). Effects of a family literacy program on low-literate children and their parents: Findings from an evaluation of the even start family literacy program. Developmental Psychology, 41(6), 953970. St. Pierre, R. G., Swartz, J. P., Murray, S., & Deck, D. (1996). Improving family literacy: Findings from the national even start evaluation (ABT No. 10982). US: ABT Associates. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360 406. Stevenson, H. W., & Newman, R. S. (1986). Long-term prediction of achievement and attitudes in mathematics and reading. Child Development, 57(3), 646-659. Stipek, D. J. (2001). Pathways to constructive lives: The importance of early school success. In A. Bohart and D. Stipek (Eds.), Constructive and Destructive Behavior: Implications for Family, School and Society (pp. 291-315). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Stipek, D. (2002). At what age should children enter kindergarten? A question for policy makers and parents. SRCD Social Policy Report, 16(2). 112

Stipek, D. J. & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(3), 305325. Stith, S. M., & Davis, A. J. (1984). Employed mothers and family day-care substitute caregivers: A comparative analysis of infant care. Child Development, 55(4), 1340 1348. Suwalsky, J., Zaxlow, M., Klein, R., & Rabinovitch, M. (1986, August). Continuity and substitute care in relation to infant-mother attachment. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Sweet, M. A., & Appelbaum, M. I. (2004). Is home visiting an effective strategy? A meta-analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young children. Child Development, 75(5), 14351456. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Elliot, K. (2003). The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Findings from the Pre-School Period. London, England: Institute of Education, University of London and SureStart. Sylvestre, J., Ochocka, J., & Hyndman, B. (1999). Findings from the Ontario regional evaluation of the community Action programs for children. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 14(2), 29-56. Taguchi, H. L., & Munkammar, I. (2003). Consolidating governmental early childhood education and care services under the ministry of education and science: A Swedish case study. early childhood and family policy series (No. ED2003WS12; No6). France: Early Childhood and Family Education Section. Tardif, C. (1990). Lidentit socioculturelle de llve en milieu minoritaire. ducation et francophonie, 18(2). Taylor, H. G., Anselmo, M., Foreman, A. L., Schatschneider, C., & Angelopoulos, J. (2000). Utility of kindergarten teacher judgments in identifying early learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(2), 200210. Thomas, A., Skage, S., & Jackson, R. (Eds.). (1998). Family connections: 1998 directory of family literacy projects across Canada. Welland, Ontario: Soleil. Retrived May 7, 2006, from http://www.nald.ca/fulltext/family/ENGDIR.pdf Thouin, M., Corter, C. & Park, N. (1993). In C. Corter, & N. Park (Eds.), What Makes Exemplary Kindergarten Programs Effective?/Les programmes exemplaires de jardins d'enfants. Introduction. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education and Training. Tizard, B., Cooperman, O., Joseph, A., & Tizard, J. (1972). Environmental effects on language development: A study of young children in long-stay residential nurseries. Child Development, 43(2), 337358.

113

Toronto First Duty Research Team. (2003).Toronto First Duty July 2003 Progress Report. Retrieved May 7, 2006, from http://www.toronto.ca/firstduty/FDJune03Rep.pdf Toronto First Duty Research Team. (2004). Toronto First Duty June 2004 Progress Report. Retrieved May 7, 2006, from http://www.toronto.ca/firstduty/jun04_report.pdf Tourkin, S. C., Pugh, K. W., Fondelier, S. E., Parmer, R. J., Cole, C., & Jackson, B. et al. (2004). 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) (No. NCES 2004303). Tout, K., de Haan, M., Campbell, E. K., & Gunnar, M. R. (1998). Social behavior correlates of cortisol activity in child care: Gender differences and time-of-day effects. Child Development, 69(5), 12471262. Tremblay, R. E. (1996). From childhood physical aggression to adolescent maladjustment: The Montreal prevention experiment. In R. D. Peters, & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse, and Delinquency (pp. 268298). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Torjman, S., Leviten-Reid, E., Camp, C., & Makhoul, A. (2001). From Information to Application: How Communities Learn. Ottawa, Canada: Caledon Institute of Social Policy. Tonyan, H., & Howes, C. (2003). Exploring patterns in time children spend in a variety of child care activities: associations with environmental quality, ethnicity and gender. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(1), 121142. United States Department of Commerce. (2002). A nation online: How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Washington DC: US Department of Commerce. Vandell, D. L. (2004). Early child care: The known and the unknown. Merrill Palmer Quarterly Journal of Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 387414. Vandell, D. L., & Corasaniti, M. A. (1988). The relation between third graders afterschool care and social, academic and emotional functioning. Child Development 59, 868-75. Vandell, D. L., & Corasaniti, M. A. (1990a). Child care and the family: Complex contributors to child development. New Directions for Child Development, 49, 23-37. Vandell, D. L., & Corasaniti, M. A. (1990b). Variations in early child care: Do they predict subsequent social, emotional, and cognitive differences? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5(4), 555-572. Vandell, D. L., & Wolfe, B. (2000). Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and Does It Need To Be Improved? Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty. 114

