N° EAC/17/2012
Study on the effective use of early
childhood education and care in
preventing early school leaving
Annex 1. Literature review
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers
to your questions about the European Union.
Freephone number (*):
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*)
The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone
boxes or hotels may charge you).
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014
ISBN 978-92-79-39671-7
doi: 10.2766/81487
© European Union, 2014
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
© European Union, 2014
This document has been prepared for the European Commission. However, it reflects the views only
of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of
the information contained therein.
The core research team:
Mr Rimantas Dumčius, Team Leader (PPMI)
Dr Jan Peeters, Key expert (VBJK)
Dr Nóirín Hayes, Key expert (DIT)
Mr Georges Van Landeghem, Key expert (KU Leuven)
Ms Hanna Siarova, Senior Researcher (PPMI)
Ms Laura Peciukonytė, Researcher (PPMI)
Ms Ivana Cenerić, Researcher (PPMI)
Dr Hester Hulpia, Researcher (VBJK)
Contributors Of Case Studies:
Other Contributors:
Dr Birgit Hartel (Austria)
Dr Hester Hulpia, Mr Georges Van
Landeghem, Dr Jan Peeters (Belgium)
Dr Fulvia Antonelli (Italy)
Dr Milda Brėdikytė (Finland)
Dr José-Ignacio Antón, Mrs María Luisa
García Rodríguez (Spain)
Prof. Dr Sven Persson (Sweden)
Dr Carol Anita Aubrey (United Kingdom)
Ms Laura Peciukonytė (Lithuania)
Dr Nina Pavlin-Bernardić (Croatia)
Dr Marie Paule Behar (France)
Prof. Dr Emil Buzov (Bulgaria), Dr Panayiota
Charamboulous (Cyprus), Prof. Dr Milada Rabušicová
(Czech Republic), Dr Zora Syslová (Czech Republic),
Prof. Dr Karen Pernille Hviid (Denmark), Ms Emilie
Østergaard
(Denmark),
Ms
Katrine
Barington
(Denmark), Dr Kristiina Tõnnisson (Estonia), Dr Mai
Beilmann (Estonia), Dr Bernhard Kalicki (Germany), Dr
Katerina Vassilikou (Greece), Dr Marta Korintus
(Hungary), Dr Arianna Lazzari (Italy), Dr Iveta Reinholde
(Latvia), Dr Daiva Kairienė (Lithuania), Dr Aigul Alieva
(Luxembourg), Ms Nadica Janeva (Macedonia), Dr
Valerie
Sollars
(Malta),
Ms
Wilma
Henderikse
(Netherlands), Prof. Dr Thomas Moser (Norway), Ms Kari
Jacobsen (Norway), Dr Dorota Szelewa (Poland), Dr
Maria Da Assunção Folque (Portugal), Mr Octav
Marcovici (Romania), Dr Daniel Gerbery (Slovakia), Prof.
Dr Ljubica Marjanovič Umek (Slovenia), Dr Urška
Fekonja Peklaj (Slovenia), Dr Elisabetta Pagnossin
(Switzerland), Dr Sibel Sonmez (Turkey)
Acknowledgements:
The team responsible for this report would like to thank all the interviewees, experts and the officials
in the European Commission, Member State organisations and stakeholders who contributed their
time, expertise and assistance to us during the research and writing of this report.
Contractor:
Public Policy and Management Institute
Gedimino avenue 50, LT-01110 Vilnius, Lithuania
Tel. +370 5 262 0338 ; Fax. +370 5 262 5410
http://www.ppmi.lt
Director Mr Haroldas Brožaitis
September 2014
2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .............................................................................................. 3
Tables .............................................................................................................. 4
Figures ............................................................................................................. 4
1. Objectives of the study and research questions ................................................. 5
2. What is high quality ECEC? ............................................................................. 8
2.1. Definition of ECEC .................................................................................... 8
2.2. The concept of quality ECEC ...................................................................... 9
2.2.1. Structural quality .............................................................................12
2.2.2. Process quality .................................................................................17
2.2.3. Access quality ..................................................................................19
2.2.4. Governance quality ..........................................................................22
3. Impact of ECEC on strenthening foundatons of lifelong learning ..........................26
4. Other education factors influecing children’s development .................................37
4.1. Transitions from ECEC to primary school....................................................37
4.2. Transitions between primary and secondary schools ....................................44
4.3. Educational policies during compulsory schooling ........................................47
5. Risk factors and reasons for underachievement and early school leaving .............55
5.1. Defining underachievement ......................................................................55
5.2. Defining early school leaving ....................................................................56
5.3. Risk factors and reasons for underachievement and early school leaving .......58
5.3.1. Socio-economic, family and other background factors ......................58
5.3.2. Personal traits and competences relevant for learning ......................61
5.3.3. Education system factors .................................................................63
5.3.4. Other contextual factors ...................................................................66
6. Profile of underachievers and early school leavers: characteristics and sources.....68
7. Summary of research review and introduction of analytical framework ................72
Bibliography.....................................................................................................75
September 2014
3
Tables
Table 1: Research questions ........................................................................... 6
Table 2: Proposal for a European approach to services for young children: ten
principles .......................................................................................................11
Table 3: Focus of academic and comprehensive curriculum models................16
Table 4: Features of high quality ECEC...........................................................25
Table 5: Effect magnitudes by type of early childhood development policy .....30
Table 6: The learning outcomes of high quality ECEC .....................................34
Table 7: School beginner competence profile in Austria .................................40
Table 8: Potential outcomes of transition from ECEC to school .......................44
Table 9: Problems related to transitions .........................................................45
Table 10: Summary of the factors related to successful transition..................46
Table 11: Summary of risk factors for occurrence of underachievement and/or
early school leaving .......................................................................................67
Table 12: Possible profile of an underachiever/early school leaver .................70
Figures
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure
1:
2:
3:
4:
Heckman Curve: Rates of Return to Human Capital Investment ......35
Concept of school readiness ............................................................42
Sources of underachievement .........................................................68
Conceptual framework ....................................................................73
September 2014
4
1.
Objectives of the study and research questions
The importance of high-quality education and care at early stages of child
development is accepted by the research community. Provision of universally
accessible and high-quality ECEC is likely to enrich children with necessary cognitive
and non-cognitive skills which, in turn, help them make a confident start in primary
schools and then trigger positive multiplication effects throughout the schooling
process leading further to lower early school leaving.
The aim of the study is to get a better understanding of the evidence-base behind this
hypothesis and to support the work of the European Commission and Member States,
within Education and training work programme.
Specific objectives include:



development of a state of the art conceptual framework for analysis,
reviewing existing research across Europe and beyond (all previous
research that is available in European languages – most importantly
longitudinal);
collecting new data and analysing relevant policies and their effects
across Europe;
providing recommendations for actions that could be taken at European
and national level to improve the effectiveness of ECEC services, to
promote ECEC and to contribute to the development of a more
comprehensive approach to tackling underachievement and early school
leaving.
Even though the potential of high-quality ECEC in positively influencing pupils’
performance and participation at primary school and beyond is widely discussed and
acknowledged it is challenging to establish direct links between these two factors. It is
important to recognize the potential influence of numerous other factors that might
also affect performance and participation of children at school and the quality of
provision of early education services.
Countries embrace different definitions and have different ideas of what is considered
high-quality early childhood education and care (see further Section 2.1 and 2.2). The
provision of ECEC is framed not only by the national governments’ priorities and
strategies; overall educational traditions, designs of education systems, parental leave
policies might also affect the quality of early childhood education and care services.
The effects of ECEC on children can be neutralised or reinforced further by the
transition experiences from ECEC to primary school and further steps in general
education. Educational support policies during compulsory schooling are meant to
improve the achievement of pupils and prevent early school leaving. Potentially they
might help minimise the gaps in prior schooling or the adverse effects of disadvantage
on some groups of children. The quality of primary and secondary schools might affect
the levels of children’s achievement and the successful completion of schooling
process potentially regardless of their participation in ECEC (see Section 4.3.).
One should not disregard the importance of socio-economic and family background
factors that may have a significant impact on children’s development and progression
in education system (see Section 5.3). They might either compensate to some extent
the poor educational policies or make the situation worse. For example, pupils with
September 2014
5
certain immigrant backgrounds usually fall behind their native-born peers. The
performance gap is also common between the pupils from families in a better-off and
in a disadvantaged socio-economic situation (OECD, 2010).
This variety of factors and links that may interfere into the potential relationship
between early childhood education and care and pupils’ performance and participation
at school are taken into consideration while elaborating research questions for the
current assignment.
The main research questions stemming from the terms of reference and the discussion
above are listed in the Table 1 below.
Table 1: Research questions
Links
Questions
Links between
 What constitute equitable and high-quality early childhood
overall design of
education provision?
ECEC system in the
 What types of ECEC service are practiced in Member States?
country and Factors
What policies proved to be more favourable for children’s
that define quality
development?
of ECEC
 What is the role of ECEC in strengthening foundations for
learning for children participating in it? What is the impact of
Outcomes for
ECEC on early child development and on transition to and
children of ECEC
success in primary and secondary school?

Links between
transition policies
and success at the
next educational
level (after
transition)

Links between
education-related
factors (at ISCED 13) and performance
and participation of
pupils





Relations between
children’s
competences profile
at early age and
competence profile
at primary and
secondary
educational level




Influence of other
policy factors

What is the role of transitions in children’s successful
development?
What transition mechanisms between ECEC and primary
education are used in European countries? What policies are
most favourable for children?
What is the role of ECEC and schools in facilitating children’s
transitions?
How are transitions between grades organised in European
countries? What factors determine difficulties for children in
making these transitions?
What impact do features of education system have on pupils’
performance and participation in compulsory schooling?
What types of educational support policies are practiced in
European countries?
What types of competences do under-achieving pupils/early
school leavers possess/lack in different European countries?
Are there any links between the developmental outcomes for
children that are developed by typical ECEC institutions and
types of competences that under-achieving pupils and early
school leavers typically lack?
Does quality of ECEC and smooth education process have an
impact on the level of children’s achievement and participation in
school?
What is the interplay between ECEC and further education in
terms of strengthening children’s foundations for learning?
What are the other factors (if any) that influence quality
provision of ECEC and positive children’s outcomes from ECEC?
What are the other factors that influence achievement and early
school leaving rates in different European countries?
Source: PPMI.
September 2014
6
Literature review conducted for the purposes of the current study contributes to
answering the above presented research questions. The aim of the literature review is
also to justify the conceptual framework of the project and present the existing
research evidence on the influence of ECEC on children’s further development.
September 2014
7
2. What is high quality ECEC?
2.1. Definition of ECEC
For the purposes of the current study Early Childhood Education and Care
(ECEC) is defined as all organized developmental services for young children up to
primary school age.
High quality ECEC is defined as a multi-dimensional and generic construct which
unfolds (and has to be proactively developed) in four components: governance
quality, structural quality, process quality and access quality; and leads to positive
experiences and outcomes for children.
The term “early childhood education and care” (ECEC) in its broadest sense refers to
provisions for children under compulsory school age and their families. Various reports
use different definitions of ECEC that vary in their scope: Huntsman (2008) points out
that it can be regarded as a service to parents; a way of enhancing children’s
development; and a part of a broad range of services to children and parents. As Ulla
Härkönen (2003) observes, the concept of early childhood education and care in
scientific research can be understood as a practice, a science, a subject and/or
thinking. In other words it can cover a broad field of activities and be characterised by
diverse goals, systems, strategies, curricula and target groups.
Definitions that understand ECEC in its broadest sense include all processes and
mechanisms that sustain and support development of children from birth till the age
of the start of compulsory schooling. For instance, in the OECD’s Starting Strong
definitions (OECD, 2001, 2006a, 2012b) ECEC encompasses all arrangements
providing education and care for under compulsory school age, regardless of setting,
funding, opening hours, or programme content, and policy measures aimed at
supporting optimal care and education during this (e.g., parental leave regulations).
The UNESCO (2010) definition of ECEC refers to the all organised developmental
services for young children up to compulsory school age. Those services can include
child care centres, other “care” services (e.g. day care), programs with the primary
purpose of "early childhood education" (e.g. kindergartens, nursery schools) and some
elements of family resource programmes. Other research studies focus on a narrower
field of activities provided for children and mention particular type of ECEC services.
For example, Eurydice (2009) describes ECEC as publicly subsidised and
accredited provision for children under compulsory school age (“Education” and
“care” are combined in the phrase to underline that services for young children can
combine care, developmental and learning opportunities). In his literature review
Bennett (2012) defines ECEC as all publicly funded services aiming to ensure the
well-being, health and education of young children from pre-natal to primary school
entry. All in all, there is a variety of definitions of ECEC where different types and
aspects of ECEC, such as education, physical, social and emotional care, intellectual
stimulation, health care, nutrition, partnerships with family and community, are
included and mentioned. However, although different definitions of ECEC are used in
international literature, all of them reflect an understanding of a continuum of care
and the importance of both care and education through all the early years from birth
onwards, where caring should be educational and education caring (Hayes, 2007). This
understanding is also reflected in the current study, where “early childhood
education and care” term refers to all organised developmental services for
September 2014
8
young children up to primary school entry age 1. Even though the main object of
analysis will be publicly regulated mainstream early education and care provision at
pre-school level (3-6 years), earlier services (0-3 years), special education and private
initiatives will be also taken into account where relevant and possible. The use of a
broad ECEC definition would allow taking all possible contexts into account and
exploring, checking and assessing what criteria of ECEC provision contribute to its
quality.
2.2. The concept of quality ECEC
In academic, political and public discourse there is a wide consensus that early
childhood is one of the most critical periods for cognitive as well as social
development, and for the acquisition of languages and early literacy skills. A growing
body of research recognizes the importance of quality ECEC for child well-being and
learning outcomes, as well as for broader indirect impacts on the society like reduction
of poverty and better social and economic development. The analysis of national level
literature in the area of high quality ECEC revealed that there is a widespread
understanding of quality as a multidimensional and multilevel concept in line with
international research. ECEC is considered as a means to deal with the demographic
challenges of an ageing population, to create employment by increasing women’s
labour market participation, to break cycles of disadvantage, and as a measure to
promote gender equality by reconciling work and family responsibilities. Various
literature sources highlight that all these positive impacts are conditional on quality
of ECEC (European Commission, 2011; Eurydice, 2009). As Datta Gupta and
Simonsen (2010) and Eurydice (2009) observed, only ECEC services of good quality
benefit child development, especially children most in need. Poor quality ECEC
services may have no effect or even negative effect on children’s development.
A rich body of literature provides evidence of the on-going international debate about
quality; what the aspects of the quality construct are, how they are related and how
they can be best evaluated and developed (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 1999; Dahlberg,
Moss, & Pence, 2007; Moss & Pence, 1994; Penn, 2011).
Most researchers agree that quality is a construct that is value-laden and dependent
on expectations, perspectives, discourses, practice, stakeholders and contexts. As
Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart (2003) point out “quality is not a universal concept
but depends on national curricula and cultural priorities”. Similarly, Waller (2008) by
using Mayall’s quote expresses his view that “children live and lived through
childhoods constructed for them by adult understandings of childhood and what
children are and should be”. In addition, Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence (1999) understood
“quality to be a subjective, value based, relative and dynamic concept, with the
possibility of multiple perspectives or understandings of what quality is”. While
Goealman et al. (2006) conceptualize quality as a continuum of factors that includes
distal features (e.g., regulations, policy and teacher registration requirements) and
proximal ones (e.g., child’s interactions with teachers, ratios, group size, etc.). In
general, researchers agree that quality needs to be considered at various levels as a
continuous and dynamic process involving regular reflection and review. The concept
of quality ECEC in the current study is also based on this agreement.
The debate on quality ECEC started in 1980s when the child development
perspective on quality was developed. Ceglowski & Bacigalupa (2002) also called it
1
Adjusted from UNESCO definition. UNESCO, “Early Childhood Care and Education. Regional Report. Europe
and North America. Draft“, 2010. Available at:
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001892/189211E.pdf [Accessed 15 April 2013].
September 2014
9
the perspective of researchers and professionals. Then high quality was defined as the
one which promotes optimal child outcomes in all domains of development
(Huntsman, 2008). The outcome of ECEC should be children’s wellbeing and
development in the physical, cognitive, linguistic, and socio-emotional areas. After
finishing ECEC stage, children should be (1) healthy and well-nourished, (2) securely
attached to caregivers and able to interact positively with extended family members,
peers, and teachers, (3) able to communicate in their native language with both peers
and adults, and (4) ready to learn throughout primary school (Naudeau et al., 2011).
Research, thus, turned to examining and identifying what aspects and variables of
early childhood education and care contribute to positive child development.
Two approaches – top-down and bottom-up were developed in analysing quality at
that time (Katz, 1993). Top-down approach refers to structural quality aspects and
suggests that quality can be assessed by identifying selected characteristics of the
program, the setting, the equipment, and other features, as seen by the adults in
charge of the program. While bottom-up perspective attempts to determine how the
program is actually experienced by the participating children. In other words it refers
to process quality aspects that focus on the nature of the interactions between
various stakeholders (i.e. the child and teacher, child and child, teacher and parent,
teacher and teacher, as well as the nature of centre leadership and teacher
pedagogical skills (Ishimine, Tayler, & Bennet, 2010). These two aspects were
reflected in the definitions of quality ECEC used at that time. For instance Scarr (1998)
defined “child care as [characterised by] warm, supportive interactions with adults in a
safe, healthy and stimulating environment, where early education and trusting
relationships combine to support individual children’s physical, emotional, social and
intellectual development”.
Later on other perspectives on quality emerged in the scholarly debate. Quality ECEC
started to be understood as existing “in the eyes of the beholder”, i.e. viewed from the
perspectives of different stakeholders. For example, Farquhar (1990), besides child
outcomes perspective on quality, suggested taking into account both the government
and parent perspectives on quality when providing definitions of what high quality
ECEC is. Similar views were expressed in the works of Calvert (2012), Layzer &
Goodson (2006) and da Silva & Wise (2006) where high quality ECEC was related to
the perspectives of parent, and provider. Katz (1993) and Fenech, Sumsion, &
Goodfellow (2006) noted that staff perspectives should also be reflected in the
definition of high quality ECEC. As Peeters (2009), CEDE /INVALSI (2004) notice,
quality is a negotiable construct, jointly determined by parents, childcare workers,
children, and the management boards of centres.
The emergence of these different perspectives on quality led to high quality ECEC
being considered not only as having structural and process quality characteristics, but
also aspects of governance quality, child outcomes quality and family and community
engagement. In other words, understandings of quality as a multi-dimensional and
multi-level concept have been developed. This is also reflected in the reports
developed by various international research teams and networks.
For instance, the European Commission Network on Childcare and Other Measures to
Reconcile the Employment and Family Responsibilities of Men and Women (1996) set
40 quality targets for ECEC services. The targets are inter-dependent and cover the
following areas: policy, finance, levels and types of services, education, staff child
ratios, staff employment and training, environment and health, parents and
community, and performance.
September 2014
10
Similarly, the OECD in its latest report Starting Strong III (OECD, 2012b) identified
five areas of quality that can be leveraged at policy level for better child development:
1) quality goals and minimum standards; 2) curriculum and learning standards; 3)
workforce quality; 4) family and community engagement; and 5) data, research and
monitoring.
Also, the Children in Europe (CiE) network, which has published the CiE Policy Papers
since 2008{Citation}, proposed ten principles as the basis for European approach to
services for young children (see Table 2)(Children in Europe, 2008). They should be
considered as goals to strive for and like the earlier quality targets, these principles
are inter-dependent and form a totality: all of them should be adopted, not a few
selected.
Table 2: Proposal for a European approach to services for young children: ten
principles
Principles
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Access: an entitlement for all children;
Affordability: a free service;
Pedagogical approach: holistic and multi-purpose;
Participation: an essential value;
Coherence: a framework to support a common approach;
Diversity and choice: conditions for democracy;
Evaluation: participatory, democratic and transparent;
Valuing the work: a 0-6 profession and parity with school teachers;
Services for young children and compulsory school: a strong and equal partnership;
Cross-national partnership: learning with other countries.
Source: “Young children and their services: developing a European approach. A Children in
Europe Policy paper” Available at: http://www.vbjk.be/files/CIE%20Policy%20Paper.pdf
[Accessed 3 May 2013].
Finally, the CoRe study (2011) commissioned by the European Union related the
concept of quality to the economic, social, and educational functions of ECEC and
stated that quality must unfold at all four levels of a competent ECEC system (i.e.
governance level, interagency level, institutional level and individual level). It supports
the idea of ECEC as a multi-dimensional and multi-level generic concept which unfolds
(and has to be proactively developed) in five dimensions:
1) Experiences of and outcomes for children (e.g. of belonging, involvement,
well-being and competences);
2) Experiences of parents and educators/ teachers (e.g. of belonging,
involvement, well-being and mean making, but also accessibility, affordability,
availability, usefulness and comprehensibility);
3) Interactions (e.g. between adults and children, between children, between
practitioners and parents, between team members, between institutions, ECEC
and local communities, professions, practice, research, professional preparation
and governance);
4) Structural conditions (e.g. adult/child ratio, group size, physical environment,
curriculum, competences of staff and continuous professional development);
5) Systems of evaluation, monitoring and quality improvement (e.g.
internal and external evaluation, systematically including the views of all
stakeholders, initiated and supported by service providers and local or central
authorities).
September 2014
11
Overall, understanding that quality ECEC must be ensured at different levels (i.e.
child, family, teacher, school, community and government) has been developed in
recent years and particular features of each level and dimension have been examined
and associated with high quality ECEC.
Features of high quality ECEC
A detailed literature review illustrates that high quality ECEC has been mostly
associated with some aspects of governance quality, structural quality, process quality
and access quality. These aspects are interdependent and overlapping; therefore, as
concluded by (OECD, 2012b) they all should be treated as necessary elements for
successful ECEC policy. By using the positivist paradigm and relying on quantitative
research designs researchers tried to assess quality by identifying structural indicators
related to effective early childhood education and care services. A number of
assessment tools to measure or assess quality were developed. The most widely used
observational rating instruments are Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale-Revised
(ITERS), Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS), its revised
version ECERS-R and recently developed Classroom Assessment Scoring System
(CLASS). They all measure the overall level of quality of the classroom environment
(Perlman, Zellman, & Le, 2004) consisting of structural elements (e.g. space, schedule
material) and process elements reflected in different level of interactions (between
staff and children, staff, parents, and other adults, among the children themselves,
etc.). Such positivist research has led to clearer understandings as to what constitutes
key structural elements of quality ECEC.
2.2.1. Structural quality
To date, structural quality conditions that can be defined as “inputs to process
characteristics which create the framework for the processes that children experience”
(Taguma, Litjens, & Makowiecki, 2012), were researched the most. Structural quality
refers to centre facilities/resources, staff-to-child ratios and staff qualifications that are
more easily measurable for cross-sectional observation purposes in determining
quality. These components are largely controlled by forces outside the ECEC
immediate settings, e.g. by government financing, education and health policies which
define the requirements before an ECEC centre can commence its activities (Ishimine
et al., 2010). A rich body of literature found that the following structural indicators
support quality early childhood education and care:

Initial staff education and qualifications and continuous training
support. Competences of the educational and support staff proved to
be one of the most salient indicators of ECEC quality, especially in
ensuring higher process quality (Bowman et. al, 2000.; Huntsman,
2008). Burchinal, Howes, & Kontos (2002) conclude that this structural
variable is a better predictor of quality than other two most researched
structural indicators – group size and adult-child ratio. Moreover,
Sheridan (2011) suggests that effective professional development
schemes can enhance quality of ECEC despite lower staff-child ratios.
Sakellariou & Rentzou (2011), Urban (2013) Jensen et al. (2009) and
Sheridan (2001) state that sensitive and responsive caregiving is one of
the most important indicators of the quality of ECEC. A study by Buyse
et al. (2008) showed that with emotionally supportive teachers, children
who expose internalizing or externalizing behaviour are no longer at risk
for developing less close or more conflict relationships with their
teachers respectively. Most research claims that better educated
September 2014
12

preschool teachers with specialised ECEC training are more effective in
providing stimulating, warm and supportive staff-child interactions
leading to positive child developmental outcomes (Huntsman, 2008; Ivić
& Pešikan, 2009; Sylva et al., 2004; Fukkink & Lont, 2007. Also, NIEER
review (2003) and Bauchmüller, Gørtz, & Würtz Rasmussen (2011)
show that teachers who have bachelor degree are used to respond more
sensitively to children’s needs; be more actively engaged with the
children they teach; and give children more positive feedback and
encouragement. Moreover, it is important to ensure high level of initial
qualifications for staff working with all children’s age groups. However,
the tendency is that early care staff (working with children of 0-3 age)
have much lower initial training qualifications (vocational training or
secondary school diploma), than pre-school teachers (working with
children from 3 to 6 years old) (OECD Network on Early Childhood
Education and Care, 2011). Pessanha, Aguiar, & Bairrão (2007) found
that younger and better-paid teachers provide better toddler child care
quality. Rivas & Sobrino (2009), Pineda Herrero et al. (2008) and Rivas,
Sobrino, & Peralta (2010) also emphasized that training of ECEC staff
is one of the keys in the positive outcomes for children. Further, the
CoRe study (2011) findings confirm that quality in ECEC requires not
only a competent and qualified practitioner but also a competent system
that sustains and feeds into the ongoing professionalization of staff in
relation to changing societal needs. However, Fukkink & Lont, (2007)
point out that relationship between caregiver’s competences and
children’s outcomes need to be researched more. In their review of
studies published between 1980 and 2005, a subset of experiments with
both caregiver and child data showed a positive effect, supporting the
causal link between caregiver training, caregiver competencies and child
behaviour childcare, although this effect was not significant due to the
small number of studies. The limited empirical data provide only
tentative support yet for the assumed link from caregiver training to
caregiver competencies and, subsequently, to its positive effect on
children’s behavior (Fukkink and Lont, 2007).
Literature indicates that staff wages is a factor affecting teacher
quality, and in turn the overall quality of ECEC. NIEER (2003), Phillips et
al. (2000), Ackerman (20062) and CCL (2006) assume that high staff
wages can increase the motivation of current staff and attract highly
motivated and qualified professionals to the sector and this indirectly
can improve child developmental outcomes. Low wages reduce the
material attractiveness for potential qualified staff to work in the sector.
Equally important, low wages in general lend support to the perception
that work in the ECEC sector maintains to be of a relatively low socioeconomic status and thereby risks failing to attract committed staff
(Ackerman, 2006). Phillipsen et al. (1997) and Pianta et al. (2008)
confirmed this by demonstrating that fully qualified caregivers who were
given high wages were strongly related to process quality. Also, higher
staff wages can help ensure teacher’s job satisfaction and lower staff
turnover rates, which is widely recognised as another prerequisite for
the effective ECEC (Smith, 20043). Papanastasiou & Zembylas (2005)
concluded that teacher’s job satisfaction is related with high quality
ECEC, because it helps to guarantee staff stability. Loeb et al. (2004),
2
Ackerman, D. (2006), “The costs of being a child care teacher: Revisiting the problem of low wages”.
Educational Policy, Vol. 20, No. 1, 85-112.
3
Smith, P.R. (2004), ‘Caring for Paid Caregivers: Linking Quality Child Care with Improved Working
Conditions’, University of Cincinnati Law review, 73 (2), 399-431.
September 2014
13




4
Huntsman (2008), Love et al. (2003), and Cuciureanu (2009) found that
stability in early childhood education and care is positively related
to child outcomes and better child development.
Finally, greater gender diversity in ECEC staff is one more staff
characteristic associated with high quality ECEC. OECD (2006) notes
that diversity of staff is beneficial for children to open their minds to
new ideas, counter stereotypes, encourage respect to multi-cultural
learning. Bauchmüller et al. (2011) show that bigger share of male
teachers in ECEC has a significant positive effect on child outcome.
The CoRe study (2011) findings show that successful strategies to
attract educators from ethnic minorities encompass the creation of
various qualifying pathways, focused on the recognition of prior learning
for experienced untrained practitioners and the provision of additional
support courses for children with an ethnic minority background.
Lower staff-to-child ratio can also affect quality of ECEC. While not
totally consistent, the weight of evidence allows concluding that lower
child-adult ratio is an important contributor to ensuring quality in ECEC.
A number of studies found that lower ratios are associated with better
child development outcomes (Edwards, 2012; OECD, 2006; Howes,
1997; Love et al., 2003; Holloway & Reichhart-Erickson, 1998; Sylva et
al. (2004); Rivas & Sobrino, 2009; Rivas, Sobrino, & Peralta, 2010;
Bauchmüller et al., 2011) and higher process quality (Gevers DeynootSchaub & Riksen-Walraven, 2005; Ghazvini & Mullis, 2002; Rao et al.,
2003; De Schipper, Riksen-Walraven, & Geurts, 2006; Burchinal et al.,
1996); Huntsman, 2008; Barros & Aguiar, 2010). As Pianta et al.
(2008) observe a lower number of children per staff can facilitate safer
environments for children, increasing the potential for frequent and
meaningful interactions. Basically, staff-to-child ratios can serve as a
quantitative indication of the frequency of contacts between
carers/educators and children. The child—adult ratio should depend on
the age of child group (the young the children – the lower the ratio), to
ensure the maximum frequency of interactions between carers and
children (OECD, 2010; Huntsman, 20084).
Size of group and kindergarten. UNESCO report (2004) considers
small group size as predictor for more individualised attention and
frequent interactions. Burchinal et al. (2000, 1996), Howes (1997),
NICHD (1996, 2000), Nap-Kolhoff et al. (2008) and Huntsman (2008)
found higher process quality was related with smaller group sizes.
However, some studies (for instance Layzer & Goodson, 2006) have
shown little or no relation with quality suggesting that group size is less
significant than other structural variables such as adult-child ratio or
staff qualifications and training. Size of kindergarten was also related
with quality of ECEC. In Norway Vassenden, Thygesen, & Bayer (2011)
indicated that the medium-sized (i.e. approximately 60 children in total
attending the kindergarten), group-based kindergartens, compared to
larger kindergartens with flexible grouping in many ways represented
‘the better of two worlds’. Medium-sized kindergartens were large
enough to secure professional development for the adults, and small
and predictable enough to provide safe environment for children.
Physical environment. Research shows that the design, layout and
space of ECEC environments can influence child’s positive development.
The importance of the situations and environments in which learning
Huntsman, L. (2008). Determinants of quality in child care: A review of the research evidence.
September 2014
14

takes place (e.g., physical environment, quality of the materials,
significance of the organisation of space in the setting, etc.); spaces and
materials made available to children are considered ‘the third educator’,
given their role in mediating children’s self-initiated learning experiences
(Mantovani, 2007) Both indoor and outdoor spaces can provide safe
opportunities for children’s play, independent problem solving, and
inquiry. NICHD (1996), Wetzel (2000b, 2000a) Sheridan, Pramling, &
Johansson (2009), Gol-Guven (2009), Özgan (2010) and Moafi &
Såheim Bjørkli (2011) found a significant association between positive
care giving behaviours and characteristics of the physical environment
(e.g. centre facilities/resources, play materials, space, etc.). Rodríguez
Lera (2007) showed strong link between the quality of the educational
environment (measured through ECERS) and child development
(measured through higher scores in administered tests). At the same
time educational environment proved to be associated with educational
practices. Rodríguez Lera (2007) concluded that educational
environment and educational practices tend to be positively correlated,
with better educational environment in those centres where less
traditional educational practices are (i.e. in settings where children are
organized in small groups where they do activities of free contents like
construction play, role play games and free drawing). The more
traditional the educational practice is, the lower the outcome of the
children in administered tests. Finally, Martišauskienė (2010) noticed
that parents relate the quality of pre-school education to the
development of the network of additional services. Thus, the
existence of richer educational environment through provision of such
services as children‘s artistic and sport education, language teaching
and increased accessibility of child specialists, contribute to higher
quality ECEC. Besides, Mastalerz-Jakus (2012) emphasized the
importance of guaranteeing appropriate health conditions for high
quality ECEC.
The curriculum, defined as the planned learning opportunities for
children, actually matters both in terms of structural and process
aspects. Both quality aspects are influenced by what teachers/staff plan
and how they enact the curriculum in the moment (Ishimine, Taylor &
Bennett 2010). A balanced and comprehensive curriculum that would
combine care and education, combination of associative and logicanalytic thinking, is one of the most important characteristics of high
quality ECEC (OECD, 2004). Kontos & Wilcox-Herzog (1997) Cuciureanu
(2009) and UNESCO (2010) argue that holistic and multipurpose
curriculum contributes to positive children development. OECD (2006,
2012) also mentions the importance of well-planned curriculum which
takes into account all learning areas of the child. Also, it can act as a
tool to shape staff behaviour to ensure positive child development from
age zero to compulsory, or even beyond compulsory schooling. Several
researchers point out the importance of inclusion of multilingual and
intercultural perspective into curriculum (Persson, 2012; Wetzel, 2000a,
2000b) and using play pedagogy while developing ECEC curricula
(Hakkarainen, 2007; Bražienė & Mockienė, 2008).
Traditionally, ECEC curricula have been categorised into academic and
comprehensive models. The former model makes use of a staff-initiated curriculum
with cognitive aims for school preparation, meanwhile the latter pays more attention
to the social development of the child, i.e. seeks to broaden the scope for holistic
development and well-being. Both of them have advantages and drawbacks. Academic
September 2014
15
approach can prescribe teaching in critical subject areas, but it can also limit a childcentred environment characterised by self-initiated activity, creativity and selfdetermination. While a comprehensive approach can better integrate social and
emotional well-being, general knowledge and communication skills, but risks losing
focus on important education goals (see Table 3 below). Thus, it is agreed that holistic
and multipurpose pedagogical approach would be the most effective for child’s
development. Three long-term pre-school curriculum comparison studies begun in the
1960s focused on children living in poverty and included Direct Instruction (the
programmed approach), the High/Scope Curriculum (or another open-framework
approach), and traditional Nursery School programmes (the child-centred approach).
All three studies collected data using a variety of measures of intellectual
performance, as well as data from interviews and records. All three studies found that
on various measures of intellectual performance, children in Direct Instruction
programmes initially outperformed children in child-centred and other kinds of
programmes. But these significant differences appeared only during the programme
and up to a year afterward. Analysis of other curriculum comparisons, suggest that
using specific curriculum models that support children’s initiative is essential to having
high-quality pre-school programmes that produce lasting benefits. In particular, it
suggests that education officials who promote teacher-scripted instruction with young
children living in poverty are pursuing a very risky path (Weikart, 2000 5). So, in
general ECEC services should offer a multitude of possibilities for the diversity of
children and make most vulnerable children more visible in the local community and in
wider society.
Table 3: Focus of academic and comprehensive curriculum models
Focus of curriculum
Academic
Comprehensive
model
model
IQ scores
X
Motivation to learn
X
Literacy and numeracy
X
Creativity
X
Independence
X
Specific knowledge
X
Self-confidence
X
General knowledge
X
Initiative
X
Source: Planta et al., 2008; Eurydice, 2009; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997.
The researchers also emphasise the importance of free, rather than prescriptive
curriculum, where centres, teachers and children have the maximum possible freedom
in organisation of learning and development, but retain the overall common goals
(OECD, 2004). This suggests the potential advantages of national curriculum
frameworks and guidelines for ECEC institutions, rather than a rigid curriculum with
low flexibility for practitioners.

Programme duration. Although there are mixed research findings
about the impact of programme intensity (part-time or full-time), the
duration of programme participation seems to be more constantly
associated with long-term positive child outcomes. As observed by
Bennett (2012) and EPPE study (Sylva et al., 2003) children who start
pre-school education earlier (e.g. from the age of 3) have a significant
advantage over those children who attend only one year of the pre-
5
Weikart, D. (2000), Early childhood education: need and opportunity, Fundamentals of education
planning, 65, UNESCO.
September 2014
16
school before entry into primary school. Mitchell, Wylie, & Carr (2008),
Belsky et al. (2007), Eurydice (2009) and Alieva, Bousselin, &
Reinstadler (2013), Kaczan & Zwierzyńska (2012) also stated that highquality ECEC with longer duration had the strongest effects. Broberg et
al. (1997), Calero et al. (2007; 2008) and Calero, Waisgrais, & Choi
(2010) referred to advantages of participation in pre-school education
for the cognitive development of children and better scores in science,
math and reading. The effect was greater on children coming from low
SES background as well as from immigrant families (Alieva, Bousselin &
Reinstadler, 2013). This variation in effects on children from different
families was noted by Loeb et al. (2007). The study found that overall,
children who attended a centre at least 15 hours a week, substantially
increased the contribution of centre programs to cognitive growth of
children. Attending more than 30 hours a week was also associated with
increased positive cognitive skills. However, for the low-income group,
only children who attended a centre for more than 30 hours experienced
significant gains in pre-reading skills. This group experienced no
negative social behavioural effects from additional hours in a centre. On
the other hand, children from higher income families did not show any
significant gains from attending centres for more than 30 hours per
week and, in contrast to the low-income children, displayed increasingly
negative behaviour the longer they attended a centre program each
week. Other researchers (Samms-Vaughan, 2010) emphasized the
importance of attendance of even earlier services for children (starting
from birth), because the first years are crucial for brain and
psychological development which shape further development of learning
dispositions (including cognitive ones). These positive findings are still
conditioned by the quality of care children receiveRussell (2009)argues
that poor levels of development that are often reported in studies on
centre care often coincide with low standards of quality. In those where
children spend long hours but the standards of care are high, children
showed proficient socio-emotional development, improved cognitive and
language abilities, and low levels of aggressive behaviour at 24 and 36
months.
2.2.2. Process quality
Structural and process quality characteristics of ECEC are interdependent; the
presence of the above mentioned structural quality characteristics shapes process
quality. Process quality indicators pertain to the quality of a child’s daily experience.
Interactions among children as well as between children and adults are crucial for
promoting children’s’ physical, social, emotional and cognitive development through
reciprocal exchanges of knowledge, experiences, feelings and opinions that allow
children to develop a sense of the self, of being a member of the community and
knowledge of the world. Good quality pedagogical practices therefore should sustain
children’s learning through participation in co-constructive processes that foster their
holistic development in caring ways (ISSA, 2010; Manotvani, 2007). Early childhood
pedagogy should be substantially different from traditional school teaching and draw
on the similarities between play and learning for the elaboration of strategies that are
respectful of children’s development. Pedagogical methods should rely on similarities
between play and learning adopting key elements like fostering meta-cognitive skills,
acknowledging the variety of ways in which a child learns and starting from child’s
experiences (Pramling Samuelsson & Asplund Carlson, 2008). In this sense, early
childhood education should be organised to allow the greatest possible amount of
September 2014
17
interaction and communication among children and between children and teachers on
a daily basis. In addition, research on process quality which focused on assessing the
effectiveness of ECEC services through the analysis of various types of interactions 6 as
well as the nature of organisational leadership and teacher pedagogical skills
(Ishimine, Tayler, & Bennet, 2010) found that relationship quality is an important
feature of high quality ECEC. The quality of the interactions between children and staff
are particularly important in determining the success of ECEC (Elicker, Fortner-Wood,
& Noppe, 1999; Sheridan, Pramling S., & Johansson 2009). NICHD (2000), Elicker,
Fortner-Wood, & Noppe (1999) and the EPPE study (2004) found that ECEC tended to
be more effective where less authoritarian child-rearing beliefs were applied, i.e.
where caregivers were more emotionally supportive and responsive to individual needs
of children. Involvement of children in conversations was beneficial for bilingual
children’s development of vocabulary (Aukurst & Rydland, 2011). In high quality
ECEC, children enjoy influence and respect as individuals, as well as members of a
group. The strategies that educators use to promote children’s learning should reflect
democratic values, combine social and cognitive development and be open for
diversity in order to promote children’s curiosity, critical thinking and cooperation. A
quality pedagogical process builds on the belief that care, learning and nurturing form
a coherent whole and that every child well-being and engagement are prerequisites for
learning (ISSA, 2010, Mantovani, 2007; Moss, 2011 7). Children are encouraged to
make their own decisions at an age-appropriate level, while also learning to take
responsibility and consider how decisions affect other people – fundamental aspects of
being a democratic citizen. Rivas & Sobrino (2009) and Rivas, Sobrino, & Peralta
(2010) observed that good quality interaction among teachers, teachers and children,
as well as parents and children leads to positive outcomes for children. In addition, the
research by Sabol et al. (2013) demonstrated that quality of interactions and
environment had much higher explanatory value of children’s high performance in
math, science and reading, than structural characteristics.
Child-parent and teacher-parent interactions are also important aspects of process
quality. High quality ECEC is associated with greater parental engagement in ECEC
services. Effective early childhood education and care programs are the ones that
engage parents and other family members in their children’s early learning and
development (Bennett, 2012a). This way parents feel welcome and valued in the
program; and also educators are able to learn from families about the lives and
experiences of the children in their care and share ideas and strategies with parents
for early learning at home. Moreover, fostering active parental engagement through
preschool is likely to benefit children’s attainment in the long run (Arnold, 2008;
Carter, 2002; McWayne et al., 2004) particularly impacting on the home learning
environment (HLE) (Melhuish et al, 2008). Some studies also indicate the importance
and positive effect of parental involvement in the process of transition from
kindergarten to primary school (Barnard, 2004; Carter, 2002), especially in the case of
less advantaged pupils (Carter, 2002). Greater parental involvement in ECEC also had
a favourable effect on the development of pre-literacy skills of children (Arnold, et al.,
2008). However, Fan’s (2001) meta-analysis of quantitative studies did not reveal any
significant correlation between participation of parents and children’s positive
outcomes. On the other hand, when entering HLE/Parental involvement debate in
ECEC it is important to consider what exactly constitutes parental involvement8. Some
6
i.e. interactions between the child and teacher, child and child, teacher and parent, teacher and teacher.
Moss, P. (2011). Democracy as first practice in early childhood education and care. Encyclopaedia on Early
Childhood Development: Montreal, Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development.
8
Parental engagement in education mostly happens through two channels (OECD, 2010): the support
parents give to their children at home, such as discussing school activities and helping with homework, and
in-school activities, such as taking part in parent-teacher meetings and other school activities (OECD,
2010).
7
September 2014
18
studies even suggest that school policies targeted at parental involvement might
increase inequality with negative effect on children coming from low SES, due to the
fact that mostly well-off parents tend to participate in their child’s learning process
(Carter, 2002; Gillanders, McKinney, & Ritchie, 2012; Horvat, Weininger, & Lareau,
2003; Hughes & MacNaughton, 2000; Lee & Bowen, 2006; Sheldon, 2003). Therefore,
it is important to encourage openness of schools towards families particularly those
from lower SES, which improves process quality of ECEC services (Bartošová, 2009;
Rabušicová, 2004; Rabušicová, 2003; Šeďová, 2003; Ševčíková, 2010; Šmelová,
2005; Trnková & Čiháček, 2003). Other researchers (Ališauskienė et al., 2007;
Monkevičienė et al, 2008; Ruškus, Žvirdauskas, & Eskyte, 2009) observe a lack of
educational, social and psychological support for family with purpose to help parents
to understand the functions of preschool education and impact of quality education on
their child, to provide the information about child’s behavioural disorders and to
consult families on the possibilities to overcome them. The lack of such parental
consultation and support services is even greater in early care (for children aged 0-3),
which might partially explain the low level of participation in early care services
(Samms-Vaughan, 2010). Parental involvement has also broader positive effect. By
being responsive to the diversity of families’ needs and by involving them in the life of
the school, educators support a shared responsibility for the education of young
children within local communities, which in turn promotes social cohesion on a larger
scale (ISSA, 2010).
Health and safety indicators are also related with process quality (Crahay et al.,
1998). Vandel, Belsky, & Burchinal (2010) summarized that more hygienic staff and
children can be associated with fewer respiratory illnesses and other infectious
diseases. Also, safer environment for playing can prevent injuries strongly, because
child injuries in child care settings are most likely to occur on playgrounds. Bennett
(2012) also highlighted that ECEC with comprehensive health and social services are
more effective. In addition Harrison, Ungerer, & Smith (2009) observed that poorer
health outcomes are associated with longer hours in centre-based care.
Further research provided additional elements that could be associated with high
quality ECEC. Reviews made by Leseman (2002, 2009) suggest that although there
are well-known basic criteria to ensure minimum quality including generous adult-child
ratios, well trained adults and a stimulating cognitive environment, the policy
challenge is to “(re)build systems of ECEC to meet crucial design features to provide
quality ECEC services for all children and to make services attractive and affordable to
all families regardless of social class or minority status”. Also, (Nap-Kolhoff et al.,
2008) bring some additional factors for the effective ECEC services such as intensity of
at least three days of ECEC a week; double supervision; regular evaluation through
observation and testing; formulating policy plans; and expertise supervisors.
Therefore, additional quality aspects were considered.
2.2.3. Access quality
Respect for equity, inclusion, diversity, affordability, usefulness, comprehensibility,
and availability are also identified as prerequisites of high quality early childhood
education and care. Brooker (2002) suggests that these indications of early child
education and care can also encourage female participation in labour market.
Therefore, researchers state that quality ECEC must be accessible and inclusive,
especially for children that are at risk or with special educational needs. Research
identifies main access bottlenecks for children from poor families: limited number of
publicly subsidised services in disadvantaged areas (availability and cost); lack of
flexibility in opening hours; and insufficient public investment at macro-economic level
September 2014
19
(Del Boca, 20109). German study adds one more specific issue and that is criteria
adopted for distributing the places available that are decided by centre managers and
that in most cases give priority to the parents who are already working and subscribed
early on waiting lists (‘first come first served’), which is also the case in other
countries (Felfe and Lalive, 201110). Inclusive and accessible ECEC of high quality
provides the possibility to effectively identify and prevent problems relating to
children’s learning and education and compensate some of the shortcomings in a
child’s environment. Also such services incorporate diversity and expose children to
their own customs and traditions as well as the ideas and experiences of others.
Consequently, children who are confident in their abilities and comfortable in diverse
environments when they are young are more likely to become engaged citizens who
value a democratic, pluralistic society (Friendly & Lero, 2002; European Network of
National Observatories on Childhood, 2010; OECD, 2006).
Authors including Elliott (2006), Bennett (2012) and those of EACEA’s Eurydice (2009)
report that it is important to ensure that high quality services are widespread
geographically. As poorer families tend to be less mobile, it is crucial that high quality
ECEC services are available in those neighbourhoods where such families reside. Lack
of availability of ECEC services was mentioned as a factor limiting access quality of
ECEC in many countries. For instance, national reports in Luxembourg refer to the lack
of ECEC places for families with children in the age category 0-3 (Baltes-Lohr, 2012).
Shortage of day-care places is a major problem in many regions in Estonia (Ainsaar &
Soo, 2009; 2011). The majority of Swiss studies point out the insufficient availability
of childcare facilities everywhere in Switzerland (practically for all the types and at the
different degrees) (Iten, Stern, & Menegale, 2005; Ermert Kaufmann et al., 2008;
Menegale & Stern, 2009; Chaves, 2004; Gilliéron Giroud, 2007; Pecorini, Le Roy, &
Ruffinen, 2005). Also, Persson (2012) observed that the distribution of preschool
teachers with higher education in Sweden is in favour of preschools in communities
with well-educated families, which lowers the accessibility of high quality ECEC for
families with lower socio-economic background. However, ECEC provisions do not need
to be targeted at families “at risk”. An OECD (2006) report revealed that structural
provisions addressing the general population (but with specific needs of families) are
more effective than targeted provisions. Also, Sylva et al., (2004), Van Tuijl &
Leseman (2007), Havnes & Mogstad (2009) revealed that vulnerable children benefit
the most from ECEC when it is provided in the context of social mix. Another
important dimension related to equitable access to ECEC is regularity and
sufficiency of funding. OECD country reviews (2006) revealed that sufficient public
financing is necessary to ensure that children from families with lower socio-economic
status have access to services of high quality. UNICEF education experts recommend
national spending levels on ECEC to be at least 1% of the gross domestic product
(GDP). This recommendation is based on the minimal requirements for quality ECEC
while taking into account the potential societal benefits of quality ECEC (Adamson,
200811). Under-investment in ECEC is one of the factors weakening provision of
affordable and accessible ECEC services for all children, especially from rural areas
(Mastalerz-Jakus, 2012; Ainsaar & Soo, 2011; 2009; Vyšniauskaitė, 2010) or large
families (Reinomägi, 2007). There are two main funding models: supply-side when
funding goes directly to service providers to finance their operation, and demand-side
funding model, when public funding follows children (e.g., through vouchers) or is
9
Del Boca, D. (2010). Child poverty and child well-being in the European Union: policy overview and policy
impact analysis. A case study: Italy. Budapest & Brussels: TARKI-Applica.
10
Felfe, C. and Lalive, R. 2011. How Does Early Childcare Affect Child Development? Learning from the
Children of German Unification. CESifo Area Conference on Economics of Education: Center for Economics
Studies.
11
Adamson, P. (2008), The Child Care Transition: A league table of early childhood education and care in
economically advanced countries, UNICEF – Innocenti Research Centre.
September 2014
20
given directly to parents in the form of subsidies (Cleveland & Krashinsky, 2002). The
OECD (2006) presented evidence that direct funding of services (i.e. the first model of
funding) brings more benefits for disadvantaged families than indirect funding via
subsidies to parents. Market-based ECEC provision has the potential to limit public
expenditure, but at the same time risks restricting the availability of high quality
services for all (EC, 2011)12.
Affordability of ECEC services is also considered a key aspect of ECEC access quality.
Cost still remains one of the main barriers to wider access to high quality ECEC. This
is especially relevant to the most vulnerable families that often cannot afford paying
for ECEC services (UNESCO, 2010; Cleveland & Krashinsky, 2002). Research from
Sweden showed that an entitlement to a service for free or low cost is associated with
a strong shift towards use of formal services and a convergence of attendance rates by
children from different social backgrounds (Skolverket, 2007). Affordability of ECEC
services also varies across different age groups of children. Many countries subsidise
the provision of pre-school education (for children aged 3-6), and leave early care (for
children aged 0-3) for private providers (OECD, 2010). Even when early care is
publicly provided it still imposes high costs on parents, and therefore, hinders access
to such services for many families (Samms-Vaughan, 2010). Affordability problems
might also lead to availability and inclusiveness issues. As Mastalerz-Jakus (2012)
points out, although in Poland the preschool education for 5-year-olds is free and
covers 5 hours per day, children of those parents, who pay additional hours, are more
likely to get a place in the public kindergarten. In this way children are being
segregated to better and worse quality centres, which strengthen inequalities between
the children of wealthier and poorer parents. In Cyprus the lack of funding can
influence the network size of public kindergartens, thus, more access quality problems
can arise (Stavrides, 2000). Serbian research also concludes that more financing from
national level would be beneficial for ensuring high quality ECEC (UNICEF, 2012). A
universal entitlement to publicly funded, affordable ECEC provision from the end of
parental leave or at least by the age of three or four years should be considered a
minimum standard for ECEC to have its positive effect on most disadvantaged groups
(Lazzari & Vandenbroeck, 201213).
Research evidence shows that in order to be effective, ECEC should be organised in a
‘useful’ way (OECD, 2006; NESSE, 2009). This usefulness aspect emphasizes the
need to provide families with ECEC services that are supportive and attuned to their
demands. It refers to: 1) practical issues, such as working hours and 2) to the
management style of ECEC services. The ways in which ECEC provisions are run
should encompass democratic decision-making structures that allow the differing
needs of families to be expressed and to be taken systematically into account in order
to tailor ECEC provision to the demands of local communities.
Finally, comprehensibility aspect refers to the provision of integrated services,
family support programmes, and mainstream and special needs education to ensure
collaboration between different service providers (OECD, 2006a). Such an approach
best answers the demands of local communities and contexts of diversity (Open
Society Institute, 2006). Split services, that are found in countries which pay less
attention to child poverty and do not fully fund early childhood provision, often result
in less effective (in terms of structural and pedagogical quality) and less equitable (in
12
European Commission, Early Childhood and Care: Providing all our children with the best start for the
world of tomorrow, COM (2011) 66.
13
Lazzari A. & Vandenbroeck, M. (2012). Literature review on the participation of disadvantaged children
and families in ECEC services in Europe, in Bennet Early childhood education and care (ECEC) for children
from disadvantaged backgrounds: Findings from a European literature review and two case studies, DG
EAC.
September 2014
21
terms of outreach to parents and community) provisions (Children in Scotland,
201114). In case of one of most disadvantaged groups, Roma, comprehensive approach
has proved to be of most importance (OSI, REF and UNICEF, 2012 15). For example,
impact of family background on children’s educational achievement has less influence
in Nordic countries where universally accessible ECEC is provided and socio-economic
differences are less marked than elsewhere (Lazzari & Vandenbroeck, 2012).
2.2.4. Governance quality
The type of ECEC system can also contribute to quality of ECEC. The European
Commission pays particular attention to the transition from one ECEC institution to
another; this may be either from pre-primary school to primary education, but also for
instance from the childcare for the youngest children to another group with older
children. This issue is not simply the issue of ministerial jurisdiction.
Research shows that several areas define the level of system integration. These areas
can be divided into the structural and the conceptual. The structural covers five key
areas: Policy making and administration; Access to services; Funding (including what
parents pay); Regulation (including curriculum or similar guidelines); and Workforce
(including structure, education and pay). A sixth structural area is type of provision.
Conceptual aspect refers to the extent which the whole ECCE system share an
understanding of what it is for and what it is doing, and how far is this expressed in a
common language (UNESCO, 2010). The OECD has already indicated in its Starting
Strong studies how the separation of “education” and “care” in some cases may
undermine the delivery of quality ECEC. In such split systems, little attention is often
paid to the cognitive development of children between the ages 0-3, whereas the
health and social-emotional development of children aged 3 and above may no longer
receive sufficient attention. Unitary systems on the other hand are not built on
‘artificial’ age categories and integrate goals for child-care with early education
(Panteia, 2013) An OECD study on teaching force (2005), Moss (2005), Bennett
(2005), Oberhuemer (2000, 2005) and UNESCO’s ECEC regional report (2010) found
that professionalism of staff in early education and care systems is higher in so called
“unitary systems”, where provision for the youngest children is integrated into the
educational system or other single auspices in comparison with “split systems”, in
which childcare for the youngest children (under three or four years old) and the
kindergarten for older children (up to primary school age) are positioned under
separate auspices. UNESCO (2010) report observed that due to the shared approach
to social objectives, regulation, funding, access, subsidies, curriculum and staff
professionalism unitary ECEC systems tend to be more favourable for the quality
ECEC. EPPE study (2004) found quality was higher overall in settings that fully
integrate care and education and in nursery schools than in local authority day
nurseries, playgroups, private day nurseries and nursery classes; even though in
general good quality services can be found in all types of pre-school. From the
perspective of children’s outcomes, in split systems it is considered that younger
children need only care and nurture and that education starts at the age of 3-4. This
approach can lead to neglecting younger children in educational sense and too much
schoolification of programs for older children (Moss, 201116, Eurydice 2009). However,
it is also important to ensure continuity between ECEC and primary school, which can
14
Children in Scotland. (2011). Working for inclusion: how early childhood education and care and its
workforce can help Europe’s youngest citizens.
15
OSI, REF & UNICEF (2012.) The Roma Early Childhood Inclusion Overview Report. UNICEF, Geneva.
16
Introducing continuity and equality into a "split" system of early child education and care: an international
perspective, Moss ppt for The Wellbeing of Children in Early Childhood Education and Care in France and
elsewhere, 2011.
September 2014
22
be neglected in both unitary and split systems. Krasowicz-Kupis (2006) showed that
kindergartens in comparison with the school-affiliated units provide a wider scope of
services and provide better quality services in general, especially for younger children.
More precisely, the researcher found that the reading ability of children at the age of 6
does not seem to be differentiated according to the location of the “zero class” (school
vs. kindergarten). However, when one looks at the subsample of children with severe
reading problems, those who attend school-based “zero-class”, perform worse. This
difference, the study states, might be associated with the qualifications of the teachers
– the teachers employed by schools are less prepared to work with small children
when compared to the instructors from kindergartens (Krasowicz-Kupis, 2006).
However, even with a lot of evidence in favour of integrated system in terms of
structural aspects, split systems are not by default less successful. The adverse effects
of split systems are frequently tackled with different measures to enhance the
integration of education and care aspects and to promote coordinated approaches to
ECEC provision. For example, inter-ministerial mechanisms, e.g. a coordination bodies,
consisting of representatives from relevant sectors, are created. This is the case in
Ireland, where childcare policies are coordinated by a policy unit that officially resides
at the Ministry of Education and Skills, but is staffed with people from the Ministry of
Children and Youth Affairs (Panteia, 2013)17. In Romania, as in the Netherlands, local
providers and communities are developing initiatives to integrate the provision of
education and care. Similarly, other countries like Germany that are on paper unitary
systems, also have ECEC providers that offer education and care in separate settings
for different ages (Panteia, 2013). Other policy domains where ECEC services can be
integrated include universal entitlement, affordable access, and a unified and well
educated workforce, enhancing learning for all ages and ensuring smooth transitions
for young children (UNESCO, 2010). Thus, whichever model is in place, it can
effectively ensure continuity and consistency of ECEC system for relevant stakeholders
if adequate integration measures are being implemented.
Bennett (2012) illustrates that researchers talking about “poor quality” ECEC often
refer to importance of leadership (or lack of leadership). The lack of leadership
reflects on many areas such as inadequate financing, provision of services that are
inadequate to parent’s or children’s needs, access to ECEC is not universal/ equal,
insufficient attention to data collection, policy monitoring and research. Ang (2011) 18
demonstrates that effective leadership and leaders’ vision on ECEC is an important
determinant of quality of ECEC provision. Competent leaders play an important role in
delivering integrated services equally available for every group of children
(Vandenbroeck et al.; 201419) Managers play an important role in supporting
professional development by influencing the extent to which centre supports,
stimulates and subsidises professional development. Staff quality is maintained by
leadership that motivates and encourages working as a team, information sharing and
17
Options like coordination between levels through some type of coordination body or other structure has
proven to have its downfalls. Choi (2003) provides evidence that, while coordination mechanisms can work
well when they are established for a specific purpose (e.g. to coordinate a particular early childhood task) or
to focus on a targeted population, they are not successful in promoting a coherent overall policy and
administrative framework across sectors. Limitations of coordinating bodies and cross-sectoral cooperation
are also reported in Starting Strong II (OECD, 2006): in countries such as Ireland ministerial boundaries
remain an obstacle in achieving a coordinated and coherent approach to ECEC provision, despite a growing
understanding of programme objectives for young children across government departments (UNESCO,
2010).
18
Lynn Ang (2011). Leading and Managing in the Early Years: A Study of the Impact of a NCSL Programme
on Children’s Centre Leaders’ Perceptions of Leadership and Practice Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 40(3) 289–304.
19
Vandenbroeck Michel; Geens Naomi; Berten Hans; (2014) The impact of policy measures and coaching on
the availability and accessibility of early child care: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Social
Welfare. 69-79.
September 2014
23
professional staff development (OECD, 201220). The quality of leaders and managers of
ECEC services is also strongly related to their level of education and professional
development, as found in the EPPE study (Sylva et al., 201021) and by Ang (2011).
Vandebroeck et al. (2014) revealed that leaders that undergone coaching and peer
groups support rethought their access policies towards equalizing accessibility.
Effective leadership involves good quality systems of governance and monitoring of
ECEC services.
OECD (2012) indicated that assessment and evaluation of early childhood provision
should have the best interests of the child in mind, and be aimed at quality
improvement. To be relevant and effective in this context, core early childhood
services need to be supervised annually by strong policy units with wide expertise, a
data collection and monitoring office, an evaluation agency, a training authority, an
inspection or pedagogical advisory corps (OECD, 2006a). In addition, the evaluation
process has to be democratic, transparent and open to all relevant stakeholders
providing the opportunity to discuss various issues and take into account the needs of
disadvantaged groups (OECD, 2012b). All parents should be able to acquire and
adequately evaluate information about comparative quality, cost and availability of
care (Vandel & Wolfe, 2000). Also, Kreader, Ferguson, & Lawrence (2005) observed
that in a number of studies early childhood education and care services that are
operating with a license, has been treated as a predictor of governance quality. The
lack of centralised direction which leads to diversity of programmes, which are difficult
to manage and evaluate, can also be treated as an obstacle for the development of the
nation-wide quality of ECEC (Driessen & van Langen, 2012). The lack of reliable and
representative data for the evaluation of quality ECEC is treated as a factor
weakening quality of ECEC (IBE, 2011). The lack of monitoring indicators also hinders
effective evaluation of quality of ECEC services, which is even more crucial for early
care services. For younger groups of children (0-3 years old) typically only nutrition,
health and immunization information is available (Samms-Vaughan, 2010). School
self-evaluation was also found to be somewhat lacking in quality (Váchová & Čupová,
2010; Hornáčková, 2009; Syslová, 2009; Voženílek, 2001; Vrkoslavová, 2007). The
research by Adomaitytė & Gumuliauskienė (2011) showed that in Lithuania ECEC
institutions mostly conduct self-assessment only formally and the results of such
assessments are not used in a meaningful way for further development.
In conclusion, high quality ECEC depends on a number of different quality aspects and
can be analysed from various perspectives. Taking into account the characteristics,
presented above the project team defines high quality ECEC for this study as a
multi-dimensional and generic construct which unfolds (and has to be proactively
developed) in four important inter-connected elements – structural, process, access
and governance quality – and leads to successful experiences of and outcomes for
children, families and society.
This definition of quality, emphasizing dialogue and negotiation allows focusing on the
journey of the child and the directions towards positive outcomes. Outcomes (for
children, families, communities and the broader society) are crucial; they will be found
in each of the quality elements outlined above. The Table 4 below summarizes the
main components of the four elements of quality.
20
OECD (2012),
Research brief: qualifications, education and professional development matter,
Encouraging Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC).
21
Sylva, K. et al. (2010), Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary
Education project, Routledge, London/New York.
September 2014
24
Table 4: Features of high quality ECEC
Features of high quality ECEC
Structural quality
Process quality
Access quality
 Staff related: Higher