Vanderlee, M. (2004). Pilot testing a causal model that includes clusters of parent, child, teacher, and classroom variables, to explore the mechanisms underlying class size effects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Vanderwoerd, J. (1996). Service provider involvement in the Onward Willows: Better Beginnings, Better Futures Project 1990-1993. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Queens University, BBBF Research Coordination Unit. Vaughan, N. (1980). The Psychological and Social Implications of the Entrance of Women into the Labor Force: An Annotated Bibliography to Source Material. Chicago, IL: Council Planning Librarians. Vukelich, C. (1994). Effects of play interventions on young children's reading of environmental print. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9(2), 153170. Vecchiotti, S. (2003). Kindergarten: An overlooked educational policy priority. Social Policy Report, 17(2), 319. Wade, J., & Fordham, J. (2005). Voices from the field: Prenatal and Postnatal Home Visiting. In R. Tremblay, R. Barr, & R. Peters (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early child development (online). Montreal: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development. Retrieved May 7, 2006, from http://www.excellenceearlychildhood.ca/documents/Wade-FordhamANG.pdf Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. (1983). Matthew effects in education. American Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 359373. Waldfogel, J. (2005). Families, work arrangements and child development. Expert Roundtable on Child Development. December 8 -9, 2005. Ottawa: Social Development Canada. Wasik, B. A., & Hindman, A. H. (2005). The implications of policy decisions on practices in early childhood education. In N. Barcia, A. Cumming, A. Datnow, K. Leithwood & D. Livingstone (Eds.), International Handbook of Educational Policy (1st edition) (pp. 115132). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Wasik, B. H., Ramey, C. T., Bryant, D. M., & Sparling, J. J. (1990). A longitudinal study of two early intervention strategies: Project CARE. Child Development, 61(6), 16821696. Watamura, S. E., Donzella, B., & Alwin, J. (2003). Morning-to-afternoon increases in cortisol concentrations for infants and toddlers at child care: Age differences and behavioral correlates. Child Development, 74(4), 10061020. Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing conduct problems in Head Start children: Strengthening parent competencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(5), 715730.

115

Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2003). Treating conduct problems and strengthening social and emotional competence in young children: The dina dinosaur treatment program. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11(3), 130143. Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J.P. Connell et al. (Eds.), New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives. Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families, Aspen Institute, New York. White, K. R., Taylor, M. J., & Moss, V. D. (1992). Does research support claims about the benefits of involving parents in early intervention programs? Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 91125. Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., & Angell, A. L. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679689. Whitebook, M., Howes, C., & Phillips, D. (1990) Who cares? Child care teachers and the quality of care in America (Final report of the National Child Care Staffing Study). Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project. Willms, J. D. (2005, December). Risk and protective factors for childhood vulnerability. Expert Roundtable on Child Development. Social Development Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Winegarden, C., & Bracy , P. (1995). Demographic consequences of maternal leave programs in industrialized countries: Evidence from fixed-effect models. Southern Economic Journal, 61(4), 10201035. Wright, J., Huston, A., Vandewater, E., Bickham, D., Scantlin, R., Kotler, J., Caplovitiz, A., Lee, J., Hofferth, S., & Finkelstein, J. (2001). American childrens use of electronic media in 1997: A national survey. Journal of Developmental Psychology, 22, 3147. Xue, Y., & Meisels, S. J. (2004). Early literacy instruction and learning in kindergarten: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal studykindergarten class of 19981999. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 191229. Xiang, Z., Schweinhart, L.J., Hohmann, C., Smith, C., Storer, E., & Oden, S. (2000). Points of light: Third year report of the Michigan School Readiness Foundation. Ypsilanti, MI: High Scope Educational Research Foundation. Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115(1), 2854.

116

Yoshikawa, H. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. Future of Children, 5(3), 5175. Zakaluk, B. L., & Straw, S. B. (2002, April). The efficacy of an extended-day kindergarten program: A report for the St. James School Division (1999-2000, 20002001). Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba, Faculty of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED468942) Zevenbergen, A. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2003). Dialogic reading: A shared picture book reading intervention for preschoolers. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On Reading Books to Children: Parents and Teachers (pp. 177200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zill, N., & Resnick, G. (2005). Role of early childhood education intervention programs in assisting children with successful transitions to school. In R. E. Tremblay, R. G. Barr & R. D. Peters (Eds.), Encyclopedia on early childhood development [online] 17). Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development. Retrieved May 7, 2006, from http://www.excellenceearlychildhood.ca/documents/Zill-ResnickANGxp.pdf

117

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special thanks go to Michelle Turiano at the Childcare Resource and Research Unit at the University of Toronto for her help in reference research and locating materials. Thanks also go to Nancy Bowen, Danielle Brown, Mandy-Lee Gagne, and Akila Venkatesh for their assistance. We also wish to acknowledge the support of the Dr. R.G.N. Laidlaw Research Centre at the Institute of Child Study and the able assistance of Christine Davidson who helped pull together the manuscript. This work was undertaken with the support of the Canadian Council on Learning, which bears no responsibility for its content. Funding was awarded to Carl Corter and Gordon Cleveland (Principal Investigators) and to Susan Colley and Janette Pelletier (Co Investigators).

118