education, qualifications
and continuous training,

pedagogical support for
teachers; Staff wages;

lower staff turnover rates;
Gender diversity; Job

satisfaction
 Lower staff-to-child ratio
 Smaller group size
 Size of kindergartens
 Physical and educational

environment
 Curriculum: Holistic and
multipurpose; Modern and
flexible; Child centred; with
clear standards
 Programme duration
Source: PPMI (based on literature
Quality of
interactions
Health and safety
indicators
Parental
involvement
Regular
evaluation
through
observation and
testing
Expert
supervisors
 Availability
(location,
network, diverse
services)
 Affordability
(Regularity and
sufficiency of
funding)
 Usefulness ( in
line with the
needs of
beneficiaries)
 Comprehensibility
Governance
quality
 Evaluation
and
monitoring of
services
 Type of ECEC
system
 Leadership;
 Autonomy of
ECEC centres
review).
For ECEC as a policy tool for achieving equity to be effective all quality pillars have to
be in place.
As was observed previously structural quality and its importance for children’s
outcomes is researched the most and is justified by the most significant evidence since
it refers to indicators that are readily measurable. Process quality indicators follow, but
they encompass certain indicators which are hard to capture without observation,
longitudinal research and multi-perspective approach. Many detailed structural,
process and governance quality aspects still remain under-researched and require
further attention.
September 2014
25
3. Impact of ECEC on strenthening foundatons of
lifelong learning
In the context of this study ECEC quality and impact is discussed in terms of children’s
development and experiences. Two important concepts are used inter-dependently
when discussing children’s development.
Competence is understood and defined as measurable knowledge, skill, ability and/or
other characteristic (e.g., attitude, behaviour, physical ability), which a child may
possess or acquire during education process and which is necessary for his/her
performance at later stages of education and life. However, in early child development
it is hardly possible to refer to measurable competences; therefore, when talking about
early outcomes of children, one refers to abilities, developmental outcomes, learning
dispositions that further develop into pupils’ competences.
Capabilities
are
seen
as
umbrella
concept
that
comprises
child’s
abilities/competences, development as a process and ECEC as a context that provides
or limits opportunities.
There are numerous approaches to conceptualising and measuring the well-being of
children. These vary considerably depending on whether the main objective is
monitoring of child outcomes for policy-related purposes or understanding of the
underlying factors that create well-being and the interrelationships between different
domain of well-being (development, outcomes, rights, resilience etc.). When
discussing impact of ECEC on child development and strengthening foundations for
LLL, we are looking at two perspectives. One refers to child and benefits coming from
quality ECEC in terms of development of skills and providing opportunities for child to
pursue its potential, and from the wider perspective of benefits for economy and
society-human capital approach.
Child development centred approach
What a man can be, he must be (Maslov, 1943).This quotation forms the basis of the
perceived need for self-actualization. This level of need refers to what a person's full
potential is and the realization of that potential. Maslow describes this level as the
desire to accomplish everything that one can, to become the most that one can be.
Reaching this goal is a process of lifelong development, change or growth that starts
with infancy and continues to adulthood. This approach is much related to the
development of a person from the perspective of capabilities. Capabilities are
sometimes defined through one question which is “What each person is able to do and
to be”. The capability approach to human well-being is a “concentration on freedom to
achieve in general and the capabilities to function in particular” (Sen, 1995). We find
that this approach in discussion of development and impact of ECEC is beneficial
because it grasps the interplay between the child and the context in which it grows up.
Capabilities are not just abilities residing inside of a person but also a freedom of
choice or opportunities created by combination of personal abilities and political, social
and economic environment.
September 2014
26
22
Sen
proposed a list of basic human capabilities that needs to be satisfied.
The Central Human Capabilities:
1. Life - Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely,
or before one’s life is so reduced as to be not worth living.
2. Bodily health - Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be
adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.
3. Bodily integrity - Being able to move freely from place to place; to be secure against
violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities for
sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.
4. Senses, imagination, and thought- Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and
reason—and to do these things in a “truly human” way, a way informed and cultivated by
an adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic
mathematical and scientific training. Being able to use imagination and thought in
connection with experiencing and producing works and events of one’s own choice,
religious, literary, musical, and so forth. Being able to use one’s mind in ways protected by
guarantees of freedom of expression with respect to both political and artistic speech, and
freedom of religious exercise. Being able to have pleasurable experiences and to avoid nonbeneficial pain.
5. Emotions- Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to love
those who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, to love, to grieve, to
experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger. Not having one’s emotional development
blighted by fear and anxiety. (Supporting this capability means supporting forms of human
association that can be shown to be crucial in their development.)
6. Practical reason- Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical
reflection about the planning of one’s life. (This entails protection for the liberty of
conscience and religious observance.)
7. Affiliation- (A) Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern
for other human beings, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to
imagine the situation of another. (Protecting this capability means protecting institutions
that constitute and nourish such forms of affiliation, and also protecting the freedom of
assembly and political speech.) (B) Having the social bases of self-respect and nonhumiliation; being able to be treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of
others. This entails provisions of non-discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual
orientation, ethnicity, caste, religion, national origin.
8. Other species- Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and
the world of nature.
9. Play- Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.
10. Control over one’s environment- (A) Political. Being able to participate effectively in
political choices that govern one’s life; having the right of political participation, protections
of free speech and association. (B) Material. Being able to hold property (both land and
movable goods), and having property rights on an equal basis with others; having the right
to seek employment on an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarranted
search and seizure. In work, being able to work as a human being, exercising practical
reason and entering into meaningful relationships of mutual recognition with other workers.
22
Sen, A. (1999), development as freedom 18 .
September 2014
27
Sometimes social conditions make it impossible to deliver a threshold of all ten
capabilities but when in terms of child’s development intention should be to provide as
much as. According to Saito (2003) children are better off when they have more
feasible options to choose from and the freedom to choose which options to
exercise―i.e. more capabilities―in the present and/or when they are engaged in
building future capabilities. The capability approach alerts us that we cannot simply
evaluate abilities and inputs (education system elements) and that we must look at
whether learners are able to convert these abilities into capabilities (i.e., if they can
use their abilities at their own choice and if education system provides this choice).
Basic example would be how formal schooling can provide literacy – the capability to
read and write. If we evaluate only inputs, each child in the class appears to have
access to equal amounts of resources. If we evaluate the link between resources and
capabilities, it is evident that there are considerable inequalities that standard
evaluation methodologies tend to overlook. Many authors emphasise important role of
23
education in forming of capabilities. Brighouse (2000) argues that we need to equip
children with the skills they need to reflect rationally on alternative choices about how
to live, so as to enable them to make better rather than worse choices about how to
24
live their lives now and in the future. Nussbaum (2000) is also clear that in the case
of children we require that they remain in compulsory education (schooling) until they
have developed the capabilities that are important in enabling them to have genuine
and valued choices, for example to exit from a traditional community. She gives the
example of requiring children to spend time in play, story-telling and art activities as a
way to promote the general capability of ‘play’. In other words they need to do it
(function) in order to develop the mature capability.
Because of this dynamic and complex nature of the term capabilities, we find that it is
important to use it as an umbrella concept that comprises child’s
abilities/competences, development as a process and ECEC/education system as a
context that provides or limits opportunities. Competence is understood and defined
as measurable knowledge, skill, ability and/or other characteristic (e.g., attitude,
behaviour, physical ability), which a child may possess or acquire during education
process and which is necessary for his/her performance at later stages of education
and life. However, in early child development it is hardly possible to refer to
measurable competences; therefore, when talking about early outcomes of children,
one refers to abilities, developmental outcomes, learning dispositions that further
develop into pupils’ competences. This understanding is based on Recommendation of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment of
the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning (European parliament,
2008).
Early development
The basic patterns of child development are a rather recent area of study. Researchers
are constantly discovering new information on how children grow, develop, and learn
about their world. Although each child is unique, the basic patterns, or principles, of
growth and development are universal, predictable, and orderly.
Early years are a period of intensive neuro-psychological development. The brain has a
remarkable capacity to change. However, timing is important. The parts of the brain
develop at different times and different rates. Studies show that there are windows of
opportunity, or a specific span of time, for the normal development of certain types of
skills (Cook & Cook, 2009):
23
24
Brighouse, H. (2000) School Choice and Social Justice. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Nussbaum, M. (2000) Women and Human Development (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press).
September 2014
28





Vision-Birth to 6 months;
Motor development-Prenatal to 8 years;
Emotional control - Birth to 3 years;
Vocabulary/speech- Birth to 3 years;
Math/logic 1 to 4 years.
During these sensitive periods, appropriate stimulation is needed for the brain
synapses to link easily and efficiently. This process is influenced by a wide range of
biological and environmental factors, some of which protect and enhance development
while others compromise developmental outcomes.
The study of child development is often divided into three main areas. These include
physical, cognitive, and social-emotional development. Physical development refers
to physical body changes. It occurs in a relatively stable, predictable sequence and it
is orderly, not random. Changes in bone thickness, vision, hearing, and muscle are all
included. Changes in size and weight are also part of physical development. Physical
skills, such as crawling, walking and writing, are the result of physical development.
Cognitive development, sometimes called intellectual development, refers to
processes people use to gain knowledge. Language, thought, reasoning, and
imagination are all included. Cognitive development encompasses progress in
analytical skills, mental problem-solving, memory, and early mathematical abilities. By
age 3, children should be capable of solving simple puzzles and matching colours and
shapes, as well as show awareness of concepts such as “more” and “less.” Language
development manifests itself through babbling, pointing, and gesturing in infancy, the
emergence of first words and sentences in toddlerhood, and an explosion of words
between ages 2 and 3. Social and emotional development, in the first 2 years of life,
centres on children’s relationships with caregivers and learning how much they can
trust those around them to meet their needs. In the preschool years, social and
emotional development builds upon previous acquisitions and expands to include
social competence (getting along with others, including peers and teachers),
behaviour management (following directions and cooperating with requests), social
perception (identifying thoughts and feelings in oneself and others), and selfregulatory abilities (having emotional and behavioural control, especially in stressful
situations) (Naudeau, 2011; Cook and Cook, 2009, WHO,2009).
As an addition there are also “executive skills” that combine social and cognitive
competences. (Naudeau, 2011). Shonkoff & Phillips (2000) noted that learning can be
more effective in early childhood than later in life. Nores & Barnett (2010) compared
ECEC services with other interventions and concluded that the former has contributed
to improving children’s development the most (on average).
Child outcomes are not static. They are result of interplay between abilities and risk
factors concerning personal situation of the child, his or her family, friends, situation at
school and the wider society (Bradshaw et al., 2006). In recent decades the impact of
ECEC on learning and development of children has received wide attention in research
literature. Learning that occurs during the first few years of life can have important
long-lasting effects. High quality ECEC is generally associated with greater
developmental outcomes for children. As summarized by Shonkoff & Phillips
(2000)“high-quality care is associated with outcomes that all parents want to see in
their children, ranging from co-operation with adults to the ability to initiate and
sustain positive exchanges with peers, to early competence in math and reading”. In
other words, high quality early childhood education and care services are likely to
contribute to positive child development by providing context and process in which
September 2014
29
central human capabilities can be delivered. Nores & Barnett (2010) compared ECEC
services with other interventions and concluded that the former has contributed to
improving children’s development the most (on average). The following Table 5 also
shows that ECEC’s effect size for cognitive and school outcomes was the largest.
Table 5: Effect magnitudes by type of early childhood development policy
Percent
of
1
standard Nutrition
Cash Incentives
ECEC
deviation
Cognitive
.26
.17
.35
Social
.46
.21
.27
Schooling
.11
--.41
Health
.38
.38
.23
Source: Nores, M., and W. S. Barnett. “Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions across the
World: (Under) Investing in the Very Young.” Economics of Education Review 29 (2), 2010, 271282.
Education affects expansion of capabilities in two ways. Firstly, by promoting child’s
capacity or ability i.e. development of skills and competences. Secondly, by teaching
the child values in exercising capabilities (Saito, 2003). The strongest evidence in the
literature is provided for ECEC contribution to child cognitive development. Lazzari
& Vandenbroeck (2012) in the literature review reveal that most European and US
longitudinal studies state and find significant relationship (albeit to a varying extent)
between participation in high quality ECEC and positive long-lasting effects on
children’s cognitive growth (e.g. in research by Gutiérrez-Domènech, 2009; Anghel &
Cabrales, 2011; Hidalgo-Hidalgo & García-Pérez, 2013; Krasowicz-Kupis, 2006; Rivas
& Sobrino, 2009; Rivas, Sobrino, & Peralta, 2010; Zupancic & Kavcic, 2006; Oszwa,
2006; etc.).Many researchers showed relationship between ECEC attendance and what
are considered to be fundamental cognitive abilities, like literacy and numeracy
skills that facilitate further acquisition of domain-specific skills related to language (i.e.
language comprehension, receptive language and expressive language), general
knowledge and mathematics (e.g. Mitchell et al., 2008; Vandel et al., 2010; Osakwe,
2009; Anghel & Cabrales, 2011; Urban, 2013; Kaczan & Zwierzyńska, 2012; Alieva et
al., 2013; TD Economics, 2012 Vandel et al. 2010). Significant positive effect was
found also, later on, on math skills and overall school success (OECD, 2010; Loeb
et al., 2007; Forget-Dubois et al., 2007; Gormley, Phillips, & Gayer, 2008; Melhuish et
al., 2008; Berlinski, Galiani, & Gerltler, 2009; Fitzpatrick, 2008; Black, Devereux, &
Løken, 2010). Calero, et al. (2007; 2008) pointed out that 1 year or more of preschool education raises math scores by 6 points when compared to pupils with no preschool education
This major influence of early years can be explained by the fact that many brain
functions are particularly sensitive to change early in life and become less plastic
(malleable) over time (Heckman, 2008). Research in New Zealand found that after age
eight, improving performance levels became much more difficult (Wylie et al. 2009).
Proper development in early years lays foundations for all later learning. In a review of
153 studies of empirical literature on skills formation, Cunha et al. (2005) conclude
that skills which are developed in one period persist into future periods. In other words
skills are reinforcing - “skills beget skills”.
There are several longitudinal studies reporting long-term effects of ECEC. The EPPE
study (Sylva et al., 2004) found that high quality ECEC facilitate further acquisition of
domain-specific skills related to language and mathematics. It also found that these
positive effects can persist until the teen age. The NICHD study on Early Child care
(NICHD, 2006) found a significant positive relationship between quality of child care
during the first 3 years and children’s school readiness, expressive language, and
receptive language at 3 years. Harrison et al (2009) in Australian longitudinal study
September 2014
30
found that children whose main care/ education setting was preschool or long day care
had higher scores for receptive vocabulary when compared to children who
experienced other types of care. Simancas, Pedraja, & Santín, (2012)), using data
from PISA 2009, proved that those not attending pre-school or attending 1 year or
less are around 1.5 times more likely to repeat a grade. Mitchell et al (2008)) after
reviewing 117 studies on impact of early childhood education observed that most
studies comparing children who participated in ECEC with those who did not, found
positive gains from ECEC participation for mathematics at the time of attendance and
in the early years of schooling. Furthermore, the PISA 2011 results show a long-lasting
ECEC impact for math: children who have participated in ECEC scored significantly
higher in mathematics at age 15. This finding remains unchanged after socio-economic
status is accounted for in all countries with available data (except Estonia and Latvia)
(OECD, 2013)25. Nelson, Westhues, & MacLeod (2003) found a moderately large global
impact of early childhood interventions in the preschool period, and these effects
persisted through Grade 8. The cognitive impact alone was somewhat larger over the
8 years of primary and they found that cognitive impact was greatest for preschool
programs with a direct teaching component.
Therefore, it can be assumed that skills which a child may acquire during the
participation in high quality ECEC are likely to develop into key competences which in
combination with opportunities lead to personal fulfilment and development, active
citizenship, social inclusion and employment.
In order for the child to be able to make choices in his/her life, the child needs to
become autonomous through education (Saito, 2003).Research evidence also supports
the conclusion of a substantial positive relationship between childcare quality and
child’s non-cognitive development. Older pupils who had attended preschool as
small children had much higher scores on measures of attitude toward school.
Teachers also observe children having attended ECEC as more socially and
emotionally mature (Barnett, 1996; Puma et al., 2012; Zupancic & Kavcic, 2006;
Kruszewska, 2011). Emotional control and habitual response patterns not only peak in
the first few years but typically reach a high stability level before age 5, which implies
that more attention should be given to early care and intervention because later
compensatory measures can have limited effect (Naudeau et al., 2011). Non-cognitive
skills are often equated to the social skills that contribute to the smooth running of
classrooms, for example, to the growing ability of the young child to self-regulate (to
be autonomous, tolerate frustration, take turns, wait, stand in line…); to show positive
social behaviour (sharing, co-operation, empathy, learning to live and work with other
children) and acquire learning dispositions (motivation to learn, showing persistence
and perseverance in carrying out learning tasks) (Lazzari A. & Vandenbroeck, 2012).
Mitchell et al. (2008) state that high quality ECEC programmes tend to have positive
effects on children’s social skills and socio-emotional development. ECEC graduates
show also higher task orientation, less anxiety, anti-social/ worried behaviour and
aggression. Findings of most longitudinal studies confirm that early experiences of
socialization with peers in formal settings promote pro-social behaviour (i.e.
sharing, co-operation, empathy, learning to live and work with other children), selfregulation (e.g. to be autonomous, tolerate frustration, take turns, wait, stand in
line), and learning dispositions (i.e. motivation to learn, showing persistence and
perseverance in carrying out learning tasks) (Sylva et al., 2004; Harrison et al., 2009;
Sammons et al., 2007; Del Boca, Flinn, & Wlswall, 2010; Felfe & Lalive, 2012;
Bennett, 2012; Almeida, Aguiar, & Pinto, 2012; Del Boca & Pasqua, 2010; Datta Gupta
& Simonsen, 2011). For instance, Melhuish et al. (2001) found that high quality care
25
OECD (2013), PISA 2012 Results: Excellence Through Equity: Giving Every Student the Chance to
Succeed (Volume II), Paris: OECD Publishing.
September 2014
31
reduced the incidence of behaviour problems among two to three year olds. Felfe &
Lalive (2012) explored how early experiences of socialisation with peers in formal
settings promote pro-social behaviour, self-regulation and autonomy. If early
socialisation experiences are carried out in settings providing high quality care and
education, the beneficial effects on children’s social and emotional development can
persist until the teen age. Also, Sylva et al. (2004) in the UK EPPE longitudinal study
found that children with preschool experience had an advantage in terms of greater
independence and concentration, co-operation and conformity, positive learning
dispositions, and peer sociability compared with those with none. Huntsman (2008) in
his literature review also noted that children in high quality centres were more
cooperative, compliant, and had fewer behavioural problems. Some American case
studies (Perry high/scope (Barnett, 1996), Head Start (Puma et al., 2012) also
identified that those who attended preschool received higher teacher ratings on
measures of social and emotional maturity. It also showed that preschool graduates
had greater academic motivation, on-task behaviour, capacity for independent work,
spent more time on homework, and had better self-esteem.
Studies looking at longer term effects of ECEC participation found that early math,
reading and attention competencies are the best indicators of educational attainment
(Haskins & Barnett, 2010). Other studies identify long-term improvement of outcomes
such as school attainment, earnings, and crime reduction, for some race and gender
combinations, school preparedness and higher school graduations and receive
enhanced employment and earnings over a lifetime, avoidance of negative social
behaviours and crime (Sammons et al., 2007; Felfe & Lalive, 2012; Hazarika & Viren,
2010; Berlinski, Galiani, & Manacorda, 2008; Havnes & Mogstad, 2009). Effects in
school performance improvement lasting for even 10 years are found by Drange &
Telle (2010). Hazarika & Viren (2010) found that previous participation in an early
childhood program is estimated to raise the school enrolment of 7-19 year olds by 31
percentage points – with strong positive effects estimated for both 7-12 and 13-19
year olds – and also speeds grade progression conditional on enrolment. Similarly,
Berlinski, Galiani, & Manacorda (2008) observed that children who attended preschool
were more likely to be enrolled in school and had completed more grades; both effects
increased with child age (children aged 7-15 were observed).
However, data from England shows that socio-emotional gains made from participation
in early childhood tend to fade out far more quickly - by the second year of schooling
according to the British EPPE study (Sammons et al, 200426).The influence of the
primary school on young children is very powerful and the learning dispositions and
social competences acquired in early childhood settings may be more influenced than
cognitive outcomes by the peer group during schooling. In addition, by the end of Year
2 of primary school in Britain, most children had been in their primary school for three
years longer than the majority of children had been in pre-school.
While children’s needs and rights are the same for every child, some groups of
children face structural disadvantages in many countries (Bradshaw et al, 2006).
Those restrictions limit their “ability to achieve” i.e. expand their capabilities. If we
look at the list of central human and presented findings we can suggest that ECEC is
the first systemic environment that children enter and within which those capabilities
should be delivered. For this reason it was especially important to evaluate the impact
of ECEC on those disadvantaged children. Several studies have shown that investing in
quality ECEC programs helps bridge the gap between poor and otherwise
26
Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Barreau, S. and Grabbe, Y. 2007.
The Effective Pre-School and Primary Education 3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11). Influences on Children’s
Development and Progress in Key Stage 2: Social/ behavioural outcomes in Year 5. London: DfES / Institute
of Education, University of London.
September 2014
32
disadvantaged children and those from more privileged backgrounds, thus preparing
them for a successful transition to primary school and for quality lifelong learning
(Naudeau, et al. 2011). All studies focusing on sub-samples of vulnerable children
report that high quality ECEC especially benefits most disadvantaged children and
show that such children’s cognitive and socio-emotional development tend to be
higher than for average children (Lazzari & Vandenbroeck, 2013; OECD, 2006;
Eurydice, 2009; Urban, 2013; Sylva et al., 2004; Kaczan & Zwierzyńska, 2012;
Drange & Telle, 2011; Fredriksson, Caroline, & Johansson, 2010). Closing the
language gap, reducing grade retention, better integration and reducing high-risk
behaviour are the most common benefits of early care for disadvantaged pupils,
accompanied by physical and mental health improvement in general (Heckman, 2008;
World Bank, 2006; C. Nelson, Thomas, & de Haan, 2006; Lynch, 2005; Schweinhart &
Weikart, 1997; Schulman, 2005; Kagitcibasi et al. 2009; Black et al., 2010; Dumas &
Lefranc, 2012; Spiess, Büchel, & Wagner, 2003; Drange & Telle, 2010; Fredriksson et
al., 2010). Therefore, high quality ECEC is likely to be a strong contributor to
promoting equality and opportunity by providing a more equal start in life for children
(EACEA, Eurydice, 2009). Participation in high quality ECEC might also encourage
social cohesion, good citizenship, the integration of immigrant families, early screening
of children with behavioural, social or cognitive difficulties (Eurydice, 2009). OECD
Starting Strong II (2006) also suggests that vulnerable child can benefit the most from
ECEC when it is provided in contexts of social mix. Targeting vulnerable children may
be ineffective because “a service for the poor usually is a poor service” (OECD, 2006).
Evaluation of the Head Start program showed that on national norms, for children
from vulnerable groups, both the Head Start and control groups continued to lag
behind in cognitive outcomes, as is typical for low-income children. However, Head
Start group children demonstrated significantly higher test scores than the non-Head
Start group children on this assessment at the end of the 3rd grade (Puma et al.
2012). As one of the most deprived populations in many countries, Roma children
often tend to underachieve and do not adapt well to school, Ivić & Pešikan, 2009 found
that ECEC has especially positive effect on outcomes of this population, however
participation rates in ECEC of Roma children are very low across the Europe (Bennett,
2012). Lieberman et al (2011)27 note that the shortage of infant mental health
providers from minority groups has a particularly negative impact on immigrant and
minority children and families, who need interventions that are provided in their native
language by practitioners who understand their cultural values and childrearing
practices. ECEC is especially important for children living in poverty, who are more
likely to experience poor school performance, including high rates of repetition and
dropout. Developmental delays before the age of six are difficult to compensate for
later in life because early childhood is a particularly sensitive period for brain
formation (Naudeau et al., 2011).
While most of the research correlates the simple participation in ECEC or length of
attendance with developmental outcomes for children, some also specifically look into
the relationship of different quality elements. Research evidence suggests that
process and structural quality ECEC characteristics were associated with positive
child development most often. Swedish longitudinal study (Broberg et al., 1997) also
showed that high structural quality (curriculum, child-staff ratio) predicted higher-level
math ability at the age of eight. While, Vernon-Feagans, Emanuel, & Blood (1997)
Vandel & Wolfe (2000), Burchinal, Howes, & Kontos (2002), Harrison et al. (2009)
highlighted that higher caregiver’s level of education and approaches to learning such
as a more frequent provision of teacher-supported small group activities are highly
associated with children’s better results in literacy, numeracy and cognitive
27
Alicia F. Lieberman, Ann Chu, Patricia Van Horn and William W. Harris (2011). Trauma in early childhood:
Empirical evidence and clinical implications. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 397-410.
September 2014
33
development more generally. Besides, Field (1991) revealed that children who
attended high quality preschool centres with well-trained teachers were less
aggressive in upper school. Peisner-Feinberg et al. (1999) observed that children who
had closer relationships with their child care teachers had better classroom behaviour
and social skills (greater thinking/attention skills and sociability, fewer problem
behaviours, and better peer relations) during early elementary school. Also, NIEER
(2003) review show that children, taught by teachers with higher levels of education,
play more creatively and imaginatively; score higher on language tests; have higher
self-confidence, spend more time in goal-directed activities; present less problematic
behaviour in the classroom and are more sociable with peers.
There are still some studies showing no effect of ECEC on child’s development
(Driessen, 2004; Gamoran, Mare, & Bethke, 1999; Kohen & et.al, 2006). However
these studies are confronted by a very large body of literature from different fields
(psychology, pedagogy, and neurosciences) that is overwhelmingly consistent in
finding that exposure to high-quality education in the early years generally leads to
better developmental outcomes as presented above. Even though early years are
important for child’s further development, the research more frequently looked at the
effects of pre-school attendance on children’s learning outcomes, rather than effects of
early care.
Overall, it can be stated that high quality ECEC is expected to develop a range of
prerequisites necessary to a later development of cognitive and non-cognitive
competences (see Table 6 below). The studies generally agree that quality of ECEC
provision is crucial for promoting children’s cognitive and social development which, in
turn, contributes to enhancing educational opportunity and social integration.
Table 6: The learning outcomes of high quality ECEC
Group
Competence/skill/ability
Cognitive(refers to
Literacy, reading, language (language comprehension, receptive
knowledge and its
language and expressive language), general knowledge,
application)
numeracy (mathematics).
Pro-social behaviour (sharing, co-operation, conformity,
Non-cognitive(refers
compliance, peer sociability), self-regulation (autonomy, social
to attitudes and values,
and emotional maturity, self-esteem), learning dispositions
social and emotional
(academic motivation, on-task behaviour, capacity for
behaviours)
independent work, responsibility in doing tasks).
Source: PPMI (based on literature review).
Human capital rationale of benefits of ECEC
Human capital theory, which argues that the value of education is in increasing private
and social rates of return, generally measured in terms of increased incomes to
individuals, families and states, has been widely employed in national and
international policy. It concentrates primarily on the instrumental value of education
and on individual and collective returns from education (usually in terms of economic
growth). Even with the fact that it has been criticised, some important findings
emerged from this approach. The human capital received from education can be
conceived in terms of commodity production. However, Sen (1995) argues that
education plays a role not only in accumulating human capital but also in broadening
human capability. This can be through a person benefiting from education in reading,
communicating, arguing, in being able to choose in a more informed way, in being
taken more seriously by others and so on. One of important findings is that
investments in early childhood education are the most effective as they bring higher
returns than in any other stage of education (see Figure 1), although the size of the
return effect may vary between countries (Cunha et al. 2006); Heckman & Masterov,
September 2014
34
2007; and Heckman, 2007, 2008). American longitudinal research (Perry high/scope
(Barnett, 1996), the Abecedarian (Ramsey et al., 2001) and the Chicago Child-Parent
Centres (Reynolds, 2000) showed that every invested dollar in preschool programs
returned seven to ten dollars to taxpayers. Also, children who attended high quality
ECEC tended to have less repetition and remedial assistance rates. As for crime
delinquency, the results were more mixed. The Perry Preschool Project – or high/scope
– and the Chicago study reported a significant difference in juvenile crime rates
between persons who attended high quality ECEC and who did not, while the
Abecedarian study showed no difference. The Head Start impact study (2012) showed
long-term improvement for Head Start participants on outcomes such as school
attainment, earnings, and crime reduction, for some race and gender combinations.
Egyptian study found that attending ECEC led to 1.09 additional years of school and
increased the probability by 7.8% that a young person will track into general
secondary education and university. Cost-benefit analysis of ECEC in terms of ECEC
costs against benefits of longer educational attainment show that every dollar invested
in ECCE will return 1.31 dollars, which makes ECEC worthy investment (Krafft, 2011).
Figure 1: Heckman Curve: Rates of Return to Human Capital Investment
Rate of
Return to
Investment
in Human
Capital
Preschool
programs
Schooling
Opportunity
Cost of
Funds
r
Job Training
Prescho
ol
0
School
Post
school
Age
Source: Heckman, James J. “The Case for Investing in Disadvantaged Young Children”, in Big
Ideas for Children: Investing in Our Nation’s Future, First Focus, 2008, 49-58.
Although these results may sound conclusive one should be careful in extrapolating
the findings to the European context. Penn et al. (2006) point out the limitations of
American longitudinal research which include the use of small and randomised
sampling (except Chicago Child-Parent Centres), the methodological approach of costbenefit analysis and the specific American context. Other methodological problem is
that in many of the studies underpinning this policy, disadvantaged children enrolled in
ECEC programmes are compared to equally disadvantaged children not benefiting
from ECEC, rather than to their better-off peers. Moreover, the conceptualisation of
disadvantage or risk in childhood generally refers to a restricted number of
characteristics, namely those which can be measured (e.g., gender, socioeconomic
status, geographical location, ethnicity). As a consequence, most studies neglect the
incidence of unobservable circumstances constructed by formal and non-formal social
structures that shape disadvantage beyond childhood (such as racial or gender
September 2014
35
discrimination), influencing life outcomes in unfair ways. Despite the robust evidence
that is produced in many effectiveness studies, the claim that ECCE programmes as
such are ‘the greatest of equalisers’ should be considered with some caution (Morabito
28
et al. 2013 ). From conceptual side, the majority of educational research generated in
other European countries has a more qualitative framework, focusing on processes,
rather than outcomes. On the other hand Social inclusion studies are more concerned
with considering children as members of society and showing commitment toward
their participation in democratic decision-making processes. The risk of using human
capital arguments underpinning economic rationales for investing in ECEC is to dismiss
important elements that are essential conditions for ECEC quality in many European
countries – such as early childhood pedagogical approaches and children’s democratic
participation and lead to contra-productive outcomes (Lazzari and Vanderbroeck,
2012).
Other positive impacts of ECEC include health, nutritional, and behavioural
improvements (Nores & Barnett, 2010), decreased criminality, decreased use of
social services (Reynolds et al., 2011), increased female labour-force
participation, and a day-care benefit (World Bank, 2010). Access to high quality,
affordable childcare can generate further benefits for families, as it allows mothers
(or fathers) to enter or return to the labour force, or to upgrade their skills
through schooling or other personal development programs. For low-income families
or single parents, the ability to work while children are young can mean the
difference between living off welfare and rising above the poverty line (TD Economics,
2012).
28
Morabito, C, Vandenbroeck, M. and Roose,R (2013) The Greatest of Equalisers’: A Critical Review of
International Organisations’ Views on Early Childhood Care and Education. Journal of Social Policy.
September 2014
36
4. Other education factors influecing children’s
development
As was described in the previous section high quality education and care play
significant role in child’s development not only in terms of its immediate outcomes:
cognitive skills, like literacy and numeracy, social and emotional behaviours, readiness
for societal interactions, but also long-term impact on child’s performance and
participation in later stages of education (Sylva et al., 2004; Mitchell et al., 2008;
Broberg et al., 1997) and life (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 1999; Heckman et al., 2010). In
order to achieve this, the integrity and consistency of the whole educational system is
necessary. Children who have a positive start at school are likely to perceive school as
an important place, to have positive attitude to learning and positive expectations of
their abilities to succeed at school (Hayes, 2011; Dockett & Perry, 2007; Dockett and
Perry, 2007; Fabian & Dunlop, 2007; Margetts, 2007; Peters, 2010; Einarsdottir,
2007; Moss, 2013).However, this is more likely to happen if the pathway of children
through educational settings is smooth and well-organized. The section below explores
the research evidence on the barriers for the effective transitions between early
education services and primary school and other educational levels and educational
support policies during compulsory schooling aimed at improving pupils’ performance
and participation in education.
4.1. Transitions from ECEC to primary school
For the purposes of the current study transition is defined as a relationship
between ECEC and compulsory schooling in three dimensions: readiness for school,
strong and equal partnership between all stakeholders involved - ECEC educators,
school teachers, children, parents and communities – and the vision of a meeting
place.
Worldwide acknowledgement of the importance of early childhood education and care
for later development and the necessity of investing in high quality early childhood
education (OECD, 2006) encouraged also research in transitions as the next strand in
the learning chain. Transition to school is an important part of quality of both preschool services and primary education where different approaches, contexts, systems
and philosophies intersect (A. Hayes, 2011).The importance of a positive transition to
schools has been emphasized in research around the world. Positive or negative
experience during transition to school or between upper educational levels, both from
emotional and academic perspective, can be a critical factor for children’s future
success and development (Dockett & Perry, 2007; Fabian & Dunlop, 2007; Margetts,
2007; Peters, 2010; Woodhead & Moss, 2007; Einarsdottir, 2007; Moss, 2013).
Positive transitions can stimulate further development; however, with negative
experience lasting difficulties can occur leading to problematic behaviour and possible
poorer performance (Niesel & Griebel, 2005; Woodhead & Moss, 2007). Therefore,
poor attention to transition process can enhance barriers for children, especially those
with disadvantaged background, to successfully integrate into primary school
(Bennett, 2012). Broström (2005) mentions that “too many children experience the
transition to school as a culture shock, and each day brings too many challenges or
wrong kinds of challenges”.
The barriers that can affect the smooth transition process mostly relate to the
structural difference between ECEC systems and compulsory schooling, various views
of ECE and school educators on child’s development and school readiness,
September 2014
37
communication gaps between educational levels and families and communities
(Neuman, 2000; Broström, 2005).
Therefore, however good pre-school education is, if there is no smooth transition
organized, all the positive effects from ECEC may vanish, due to the child’s emotional
failure to transfer from one setting to another. Recognition of transition to school is an
integral component of quality educational provision (Hayes, 2011). Fabian & Dunlop
(2007) emphasize the importance of the organisational design of transition process as
transition experience is likely to influence subsequent development. OECD (2006)
highlights the benefits of unified approach adopted by both pre-school and primary
school systems as a way of how transitions can be organised.
Defining transitions
The word transition is rather open; and, in spite of an increasing political and
educational interest, it is not very well defined. Hayes (2011) relates transitions with a
“border crossing, a physical movement from one physical context to another”. Fabian
& Dunlop (2002) define transition as “being the passage from one place, stage, state,
style or subject to another over time.” Griebel & Niesel (2004) defined it as the time
between the first visit in the new educational setting and the previous setting.
However, transition to school is not a one-time event, but rather a “process of
continuity” (Peters, 2010) and change as children move into the primary school. This
change refers to changes in relationship, teaching style, environment, space, time,
contexts for learning, etc. (Fabian & Dunlop, 2006). And therefore, the process of
transition occurs over time, “beginning well before children start school and extending
to the point where children and families feel a sense of belonging at school and when
educators recognize this sense of belonging” (Hayes, 2011).
There are several approaches around which the discussion on transitions is formed.
According to the first understanding, the transition to school has been framed around
concept of children’s “school readiness”. In this case the role of early childhood
education and care is understood in preparation of children for schools, so that they
develop necessary skills and abilities to be able to cope with school programme
(Neuman, 2000). As a result, in an effort to prepare children for academic
programmes of primary schools, pre-school systems adopt school-like characteristics,
which prevents early childhood education systems from focusing on psychology and
natural learning strategies of children (OECD, 2006). School readiness approach is
widely practiced in France and English speaking countries.
In other countries – Nordic and Central European countries – the transition to school is
understood differently. Childhood is viewed as a phase of life which should not be
focused on obtaining knowledge and academic skills in preparation for primary school.
The child is allowed to develop natural learning strategies and regarded as a
competent and active learner. ECEC seeks to promote children’s multi-dimensional
development and learning, and on purpose de-emphasises school-oriented pedagogy
(Neuman, 2000; OECD, 2006). However, such an approach creates greater transition
difficulties to primary schools, which adopt strict and disciplined educational approach.
Later discourse summarized by Peter Moss (2013) combines these approaches and
sees transition as as a relationship between ECEC and compulsory schooling in
three dimensions: readiness for school, strong and equal partnership
between all stakeholders involved - ECEC educators, school teachers,
children, parents and communities – and common vision of ECEC and primary
school on children’s development as continuity. For this study the transition
September 2014
38
processes are also defined in the form of these three dimensions, which will allow
exploring all the possible factors and barriers attributed to these dimensions.
Factors influencing transition process
Structure and quality of ECEC and primary education in the country in part shape the
number and nature of children’s transitions in their early years (Fabian & Dunlop,
2007). One of the main structural factors linked to the nature of transitions is the age
at which children actually moving from ECEC to primary school.
Although in most countries children usually start primary school at the age of six,
there is a possibility to enter the school earlier, e.g. by attending school-based ECEC
or the so-called pre-school class. For instance, in Belgium children may start preprimary school at the age of 2.5 and in Germany and Italy at 3 (Eurydice). Many of
these pre-schools are linked to, or located in the same premises with, primary schools.
In the Nordic countries, the opposite, children start school-based provision later.
Denmark and Sweden have kept compulsory school age at seven, but have introduced
a free, non-obligatory pre-school class in the primary schools for six-year-olds,
providing a bridge from ECEC to formal schooling (Neuman, 2000). Woodhead & Moss
(2007) suggest that the more fragmented the early childhood education is, the more
challenging the process of transition becomes.
Another factor that can influence the process of transition is social and cultural
background of children and families who make these transitions. A literature review
made by Neuman (2000) suggests that vulnerable children are more likely to
experience difficulties in transition from ECEC to primary school. For example, children
who do not speak language of instruction or share dominant school culture at home
share may be particularly vulnerable especially if the school does not tailor any
support to them. However, if the schools adopt different policies on being culturally
responsive and diversity tolerant this may soften the barriers to transition. Children
from low socio-economic backgrounds and with special education needs are also at
risk of making less successful transitions than their peers due, e.g. to lower teacher
expectations, lack of recognition or connection with the funds of knowledge they bring,
problems with home-school relationships and so on. Parental employment,
neighbourhood support and resources also correlate with children’s experiences on
entry to school, and are therefore worthy of consideration. Almisis et.al (2007)
conclude that children from large or low socio-economic status families are more likely
to experience difficulties in transition. Stamm et al. (2009) also observed that in
Switzerland the main factors determining difficulties for children in making transitions
are also related to their low socio-economic status and immigrant background (with
integration difficulties and /or poor mastery of the language of instruction).
Lack of coordination between education levels may act as another barrier to
successful transition. Argos Gonzales, Munoz, & Zubizaretta (2011) revealed that
practical absence of coordination between ISCED 0 and ISCED 1 is a challenge for
smooth transition from ISCED 0 to ISCED 1 in Spain. Amsing & Eilers (2011) also
reported about administrative and organizational factors limiting the transition
success. Also, a lack of feedback from primary education to ECEC, a lack of problemownership, a lack of an internal care structure, a lack of stimulating factors and lack of
feedback from primary education to ECEC were named as barriers to smooth transition
(Amsing & Eilers, 2011). Breit (2009) indicated insufficient cooperation and
meetings between institutions as factor that can hinder successful transition.
Researcher found that 45% of surveyed Austrian teachers reported insufficient
cooperation between kindergartens and schools. Difficulties for both institutions to
cooperate regularly are different laws, lack of time resources, too many kindergartens
September 2014
39
and schools that would have to cooperate (especially in urban areas) and data
protection regulations. Ackesjö (2010), Gustafsson (2003), Munkhammar (2001)
Daugavpils University (2008), Abrantes (2009) stated that professional cooperation
between the involved teachers in preschool, preschool classes and school is crucial for
the transition.
Different visions and expectations of what skills school beginners should have may
also create difficulties for succeeding during transition from preschool to primary
school. It is important to follow the common pedagogical language across two levels –
smothering differences in training and pedagogical expectations and supports (O’Kane
& Hayes, 2006). E.g. Table 7 shows the differences between expectations of
kindergarten educators and primary school teachers in Austria on what skills and
abilities a school beginner should possess.
Table 7: School beginner competence profile in Austria
Kindergarten teachers
Primary school teachers
1. Cognitive Abilities
1. Independence
2. Working and learning habits
2. Social behaviour
3. Motor skills
3. Motor skills
4. Independence
4. Cognitive Abilities
5. Social behaviour
5. Working and learning habits
6. Language abilities
6. Visual perception
7. Visual perception
7. Language abilities
Source: Holleler (2002).
Note: Skills are rated according to their importance (i.e. 1 refers to the most important, 7 refers
to the least important).
Rodrigues (2005) also highlighted the differences in the teachers’ views of success and
pupils’ appropriate behaviours between pre-school and primary school: while Preschool
teachers value free choice and initiative and autonomy, primary school teachers give
more value to compliance to the teacher, responsibility, persistence and the ability to
work alone. Primary teachers refer to the lack of social rules as the main problem of
children at transition; they all give importance to pre-school attendance. This hinders
the process of transferring acquired skills between different education levels. Broström
(2003) also argues that factors that could determine difficulties for children in this
transition could be the transition to new teachers, differences between educational
strategies of the two practices, and differences in physical design of the two practices.
Argos Gonzales et al. (2011) found that children at ISCED 0 seem to be very worried
about continuing sharing group with their friends at the next level of education, thus
this can make the transition more difficult in psychological terms. Changing the
group and new classmates was observed as barrier by Farca & Velea (2012) as well.
Ionescu (2003) observed that children may experience the emotional breaking caused
by rapid change of their teachers. In Montenegro, in order to make the transition
from kindergarten to primary school smoother, both teacher and kindergarten
teachers work together in the first grade.
Non-compulsory nature of ECEC may act as one of the reasons for children’s
difficulties in adaptation to school. In Estonian research it was observed that some
children coming from home environment are not well prepared for school and this
cause their underachievement (Tiko, 2008). Romanian researchers Farca & Velea
(2012) also stated that the greatest problems in adapting are for those children who
have not attended kindergarten and who lack the ability to socialize in a group. Of
course, the children who have attended kindergarten also need a period of adaptation
to school as there are many changes that they are faced with (i.e. mandatory
schedule, shorter breaks, less time for play, accomplishing tasks, stricter and more
September 2014
40
distant communication). However for children with preschool experience the
adaptation is easier (Farca & Velea, 2012). This was one of the reasons for some
countries to introduce compulsory pre-school year. E.g. in Serbia, introduction of
obligatory pre-school education specifically aimed to increase the coverage of children
from vulnerable groups (Ivić & Pešikan, 2009)
Ionescu (2003) observed that the adaptations to the new learning schedule might
also create difficulties in smooth transition. Also, overburdened syllabus, its disparity
between different levels and poor quality of textbooks can also constitute barriers for
effective transition between educational levels. E.g., Castro, Ezquerra, & Argos
Gonzales (2012) and Silva & Melo (2012, 2011)) found that unfavourable discontinuity
between level of the requirements in pre-school education and primary education
exists in Spain. In the former level, there is more flexibility and more room for playing,
which causes some children experience anxiety and tiredness in the less flexible ISCED
Also Fast (2007)shows that the areas of reading, writing and mathematical
development is treated very differently in preschool and school, which can create
difficulties for children to adapt. Luketin & Longo (2006) conducted a survey among
kindergarten teachers and asked them what factors should be changed to make the
transition between preschool to elementary school easier for children. Most frequent
answers were that learning in the first grade of school should integrate more playrelated activities; the number of children in classes should be smaller, and the syllabus
less complex.
Szilágyi (2009) revealed that a significant ratio of pedagogues was still not able to
accept the confirmed differences in the development level of children in Hungary. This
author suggested that school failures can be prevented, or at least minimized if
schools are able to accept individual differences in learning and development as
natural, and adjust their development work (activities) focussing on the support of
individual learning.
Regular parental involvement may be critical for children’s successful transition
from kindergarten to primary school. Roma Education Program-Evaluation Report for
2005/2006 in Macedonia observed that organising such activities as parents’ meetings
where they discuss with the parents relevant topics like regular attendance, school
discipline, significance of education, the role of the parents in the children’s
development, the children’s responsibility, hygiene, protection from diseases, etc. help
to find better solutions for smoother child’s transition.
Elements of successful transitions
When examining what a successful transition looks like, there are also different
perspectives to consider. Starting school involves not just the child but also a range of
other participants, including families and teachers in ECE and school (A. Hayes, 2011).
Therefore, successful transitions logically depend on the nature of the relationships
and communication between all the participants involved. For children their
friendships, peer relationships and those with their teacher appear central. Respectful
and tolerant relationships between the adults involved are also key factors in a
successful transition. This is important for all children, but for vulnerable children in
particular (Neuman, 2000).
In traditional understanding successful transition refers to the concept of school
readiness. Traditional concepts of school readiness focus on children’s skills;
however, preschool skill-based assessments of children’s performance have proven to
be poor predictors of subsequent school integration and achievement (La Paro &
Pianta, 2003). More recent thinking about the transition to school recognises that
September 2014
41
“school readiness does not reside solely in the child, but reflects the environments in
which children find themselves” (Nolan et al., 2009). This perspective has contributed
to the re-conceptualisation of the nature of “school readiness” and of how best to
promote positive transitions to school. School readiness is now seen as a combination
of four essential components (see Figure 2).
Figure 2: Concept of school readiness
Ready
families
+
Ready
communities
+
Ready
ECEC
+
Ready
schools
=
Ready
children
Source: Nolan, A., Hamm, C., McCartin, J., Hunt, Scott, C., and Barty, K., Outcomes and
Indicators of a Positive Start to School: Report prepared by Victoria University for the
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Melbourne: Victoria University,
2009.
The literature emphasizes that four processes are important for having all the
elements from above equation ready for school:
1)
Structural continuity (Neuman, 2000; OECD, 2006; Dockett, Perry, &
Kearney, 2010);
Structural coherence of transition process is understood in terms of bridging
early childhood services and compulsory schools under the same administrative
authorities at the national level. However, some are concerned that bringing
together some areas of responsibility for children could marginalize child
welfare, health services, and other services for children that are left in a
separate Ministry and create barriers to collaboration around children and
families in need of special support. Another potential threat is that integration
might lead to the ‘schoolification’ of early childhood and major focus on
academic development, rather than creative and social one. A solution to this
concern can be a separate inter-ministerial committee on children (like in
Nordic countries) (OECD, 2006).
2) Pedagogical and curriculum continuity (Dockett, Perry, & Kearney, 2010,
OECD, 2012; Bennett, 2012: Woodhead & Moss, 2007);
Very few countries have developed integrated curricular approaches aimed at
coherence of developmental goals and practices of ECEC with the aims of
schools. Such curricular approach favours smooth transition from play-oriented
and child-centred early years’ settings to more structured and systematic
school settings. E.g., France and the French Community of Belgium have
organised pre-primary and primary schools around three ‘cycles of learning’ to
bridge children’s learning experiences over the whole period of early schooling.
The cycles of learning aim to reinforce the structural and pedagogical links
between pre-primary and primary education and enable the teaching team to
better adapt their teaching methods to the pace of development of every child.
In Norway the “rethinking of the relationship between the ECEC and the school”
has led, for example, to more emphasis on learning through play, age-mixed
activities, and organisation around themes (rather than subjects) in the early
years of primary school (Neuman, 2000). In Denmark, Broström (2002) also
September 2014
42
outlines the importance of child-ready schools whereby schools work closely
with the nurseries to develop curriculum continuity to meet the child’s needs.
3) Professional continuity (Neuman, 2000; Fabian & Dunlop, 2006);
Professional continuity of transition process is understood as the coherence of
qualifications and attitudes of teaching stuff working in primary schools and
early childhood education and care services. E.g. ECEC educators and school
teachers may have different expectations on cognitive and non-cognitive
development of children and their readiness for school, which may create
barriers to their successful transition. Therefore, the research suggests the
importance of continuous and joint training of ECEC and primary school staff as
well as constant communication and knowledge sharing between ECEC and
school settings (OECD, 2006). Also the distinction between ECEC staff and
primary school teachers often comes down to status – with teachers being the
more privileged profession.
4)
Continuity with the home and community (Neuman, 2000; Broström,
2005; Fabian & Dunlop, 2006).
Transition to school is seen as a family transition, and not just the child’s move.
Effective transition approaches, therefore, need to take families and community
into account (Fabian & Dunlop, 2006). With the increasing heterogeneity of
today’s families parental involvement and partnership with ECE and schools is
crucial to adjust (pre-)school services to ethnic, cultural, linguistic and other
forms of diversity (Neuman, 2000).
Implications for children’s further development
A positive transition to and start at school has been identified as a factor neutralizing
social and economic disadvantage and in promoting pupil’s resilience (A. Hayes,
2011). Children who have a positive start to school are likely to perceive school as an
important place, to have positive attitude to learning and positive expectations of their
abilities to succeed at school (Dockett & Perry, 2007; Fabian & Dunlop, 2006;
Margetts, 2007; Peters, 2010).
Good transition can also benefit to child’s development. Transferring to a new strictly
structured and systemic environment, they learn to negotiate their requests and to
collaborate in the teachers’ agenda (Fabian & Dunlop, 2006). Successful transition is
significant for children’s emotional well-being and to their cognitive development.
Transition may also support early integration of groups from different backgrounds,
thereby becoming a necessary element of inclusion. Positive transitions may minimize
negative consequences of change such as school phobia, functional illiteracy, drop-out
rates, etc., therefore, neutralizing the negative effects of unequal opportunities at the
entrance of compulsory education (Vrinioti, Einarsdottir, & Broström, 2010).
Nolan et al. (2009) summarized the important outcomes of positive transition
experience (see Table 8):
September 2014
43
Table 8: Potential outcomes of transition from ECEC to school
Outcomes of positive transition experience










Children feel safe, secure and supported in the school environment.
Children display social and emotional resilience in the school environment.
Children feel a sense of belonging to the school community.
Children have positive relationships with educators and other children.
Children feel positive about themselves as learners.
Children display dispositions for learning.
Families have access to information related to the transition to school tailored to suit
the family.
Families are involved with the school.
Relationships between families and the school are respectful, reciprocal and responsive.
Educators are prepared and confident that they can plan appropriately for the children
starting school.
Source: Nolan, A., Hamm, C., McCartin, J., Hunt. Scott, C., and Barty, K., Outcomes and
Indicators of a Positive Start to School: Report prepared by Victoria Universityfor the
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. Melbourne: Victoria University,
2009.
All these outcomes positively affect the further development and performance of a
child and contribute to the development of child’s resiliency (Niesel & Griebel, 2005).
In terms of system characteristics, successful transitions are usually more costeffective and likely to reduce the necessity of later compensatory educational support
policies (Fabian & Dunlop, 2006). Good practice examples are found in France and
French community in Belgium and Norway (Neuman, 2000), where special attention is
given to curricular and methodical continuity. These solutions demand serious
curricular and structural reforms but, as presented, are possible.
4.2. Transitions between primary and secondary schools
Transition from primary to secondary has been identified in different education
systems as significant and stressful event for pupils and it refers to the period
during which pupils move from the final year of the primary setting to start
secondary schooling (Mackenzie, McMaugh, & O’Sullivan, 2012; Evangelou et al.,
2009; Powell et al., 2006; McGee et al., 2003). McGee et al. (2003) concluded that
there was a decline in achievement following transition. However, authors of different
studies provided various possible explanations for this. McGee, et al (2003)identified
the following reasons: change in pupils’ concepts of themselves as learners; changes
in attitudes towards different subject; onset of adolescence (which is debatable
because the transition to secondary occurs in different ages in different countries, but
same pattern of underachievement is observed. Also, pupils that have two transitions to lower secondary (ISCED 2) and then to upper secondary (ISCED 3) education experience this change twice and as Akos (2006) finds they face similar difficulties and
may experience both academic and psychosocial decline. Mackenzie et al., (2012)
provide classification of problematic aspects of transitions (see Table 9):
September 2014
44
Table 9: Problems related to transitions
Problematic aspects of transitions
Academic

Difference between primary and secondary
school environment, e.g. greater emphasis is
being placed on evaluation of students;

School is larger and more competitive;

Ability is being more valued than effort;

Need
to
adapt
to
different
teacher
expectations and teaching styles;

Keeping up with the demands of the
secondary school, with pressure to achieve
arising from variety of sources (parents,
teachers, peers)
Source: Mackenzie et al. (2012).




Social
Social acceptance is perceived to be
of great importance in adolescence;
Formation of new social groups;
Students are displaced from the top
of the social hierarchy in primary
school to the bottom in secondary
school;
Student’s self-concept plunges in this
period.
Research done by the University of Bristol (Sutherland et al., 2010) identifies similar
aspects that make transition hard for pupils: major discontinuities in school climate
and ethos, educational practices, and social and organizational structures; moving
from relatively small and secure context to larger and more fragmented structure. This
refers mostly to transition from ISCED 2 to ISCED 3, because it implies change of
school and environment in many countries. Sutherland et al. (2010) also points out
that transition difficulties can be even more significant for particular groups of pupils.
Important characteristics such as gender (Jackson, 2000; Hanewald, 2013), ethnic
heritage (Graham & Hill, 2002), socio-economic status (SES) and special
educational needs (SEN) (Evangelou et al., 2009; Lucey & Reay, 2002) may explain
pupils’ failures in secondary schools despite average (or even above average)
performance in primary school. Also importance of family and school support is
recognized by several researchers (Mackenzie et al., 2012; Greenhough, 2007).
Education system and the organization of transition also play its role in this process.
Sutherland, Ching Yee, & McNess (2010) highlight that, the complexity of transitions
also stems from parental choice policies and competition, which can hinder transitions
for some groups of pupils. Clear and uniform administrative procedures are also
important for successful transition between educational levels (Evangelou et al.,
2009).
During transition between primary and secondary schools children also have to adapt
to different teaching practices and expectation and the new organisation of the
curricula (separate subjects and separate classrooms (McGee, et al., 2003; Hanewald,
2013). In some countries teachers from grade 1-4 and 5-8 have completely different
educational background, however, there was no research evidence on difference in
teachers’ educational background and its influence on transitions found.
Researchers were, aside from the problems and causes, interested in solutions and
good practice examples when it comes to smooth and supported transition. Mackenzie
et al. (2012) conclude based on literature review that some positive transitional
experiences can be attributed to the external factors. Such situational variables can
be supportive family environment, accessible teachers in secondary school, strong
peer support, reducing differences in teaching styles and organization through
familiarization (e.g. open days, tours of the school, head teacher talks, (Sutherland et
al., 2010). Peer support and collaboration has also been identified as one of the crucial
aspects by Ashton (2008), Ganeson & Ehrich (2008), Waller (2008) and others.
Sutherland et al. (2010) recommend that teachers from primary school should
cooperate more with secondary school teachers. Also, authors find that parental
involvement can greatly ease the transition. Data analysis gathered on a sample of
September 2014
45
500 pupils and families by Institute of Education in London (Evangelou et al.,2008)
reveal the following aspects of a successful transition:





Developing new friendships and improving their self-esteem and confidence;
Having settled well in school life;
Showing an increase interest in school and school work;
Getting used to their new routines and school organization with great ease;
Experience curriculum continuity.
As for curriculum, practice of using “bridging materials” in some schools in London
also proved to be useful method. Powell et al. (2006) list some other possibilities for
assuring continuity such as joint curriculum projects; agreed policies and practices in
teaching and learning; coordination of material and teaching styles. One of the main
features affecting a successful transition is educational support at the start of
secondary school (e.g., induction programmes).
As for the support to vulnerable pupils, research shows that, the key element in
facilitating transitions for vulnerable young pupils is building a consistent relationship
with another adult or peer mentor in the appropriate form (Gulati & King, 2009). Also
vulnerable pupils are in more danger of being bullied; therefore, violence prevention
for all pupils with special attention to those at risk is one of the crucial aspects of
successful transition (Evangelou et al., 2008).
Among pupils’ internal factors of successful transition are ability to adjust to new
school, pupil’s sense of belonging and feeling of social connection (Hanewald 2013),
dispositions to which start being developing during early years (as discussed in Section
1.3). Mackenzie et al. (2012) suggest that some of the key non-cognitive
characteristics for successful transition include having an appropriate knowledge and
thinking skills, being conscientious and having ability to work independently, a range
of coping strategies and positive perception of the change. Authors also pay special
attention to bullying as one of the factors of transitional problems.
Table 10 below summarizes the factors of successful transitions.
Table 10: Summary of the factors related to successful transition
Factors of successful transition
Academic
Social
Reducing differences in teaching styles and Social
adjustment
and
peer
organization through familiarization
acceptance
Cooperation between primary and secondary Feeling of connectedness with the
teachers
environment and belonging
Gradual adjustment to new curriculum and Family involvement and support
continuity
Violence prevention
Teacher support and high expectations
School
support
in
terms
of
Fostering and developing of ability to work familiarization with the new social
independently
environment (talks, open days etc.)
Development of thinking skills needed for and full pupil well being
handling secondary school curriculum
Mentoring for vulnerable pupils
Source: PPMI (based on literature review).
September 2014
46
4.3. Educational policies during compulsory schooling
The fact that children participated in high quality ECEC and successful transition to
primary school does not guarantee the successful development of these children
during compulsory schooling. A variety of background factors and cultural differences
may hinder children’s performance in compulsory schools and the research reveals it is
important for education system to be prepared to accommodate these needs and
provide support when necessary (OECD, 2005a).
It is also important to distinguish different categories of children in need of support.
The broadest category at risk can include children living in severe poverty, children
without parental care, children at risk of being abused, abandoned or trafficked,
children in the street, children in prison and children living with HIV/Aids. Other
groups of children that need special attention during schooling are children with
special needs and those with disabilities (OECD, 2007b). Even such a rough
classification indicates how sensitive and flexible education system has to be to cater
the needs of all children. OECD (2007a) research on policies for pupils at risk in
Southern and Eastern European countries showed that there are differences in
understanding and addressing these needs. One important observation from the study
is that concepts of integration and inclusion are not clearly distinguished from each
other in some systems. Integration (placing SEN and disability children in regular
classes) and inclusion (making changes in the way the entire school works to include
all children) are often used interchangeably. However, there is a growing
understanding that all children have the right to education under international and
national law; that all children are capable of being educated; and that it is a
government responsibility to provide educational settings that respect these rights and
capabilities (OECD, 2007a). The concept of inclusion has expanded from just pupils
with disabilities and difficulties to those who are at risk of marginalisation or exclusion
for particular reason. It can be thought of as an approach that seeks to address
‘barriers to learning and participation’, and provide ‘resources to support learning and
participation’. This support is seen as all activities, including those considered to be
extra or co-curricular which increase the capacity of schools to respond to diversity
(NCSE, 2010). Non-inclusive fragmented education system characteristics (especially
structural ones) are likely to absorb partly (if not all) the positive effect of ECEC
(OECD, 2010).
Educational support policies and practices
Support measures for pupils usually seek to improve the structural and/or schoollevel conditions which cause pupils’ under-achievement or early school leaving.
Research findings suggest that even though systemic and individual conditions
strongly influence children’s education outcomes, many factors of disadvantage can be
influenced by education policies. Most successful measures combine components
within school, outside school at a systemic macro level. An example of such a measure
is the US School Transitional Environment Program (STEP) which targets children who
are transitioning from primary to large lower secondary schools. As was seen above
29
mobility may lead to dropout (Lyche, 2010). Hammond et al. (2007) find that all
successful programmes involved some component of staff training and/or technical
assistance and monitoring, and that all programmes had developed resources or
material such as implementation guides, student/ or parent workbooks or handouts,
videos, self-help materials or other According to the EC Working paper on ESL
29
Hammond, C., J. Smink and S. Drew (2007), Dropout Risk Factors and Exemplary Programs, National
Dropout Prevention Center, Communities in Schools, Inc., Clemson.
September 2014
47
educational support measures could be classified into three main groups: prevention,
30
intervention and compensation (European Commission, 2010b) .
Preventive measures
This part of the framework seeks to tackle the problem even before the first symptoms
of it are visible. The first step toward an effective prevention strategy involves tracking
and analyzing basic data on which pupils are showing early warning signs of dropping
out. Prevention measures look at pre-conditions for successful schooling and the
design of education and training systems. The aim is to remove systematic obstacles.
The most common preventive policies may include:



Quality ECEC: Evidence shows that access to good quality education at
an early age facilitates the expansion of capabilities. Evidence shows
that this good start lessens chances for underachievement and leaving
school (EC, 2013). In quality ECEC, child has opportunity to explore,
develop skills and understand universal values i.e. becoming capable to
utilise its potential. Researchers find that in pre-primary, broad
measures should be implemented to develop cognitive and noncognitive skills. When the child enters primary, the transition should be
supported and the family should again be involved. Pro-social bonds
should be developed as well as attachment to school, while riskbehaviour should be identified and acted upon within school but also
outside school involving the home (Lyche, 2010).
Building Early Warning Systems. The first step in a proactive
approach to stemming underachievement and discontinuation of
schooling is to build an early warning system designed to use accurate
data to help target an appropriate mix of interventions for groups and
individual pupils. Electronic data system includes individual pupil-level
data that can tracks pupils over time and also allow risk factors to be
assessed (Jerald, 2006). But teachers and educators are also part of
this mechanisms, as long as they are properly trained to recognise
distress signals. The existence of systemic framework doesn’t mean that
risk is addressed on general level. Individual learning support, flexible
learning pathways, high quality teaching, and learning based on student
focused methods should be a substantial part of school policies aimed at
reducing ESL31.
Teaching staff. As main agents of change and quality factor, teaching
staff needs to be prepared for diverse and ever-emerging challenges.
Pre-service and in-service training has to ensure that teachers are
competent to work in diverse environment and to address individual
needs in imperfect context like large groups, limited resources and
support It is also acknowledged that increased migration flows have
significantly changed the population diversity of many classrooms, thus
teachers need to be better equipped to work in culturally and ethnically
diverse schools and support young people with increasingly diverse
guidance needs. ESL measures in particular require talented staff that is
able to employ alternative methods of working with young people to
those used in mainstream education. Dealing with this target group also
Commission Staff Working Paper, Reducing Early School Leaving: Accompanying Document to the
Proposal for a Council Recommendation on Policies to Reduce Early School Leaving, 2010. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/school-education/doc/earlywp_en.pdf.
31
European Commission “ Reducing early school leaving: Key messages and policy support Final Report of
the Thematic Working Group on Early School Leaving”,Brussels: EC, 2013.
30
September 2014
48



requires a different approach and attitude from staff, who need to treat
young people as adults (though they may not reciprocate this, at least
not in the beginning), with respect, as well as to challenge them and set
them with high expectations. Quality teacher staff is major precondition
for effectiveness of all three kinds of measures (EC, 2011; TWG on ESL,
2013; Eurydice, 2013, Eurofound, 2012).
Curriculum. Curriculum sensitive to diversity and different cultural
contexts may help avoiding marginalisation of certain groups of
children, develop tolerant attitude in the classroom, and thus, contribute
to the creation of positive and friendly learning environment, which in
turn, positively influences pupils’ learning outcomes. There is evidence
that gradually decreasing percentage of mother tongue instruction is an
effective way to introduce an official language (Abadzi, 2006).
Retrospective studies of college pupils’ descriptions of their earlier
experiences reveal that being given an opportunity to explore and study
the history, culture, literature, and other intellectual products of
members of their racial or ethnic group can have a positive effect on the
development of pupils’ racial or ethnic identity (Zirkel, 2008).Research
shows that the achievement gap can be traced back to ongoing issues of
racial stigma and racial tension in the school and that creating
supportive and culturally sensitive school environment is another aspect
which has high preventive value (Zirkel, 2008).
Outreach to Parents. Support to parents has been deliberated in
various areas of public policy since the 1980s. It is now understood to
be an important educational success factor. Schools and municipalities
may employ different policies to reach parents, encourage them to
participate in their children’s education and support them at home (The
National Economic and Social Forum, 2002). Outreach to parents and
parental involvement is especially significant for disadvantaged children,
who often face great differences between home and school
environment. Some countries choose to develop special training courses
for parents (Turkey; (Ulug, 2010), while others are trying to give real
power to parental councils and create new parent bodies (SerbiaMunicipal parental councils projects OSFS/IPI). Children’s centres are
also effective in providing home-visiting outreach providing important
information and access to services such as childcare and family support
(DCSF, 2007; Child Care Resource Center, 2009).
Managing transition. Smoothing the transition from primary education
into secondary level can prevent pupils from falling behind and
potentially dropping out (OECD, 2012a). Evidence from Germany show
that the rates of leavers vs. total participants ratio are highest in the
preparatory measures of the transfer / transition system: Vocational
preparatory year (42,9%), Basic vocational training year (47,6%) and
Vocational preparatory schools (29,59%) (RESLEA, 2013). A
longitudinal study on the transition from primary to secondary level in
the UK found that 84 % of young people feel prepared on entry to
secondary school; the rest do not feel ready or feel worried or nervous
about the change. Measures to facilitate the process of adaption should
start from transition from home to the world of education. Transition
from primary to lower-secondary education and from lower to upper
secondary should be facilitated. Examples of such measures include:
use of ‘bridging materials’ (e.g. information booklets) and sharing of
information between schools; buddy programmes and mentoring
schemes; shared projects and activities between local primary and
secondary schools; visits to schools by prospective teachers, children
September 2014
49



and their parents, and visits by guidance counsellors; talks at schools,
taster days and other joint social events between schools. For transition
process, to be successful, more innovative responses are required on
the part of the school. What is needed is a re-focusing of schools’
institutional make-up so that their culture and environment become
much more pupil-friendly. This means that school procedures such as
time allocation, curriculum and discipline codes need to be reviewed for
their appropriateness to new entrants. Consideration should also be
given, as part of any initiatives designed to assist with transfer, to the
introduction of an optional additional ‘transition’ year in which literacy,
numeracy and interpersonal skills of pupils, including self-esteem and
confidence would be developed (The National Economic and Social
Forum, 2002).
Investments into school structure. When it comes to investments,
most of the education spending consists of current expenditure; mainly
salaries and other contributions to teachers. In 2012, the majority of
countries maintained their arrangements regarding the funding of
support mechanisms for pupils and pupils and/or their families. Between
2010 and 2012, seven European countries or regions (Ireland, Romania,
Slovenia, Slovakia, the United Kingdom (England and Northern Ireland),
and Iceland for ISCED 3) have reduced central level expenditure on the
construction, maintenance and renovation of educational buildings as a
consequence of the financial and economic crisis (European
Commission, 2013).
Strengthening cooperation on local level and between different
sectors. Cooperation on different levels and between different sectors
is a key condition for success of some support measures. For example,
when analysing financial and material support, existence of social
welfare policies doesn’t guarantee that child will practice its right to
education. One way of securing investments return is conditional cash
transfer where certain financial benefits are linked to performing certain
obligation, like regular attendance to school. Also providing transport or
meals to poor pupils can be organised from different levels, e.g.
creating
school
transportation
service
or
subsidizing
public
transportation. Meals can also be organised in school or delivered from
public kitchens (UNICEF & UNESCO, 2012).
Financial and material support to pupils. Many countries are trying
to prevent drop out caused by not having satisfied basic needs (food,
clothes, shelter, school materials) so they provide financial and material
support to pupils. These measures however don’t seem to be enough on
their own. In 2006, the Dutch government set up a financial incentive
scheme involving approximately one third of the country’s regions and
French initiative channels additional resources, such as funds and
additional teaching hours, to schools in disadvantaged areas. Evaluation
shows that the impact of resource channelling on its own has no direct
discernible impact on the completion rates (there was insignificant
decrease in ESL or results were mediated by other factors). On the
other hand means-tested resource support directed towards students of
low income families has been seen to have a substantial impact on
participation rates. In the UK, a pilot measure, involving a conditional
cash transfer to students 16 to 18 years of age for staying in full time
September 2014
50

education was successful in decreasing drop out rate (Dearden et
al.2009)32
Measures targeting specific groups. The Perry Preschool Program is
one of these measures and involves the provision of ECEC to US
children from disadvantaged backgrounds: focusing on both cognitive
and non-cognitive skills. Understanding that the lack of engagement of
students also may stem from lack of involvement in education on the
family’s part, the programme also intervened within the children’s
families through weekly home visits during the school year (Bradshaw et
al., 200833). In the national research preventive measures are mostly
discussed in the context of assistance to Roma and immigrant children
and children from disadvantaged areas. Measures focusing on the
overall inclusion of vulnerable groups into education per se may
contribute to better performance and participation of these vulnerable
groups. E.g., in Croatia National Action Plan for the Decade of Roma
Inclusion (2010-2015) has a goal to improve the education situation of
Roma minority. It included financing of the part of ECEC’s expenses for
Roma children. Reports show that because of the Action plan, the
number of Roma children in kindergartens, preschool programs and
elementary schools increased (Ministry of Education and Sports, Croatia,
2012). “Access to Education for Disadvantaged Groups” programme in
Romania also had similar effects on the improvement of Roma situation.
A variety of programmes following inclusion logic could be found for the
benefits of immigrant population: Romanian EPA programme (Jigău,
2006); Swedish targeted policy at increasing migrants’ social capital
(Boukaz, 2007), Swiss apprenticeship programmes (Bertschy, Cattaneo,
& Wolter, 2008). The administrative process for enrolling newly arrived
migrant children needs to be timely and adapted to the specific situation
of their families (PPMI,201334)Therefore, preventive strategies for
immigrant pupils’ better performance would include universal provision
of schooling, language support, mother tongue instructions, intercultural
training of teachers, home-school partnerships (Moret & Fibbi, 2010).
Some measures are also completely external to school and involve
cognitive behavioural therapy often directed towards support following
traumatic events such as parental divorce, violence in the family, sexual
abuse (Hammond et al., 2008)
Intervention measures
Such strategies aim to increase pupils’ performance and participation by improving the
quality of education and training and providing targeted support to pupils or groups of
pupils at risk. School-wide strategies address all pupils, but are especially beneficial to
those at risk of dropping-out. They look at school development in general, early
warning systems and networks with outside actors to support the work of the school.
Such intervention measures may include:
32
Dearden, L., C. Emmerson, C. Frayne and C. Meghir (2009) Conditional Cash Transfers and School
Dropout Rates in Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 44, Issue 4, 827-57.
33
Bradshaw, C., L. O’Brennan and C. McNeely (2008), Core competencies and the Prevention of School
Failure and Early School Leaving, in N.G. Guerra and C.P. Bradshaw (eds.), Core competencies to prevent
problem behaviours and promote positive youth development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 122, 19-32.
34
Educational support for newly arrived migrant children, 2013, study authored by Public Policy and
Management Institute at the request of the European Commission.
September 2014
51


Monitoring and evaluation of pupils’ progress. During research
process, it became evident that very few countries actually track their
pupils’ performance. As a result, support programmes often may not
reach pupils who need it or are not implemented at all. Therefore, it is
vital for schools to introduce tracking or monitoring procedures that
would allow identifying under-achieving pupils and render them
necessary assistance. It should be the part of regular school practice,
followed by individualized support or changes in school practices as a
whole. Introducing achievement of quality standards is a measure that
many countries adopt (i.e. Slovenia, Serbia, Belgium), but existence of
standards has to be followed by tracking and monitoring framework and
clear division of roles in the system. Scandinavian countries had a
positive example of monitoring process through individual pupils’ study
plans. Such an approach would be best implemented at the school level
and therefore imply a certain degree of flexibility of schools. In Ireland,
Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS), an initiative and
plan for social inclusion, was established in 2005. The Department
provides an integrated approach and brings together a number of
programmes under this framework. The aim is to provide ‘A
standardised system for identifying and regularly reviewing levels of
disadvantage and a new integrated School Support Programme (SSP)
which will bring together and build upon the existing schemes and
programmes. Slovenian PUPO program (Preventive measures for
dropout prevention in secondary vocational schools) (2002 – 2004)
introduced systematic monitoring of the implementation and
effectiveness of the preventive measures taken in 20 vocational and
technical schools, with the participation of the experts from different
institutions as well as professionals, teachers and pupils, executives and
parents. In Slovenia, even when pupil leaves the school he can still be
monitored and supported. Project DIPISAN (Dropouts in Poland, Italy,
Slovenia and Norway) followed up the pupils who left the school and
provided them with guidance and support on coming back to education
(Popović, 2007).
School improvement. It can be provided through consultation to
schools or school networking and partnerships (e.g. the UK strategy
“Every School is a Good School” or partnerships schools in New
Zealand) or changing school practices. Partnerships between schools
can help boost performance of lower-achieving schools (National High
School Center, 2006; Quint, 2006) Research shows that some key best
practices at successful schools include: providing supports so that pupils
stay on track to graduate; extending learning time; providing
challenging learning opportunities, even in catch-up courses, so that
pupils remain engaged; aligning performance standards to college and
career readiness; and focusing on transitions from high school to college
and careers as well as on transitions into high school. Countries usually
have an obligation of providing remedial classes but there is lack of
evaluation data on successful practices. Development of out-of-school
counselling services can help cater more schools at the same cost,
where there is no possibility to establish school development teams, or
counselling services for teacher and pupils (Skrzypniak, 2011; Abrantes,
2009). Research from Denmark by Mehlbye (2010) identifies factors
that could promote a school to become a high performing school and
provide better support to low-achieving pupils with weak social
backgrounds: strong leadership at the municipal and school level;
department divided school with autonomous teams, evaluation of the
September 2014
52

school's added value; active and well prepared teachers with equal
expectations for all pupils; enough school capacity to organise
compulsory and additional classes. School leadership is the starting
point for the transformation of low performing disadvantaged schools
but often, school leaders are not well selected, prepared or supported to
exercise their roles in these schools. To strengthen their capacity, school
leadership preparation programmes should provide both general
expertise and specialised knowledge to handle the challenges of these
schools (OECD, 2012a).
Learning support through homework assistance or remedial teaching.
It is important to ensure on-going assistance to under-achieving pupils
throughout the whole period of the education process. Evidence shows
that pupils at risk of failing the school year would benefit particularly
from additional instruction and remedial support designed to accelerate
the pace of learning. Remedial classes, individualized teaching and after
school support are intervention measures mentioned extensively in
national literature as one of the most traditional approaches to assist
under-achievers (e.g. Instituto de la Juventud (INJUVE), 2007; Krek &
Metljak, 2011; ISEI-VEI, 2009; Pagnossin, 2009; Houssemand, Meyers,
& Stoffel, 2012; TWG on ESL, 2013). Also introducing pedagogical
assistants for under-achieving pupils, especially from vulnerable groups
helps them integrate much better, than when there is huge cultural gap
between them and teaching staff. Alternative support measures can be
in the form of School and Education Centres outside school (Skrzypniak,
2011) or classes of pedagogical correction. Meeting academic demands
is the most important challenge encountered by pupils in various school
contexts. Exam periods, and more specifically “leaving exams” are
perceived as very stressful by pupils. Responding well to academic
demands was an important challenge and taken seriously by many,
since educational performance at lower secondary level has important
consequences for future educational and occupational careers (Parreira
do Amaral, Walther, & Litau, 2013). OECD (2012) emphasizes that it is
important to ensure on-going assistance to under-achieving pupils
throughout the whole period of the education process. Support should
be offered on a regular and frequent basis, supplementing rather than
repeating the workload, using different methods and ensuring continuity
in pupil - teacher relationship. Identification and help to under achieving
pupils is an important measure to prevent early drop out from school
and performance gaps. Another curricular measure that seems to have a
great impact is placing low-achievers in advanced programmes rather
than lowering the expectations (Lyche, 2010). This kind of support is
much proffered than grade repetition, unfortunately commonly
practiced. Across OECD countries, an average of 12% of students
reported that they had repeated a grade at least once: 7% of students
had repeated a grade in primary school, 6% of students had repeated a
lower secondary grade, and 2% of students had repeated an upper
secondary grade. PISA 2012 shows that in 35 out of 61 countries and
economies examined, disadvantaged students are more likely to have
repeated a grade than advantaged students, even after accounting for
student performance in mathematics. if a student scoring 300 points in
mathematics is socio-economically advantaged, the likelihood that he or
she had repeated a grade is 35 out of 100, while the likelihood of
repeating a grade is 45 out of 100 if this student is socio-economically
disadvantaged. In general, the higher a student’s score, the less likely it
is that the student had repeated a grade (OECD, 2013). Retaining lowSeptember 2014
53
achieving eighth grade pupils in elementary school substantially
increases the probability that these pupils will drop out of high school
(Jacob & Lefgren, 2009). Primarily, involuntary form, initiated by the
school is caused by not reaching prescribed standards or excessive
absenteeism. Voluntary form of grade repetition occurs when pupils
want to continue schooling, but do not have access to school that offers
the next grade or, repetition reflects family perceptions that the pupil
did not learn much the previous year and therefore ought to repeat the
grade. Other than possible negative effect on a pupil, this measure also
represents a waste of resources (Brophy, 2006). Research shows that
grade repetition risks undermining pupils’ confidence. It can trigger ESL
while not being effective in addressing possible learning deficits. Many
countries have started to substitute grade repetition with investment in
individualised learning and targeted learning support (Nevala and
Havley, 2011)35.
However, one should also remember that tackling underachievement for groups of
learners is not just about implementing a particular programme or learning approach.
Rather, it is about staff members coming together to understand the issue from a
range of different perspectives, including those of the pupils, to then discuss, develop
and agree specific courses of action.
There are many reasons to leave school, some of which cannot be prevented not
intervened. Sometime in certain point of time it is not possible for student to stay. But
that doesn’t mean that with the change of some circumstances one can desire to go
back to education. It is crucial and to close the door behind the ones who leave, but to
create opportunities to obtain qualifications later stage in their life. For this reason
compensatory measures have been developed. The aim is also to reintegrate young
adults in danger of social exclusion by offering a range of tailor-made education and
training opportunities. While avoiding dropping-out altogether is an ideal outcome, the
second chance route is an important option that offers an essential opportunity to
continue education and training for those who have left mainstream education early.
These policies do not have direct influence on the relationship between ECEC and early
school leaving, as they take place after the pupils drop out from school for the first
time.
35
Nevala, A.-M., Hawley, J (2011). Reducing early school leaving in the EU. Other. Brussels, Belgium:
European Parliament.
September 2014
54
5. Risk factors and reasons for underachievement and
early school leaving
Underachievement at school and early school leaving are significant negative
predictors of social inclusion and satisfactory income level, which jeopardize quality of
life of specific persons, social stability and economic growth. If a child is performing
below expected achievement for his or her age group or grade, there is a tendency to
firstly look for lack in cognitive abilities as a possible cause. Also, people who have not
completed upper secondary education level can be faced with prejudices regarding
their abilities and intelligence. But as we previously presented, abilities are only one
part of success/failure. Much if not more depends on choices child has, opportunities
for development and discovering real potential within its environment. Both
underachievement and early school leaving can be caused by cumulative result of
personal, social, economic, geographical, education or family-related reasons, where
cognitive abilities of a child is just one factor and not necessarily the most influential
one. In the following sections both terms are defined and discussed in greater detail.
5.1.
Defining underachievement
For the purposes of the present study the term ‘underachievement’ is used in
three different ways:
(a) With reference to particular educational transitions by individuals: when
his/her low educational achievement makes a particular transition difficult
or impossible, the pupil in question is ‘underachieving’.
(b) With regard to individual educational careers: when insufficient educational
achievement significantly hinders the course of a pupil’s career in
education, the pupil is said to ‘underachieve’.
(c) With regard to groups in education: when there is a difference in average
educational achievement between two subgroups of a meaningful partition
of a population in education, the subgroup with the lower average
achievement can be described as ‘underachieving’ relative to the other
subgroup in question.
The notion of ‘underachievement’ in education is burdened with a history of confusion,
multiple definitions and conceptual difficulties (Plewis, 1991; Reis & McCoach, 2000;
Gorard & Smith, 2004, Ziegler & Stoeger, 2012). Plewis (1991) gave three different
meanings of educational “underachievement” which were current over two decades
ago. Firstly, it referred to the finding that “teachers, when asked about individual
pupils as to whether their achievement is in line with their ability or whether they are
doing as well as they are capable of, are able to discriminate between pupils along
these
dimensions”.
Secondly,
“many
psychologists”
defined
“educational
underachievement for individuals in terms of a discrepancy between their IQ and their
score on an educational test”. Thirdly, among educational sociologists “social and
demographic groups with mean achievement or attainment test scores below the
mean for a selected reference group” were said to “underachieve”. He concluded that
the “conceptual and operational confusion surrounding underachievement can only be
a hindrance to good educational research. Eliminating the word should improve the
quality of educational debates on achievement and studying teachers’ perceptions of
their pupils in this area could give us a better understanding of educational processes”.
The term ‘underachievement’ has not quite disappeared from educationalists’
September 2014
55
vocabulary. In view of the difficulties surrounding it, a specific description suited to the
present study is put forward here.
The educational psychologists’ notion of underachievement has been extended beyond
expectations based on the IQ and beyond individuals. Gorard & Smith (2004) describe
it as “a lower level of achievement by an individual (or group) than would be expected
using a model based on the best available predictors” and, rather convincingly, dismiss
it as inherently problematic and uninformative. It remains a popular construct in
research on the gifted (Ziegler & Stoeger, 2012) and is still “plagued by serious
conceptual problems”. The present study does not focus on ‘underachievement’ in this
sense.
In contrast, differential achievement between well-defined subpopulations ― as in the
sociologists’ view of ‘underachievement’ (e.g. Troyna, 1991, Carrington & McPhee,
2008) ― seems of interest in a review of the effects of quality ECEC. When there is a
difference in average educational achievement between two subgroups of a meaningful
partition of a population in education, the subgroup with the lower average
achievement can be described as ‘underachieving’ relative to the other subgroup in
question.
Individual pupils’ underachievement may interfere with particular transitions in
education―for example: entering primary education, transferring from primary to
secondary education, passing from one grade to the next. It may affect the general
course of his/her career, eventual attainment, and the risk of leaving school early. As
such, it is particularly relevant to the present study and low educational achievement
that makes a particular transition difficult or impossible or significantly hinders the
course of a pupil’s career in education will also be included in the specific notion of
‘underachievement’ adopted here.
5.2.
Defining early school leaving
For the purposes of the current study early school leavers are those who, upon
leaving initial education for the first time, have only achieved pre-primary,
primary, lower secondary or a short upper secondary education of less than 2
years (ISCED 0, 1, 2 or 3c short).
Most young people successfully navigate the system of primary and secondary
education and make a transition into further education and training or into the labour
market. However, according to the ‘early leavers from education and training’ indicator
(Council of the European Union, 2009), one out of every seven young Europeans
leaves the education system without having the skills or the qualifications which are
now seen as necessary to make a successful transition to the labour market and for
active participation in today’s knowledge-based economy (GHK Consulting ltd, 2011).
According to the ET 2020 (Council of the European Union, 2009) and the EU 2020
(European Commission, 2010a) targets, by 2020, the share of early leavers from
education and training should be less than 10%.
Early school leaving generates major social and economic costs and is a fundamental
contributing factor to social exclusion later in life. From the early 1970s the "facts" of
early school leaving (ESL) have been revealed and confirmed by a very large number
of studies, though their prevalence and implications vary. Different perspectives on
ESL are driven by varying views of the kind of threat it represents - compassion for
afflicted young lives, affront at a range of social injustices it encapsulates, fear of its
September 2014
56
potential for social disruption, and concern for the loss of economic capacity. In recent
years the relationship of ESL to labour market and qualification needs has increased in
prominence, while its relationship to social inequality has received less attention
(NESSE, 2010).
Although there is no universally accepted definition of ‘early school leaving’, there is a
broad agreement about success in ‘upper secondary education’ as the preferred
minimum attainment level. This is true for the European ‘early leavers from education
and training’ indicator and also for comparable OECD statistics (OECD, 2012a). In US
research, successful completion of ‘high school’ is the corresponding target (e.g.:
Pharris-Ciurej, Hirschman, & Willhoft, 2012, Plank, DeLuca, & Estacion, 2008,
Rumberger & Lamb, 2003). In terms of UNESCO’s ‘International Standard
Classification of Education’ (ISCED), early school leavers are those who have only
achieved pre-primary, primary, lower secondary or a short upper secondary education
of less than 2 years (ISCED 0, 1, 2 or 3c short).
Formulating a complete and unambiguous definition of ‘early school leavers’ or ‘early
school leaving’ is a more complicated issue. From the point of view of the initial
education system an ‘early school leaver’ may be defined as a pupil who has not
earned an upper secondary level qualification when he/she interrupts his/her school
career for the first time. Afterwards, early school leavers may ‘repent’, return to initial
education, or enrol into adult education and possibly still obtain (the formal equivalent
of) an upper secondary qualification. Or they may obtain some kind of certification
through short courses or develop skills through on-the-job training. From the
standpoint of initial education, however, they remain ‘early school leavers’, because
they did not succeed in initial education in their first attempt.
This definition of ‘early school leavers’ is appropriate when the effectiveness of the
initial education system is at stake. It is quite different from the EU ‘early leavers from
education and training’ indicator, which is defined as “the proportion of the population
aged 18-24 with only lower secondary education or less and no longer in education or
training” (Council of the European Union, 2009). The latter confounds school leaving
after a continuous career in education, school-leaving after re-entry, and qualification
(at a young age) in adult education and it mixes in a labour market component.
With regard to defining ‘early school leavers’ in the context of this study, it is worthwhile to distinguish between the different elements involved in the EU definition of
‘early leavers from education and training’. Which one of these elements is most likely
to be influenced by the quality of ECEC? For which of these elements is it most feasible
to find support from research results for a link with the quality of ECEC? As there is
little scope of finding material that directly bridges the time gap between ECEC and
ESL, this study will need to rely on linking together evidence about the effects of ECEC
in further educational career. It seems most practical and feasible, therefore, to focus
mainly on the event which is the closest in time, namely the first time the pupil leaves
initial education. Thus, for the purposes of the current study early school leavers are
those who, upon leaving initial education for the first time, have only achieved preprimary, primary, lower secondary or a short upper secondary education of less than 2
years (ISCED 0, 1, 2 or 3c short).
September 2014
57
5.3.
Risk factors and reasons for underachievement and early school
leaving
Underachievement is a term that often is used when describing a failure in some
aspect of person’s life. Failure to exercise central capabilities can be caused by several
groups of factors. In the context of education we usually refer to failing in academic
sense. Early school leavers can also be considered underachievers in terms of failure
to obtain a certain level of qualification; however, they do not necessarily struggle to
achieve in education. Rumberger and Lim (2008)36 identify academic achievement as
having an effect on the odds of early school leaving or upper secondary completion,
and grades are found to be a more certain predictor than test scores. But it is not so
self evident why someone fails in school it is necessary to distinguish those who had a
reasonably smooth education career, but did not obtain a qualification due to some
other reasons than academic failure from those who had difficulties to achieve in
education that prevented them from getting a qualification – often many years before
the opportunity of getting one (Van Landeghem & Van Damme, 2011). It seems that
the influence of different individual and contextual factors had different relevance for
these two groups. Unanimously, literature concludes that neither underachievement
nor early school leaving is a result of only interpersonal factors, but rather a
combination of personal, social, economic, education and family domains (Altaras,
2006; Baker, Bridger, & Evans, 1998; GHK Consulting ltd, 2011). We have discussed
that capabilities comprise opportunities, not only skills. For this study it is important to
discover what limits opportunities or hinders development of skills for certain groups of
students.
5.3.1. Socio-economic, family and other background factors

Socio-economic status. Considine & Zappala (2002) find that the
relationship between family socio-economic status (SES) and the
academic performance of children is well established in sociological
research. On average, the performance difference between advantaged
(the top quarter of socio-economic status) and disadvantaged (the
bottom quarter of socio-economic status) students is 90 score points, or
the equivalent of more than two years of schooling and more than one
PISA proficiency level. Disadvantaged students are, on average, more
than twice as likely as students who are not considered disadvantaged
to score in the bottom quarter of the performance distribution. For
example, across OECD countries, students with highly educated parents
outscore students with low-educated parents by 77 score points (OECD,
2013a). Research proves that social origin remains important factor
explaining attainment in general education. The largest risk of low
performance is for pupils whose parents have low educational
attainment in most other OECD countries (OECD, 2012a). The same is
true for early school leaving. Grades are strongly influenced by social
background, gender, minority language, parents’ education and
connection to labour market and cultural capital, thus the student’s
social background has an indirect effect on school completion through
educational performance (Markussen, 201037).Low education level of
36
Rumberger, R. and Lim, S. (2008), Why Students Drop Out of School: A Review of 25 Years of Research,
California Dropout Research Project, Santa Barbara.
37
Markussen, E. (2010), “Frafall i Utdanning for 16-20-åringer i Norden” (Dropout from Education among
16-20-year-olds in the Nordic Countries), in E. Markussen (ed.), Frafall i Utdanning for 16-20- åringer i
September 2014
58

parents38, employment status and income can have significant influence
on ESL rate too. It has been observed that “23% of middle class pupils
are at a high risk of school failure in comparison to 45% of working
class pupils” (GHK Consulting ltd, 2011). Being a composite factor, SES
constituted of different facets. Most influential facets influencing pupils’
achievement and attainment levels in education, are levels of parental
education (most often mothers) and employment of parents (level of
income, health insurance) (Symeuo, Martinez-Gonzalez, & AlvarezBlanco, 2012; Popenici, 2008; Zuljan-Valenčič & et.al, 2012; Balica,
2010; Gatt, 2012; Andersen, 2005; Egelund, 2011; Parreira do Amaral
et al., 2013). Place of residence which can be partly explained by
socio-economic background in many countries, is a significant factor,
however, varying among countries (e.g., in Austria ESL is higher in
urban areas (Steiner, 2009), and in Croatia and Romania – in rural
areas (Matković, 2010; Stănculescu, 2012). These differences are
explained by cross-sectoral factors like economic or labour market
policies, cultural traditions and values.
Belonging to vulnerable groups39 is also significant in explaining
pupils’ performance and participation. OECD study (2012) on Equity and
Quality in Education confirms that vulnerable pupils struggle more with
school performance. Research from Croatia, Sweden and Poland confirm
that physical or mental disability or long illness increases the likelihood
of early school leaving (Ferić, Milas, & Rihtar, 2010; SCB, 2007;
Domagała-Kręcioch, 2008). The academic performance of pupils with a
foreign background may also be significantly weaker than that of
native pupils (OECD, 2010). The same thing is found when analysing
other studies, such as TIMSS 2003 (Mullis, Martin, & Foy, 2005), Haahr,
(2005). Across OECD countries, first-generation pupils – those who
were born outside the country of assessment and who also have
foreign-born parents – score, on average, 52 points below their native
peers (OECD, 2010). Data from Statistics Denmark (Bauchmüller et al.,
2011) shows that more than every second child of non-ethnic Danes
drops out of vocational education, for ethnic Danes only one out of three
leaves VET school prematurely. The same tendency is seen in uppersecondary education (ISCED 3), where early school leaving is 7% for
ethnic Danes and 13% for non-ethnic Danes (Egelund, 2011).The share
of immigrant students in OECD countries increased from 9% in 2003 to
11% in 2012 while the performance disadvantage of immigrant students
as compared to students without an immigrant background but with
similar socio-economic status shrank by 11 score points during the
same period. Across OECD countries, students who attend schools
where more than one in four students are immigrants tend to perform
worse than those in schools with no immigrant students; but after
accounting for the socioeconomic background of students and schools,
the 19-point difference in mathematics scores is more than halved, to 7
score points (OECD, 2013). Performance gaps between immigrant and
Norden (Dropout from Education among 16-20-year-olds in the Nordic Countries), Nordic Council of
Ministers, Copenhagen, 193-226.
38
The children of parents with a low educational level (compulsory education or below) make up the
majority of pupils who fail at school: 74% looking at the educational level of the father, 71% looking at the
educational level of the mother) (GHK, 2011).
39
OECD uses three categories of children with disadvantages. Firstly, the disadvantages may arise from
disabilities or impairments; secondly, they may arise from social and emotional factors and problems in the
interaction between the pupil and the educational context, or from specific difficulties in learning and thirdly,
disadvantages may arise from socio-economic, cultural and/or linguistic factors (EADSNE, 2000, 2003;
OECD, 2000, 2005).
September 2014
59

native students can be largely explained by language barriers and socioeconomic differences (Lyche, 2010). Evidence from Greece, Sweden,
Slovenia, Switzerland, Norway, Italy and Macedonia suggests that
language barrier presents a difficult obstacle for children and they
tend to underachieve more often (Parreira do Amaral et al., 2013; Moret
& Fibbi, 2010; Mickovska, 2001; Torpsten, 2008; MELRA, 2011,
Haegeland et al., 2005; Donevska, Bogoevska, & Trbojevic, 2010;
Rovšek, 2013, IPSOS, 2012; Torpsten, 2008). Numerous studies
confirm that ethnic minorities (e.g., Roma) have a clear pattern of low
educational attainment (Trimikliniotis & Demetriou, 2009), high level of
school absenteeism (Symeuo et al., 2009) and remain among the
lowest academic achievers and the most frequent early school leavers
(OSF, 2010; Ferić et al., 2010; Stănculescu, 2012; UNDP, 2012).
Family characteristics. Duke University study (2004) showed that
though higher levels of parental involvement correlated across the
board with increased aspirations among their children, better-educated
parents made a bigger difference in school performance than lesseducated parents did. Considine & Zappala (2002) find that sole parent
families on average have lower levels of income, are headed by parents
with lower educational attainment and are less likely to be in the labour
force; children from these families are likely to have lower educational
performance and a likely to leave school earlier. On average across the
OECD, 17% of pupils come from single-parent families and they score
five points lower in PISA tests than pupils from other types of families
after accounting for socio-economic background (OECD, 2010). This is
confirmed in national research: single-parent families (Prusik, 2010;
Matković, 2010) or violent family atmosphere (Dedze, Krūzmētra, &
Krūzmētra, 2004; Babrović, Burušić, & Šakić, 2009; Tiko, 2008;
Lamevai, 2011; Popenici, 2008; Domagała-Kręcioch, 2008) is positively
correlated with under-achievement and early school leaving. However,
Jeynes (2005) points out that low family SES and low educational
background do not necessarily have a negative influence on children’s
performance and participation where family transmits high educational
aspirations to their children. Therefore, good family climate and higher
family cohesion facilitates academic achievement and social adjustment
in school (Adams and Ryan, 2005). Jeynes’ (2005) meta-analysis
findings indicate that parental involvement in terms of time investment
(reading and communicating with children) and parenting style and
expectations is associated with higher pupil achievement outcomes. And
as it was discussed earlier high-quality early childhood education has a
potential of forming positive home learning environment. These factors
have a greater impact on child’s performance than clear household
rules, and parental participation in school meetings. The greatest effect
was linked to parental expectations. Research synthesis by Henderson &
Mapp (2002) confirms similar patterns. Traag, Lubbers, & van der
Velden (2012) identify several aspects of family environment: family’s
economic capital – parents with sufficient financial resources can
provide their children with material goods they need in order to perform
well at school, e.g. books and other learning materials; a family’s
human capital – the cognitively stimulating environment, and is
measured in terms of the parents’ education level. Parents with higher
education are more likely to have greater knowledge of the school
system and to view higher education as the preferred option for their
children; cultural capital - children of parents with high levels of cultural
capital are able to adjust to the dominant culture in schools better than
September 2014
60

children of parents with less cultural capital; social capital - the
relationship between parents and children.
Gender: Marked gender differences in mathematics performance – in
favour of boys – are observed in many countries and economies, but
with a number of exceptions and to varying degrees. Among girls, the
greatest hurdle is in reaching the top: girls are under-represented
among the highest achievers in most countries and economies, which
poses a serious challenge to achieving gender parity in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics occupations in the future.
Girls outperform boys in reading almost everywhere. This gender gap is
particularly large in some high-performing countries, where almost all
underperformance in reading is seen only among boys. Low-performing
boys face a particularly large disadvantage as they are heavily overrepresented among those who fail to show basic levels of reading
literacy (OECD, 2014; Haahr, 2005; Cassen & Kingdon 2007). Byrne &
Smyth (2010) reviewed examined retention rates within second-level
education since the 1930s and found that girls began to outnumber
boys among Intermediate Certificate candidates from the 1950s
onwards. In the EU, 16.9% of boys are early school leavers compared to
12.7% of girls. In all countries with the exception of Bulgaria and
Romania, boys are significantly more likely to be early school leavers
than girls. Also reductions in the rates of ESL have been generally faster
for girls than for boys (NESSE, 2010). One exception is Portugal where
boys, despite being the most affected group by early school leaving,
were also the ones who made more progress in the last decade (CNE,
2012). Recent studies on differential selection between boys and girls
have shown that low-ability boys are selected out of university-bound
programs early on (Baucal, Pavlović-Babić, & Willims, 2006). Traag
(2012) concludes than in the Netherlands, relatively more boys than
girls attend special education, boys perform less well in school, and
significantly fewer boys than girls enter higher education.
5.3.2. Personal traits and competences relevant for learning
Even though, socio-economic and family background are the strongest predictors of
underachievement and early school leaving, one should not underestimate personal
cognitive and non-cognitive characteristics when attempting to explain the
phenomenon of pupils’ achievement and participation in education. However, even
possession of certain cognitive and non-cognitive skills can be partly explained by SES,
migrant and family background factors.
Although the correlation between failure in school and dropout is clear, not all
dropouts are poor educational performers. Bridgeland et al. (2006)40 conducted a
series of studies in 25 different locations in the Unites States on focus groups who
identified themselves as dropouts. Only 35% of the respondents identified failing in
school as a reason for dropout. However, 69% of the respondents identified lack of
motivation as a reason for dropping out. Pupils’ attitudes and skills may also be among
the defining factors for early school leaving. Traag & van der Velden (2008) conclude
that early school leavers perform worse in school compared to other pupils. Cognitive
skills measured at the age of 12 do indeed have a strong and direct effect on the risk
of becoming an early school-leaver (Traag & van der Velden, 2008). Other researchers
40
Bridgeland, J., J. Dilulio and K. Morison (2006), The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives of High School
Dropouts, Civic Enterprises, LLC, Washington.
September 2014
61
confirmed similar findings. Individual differences among pupils, which represent the
most critical factors for underachievement and ESL, include low social skills, low
motivation, low abilities, poor academic achievement and low knowledge
gained in primary education, learning difficulties and inadequate learning
habits (Peček & Razdevšek-Pučko, 2003; Flere et al., 2009; Rovšek, 2013; Gečienė &
Čiupailaitė, 2007; Zuoza, 2010; Grabažienė, 2010; Neniškienė, 2005; Bistrickienė,
2009).
The relevance pupils assign to education in general can directly affect their motivation
to remain in school and/or to continue using other opportunities of lifelong learning
(Parreira do Amaral et al., 2013). Academic self-perception, motivation and selfregulation contribute significantly to achievement (Clemons, 2008; O’Conell &
Shekih, 2009) According to research done by McCoach & Siegle (2001), however, this
conclusion can be questioned. They find that both high and low achievers have high
level of self-perception. For early school leavers it is more characteristic to show a
lack of aspirations as well as motivation: the higher the achievement motivation,
the lower the risk of leaving school without a full upper secondary qualification. Marks
& McMillian (2001) find that achievement in literacy and numeracy has the strongest
influence on school non-completion. Wang, Haertel, & Walberg (1993) found several
common characteristics that influence pupil’s performance: academic self-concept,
locus of control, self-efficacy, causal attributions for success and failure,
anxiety, learned helplessness, irrational beliefs, and peer relationship skills
necessary for cooperative learning. 33 out of the 41 analyses they study found that
higher educational expectations were associated with lower dropout rates at upper
secondary level. However at lower secondary level, the correlation was less obvious as
only half of the studies covering this level found a similar relationship (Rumberger and
Lim, 2008). Martín et al. (2008) argue that meta-cognitive ability41 has significant
impact on achievement. In Denmark, Andersen (2005) finds a strong relationship
between pupils’ reading skills, academic self-assessment, and the completion of upper
secondary education. Altaras-Dimitrijević (2012) finds that underachieving gifted
pupils, among other differences, are less self-confident and perceive themselves as
less efficient; they are not good in team work because they lack trust and tend to be
more cynical. Bernard (2006) also emphasized the importance of non-cognitive
competences for children’s better achievement. While family income level, cultural
background, hours spent per week by parents, reading to their children, and entering
levels of early reading skill development and knowledge, predicted high reading levels
at the end of kindergarten, findings also indicated that kindergarten children’s levels of
their approach to learning (e.g., persistence, organization, eagerness to learn,
attention) had a significant effect on reading achievement measured at the end of
their year in kindergarten.
Behavioural problems can be a cause of bad performance or a result of frustration
because of struggling with the curriculum or un-supportive environment Delinquent
youth are more likely to drop out than non-delinquent youth. Rumberger and Lim
(2008) find that deviant behaviour at age 14 has an effect on early school leaving by
age 16 and upper secondary failure in grade 12. Drug and alcohol use in upper
secondary is also correlated to higher dropout rates, but the results are less significant
for alcohol use in lower secondary (Rumberger and Lim, 2008) Programs that enhance
cognitive and socio-emotional abilities improve children’s ability to self-regulate their
behaviour and emotions. For example, an evaluation of a mother-child education
program in Turkey showed that children whose families participated in the program
had lower rates of delinquency than those whose families did not participate Pupils’
41
Meta-comprehension, verification of one’s results, consciousness of the strategies one uses and
consciousness of one’s own comprehension.
September 2014
62
experiences of schooling are a significant predictor of early school leaving. When
interviewed about their reasons for leaving school early, pupils spoke about having
poor results or not feeling smart enough to pass subjects at higher level, perceiving a
lack of support and alternatives, and seeing school rules and regulations in a negative
way (GHK Consulting ltd, 2011).
Evident from the literature review, when looking at the concept of underachievement
and early school leaving through the prism of personal social and academic
characteristics, an interesting trend is observed: underachievement and early school
leaving become the strands of one learning pathway, early school leaving being a
consequence of underachievement in most of the cases, but underachievement is not
necessarily matter of cognitive deficits. It can be caused by motivational and
attitudinal factors.
5.3.3. Education system factors
Pupils’ experiences of schooling are a significant predictor of early school leaving.
When interviewed about their reasons for leaving school early, pupils spoke about
having poor results or not feeling smart enough to pass subjects at higher level,
perceiving a lack of support and alternatives, and seeing school rules and regulations
in a negative way (GHK Consulting ltd, 2011). Some characteristics of the supportive
education system have been identified in review of PISA, PIRLS and TIMSS studies
(Haahr, 2005). Education systems take many different structural forms which can
have promote educational achievement or create hurdles. Systems not only
accommodate large number of children with their own individualities, but children also
constantly change, grow and explore their environment. Eliminating system level
obstacles to equity will improve equity and benefit disadvantaged pupils, without
hindering other pupils’ progress (OECD, 2012a).
There are several common treats or possible bottlenecks to equity, quality and
efficiency of education system. The way education systems are designed can
exacerbate initial inequities and have a negative impact on pupil motivation and
engagement, eventually leading to dropout. Some systems limit that freedom by
forcing students to follow clearly defined paths without room for exploration. Broadly
speaking, systems can be classified on a continuum running from systems with low
degrees of educational differentiation to systems with high degrees of educational
differentiation. Early pupil selection should be deferred to upper secondary education
while reinforcing comprehensive schooling. The more and the earlier pupils are divided
into separate groups according to their academic performance, the more the pupils’
socio-economic background matters for their academic performance. (OECD, 2012a;
OECD, 2010) Researchers find that the people who benefited from longer
compulsory schooling were more likely to leave their place of growing up, were
more likely to be employed and commanded higher wages (Machin et al. 2008). The
higher the compulsory education finishing age, the lower the rate of ESL, (GHK
Consulting ltd, 2005). Access to all levels of education including ECEC is closely
related to the structural and institutional arrangements in the provision and delivery of
education, to organisational arrangements within schools and other educational
institutions such as entrance and progression regulations, selection by ability, etc. but
also to sectoral policies (school choice, policies targeting particular groups, etc. As
long as there are complex and subtle barriers to obtaining effective access such as
“institutional and structural discrimination”, with their often discouraging and
excluding effects, education system has serious gaps which allow high occurrence of
ESL. (Parreira do Amaral et al., 2013). Increased institutional differentiation (for
instance the introduction of tracking systems at an earlier age or more frequent use of
September 2014
63
grade repetition for weak pupils) cannot plausibly be expected to result in improved
average academic performances of pupils, everything else being equal (INCLUD-ED,
2009; Mühlenweg, 2007; OECD, 2007). School segregation can be also a significant
explanatory factor for early school leaving as it is reported in reviewed countries
(European Commission, 2010b; Böhlmark & Holmlund, 2012; Skolverket, 2009;
Steiner, 2009, OSF, 2010). Providing full parental school choice can result in
segregating pupils by ability, socio economic background and generate greater
inequities across education systems (Gustafsson, 2006; Skolverket, 2009; Open
Society Foundation, 2010; OECD, 2012a). On average across OECD countries,
students attending more socio-economically advantaged schools score 72 points
higher in mathematics than students attending a less advantaged school. Within
schools, more advantaged students score 20 points higher in mathematics than less
advantaged students attending that same school. Students in advantaged schools
perform better than those in disadvantaged schools, but they may not perform
particularly well when compared against an international standard (OECD, 2013 42). As
research find, higher degrees of school autonomy contribute to some extent to the
positive pupil performance in mathematics (Haahr, 2005).
Investing in education is investing in future but financial crisis has hit this sector as
hard as others43. Research shows that amount of money invested into education is not
directly proportional to quality and student achievement. Using resources effectively in
education seems to be challenging in many countries and it seems that it has some
cultural reasons. There is a general lack of quality cost/benefit analyses of different
educational policies and programs at the school and district level, meaning that
schools and districts are making decisions with minimal attention to the efficiency or
effectiveness of education outcomes (Faubert, 2012). Lack of collaboration of
schools can also have a detrimental impact on student success reducing the capacity
of schools to understand and address different needs. Capabilities comprise abilities
and opportunities, and one side (school, community or family) by itself cannot open all
the possible doors. One consequence of lack of collaboration was described when
discussing transition from ECEC to primary. Policies need to ensure that schools
prioritise their links with parents and communities and improve their communication
strategies to align school and parental efforts to support struggling students (OECD,
2012). Availability and quality of ECEC has a potential to be one of the influential
factors on achievement, especially where it is supposed to have compensatory role
(such as for children from vulnerable groups (Eurydice, 2009; Ivić & Pešikan, 2009,
Marjanovič-Umek, Sočan, & Bajc, 2006; Calero et al. 2012;2007;2008; 2010;2007;
Delais, 2012; Naudeau et al., 2011). ECEC influences some of the most vulnerable
groups by increasing the coverage of children with SEN or Roma (Ivić & Pešikan,
2009; Krek & Metljak, 2011; Croatian plan for Roma inclusion, 2012; Havnes &
Mogstad, 2009), increasing social and educational integration of immigrants (Buholzer,
2012) and neutralising disadvantages caused by poverty (Darvas & Tausz, 2005). It is
key to quality and effective ECEC services that they are universal and with a social
mix. It is within these settings – as a sub group of society in general – that children
acquire key dispositions and skills, which can act as preventive and/or protective
factors in certain cases. For more discussion on the positive effects of ECEC see above
(Section 1.3). This effect is present for mainstream population also.
OECD (2013) PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful? Resources, Policies and Practices
(Volume IV), OECD Publishing.
43
The effect of the financial crisis on education budgets is mainly seen in the countries (Ireland, Greece,
Spain, France, Cyprus, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, the United Kingdom and
Iceland) that had substantial general budget deficits in 2010 and 2011. In total, in 2011 and/or 2012, cuts
in education budget were made in twenty countries/regions for which data are available (Eurydice, 2013b).
42
September 2014
64
Curriculum that is flexible and relevant helps students to stay engaged. However
students often complain of too much theoretical subjects and too much complicated
vocational theory within vocational education and training (Rumberger and Lim,
2008). Biggest problems throughout schooling regarding curriculum are: to rigid
curriculum (INJUVE, 2007; Krek & Metljak, 2011); not enough teacher autonomy
(INJUVE, 2007; Krek & Metljak, 2011) and too complex and boring curriculum (Häfeli
& Schellenberg, 2009; Pavlović-Babić & Baucal, 2010; Center for Vocational Education,
2011) or program based on memorizing content (Calero et al., 2012, 2007a, 2008,
2010; 2007b). In Spain negative effects of program based on memorizing content are
reported (Calero et al., 2012, 2007a, 2008, 2010; 2007b). Curriculum reforms are
seen as potential prevention of ESL, through diversification, giving more autonomy to
teachers in program implementation and more child-centred and competence based
approach (e.g., Krek & Metljak, 2011, Pirard, 2011; INJUVE, 2007; Skolverket, 2009).
In terms of quality ECEC, the best curriculum for early childhood programs appears to
be one that focuses on the comprehensive development of children (Naudeau et al.,
2011).
In PISA 2012 there is a positive correlation between higher degrees of school
autonomy in certain aspects and average pupil performance in mathematics and
between the degree to which schools themselves decide on budget allocations
capacity; support structures available at the school (mentors, bilingual teaching
assistants and school-home mediators); the required level of parental involvement;
interaction with peers; and teacher-pupil relationships (OECD, 2013b). Positive
school climate may be necessary, but is not a sufficient condition for strong
academic performance and participation among pupils (OECD, 2005; European
Commission, 2010b). Schools where students report feeling unsafe, generally have
higher dropout rates (Rumberger and Lim, 2008). A highly bureaucratic and
hierarchical environment where roles are highly differentiated can create a
depersonalised environment where students falling behind may not be recognised
(Nield et al. 2008).
Teachers are central to school improvement efforts (EC, 2011; TWG on ESL, 2013;
Eurydice, 2013, Eurofound, 2012; OECD, 2005a; Skolverket, 2009; Gruber, 2007;
Eriksson, 2008; Fatyga et al., 2001; Mickovska, 2001; Kittl, Mayr, & Schiffer, 2006;
Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002). Teacher education, both initial and continuing,
was seen as one important way of supporting teachers working with diversity in the
classroom to identify early school leaving processes in time and to provide pupils with
targeted support (European Commission, 2013). Without supportive working
conditions, even the most eager teachers may feel ineffective and be more likely to
move to other schools or quit teaching altogether. Teachers’ salaries increased in real
terms between 2000 and 2012 in virtually all OECD countries, but tended to remain
below those of other university graduates (OECD, 2013). Smaller class size and
teacher-pupil ratio are favourable to achievement and allow for individualization of
teaching which is especially significant for low achievers and pupils who need
additional support to boost their achievement (Australian Education Union, 2012).
Fredriksson et al. (2011)44 find even evidence of long-term effects of class size.
Smaller classes in the last three years of primary school (age 10 to 13) are not only
beneficial for cognitive test scores at age 13 but also for non-cognitive scores at that
age, for cognitive test scores at ages 16 and 18, and for completed education and
wages at age 27 to 42. Instruction is one of the crucial parts of teaching process.
Two main forms of instructions are: direct instruction that is built around problems
with clear, correct answers that can be learned quickly and student-centred instruction
44
Fredriksson, P.; Öckert, B. & Oosterbeek, H. (2012). Long-term effects of class size, Research Papers in
Economics: 8, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
September 2014
65
is associated with the teacher facilitating students’ own inquiry by allowing them time
to find solutions to problems on their own before the teacher demonstrates how a
problem is solved (OECD, 2014). Other important process is assessment. Formative
assessment has proven to be more efficient way of evaluation of pupil’s progress
which other than numeric mark provides guidelines for improvement and valuable
feedback (OECD, 2008).
The way education and training is provided within secondary schools and vocational
training centres seems to play role in retaining young people into ISCED 3 pathways
and in promoting their overall achievement (Carugati, Terenzi, & Versari, 2006; ISFOL,
2010). Another major reason for dropout reported among countries espousing an
apprenticeship system, within upper secondary education and training such as
Denmark and Norway is simply lack of apprenticeship places (Markussen, 2010).
5.3.4. Other contextual factors
Policies that sustain parents and parenting, parental leave, family-friendly policies,
infant health services and policies that reduce child and family poverty also have an
important effect on children’s educational career (Bennett, 2008). The country data
from GOETE research shows that parents feel most encouraged to participate in
decision making at schools in Finland followed by Slovenia and the Netherlands, while
parents in France feel least encouraged to do so. Furthermore, parents in the
Netherlands most agree that school takes account of their decisions and concerns
followed by Finland and Slovenia while parents in France and Germany least agree
(Parreira do Amaral et al., 2013).
In countries where there were good employment opportunities for low-qualified
workers (such as in Ireland, Greece, Spain and even in the Netherlands), the labour
market ‘pull’ factor was a significant reason for leaving school early. This ‘pull’ of the
labour market seemed to be stronger for pupils of vocational (both pre-vocational
secondary education and secondary vocational courses) education, who were tempted
to become financially independent without waiting to obtain a qualification. In
countries that demanded formal qualifications and job opportunities were less
available for non-qualified people, this factor had less influence, so pupils stayed in
schools. Also, some specifics of country social system could contribute or minimise ESL
(social welfare, family pensions, etc.) (GHK Consulting ltd, 2011). E.g., in Spain
favourable conditions for less skilled workers since the middle 1990s up to the current
financial crisis, particularly, low unemployment rates for unskilled young workers and
relatively high wages in the construction sector (where a housing bubble was leading
to higher and higher prices) have contributed to early school leaving (Petrongolo &
San Segundo, 2004, San Segundo & Petrongolo, 2004, Aparicio, 2010, Lacuesta,
Puente, & Villanueva, 2012). Two studies point out that minimum wages might have
somewhat influence on early school leaving: the higher minimum wages the higher the
incentives for leaving education (Caparros & Gomez, 2011, Anton & Muñoz de Bustillo,
2011). The number of early school leavers in Flanders with a relatively smooth career
in education and who are fairly close to obtaining a qualification when they leave is
surprisingly large. They must be pulled out of education by attractive short-term
prospects in the labour market. This idea is supported by a marked increase between
2008 and 2009 of the percentage of male unqualified secondary school pupils beyond
the age of compulsory education choosing to stay at school for another year (Van
Landeghem et al., 2012). This increase comes after several years of a gradual decline
of this percentage and coincides with the first onslaught of the financial and economic
crisis of 2008.
September 2014
66
However, it should be noted that labour market pull factors can influence pupils’
decision to leave school early even if she/he does not underachieve and regardless of
hers/his previous educational background (e.g., (non)attendance of ECEC). However,
these factors are still important to consider in our research as they may offer
explanations for higher school leaving rates in some countries, which otherwise could
be mistakenly attributed to the flaws of education systems or pupils’
underachievement.
Since society and media are important for public policy, devaluation of education,
presence of corruption and low reputation of teaching profession can hinder school
attainment and motivation for schooling (GHK Consulting ltd, 2011).
Summary of the factors discussed above is presented in the Table 11.
Table 11: Summary of risk factors for occurrence of underachievement and/or early
school leaving
Socio-economic and family
Cognitive and nonEducation system and other
background
cognitive factors
policy factors
Factors common for both underachievement and early school leaving
 Low SES background
 Lack of motivation
 Availability of ECEC
 Belonging to vulnerable
and negative
 Availability of individual
groups
attitudes
support
 Non-favourable family
 Disruptive behaviour
 Difficult transitions
characteristics (e.g. low
 Peer relationship
 Grade retention
education level of parents,
skills
 Curriculum
negative family climate and
 Low meta-cognitive
 Low school autonomy
parents’ expectations)
skills
 School segregation
 Immigrant origin
 Negative school climate
 Teacher’s expectations and
attitudes
 Early tracking systems;
 Cooperation
 Structure of VET
Factors peculiar for underachievement
 Female pupils perform worse
 Low interest in
 Large class size and low
in math and science
subject;
teacher-pupil ratio
 Male pupils perform worse in
 Anxiety
reading
Factors peculiar for early school leaving
 Male pupils tend to go to VET
 Underachievement
 Compulsory age period;
and leave school early more
 Lack of educational second
often
chances
 Dead ends in secondary
education
 Grade retention
Source: PPMI (based on literature review).
September 2014
67
6. Profile of underachievers and early school leavers:
characteristics and sources
The review of literature on possible factors influencing pupils’ performance and
participation at school allows identifying the main sources of under-achievement and
early school leaving and most likely profiles of low-achievers and early school leavers.
As mentioned before, other than those who had difficulties through education, there
are also those who left school to pursue a career or job opportunity. Our main interest
is early school leavers and underachievers with difficult education careers and what
relation their characteristics have towards capabilities expanded in ECEC. Factors
influencing the latter pathway such as labour market pull and broader social context
also merit consideration, as they still might be one of explanatory factors of some
countries’ early school leaving rates.
Underachievement was mostly researched in the context of gifted children and gifted
education, but researchers implied that same factors and reasons were responsible for
underachievement in general. Although the position of the gifted underachiever
remains an educational topic of some interest, underachievement has been examined
lately in relation to other factors such as social class, gender, and ethnicity. Gallagher
(2005) takes this perspective into account and groups sources of underachievement in
three categories: school, family and social environment (see Figure 3). She claims that
all other causes of under-achievement such as personal traits and competences are
emerging from the first three categories.
Figure 3: Sources of underachievement
School
Family
Social
environment
Personal traits and behaviour that can affect underachievement:
Fear of failure; Fear of success; Fear of lack of acceptance by peer
group; Undetected learning disabilities; Lack of basic skills and study
habits; Inappropriate educational activities; Lack of opportunity in the
society; Too high or too low expectations of parents; Lack of parental
support for education; Fear of overshadowing parent; Passiveaggression toward parent; Low frustration tolerance; Lack of impulse
control; Low risk-taking abilities; Lack of competitiveness; Guilt for
being advanced intellectually; Interests in activities other than school;
Cumulative deficits and belief in failure
Source: Gallagher, G. Underachievement - How do we define, analyse, and address it in
schools? A view through the lens of the literature in gifted education, ACE papers, 2005.
Webb et al. (2007) find that underachievers have similar negative characteristics,
especially those visible in class: disruptive or quiet in class; poor attendance, low selfesteem; feels like a victim; low motivation; poor organizational skills; immature; not
goal oriented; procrastinates; aggressive with peers; under challenged; depressed and
sad; tense and anxious; “lazy”; tired or sleepy.
September 2014
68
Characteristics of early school leavers have been similarly described according to
personal traits and behaviours (NESSE, 2010): maladjusted, who have poor grades
and who behave poorly at school; underachievers, who just have poor grades;
disengaged, who perform better than maladjusted and the underachievers, but simply
do not like school; quiets, who, other than having slightly lower grades, resemble
graduates more than dropouts (Janosz et al. 1997). However, early school leavers
unlike under-achievers can also be described:
1) According to the pathways after leaving school (Dekkers & Driessen, 1997):
successful unschooled manual worker; school returner; money earner;
voluntary unemployed; enforced unemployed.
2) According to young people’s reasons for leaving school (Dwyer, 1996): positive
leaver, making positive career choice with employment or future training;
opportune leaver, there is no definite career path, taking the opportunity to
change life patterns; would be leaver, does not leave but reluctant to stay;
circumstantial leaver, forced to leave for non-educational reasons; discouraged
leaver, interest and performance in education is low; alienated leaver,
discouraged and non-compatible with school life.
Similarly to the latter classification GHK (2011) on reducing ESL describes the same
types of early school leavers, adding to the list:


Troubled type - those who may have been regarded as ‘trouble-makers’
in the school due to anti-social behaviour, or having been victimized
over problematic incidences. This characteristic of early school leavers
may as well be relevant for the description of underachievers, as
numerous researchers identified disruptive and abusive behaviour as
one of the risk factors for low performance.
Confused type - those who may lack direction and motivation, and who
are confused or unsure about the direction of their future studies and
careers. They may have also become drop-outs by accident, after not
getting a place in a school and not being able to identify other
alternatives. The needs of many school leavers of this type can be
addressed through career advice, guidance and support.
Characteristics of early school leavers identified though literature review are in many
ways similar to the ones observed in the area of underachievement. Language barrier
can cause exclusion and segregation starting from early age, so they do not develop
adequate skills. Problems with integration can lead to behavioural problems, or
behavioural problems can already be present due to the reasons such as dysfunctional
family, low SES leading to criminal behaviour or as an answer to bullying and rejection
from peers. Common problems are short attention span, no persistence and goal
orientation. Early school leavers are not motivated; they often find education
meaningless and do not see the connection between the curriculum and life out of
school. They lack learning strategies, so they do not cope well with subject content.
Problems with authority and negative attitude towards teachers are sometimes present
that can be a result of negative experience with them. Some of them are very hard to
identify because they are quite, do not make any problems but also do not show any
interest in class. Teachers often overlook this kind of behaviour because it is not
disruptive in class. In the Irish context, a number of studies have found that
differences are evident between early school leavers and school completers in terms of
their orientation towards school. Pupils who had more negative interaction with
teachers during earlier cycle were found to be more likely to drop out while those who
view their school life as happy were less likely to drop out, as were those who had
more positive views of their own abilities. Pupils who are less satisfied with school,
September 2014
69
who have low aspirations and a poor attendance record are more likely to drop out of
school, even when their educational performance is taken into account (Byrne &
Smyth, 2010). A research from Hungary provides valuable insight on which individual
factors pedagogues see as the most common reasons for underachievement.
The Table 12 below summarizes the potential characteristics of pupils that may
influence their performance and participation at school.
Table 12: Possible profile of an underachiever/early school leaver
Potential socio-economic and
Cognitive
Non-cognitive
background characteristics
characteristics
characteristics
Characteristics common for both underachievement and early school leaving
Lower socio-economic and cultural
Poor reading
Low self-esteem, academic
status
literacy
self-concepts and perception of
Has some kind of physical or mental
Weak learning
self-efficiency
disability
strategies
Lack of communication skills
Comes from dysfunctional family,
Poor verbal skills
and constructive conflict
abusive parents, parents have low
Poor analytic
management
educational level lack of support
thinking, and
Doesn’t interact well with
Victim of abuse at home or bullied at
abstract
peers.
school, discriminated by teachers,
reasoning
Problems with focusing
rejected by peers
Lack of problem
attention and staying on the
Ethnic minority
solving skills
goal.
Member of vulnerable groups
Poor language
Bad attitude towards teachers
skills
Bored, too disruptive or too
General lower IQ
quiet in class.
Low motivation
Characteristic peculiar for underachievement
Female pupils perform worse in math
and science
Male pupils perform worse in reading
Characteristic peculiar for early school leaving
Male pupils tend to go to VET and leave
Anxiety
school early more often
Open to new experiences
Has to contribute to the family income
or take adult responsibilities, such as
parenthood or caring for family
members;
Has had a history of disengagement
from school, long-term absenteeism,
truancy or expulsion; have achieved
poorly in school and lack sufficient
educational resilience;
Has often changed their place of
residence or schools.
Want to pursue a career; family
tradition
Source: PPMI (based on literature review).
Even with significant common factors that can be observed if we study each early
school leaver’s social environment and personal traits, approach to ESL cannot be
narrowed down to identification of risk factors within the person, such as negative
personal traits. The emergence of longitudinal studies has contributed to a more
nuanced understanding of early leaving, with the interaction of family, individual and
school factors found to shape a gradual process of disengagement from school (Byrne
& Smyth, 2010). Literature also shows that leaving school is not based upon a single
decision or act, it is a long term process that can be stopped if identified and
addressed by the school, society and family. Byrne & Smyth (2010) find that
experiences dating back to the first grade of primary education influence the likelihood
September 2014
70
of early school leaving, with individual family and school factors having a cumulative
impact over the whole educational career. In the list of factors that relate to
competencies we can see that verbal skills, language skills literacy, development of
working habits and later reading literacy and learning strategies are some of the most
crucial for successful school life. The basis for these competencies starts to develop at
a very young age in the form of in the form of general dispositions and skills which
provide a context for literacy and numeracy together with personal, social and learning
dispositions. Early child education is also crucial for the development of child’s prosocial behaviour, self-regulation and learning dispositions that seem to relate to the
characteristics (e.g., higher self-esteem and self-efficiency, good communication skills,
motivation, etc.) essential to develop for better performance and some type of early
school leavers to stay in education (Mitchell et al., 2008, Sylva et al., 2004; Harrison
et al., 2009; Sammons et al., 2007; Del Boca et al., 2010; Felfe & Lalive, 2012;
Bennett, 2012a, Lazzari & Vandenbroeck, 2013; Osakwe, 2009; Ivić & Pešikan, 2009,
Marjanovič-Umek et al., 2006; (Calero et al., 2012, 2007a, 2008, 2010; 2007b;
Delais, 2012).
September 2014
71
7. Summary of research review and introduction of
analytical framework
This chapter has reflected on a considerable body of research on early childhood
education and care services, underachievement and early school leaving research
dating back to the 1960s. However, even though as separate topics they were studied
quite extensively, the research on the relationships between ECEC and
underachievement/ESL is quite a recent phenomenon in European research.
The first serious attempts to research the links between education in early years and
later child’s development were made by American researchers in 1960s (High Scope
Perry school project). However, the focus of the longitudinal study was on child’s
behaviour in the society, rather than on pupils’ education outcomes. In general, most
of the longitudinal research is coming from the US, Australia and New Zealand, with
European studies (e.g. the UK, the Netherlands and Norway) only recently entering
the field. Moreover, the US longitudinal research (which is the most numerous) is
recently criticised by European scholars for its limited methodological design, small
samplings and specific American context, which hinders application of its findings into
European context (Penn et al., 2006).
The reviewed literature suggests the topics that are important to consider when
building a hypothesis of long-term ECEC impact, in particular in terms of reducing
early school leaving, are the following:





factors influencing high-quality ECEC;
impact of high quality ECEC on the immediate outcomes in terms of
cognitive and non-cognitive abilities acquired by a child as a result of
participation in ECEC;
the relationship between ECEC and primary schools and transition
barriers and how this affects child’s further learning;
influence of education system characteristics and specific educational
support policies on children’s learning;
relationship between socio-economic and other contextual factors and
pupils’ achievement and participation. Labour market factors can be also
crucial to explaining early school leaving phenomenon; however, this is
relevant only for a number of countries, and moreover, their effects
have been reduced in the light of the recent financial crisis and a
dramatic increase in youth unemployment.
These potential links researched in the literature are connected together in our
analytical framework (see Figure 4 below). The analytical framework presents the
hypothetical causality chain of child’s development through its schooling career
starting from participation in high quality early childhood education and its influence
on the development of child’s immediate capabilities to the successful transition to
subsequent levels of education and final graduation.
It is an established relationship between socio-economic factors and children’s
attainment in literature. Children who come from poor, socially disadvantaged and or
low education backgrounds, disadvantaged minorities (such as Roma or other minority
ethnic groups) or migrant backgrounds are in all studies at the greatest risk of ESL.
However, what is less researched or emphasized is the role of education system to
compensate all the disadvantages and accommodate the needs of every individual
child emphasizing not the child’s gaps, but capabilities and opportunities.
September 2014
72
Figure 4: Conceptual framework
Source: PPMI.
The reviewed literature suggests that there is a good understanding of what quality
ECEC is in terms of different domains, like structural, access, governance and process.
What is less researched is how these quality domains are effective, this is especially
relevant for more dynamic aspects of quality which are difficult to measure with
traditional measurements and indicators. Structural quality characteristics related with
high quality ECEC have the strongest basis supported by positivist research with
agreement that such structural criteria as staff qualifications, adult-child ratio, group
size, curriculum, universal provision, working conditions for staff are influential in
ensuring effective ECEC services. Access quality analysis shows that equity, inclusion,
diversity, affordability, usefulness, comprehensibility, and availability are prerequisites
of high quality early childhood education and care. The question that remains
unanswered is what part of the process is important and how it influences expansion
of child’s capabilities. More studies are need on how are fundamental abilities, values
and attitudes promoted and nurtured in the best way so that child could be successful
in education and self-actualised as a person.
Attendance of high quality ECEC encourages learning dispositions, socio-emotional
skills, reduces anti-social and anxious behaviour. But we know really little about
dynamic insight of ECEC group that drives this area of development. Is the presence of
peers, or good educator or solid routine more important, or is it program, activities
and stimulating environment are questions that still need to be answered. This aspect
is the hardest to capture from methodological point of view; therefore, focus on small
qualitative or experimental research should be fostered more.
The role of child-adult functions is intuitively important. Adult, significant other, guides
the development and provides support to child. Fukkink and Lont (2007) point out that
September 2014
73
relationship between practitioner’s competences and children’s outcomes need to be
researched more. The limited empirical data provide only tentative support yet for the
assumed link from caregiver training to caregiver competencies and, subsequently, to
its positive effect on children’s behavior (Fukkink and Lont, 2007). And this supports
the need for further research in the area of pedagogical practice and children emerging
sense of self and self-efficacy.
Longitudinal studies are rare. There are quite many assumptions and opinions on the
influence of education system design characteristics on pupil’s performance at school;
however, the research remains correlational rather than causal. The process of
transforming of children’s abilities into positive outcomes as a results of intervention of
the inputs is still under the radar. Observing child’s path in terms of capabilities
expanded and denied is an approach that demands ambitious research but that could
unveil many questions about personal success and self-actualisation.
Existence of risk factors is not enough, some children prove to be resilient. What
needs to be further researched is what those resilience factors are. Discovering and
neutralising triggers that turn risk into reason for underachievement can change lives
of many that have to bit the odds that family, country, body they are born into gives
them.
September 2014
74
Bibliography
1.
Abadzi, H. (2006). Efficient Learning for the Poor. Insights from the
Frontier of Cognitive Neuroscience (p. 304). Washington DC: The World Bank.
Retrieved
from
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/7023/366190Efficien1
01OFFICIAL0USE0ONLY1.pdf?sequence=1
2.
Abrantes, P. (2009). Perder se e encontrar se à entrada da escola:
transições e desigualdades na educação Basica (Getting lost or meeting up at school
entrance: transitions and inequalities in basic education). Sociologia, problemas e
praticas, 60, 33–52.
3.
Ackerman, D. (2006). The costs of being a child care teacher: Revisiting
the problem of low wages. Educational Policy, 20 ( 1), 85-112.
4.
Ackesjö, H. (2010). Läraridentiteter i förskoleklass. Berättelser från ett
gränsland. Licentiatstudie. (Teacher identities in preschool classes. Stories from a
border country). Göteborgs Universitet., Göteborg.
5.
Adamson, P. (2008). The Child Care Transition: A league table of early
childhood education and care in economically advanced countries, UNICEF – Innocenti
Research Centre.
6.
Adomaitytė, I., & Gumuliauskienė, A. (2011). Vidaus auditas, kaip
veiklos kokybės įvertinimo būdas, ikimokyklinio ugdymo įstaigose.(Internal Audit as a
Means of Activity Quality Assessment in Preschool Education Institutions). Jaunųjų
mokslininkų darbai, 2(31), 8–14.
7.
Ainsaar, M., & Soo, K. (2009). Kohalike omavalitsuste toetus lastega
peredele 2008 ja laste päevahoid 2008-2009 Eestis.Uuringuraport. (Local
governments’ support for families with children in 2008 and for children day care in
2008-2009 in Estonia.Research report.) (p. 40). Tartu Ülikool, Sotsioloogia ja
sotsiaalpoliitika
i
nstituut.
Retrieved
from
http://www.sm.ee/fileadmin/meedia/Dokumendid/Sotsiaalvaldkond/kogumik/KOV_20
09.pdf
8.
Ainsaar, M., & Soo, K. (2011). Kohalikud omavalitsused ja lastega
pered. (Local governments and families with children. Research report) (p. 52). Tartu
Ülikool, Sotsioloogia ja sotsiaalpoliitika instituut Sotsiaalministeerium. Retrieved from
http://www.sm.ee/fileadmin/meedia/Dokumendid/Sotsiaalvaldkond/kogumik/ARUANN
E_2011_KOVraport_final_21.08.2012.pdf
9.
Akos, P. (2006). Extracurricular Participation and the Transition to
Middle School. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 29, 1–9.
10.
Alicia F. Lieberman, Ann Chu, Patricia Van Horn and William W. Harris
(2011). Trauma in early childhood: Empirical evidence and clinical implications.
Development and Psychopathology, 23, pp 397-410.
September 2014
75
11.
Alieva, A., Bousselin, A., & Reinstadler, A. (2013). Is attending
kindergarten good for school results.
12.
Ališauskienė, S., Ališauskas, A., Melienė, R., & Šapelytė, O. (2007).
Psichologinės, specialiosios pedagoginės ir specialiosios pagalbos bendrojo lavinimo
mokyklų mokiniams lygis: Tyrimo ataskaita. (Level of Psychological and Special
Support for Pupils of Mainstream Secondary Schools: Research Report). Švietimo ir
mokslo ministerija.
13.
Almeida, A. S., Aguiar, C., & Pinto, A. I. (2012). Comportamentos
interactivos das educadoras de infância em salas de creche em função do tipo de
actividades e das características estruturais do context (Teachers interactive
behaviours in day-care for toddlers in relations with the type of activity and the
structural characteristics of the settings). Da Investigação às Práticas, 2(1), 94–117.
14.
Almisis, D., & et.al. (2007). Greek National Report, Prevention of Early
School Leaving. Education and Culture, Lifelong Learning Programme.
15.
Altaras, A. (2006). Giftedness
Institute of Psychology, University of Belgrade.
and
Underachievement.
16.
Altaras-Dimitrijević, A. (Ed.).
Experiments. Belgrade: Faculty of Philosophy.
(2012).
Giftedness-
Belgrade:
Views
and
17.
Amsing, M., & Eilers, E. (2011). Een optimale overgang van de
voorschoolse instelling naar de basisschool (An Optimal transition Between ECEC and
ESCC01).
KPC
Groep.
Retrieved
from
http://www.google.rs/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjA
A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kpcgroep.nl%2Fkpcgroep%2Foverheidsopdrachten%2Frend%2F~%2Fmedia%2FFiles%2FOverheidsopdrac
hten%2FOvergang-voorschoolse-instelling-naar-basisschoolonderzoeksrapport.ashx&ei=IKA2Uv7uEtHVsgaQsIDgCw&usg=AFQjCNGnDoa1eMbjCje
qk-7z3orDWxCYQ&sig2=pZd8w0NTLK3eHuSArQUvLQ&bvm=bv.52164340,d.Yms&cad=rja
18.
Andersen, D. (2005). 4 åreftergrundskolen – 19 årige omval gogveje i
ungdomsuddannelserne (4 years after elementary school - about 19 year olds’ choice
and roads in upper secondary education).
19.
Anghel, B., & Cabrales, A. (2011). Los determinantes del éxito en la
educación primaria en España (The determinants of success in primary education in
Spain). In Talento, esfuerzo y movilidad social. Madrid: Fundación de Estudios de
Economía Aplicada (107–173). Fundación de Estudios de Economía Aplicada. Retrieved
from http://www.fedea.net/meritocracia/pdf/talento-esfuerzo-movilidad.pdf
20.
Anton, J.-I., & Muñoz de Bustillo, R. (2011). The Impact of the Minimum
Wage on Spanish Youth: Evidence From a Natural Experiment (MPRA Paper 33488) (p.
27).
MPRA.
Retrieved
from
http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/33488/1/MPRA_paper_33488.pdf
September 2014
76
21.
Aparicio, A. (2010). High-School Dropouts and Transitory Labor Market
Shocks: The Case of the Spanish Housing Boom (Discussion Paper No. 5139) (p. 53).
Bonn: IZA. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp5139.pdf
22.
Argos Gonzales, J., Munoz, P., & Zubizaretta, A. C. (2011). Metáforas de
la transición: la relación entre la escuela infantil y la escuela primaria y la perspectiva
de futuros docentes de educación infantil (Metaphors about the transition: the
relationship between pre-school and primary school and perspectives for future preschool teachers). Educación XXI, 14(1), 135–156.
23.
Arnold, D. H., Zeljo, A., Doctoroff, G., & Ortiz, C. (2008). Parent
Involvement in Preschool: Predictors and the Relation of Involvement to Preliteracy
Development. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 74–90.
24.
Ashton, R. (2008). Guidelines on transition to high school Turning
anxiety from fear into excited anticipation (p. 51). Blackburn with Darwen Educational
Psychology
Team.
Retrieved
from
https://bctf.ca/bcsca/transition/transition_guidelines.pdf
25.
Aukurst, V. G., & Rydland, V. (2011). Preschool Classroom
Conversations as Long-term Resources for Second Language and Literacy Acquisision.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(4), 198–207.
26.
Australian Education Union. (2012). Class size-The Research (p. 14).
Victorian
Branch.
Retrieved
from
http://www.aeuvic.asn.au/class_size_research_summary.pdf
27.
Babrović, T., Burušić, J., & Šakić, M. (2009). Uspješnost predviđanja
obrazovnih postignuća učenika osnovnih škola Republike Hrvatske (Prediction of
Educational Achievements of Primary School Pupils in the Republic of Croatia).
Društvena istraživanja, 18(4-5), 673–695.
28.
Baker, J., Bridger, R., & Evans, K. (1998). Models of Underachievement
Among Gifted Preadolescents: The Role of Personal, Family, and School factors. Gifted
Child Quarterly National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), 42(1), 5–15.
29.
Balica, M. (2010). Abandonul timpuriu si perspective pe piata muncii
(Early dropout and perspectives on the labour market). Bucharest: Retrieved from
http://nou2.ise.ro/wpcontent/uploads/2012/08/raport_abandon_timpuriu_final.pdf
30.
Baltes-Lohr, C. (2012). Frühkindliche Bildung und
Luxembourg (Early Childhood Education and Care in Luxembourg).
Betreuung
in
31.
Barnard, W. M. (2004). Parent involvement in elementary school and
educational attainment. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(1), 39–62.
32.
Barnett, S. (1996). Lives in the balance: Age-27 benefit-cost analysis of
the HighScope Perry Preschool Program. HighScope Press.
33.
Barros, S., & Aguiar, C. (2010). Assessing the Quality of Portuguese
Child Care Programs for Toddlers. Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(4), 527–535.
September 2014
77
34.
Bartošová, I. (2009). Hlavní faktory ovlivňující dítě 21.století v rozvoji
čtenářské gramotnosti (Main factors which influence child in 21st century in his
reading literacy). In Dítě předškolního věku a jeho paidagogos: sborník příspěvků z
mezinárodní vědecké konference (65–73). Hradec Králové: Gaudeamus.
35.
Baucal, A., Pavlović-Babić, D., & Willims, D. (2006). Differential
Selection into Secondary Shools in Serbia. PROSPECTS, 36(4), 539–546.
36.
Bauchmüller, R., Gørtz, M., & Würtz Rasmussen, A. (2011). Long-Run
Benefits from Universal High –Quality Pre-schooling (p. 33). Maastricht: Graduate
School
of
Governance.
Retrieved
from
http://oldhha.asb.dk/nat/michael/asbiab11/WurtzRasmussen.pdf
37.
Belsky, J., Burchinal, M., McCartney, K., & Lowe Vandell, D. (2007). Are
There Long-Term Effects of Early Child Care. Child Development, 72(2), 681–701.
38.
Bennett, J. (2008). Early Childhood Services in the OECD Countries:
Review of the Literature and Current Policy in the Early Childhood Field (Innocenti
Working Paper No. No. 2008- 01) (p. 101). UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
Retrieved from http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/iwp_2008_01_final.pdf
39.
Bennett, J. (2012a). ECEC for Children from Disadvantaged
Backgrounds: Findings from a European Literature Review and Two Case Studies (p.
61). Brussels: EC DGEAC. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/moreinformation/doc/ecec/report_en.pdf
40.
Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., & Gerltler, P. (2009). The Effect of Pre-primary
Education on Primary School Performance. Journal of Public Economics, 93(1-2), 219–
234.
41.
Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., & Manacorda, M. (2008). Giving Children a
Better Start: Preschool Attendance and School-age Profiles. Journal of Public
Economics, 92(5-6), 1416–1440.
42.
Bernard, M. (2006). It’s Time We Teach Social-emotional Competence
As Well As We Teach Academic Competence. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 103–
119.
43.
Bertschy, K., Cattaneo, M. A., & Wolter, S. C. (2008). What Happened
to the PISA 2000 Participants Five Years Later? (IZA Discussion Papers No. 3323) (p.
32). Zürich: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA. Retrieved from
http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/34905/1/561343675.pdf
44.
Bistrickienė, M. (2009). Moksleivių mokyklos nelankymo priežastys ir jo
poveikis pažangumui: magistro darbas (Reasons of Non-attending School and It‘s
Impact for Achievements) (master thesis). LIETUVOS ŽEMĖSŪKIO UNIVERSITETAS
KAIMO KULTŪROS INSTITUTAS. Retrieved from http://vddb.library.lt/fedora/get/LTeLABa-0001:E.02~2009~D_20090609_100309-93098/DS.005.0.02.ETD
September 2014
78
45.
Black, S., Devereux, P., & Løken, K. (2010). The Perils ofPre-School?
The Effect of Child Care on Academic Performance (p. 31). Department of Economics
Norwegian School of Economics. Retrieved from http://www.sole-jole.org/11228.pdf
46.
Böhlmark,
A.,
&
Holmlund,
H.
(2012).
Lika
möjligheter?
Familjebakgrund och skolprestationer 1988-2010 (Equal opportunities? Family
background and school performance 1988-2010) (IFAU-rapport) (p. 53). Uppsala.
Retrieved
from
http://ifau.se/Upload/pdf/se/2012/r-2012-14-Lika-mojligheterfamiljebakgrund-och-skolprestationer-1988-2010.pdf
47.
Boukaz, L. (2007). Parental involvement in school. What hinders and
what promotes parental involvement in an urban school. Malmö: Högskolan,
lärarutbildningen.
48.
Bowman, B., Donovan, M., & Burns, M. . (Eds.). (2000). Eager to Learn:
Educating our Preschoolers. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
49.
Bradshaw, J., & et al. (2006). Comparing Child Well-Being in OECD
Countries: Concepts and Methods. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
50.
Bradshaw, C., L. O’Brennan and C. McNeely (2008). Core competencies
and the Prevention of School Failure and Early School Leaving, in N.G. Guerra and C.P.
Bradshaw (eds.), Core competencies to prevent problem behaviours and promote
positive youth development. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development,
122, 19-32.
51.
Bražienė, N., & Mockienė, D. (2008). Priešmokyklinuko agresyvaus
elgesio profilaktika ir korekcija pasakomis (Prophylaxis and Correction of a
Preschooler’s Aggressive Behaviour by the Means of Fairy Tales). Jaunųjų mokslininkų
darbai, 20(4), 93–102.
52.
Bridgeland, J., J. Dilulio and K. Morison (2006). The Silent Epidemic:
Perspectives of High School Dropouts, Civic Enterprises, LLC, Washington.
53.
Breit, S. (2009). Frühkindliche Sprachstandsfeststellung – Konzept und
Ergebnisse der systematischen Beobachtung im Kindergarten (Assessment of early
childhood language development status – concept and results of an systematical
observation in kindergarten). Graz: Leykam.
54.
Brighouse, H. (2000). School Choice and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
55.
Broberg, A., Wessels, H., Lamb, M., & Hwang, P. (1997). Effects of Daycare on the Development of Cognitive Abilities in 8-year-olds: A Longitudinal Study.
Developmental Psychology, 33(1), 62–69.
56.
Brooker, S. (2002). Parents’ perceptions of and Attitudes towards
Government Work-life Balance Initiatives—a Survey of Parents. London: Women and
Equality Unit, Cabinet Office and DfES.
September 2014
79
57.
Brophy, J. (2006). Grade Repetition (p. 43). IIEP. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/Edpol6.pdf
58.
Broström, S. (2002). Communication and continuity in the transition
from kindergarten to school. In Transitions in the early yars. Debating continuity and
progression for children in early education (52–63). London: Falmer.
59.
Broström, S. (2003). Problems and Barriers in Children’s Learning When
They Transit from Kindergarten to Kindergarten Class in School. European Early
Childhood Education Research Journal, 1, 51–66.
60.
Broström, S. (2005). Transition Problems and Play as Transitory
Activity. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(3), 17–25.
61.
Buholzer, A. (2012). Évaluation du programme “Encouragement de
l’intégration dans le domaine du préscolaire (Evaluation of the program
”Encouragement of integration in the field of pre-school). Lucerne: Institut pour l’école
et l’hétérogénéité Haute Ecole Pédagogique de Suisse centrale.
62.
Burchinal, M., Howes, C., & Kontos, S. (2002). Structural Predictors of
Child-care Quality in Child-care Homes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17(1),
87–105.
63.
Burchinal, M., Roberts, J., Nabors, L., & Bryant, D. (1996). Quality of
Center Child Care and Infant Cognitive and Language Development. Child
Development, 67(2), 606–620.
64.
Burchinal, M., Roberts, J., Riggins, R., Zeisel, S., Neebe, E., & Bryant,
D. (2000). Relating quality of center-based child care to early cognitive and language
development longitudinally. Child Development, 31, 339–357.
65.
Buyse, E., Verschueren, K., Doumen, S., Van Damme, J., & Maes, F.
(2008). Classroom Problem Behavior and Teacher-child Relationships in Kindergarten:
The Moderating Role of the Classroom Climate. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 367–
391.
66.
Byrne, D., & Smyth, E. (2010). NO WAY BACK? The Dynamics of Early
School Leaving. The Economic and Social Research Institute. Retrieved from
http://eprints.nuim.ie/4333/1/DB_No_Way_Back.pdf
67.
Calero, J., & Escradibul, O. (2007). Evaluación de servicios educativos:
el rendimiento en los centros públicos y privados medido en PISA-2003 (Evaluation of
educationalservices: schoolachievement in public and prívate schools in PISA-2003).
Hacienda Pública Española, 183(4), 33–36.
68.
Calero, J., Escradibul, O., & Choi, A. (2012). El fracaso escolar en la
Europa Mediterránea a través de PISA-2009: radiografía de una realidad latente”
(AcademicFailure in MediterraneanEuropeThrough PISA-2009: Portrait of a
LatentReality). Revista Española de Educación Comparada, 19, 69–104.
September 2014
80
69.
Calero, J., Escradibul, O., Mediavila, M., & Waisgrais, S. (2007).
Desigualdades socioeconómicas en el sistema educativo español (Socio-economic
inequalities in the Spanish education system) (p. 194). Madrid: Ministerio de
Educación
y
Ciencia.
Retrieved
from
http://www.oei.es/pdf2/desigualdades_socioeduc_espana.pdf
70.
Calero, J., Quiroga, Á., Escradibul, O., & Mediavila, M. (2008). Sociedad
desigual, ¿educación desigual? Sobre las desigualdades en el sistema educativo
español (Unequal society, ¿unequal education? Oninequalities in the Spanish
educational system) (p. 137). Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Política Social y
Deporte.
Retrieved
from
http://www.uned.es/125028/images/Bibliografia/Calero_y_otros_Sociedad_Desigual_e
ducacion_desigual.pdf
71.
Calero, J., Waisgrais, S., & Choi, A. (2010). Determinantes del riesgo de
fracaso escolar en España: una aproximación a través de un análisis logístico
multinivel aplicado a PISA-2006 (Determinants of the school failure risk in Spain: a
multilevel logistic model approach to PISA-2006). Revista de Educación Extraordinary,
2010, 225–256.
72.
Calvert, G. (2012). Quality Assurance means a Head Start for Australia,
Putting Children First. Newsletter of the National Childcare Accreditation Council.
73.
Caparros, A., & Gomez, N. (2011). Determina el salario mínimo seguir o
no estudiando en España (Does the mínimum wage affectenrollment in education in
Spain?). Estudios de Economía Aplicada, 17, 107–124.
74.
Carter, S. (2002). The Impact of Parent/Family Involvement on Student
Outcomes: An Annotated Bibliography of Research from the Past Decade. Eugene:
CADRE.
Retrieved
from
http://www.directionservice.org/cadre/pdf/the%20impact%20of%20parent%20family
%20involvement.pdf
75.
Carugati,, F., Terenzi, P., & Versari, S. (2006). Le buone pratiche per il
contrasto alla dispersione (Good practices for preventing ESL). In Una scuola tra
autonomia e equità (The school system between autonomy and equity). Napoli:
Tecnodid.
76.
Cassen, R., & Kingdon, G. (2007). Tackling Low Educational
Achievement (p. 6). York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation DCSF. Retrieved from
http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/2063-education-schools-achievement.pdf
77.
Castro, A., Ezquerra, P., & Argos Gonzales, J. (2012). La transición
entre la Escuela de Educación Infantil y la de Educación Primaria: perspectivas de
niños, familias y profesorado (The transition between pre-primary school and primary
school: perspectives of children, families and teachers). Revista Española de
Pedagogía, 70(53), 537–552.
78.
CCL. (2006). Why is High-Quality Child Care Essential? The link between
Quality Child Care and Early Learning (p. 9). Otawa: Canadian Council on Learning.
September 2014
81
Retrieved
from
http://www.cclcca.ca/pdfs/ECLKC/lessons/LessoninLearninghighqualitychildcareEN.pdf
79.
Ceglowski, D., & Bacigalupa, C. (2002). Four Perspectives on Child Care
Quality. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(2), 87–92.
80.
Center for Vocational Education. (2011). Studija o sprječavanju ranog
napuštanja obrazovanja bez stečene kvalifikacije u srednjim stručnim školama u Crnoj
Gori (Study on early school leaving in secondary education in Montenegro) (p. 64).
Podgorica:
Center
for
Vocational
Education.
Retrieved
from
http://www.erisee.org/downloads/2013/2/Study%20on%20early%20leaving%20in%2
0secondary%20education%202011%20ME.pdf
81.
Centro Europeo dell’Educazione & Istituto Nazionale per la Valutazione
del Sistema di Istruzione. (2004). Progetto QUASI: qualità di sistema nella scuola
dell’infanzia 1999-2001. Rapporto Finale. ) Project QUASI: system quality in preschool 1999-2001. Final Report). Roma: CEDE/INVALSI. Retrieved from
http://archivio.invalsi.it/ri2003/quasi/rapp_finale.htm
82.
Chaves, G. (2004). Étude sur l’accueil extrascolaire en Suisse romande.
(A study on the childcare facilities in the French-speaking Switzerland) (p. 38).
Lausanne: Association suisse des écoles à horaire continu. Retrieved from
http://vorher.bildung-betreuung.ch/PDF/Etuderomande.pdf
83.
Child Care Resource Center. (2009). Anual report. CRC.
84.
Children in Europe. (2008). Young Children and Their Services:
Developing a European Approach. Children in Europe Policy Paper.
85.
Children in Scotland. (2011). Working for inclusion: how early childhood
education and care and its workforce can help Europe’s youngest citizens
86.
Choi, S. (2003). Cross-sectoral coordination in early childhood: some
lessons to learn. UNESCO Policy Brief on Early Childhood No. 9. Paris: UNESCO.
87.
Clemons, T. (2008). Underachieving Gifted Students: A Social Cognitive
Model (p. 110). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT).
Retrieved from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rm08234/rm08234.pdf
88.
Cleveland, G., & Krashinsky, M. (2002). Financing ECEC services in
OECD countries (p. 96). University of Toronto at Scarborough. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/28123665.pdf
89.
Conselho Nacional da Educação. (2012). Estado da Educação 2012(The
state of Education 2012) (p. 334). Lisboa: Conselho Nacional da Educação. Retrieved
from http://www.crup.pt/images/Estado_da_Educao_2012.pdf
90.
Considine, G., & Zappala, G. (2002). Factors Influencing the Educational
Performance of Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds. In Competing Visions –
National Social Policy Conference Refereed Proceedings (p. 17). Retrieved from
http://www-temp.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/NSPC01_Considine_Zappala.pdf
September 2014
82
91.
Pearson.
Cook, G., & Cook, L. (2009). Child Development Principles and Theories.
92.
CoRe. (2011). Competences Requirements in Early Childhood Education
and care (Study for the European Commission DG Education and Culture). Retrieved
from http://www.vbjk.be/files/CoRe%20Final%20Report%202011.pdf
93.
Council of the European Union. (2009). Strategic framework for
European cooperation in education and training “ET 2020.” Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52009XG0528%2801%29:EN:NO
T
94.
Crahay, M., Hindryckx, G., Lafontaine, A., & Lanotte, A. F. (1998). Les
parents et l’école maternelle. Le Point sur la recherche en éducation, 6, 7–15.
95.
Cuciureanu, M. (2009). Early Education: Children’s Integration in
Kindergarten (p. 41). Bucharest: Institute of Educational Sciences. Retrieved from
http://www.ise.ro/teme-de-cercetare/cercetari-recente-2011-2009/page/4
96.
Cunha, F., Heckman, J., Lochner, L., & Masterov, D. (2006).
Interpreting the Evidence on Life Cycle Skill Formation. In Handbook of the Economics
of
Education
(p.
116).
Amsterdam:
North
Holand.
Retrieved
from
http://jenni.uchicago.edu/papers/Cunha_Heckman_etal_2006_HEE_v1_ch12.pdf
97.
Da Silva, L., & Wise, S. (2006). Parent Perspectives on Childcare Quality
among a Culturally Diverse Sample. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(3), 6–
14.
98.
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early
childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives (1st ed.). London: Falmer
Press.
99.
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2007). Beyond Quality in Early
Childhood Education and Care: Languages of Evaluation. London: Taylor & Francis.
100. Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “Highly Qualified
Teachers”: What Does “Scientifically-Based Research” Actually Tell Us? Educational
Researcher, 31(9), 13–25.
101. Darvas, A., & Tausz, K. (2005). A gyermekkori kirekesztettség fogalma,
méréséneklehetőségei – tendenciák az EU-ban, tapasztalatok egy hazai kutatás
nyomán. (Measuring of exclusion of children, tendencies in EU, experiences in
Hungary). Nemzeti Fejlesztési Hivatal.
102. Datta Gupta, N., & Simonsen, M. (2010). Non-cognitive Child Outcomes
and Universal High Quality Child Care. Journal of Public Economics, 92(1-2), 30–43.
103. Datta Gupta, N., & Simonsen, M. (2011). Where to Put the Kids? Effects
of Type of Non-parental Child Care on Pre-teen Skills and Risky Behavior (p. 45).
Retrieved from http://www.cser.dk/fileadmin/www.cser.dk/Samlet_simonsen.pdf
September 2014
83
104. Daugavpils University. (2008). Obligātās pirmsskolas un sākumskolas
izglītības izvērtējums un pilnveides iespējas” izstrāde (Evaluation of mandatory preschool education and primary education ) (p. 266). Daugavpils Universitāte Izglītības
un
vadības
fakultāte
Ilgtspējīgas
izglītības
institūts.
Retrieved
from
http://izm.izm.gov.lv/upload_file/petijumi/petijums_vispizgl05.pdf
105. DCSF. (2007). Mythbusters: Addressing Gender and Achievement:
Myths
and
Realities.
DCSF.
Retrieved
from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.g
ov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/00599-2009BKT-EN.pdf
106. Dearden, L., C. Emmerson, C. Frayne and C. Meghir (2009). Conditional
Cash Transfers and School Dropout Rates in Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 44,
Issue 4, 827-57.
107. De Schipper, E., Riksen-Walraven, M., & Geurts, S. (2006). Effects of
Child–Caregiver Ratio on the Interactions Between Caregivers and Children in ChildCare Centers: An Experimental Study. Child Development, 77(4), 861–874.
108. Dedze, I., Krūzmētra, M., & Krūzmētra, I. (2004). Savlaicīgu
pamatizglītības apguvi traucējošo faktoru kopums (Barriers to obtain primary
education timely) (p. 49). Riga: Center of Public Policy Providus. Retrieved from
http://s3.amazonaws.com/politika/public/article_files/1040/original/atbirusie.pdf?1326
881117
109. Dekkers, H., & Driessen, G. (1997). An evaluation of the educational
priority policy inrelation to early school leaving. Studies in Educational Evaluation,
23(3), 209–230.
110. Del Boca, D., Flinn, C., & Wlswall, M. (2010). Household Choices and
Child
Development
(IZA
DP)
(p.
58).
Bonn:
IZA.
Retrieved
from
http://ftp.iza.org/dp5155.pdf
111. Del Boca, D., & Pasqua, S. (2010). Esiti scolastici e comportamentali,
famiglia e servizi per l’infanzia. (Children’s cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes,
family and childcare) (p. 33). Torino: Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli. Retrieved from
http://www.gildavenezia.it/docs/Archivio/2010/dic2010/Esiti_scolastici_servizi_infanzi
a.pdf
112. Del Boca, D. (2010). Child poverty and child well-being in the European
Union: policy overview and policy impact analysis. A case study: Italy. Budapest &
Brussels: TARKI-Applica
113. Delais, P. (2012). L’intégration des enfants migrants au domaine
préscolaire. Évaluation de la conception du programme “Réussir l’intégration dès
l’enfance” (The integration of migrant children into to the pre-school field. Evaluation
of the design of the program “Succeed integration since childhood”). Université de
Neuchâtel.
Retrieved
from
http://www.fruehkindlichebildung.ch/fileadmin/documents/forschung/travailMaster_PaolaDelai_juillet2012_2_.pd
f
September 2014
84
114. Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2007). Transitions to School: Perceptions,
Expectations, Experiences. UNSW Press.
115. Dockett, S., Perry, B., & Kearney, E. (2010). School readiness: what
does it mean for Indigenous children, families, schools and communities? (p. 35).
Australian
Institute
of
Health
and
Welfare.
Retrieved
from
http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2010/ctgip02.pdf
116. Domagała-Kręcioch, A. (2008). Niedostosowanie społeczne uczniów a
niepowodzenia
szkolne
(Social
maladjustment
of
students
and
school
underachievement). Wydawnictwo Naukowe Akademii Pedagogicznej.
117. Donevska, M., Bogoevska, N., & Trbojevic, S. (2010). Report from the
Research on Reasons for Irregular Attending of Primary Education among Roma
Children. Skopje: Foundation Open Society Institute.
118. Drange, N., & Telle, K. (2010). The effect of preschool on the school
performance of children from immigrant families Results from an introduction of free
preschool in two districts in Oslo (p. 47). Oslo: Statistics Norway. Retrieved from
https://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/DP/dp631.pdf
119. Drange, N., & Telle, K. (2011). Gratis kjernetid i barnehage: Effekt på
skolekarakterene til barn fra innvandrerfamilier (Free core time in kindergarten: Effect
on school marks for children from immigrant families). In Utdanning 2011 (Education
2011)
(p.
18).
Oslo:
Statistics
Norway.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/sa124/2_gratis_kjernetid_barnehage.pdf
120. Driessen, G. (2004). A Large Scale Longitudinal Study of the Utilization
and Effects of Early Childhood Educationand Care in The Netherlands. Early Child
Development and Care, 174(7-8), 667–689.
121. Driessen, G., & van Langen, A. (2012). De onderwijsachterstand van
jongens, Omvang, oorzaken en interventies (Education deficiency of boys, approach
cause and interventions ) (p. 126). Nijmegen: ITS – Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
Retrieved
from
http://euparl.net/9353000/1/j4nvgs5kjg27kof_j9vvhskmycle0vf/vigo6j7k9oyj/f=/blg7
1858.pdf
122. Dumas, C., & Lefranc, A. (2012). Early Schooling and Later Outcomes:
Evidence from Pre-school Extension in France. In Cross-National Research on the
Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantage. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Retrieved from http://thema.u-cergy.fr/IMG/documents/2010-07.pdf
123. Dwyer, P. (1996). Opting out: Early school leavers and the degeneration
of a youth policy. Tasmania: National Clearing House for Youth Studies.
124. Edwards, B. (2012). Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of
Australian Children. The first decade of life (p. 11). Retrieved from
http://www.aifs.org.au/institute/pubs/fm2012/fm91/fm91a.pdf
September 2014
85
125. Egelund, N. (2011). Gennemførelse i uddannelsessystemet – hvilke
barrierer er der? (Implementation of the education system - what are the barriers).
Paidea, 2, 1.
126. Einarsdottir, J. (2007). Childrens’ voices on the transition from
preschool to primary school. In Informing transitions in the early years (74–91).
Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education.
127. Elicker, J., Fortner-Wood, C., & Noppe, I. (1999). The Context of Infant
Attachment in Family Child Care. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 20(2),
319–336.
128. Elliott, A. (2006). Early Childhood Education: Pathways to quality and
equity
for
all
children.
ACER.
Retrieved
from
http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=aer
129. Eriksson, L. (2008). Lärares kontakter och samverkan med föräldrar– en
kartläggning (How teachers´encounter and collaboratewithparents – a survey). In
Myndigheten för skolutveckling, Vi lämnar till skolan det käraste vi har. Om samarbete
med föräldrar – en relation som utmanar ( School taking care of the ones’ we love.
Collaboration with parents – a challenging relation) (102–115). Myndigheten för
skolutveckling. Retrieved from http://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=2070
130. Ermert Kaufmann, C., Knupfer, C., Krummenacher, J., Marti, V., Simoni,
H., & Barbara Zatti, K. (2008). L’accueil de jour extrafamilial et parascolaire en Suisse.
Un état des lieux. (Extracurricular day care in Switzerland.An inventory) (p. 47).
Berne: Commission fédérale de coordination pour les questions familiales (COFF).
Retrieved from http://www.ekff.admin.ch/c_data/f_Pub_Kinderbet.pdf
131. European Commission. (2010a). A strategy for smart, sustainable and
inclusive
growth
EU
2020.
European
Commission.
Retrieved
from
http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/pdf/COMPLET%20EN%20BARROSO%20%20%20007%20
-%20Europe%202020%20-%20EN%20version.pdf
132. European Commission. (2010b). Commission Staff Working Paper,
Reducing Early School Leaving: Accompanying Document to the Proposal for a Council
Recommendation on Policies to Reduce Early School Leaving.
133. European Commission. (2011). Communication from the Commission.
Early Childhood Education and Care: Providing all our children with the best start for
the world of tomorrow.
134. European Commission. (2013). Peer Review on Early School Leaving
(Draft) (p. 32). EC DGEAC. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/schooleducation/doc/peer/report_en.pdf
135. European Commission Network on Childcare and Other Measures to
Reconcile the Employment and Family Responsibilities of Men and Women. (1996).
Quality Targets in Services for Young Children: Proposals for a Ten Year Action
Programme
(p.
42).
Retrieved
from
September 2014
86
http://www.eurochild.org/fileadmin/user_upload/files/thematic_priorities/Yearly_years
/EC_Childcare_Network_Quality_Targets_in_Services_for_Young_Children_1996.pdf
136. European Network of National Observatories on Childhood. (2010). Early
Childhood Education and Care Services in the European Union Countries Proceedings
of the ChildONEurope Seminar and integrated review (p. 98). Retrieved from
http://www.childoneurope.org/issues/publications/ECEC_Report_rev.pdf
137. European parliament. (2008). Recommendation of the European
parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on the establishment of the European
Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning.
138. Eurydice. (2009). Early childhood education and care in Europe: tackling
social and cultural inequalities (p. 190). Brussels: EACEA, Eurydice. Retrieved from
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/098EN.pd
f
139. Eurydice. (2013). Funding of Education in Europe 2000-2012: The
Impact of the Economic Crisis. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union
140. Eurydice. (2011). Grade Retention during Compulsory Education in
Europe: Regulations and Statistics.
141.
Eurydice. (2012). Key data on education 2012. Eurydice.
142. Eurydice. (2013a). Education and Training in Europe 2020: Responses
from the EU Member States. Brussels.
143. Eurydice. (2013c). Key Data on Teachers and School Leaders in Europe.
Publications
Office
of
the
European
Union.
Retrieved
from
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/151EN.pdf
144. Eurydice. (2013d). National Student Fee and Support Systems (Eurydice
facts and figures). Retrieved from
145. Evangelou, M., Silva, K., Kyriacauo, M., Wild, M., & Glenny, G. (2009).
Early Years Learning and Development: A Literature Review (p. 120). DCSF. Retrieved
from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/11382/2/DCSF-RR176.pdf
146. Evangelou, M., Taggart, B., Kathy, S., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., &
Blatchford, I.-S. (2008). What Makes a Successful Transition from Primary to
Secondary School? (p. 119). Institute of Education, University of London. Retrieved
from
http://www.ioe.ac.uk/successful_transition_from_primary_to_secondary_report.pdf
147. Fabian, H., & Dunlop, A.-W. (2002). Transitions in the Early Years:
Debating Continuity and Progression for Young Children in Early Education. Routledge.
148. Fabian, H., & Dunlop, A.-W. (2006). Outcomes of Good Practice in
Transition Processes for Children Entering Primary School (Background paper prepared
September 2014
87
for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007) (p. 21). Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001474/147463e.pdf
149. Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental Involvement and Students’
Academic Achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 23.
150. Farca, S., & Velea, S. (2012). Children accommodation with transitions
between levels from compulsory education. ISE.
151. Farquhar, S.-E. (1990). Quality in Early Education and care: What do
We Mean? Early Child Development and Care, 64(1), 71–83.
152. Fast, C. (2007). Sju barn lär sig läsa och skriva: Familjeliv och
populärkultur i möte med förskola och skola (p. 237). Uppsala Universitet. Retrieved
from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:169656/FULLTEXT01.pdf
153. Fatyga, B., Tyszkiewicz, A., & Zieliński, P. (2001). Skala i powody
wypadania uczniów z systemu edukacji w Polsce (p. 42). Warszawa. Retrieved from
http://www.isp.org.pl/files/19695389340780001001117708679.pdf
154. Faubert, B. (2012). In-school policies and practices for overcoming
school failure: A literature review for the OECD. OECD.
155. Felfe, C., & Lalive, R. (2012). Early Child Care and Child Development:
For Whom it Works and Why (IZA DP No. 7100) (p. 46). IZA. Retrieved from
http://ftp.iza.org/dp7100.pdf
156. Felfe, C. and Lalive, R. 2011. How Does Early Childcare Affect Child
Development? Learning from the Children of German Unification. CESifo Area
Conference on Economics of Education: Center for Economics Studies.
157. Fenech, M., Sumsion, J., & Goodfellow, J. (2006). The Regulatory
Environment in Long Day Sare: a “Double-edged Sword” for Early Childhood
Professional Practice. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 31(3), 49–58.
158. Ferić, I., Milas, G., & Rihtar, S. (2010). Razlozi i odrednice ranog
napuštanja školovanja (Reasons and determinants of early school leaving). Društvena
istraživanja, 19(4-5), 621–645.
159. Field, T. (1991). Quality Infant Day-Care and Grade School Behavior
and Performance. Child Development, 62(4), 863–870.
160. Fitzpatrick, M. D. (2008). Preschoolers Enrolled and Mothers at Work?
The Effects of Universal Pre-Kindergarten. Journal of Labor Economics, 28(2), 51.85.
161. Flere, S., Klanjšek, R., Musil, B., Tavčar Krajnc, M., & Kiribiš, A. (2009).
Kdo je uspešen v slovenski šoli? Znanstveno poročilo (Who is successful in Slovenian
school?Research report) (p. 149). Ljubljana: Pedagošk iinštitut. Retrieved from
http://www.pei.si/UserFilesUpload/file/zalozba/ZnanstvenaPorocila/15_09_kdo_je_usp
esen_v_slovenski_soli.pdf
September 2014
88
162. Forget-Dubois, N., Lemelin, J.-P., Bolvin, M., Dionne, G., & Seguin, J. R.
(2007). Predicting Early School Achievement With the EDI: A Longitudinal PopulationBased Study. Early Education and Development, 18(3), 405–426.
163. Fredriksson, P., Caroline, H., & Johansson, P. (2010). Do Pre-school
Interventions further the Integration of Immigrants? Evidence from Sweden. In Essays
on Schooling, Gender, and Parental Leave (45–67). Uppsala: Economic Studies 121,
Department of Economics.
164. Fredriksson, P., Öckert, B. & Oosterbeek, H. (2012). Long-term effects
of class size, Research Papers in Economics: 8, Stockholm University, Department of
Economics.
165. Friendly, M., & Lero, D. (2002). Social inclusion through early childhood
education and care (p. 40). The Laidlaw Foundation. Retrieved from
http://www.offordcentre.com/VoicesWebsite/library/reports/documents/laidlaw/lero.p
df
166. Fukkink, R., & Lont, A. (2007). Does training matter? A meta-analysis
and review of caregiver training studies. [Review]. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 22(3), 294–311.
167. Gallagher. (2005). Underachievement - How do we define, analyse, and
address it in schools? A view through the lens of the literature in gifted education,
(15), 10.
168. Gamoran, A., Mare, R., & Bethke, L. (1999). Effects of Nonmaternal
Child Care on Inequality in Cognitive Skills (Discussion Paper No. 11) (p. 43). Institute
for
Research
on
Poverty.
Retrieved
from
http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/dps/pdfs/dp118699.pdf
169. Ganeson, K., & Ehrich, L. (2008). Transition into High School: A
phenomenological study. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 41(1), 60–78.
170. Gatt, J. B. (2012). The Spatial Distribution of Early School Leavers in
Malta.
University
of
Malta.
Retrieved
from
http://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/166299/jacquelinegatearticle.pdf
171. Gečienė, I., & Čiupailaitė, D. (2007). Ankstyvojo pasitraukimo iš
švietimo sistemos prevencija: tyrimo ataskaita (Prevention of Early School Leaving:
Research Report) (p. 176). Vilnius: Lietuvos Respublikos švietimo ir mokslo
ministerija.
Retrieved
from
http://www.smm.lt/uploads/lawacts/docs/436_1119a5cf3763a21c8222e6c5d9d25dce.
pdf
172. Gevers Deynoot-Schaub, M. J. J. M., & Riksen-Walraven, M. (2005).
Child Care Under Pressure: The Quality of Dutch Centers in 1995 and in 2001. The
Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 166(3),
280–296.
September 2014
89
173. Ghazvini, A., & Mullis, R. (2002). Center-based care for Young Children:
Examining Predictors of Quality. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 163(1), 112–25.
174. GHK Consulting ltd. (2005). Study on Access to Education and Training,
Basic Skills and Early School Leavers (p. 151). DGEAC. Retrieved from
http://ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/doc/leavers_en.pdf
175. GHK Consulting ltd. (2011). Study on Reducing Early School Leaving in
the EU (p. 350). DGEAC. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/studies
176. Gilliéron Giroud, P. (2007). L’école enfantine en Suisse romande et au
Tessin. État de situation et questions actuelles (The “école enfantine” in Frenchspeaking Switzerland and in Tessin.Current situation and questions) (p. 69).
Lausanne:
URSP.
Retrieved
from
http://www.vd.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/organisation/dfj/ursp/Publications/Publicatio
ns_99-ajd/130_Rapport_URSP_2007.pdf
177. Goealman, H., Forer, B., Doherty, G., Lero, D., & LaGrange, A. (2006).
Towards a predictive model of quality in Canadian child care centers. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 21(2), 280–295.
178. Gol-Guven, M. (2009). Evaluation of the Quality of Early Childhood
Classrooms in Turkey. Arly Child Development and Care, 179(4), 437–451.
179. Gorard, S., & Smith, E. (2004). What is ’Underachievement at School.
School Leadership & Management, 24(2), 205–225.
180. Gormley, W., Phillips, D., & Gayer, T. (2008). Preschool Programs Can
Boost School Readiness. Science, 320, 1723–1724.
181. Grabažienė, J. (2010). Jaunimo mokyklos mokinių mokyklos nelankymo
priežastys (The Reasons of School Non-attendance in the Youth School) (master
thesis).
Retrieved
from
http://www.alternatyvusisugdymas.lt/uploads/2012/05/Jaunimo-mokyklosmokini%C5%B3-mokyklos-nelankymo-prie%C5%BEastys-1.pdf
182. Graham, C., & Hill, M. (2002). The Transition to Secondary School
(Report of a study funded by the Esme Fairbairn Charitable Trust) (p. 77). Glasgow:
University
of
Glasgow.
Retrieved
from
http://www.strath.ac.uk/media/departments/glasgowschoolofsocialwork/gccs/media_4
7445_en.pdf
183. Greenhough, H. (2007). What effect does involving parents in
knowledge exchange activities during transfer from Key Stage 2 to Key Stage 3 have
on children’s attainment and learning dispositions? Presented at the British Educational
Research Association Annual Conference, London.
184.
Griebel, W., & Niesel, R. (2004). Transitionen. Weinheim: Beltz.
185. Gruber, S. (2007). Skolan gör skillnad. Etnicitet och institutionell
praktik. Linköpings universite.
September 2014
90
186. Gulati, A., & King, A. (2009). Supporting Vulnerable Young People in
Transition: Addresing Poverty and Well Being (p. 50). Quartet Community Foundation
to
the
West
of
England.
Retrieved
from
http://www.quartetcf.org.uk/images/youth%20in%20transition%20report.pdf
187. Gustafsson, J. (2003). Integration som text, diskursiv och social
praktik : en policyetnografisk fallstudie av motet mellan skolan och forskoleklassen
(doctor thesis). Goteborg University.
188. Gustafsson, J. (2006). Lika rättigheter – likvärdig utbildning? :en
sammanfattning av studien Barns utbildningssituation – bidrag till ett kommunalt
barnindex. Stockholm: Rädda barnen.
189. Gutiérrez-Domènech, M. (2009). What Matters for Education? Evidence
for Catalonia (Documentos de economía "la Caixa) (p. 31). Retrieved from
http://www.pdf.lacaixa.comunicacions.com/de/esp/de15_esp.pdf
190. Haahr, J. H. (2005). Explaining Student Performance Evidence from the
international PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS surveys. Århus: Danish Technological Institute.
Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/education/more-information/doc/basic_en.pdf
191. Haegeland, T., Kirkebøen, L., Raaum, O., & Kjell, F. (2005).
Familiebakgrunn, skoleressurser og avgangskarakterer i norsk grunnskole (Family
background, school resources and final marks in Norwegian primary and lower
secondary
school).
Oslo:
Statistics
Norway
(SSB).
Retrieved
from
http://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/sa74/kap-2.pdf
192. Häfeli, K., & Schellenberg, C. (2009). Erfolgsfaktoren in der
Berufsbildung bei gefährdeten Jugendlichen (p. 156). generalsekretariat EDK.
Retrieved from http://edudoc.ch/record/35458/files/StuB29A.pdf
193. Hakkarainen, P. (2007). Curriculum Models of Early Childhood
Education. In Education as societal contributo (111–127). Oxford: Education as
societal contributo.
194. Hammond, C., J. Smink and S. Drew (2007), Dropout Risk Factors and
Exemplary Programs, National Dropout Prevention Center, Communities in Schools,
Inc., Clemson
195. Hanewald, R. (2013). Transition Between Primary and Secondary
School: Why it is Important and How it can be Supported. Australian Journal of
Teacher Education, 38(1), 14.
196. Härkönen, U. (2003). Defining Early Childhood Education Through
Systems
Theory
(p.
10).
University
of
Joensuu.
Retrieved
from
http://sokl.uef.fi/harkonen/verkot/Defining%20early-Article.pdf
197. Harrison, L., Ungerer, J., & Smith, G. (2009). Child Care and Early
Education in Australia (Social Policy Research Paper No. No. 40) (p. 222). Australia.
Retrieved
from
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/sprp_40.pdf
September 2014
91
198. Harrison, L., Ungerer, J., Smith, G., Zubrick, S., & Wise, S. (2009).
Child care and early education in Australia The Longitudinal Study of Australian
Children
(p.
222).
Retrieved
from
http://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/sprp_40.pdf
199. Haskins, R., & Barnett, S. (2010). Investing in Young Children: New
Directions in Federal Preschool and Early Childhood Policy (p. 104). National Institute
for
Early
Education
Research.
Retrieved
from
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2010/10/13%20investing%
20in%20young%20children%20haskins/1013_investing_in_young_children_haskins.p
df
200. Havnes, T., & Mogstad, M. (2009). No Child Left Behind - Universal Child
Care and Children’s Long-Run Outcomes (Discussion Papers No. 4561). IZA. Retrieved
from http://ftp.iza.org/dp4561.pdf
201. Hayes, A. (2011). Transition to School: Position Statement (p. 8).
Charles
Sturt
University.
Retrieved
from
http://www.csu.edu.au/research/ripple/research-groups/etc/alb-trans-statementAHayes.pdf
202. Hayes, N. (2007). Perspectives on the relationship between education
and care in early childhood (Commissioned by the National Council for Curriculum and
Assessment). National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.
203. Hazarika, G., & Viren, V. (2010). The Effect of Early Childhood
Developmental Program Attendance On Future School Enrollment and Grade
Progression
i
n
Rural
North
India
(p.
22).
Retrieved
from
http://www.isid.ac.in/~pu/conference/dec_11_conf/Papers/GautamHazarika.pdf
204. Heckman, J. (2007). The Economics, Technology and Neuroscience of
Human
Capability
Formation
(p.
29).
IZA.
Retrieved
from
http://ftp.iza.org/dp2875.pdf
205. Heckman, J. (2008). Schools, Skills and synapses (IZA Discussion
Papers) (p. 95). IZA. Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp3515.pdf
206. Heckman, J., Hyeok Moon, S., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P., & Yavitz, A.
(2010). The Rate of Return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program (p. 63).
Retrieved
from
http://jenni.uchicago.edu/papers/Heckman_Moon_etal_2010_JPubEc_v94_n1.pdf
207. Heckman, J., & Masterov, D. (2007). The Productivity Argument forI
nvesting in Young Children. Review of Agricultural Economics, 29(3), 446–493.
208. Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The
Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement.
Annual Synthesis (p. 239). National Center for Family & Community Connections with
Schools,
Southwest
Educational
Development
Laboratory.
Retrieved
from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED474521.pdf
September 2014
92
209. Hidalgo-Hidalgo, M., & García-Pérez, J. (2013). On the Impact of Preschool Attendance on Primary School Results. In PIRLS-TIMSS 2011: International
Study on Progress in Reading Comprehension, Mathematics and Sciences IEA. Volume
II: Spanish Report. Secondary Analysis (111–145). Madrid: Ministerio de Educación,
Cultura y Deporte.
210. Hill, N. E., Domini, C., Lansford, J., Nowlin, P., Dodge, K., Baets, J., &
Pettit, G. (2004). Parent Academic Involvement as Related to School Behavior,
Achievement, and Aspirations: Demographic Variations Across Adolescence. Child
Development, 75(5), 1491–1509.
211. Holleler, L. (2002). Kooperation zwischen Kindergarten und Schule unter
Berücksichtigung von Kindern mit besonderen Bedürfnissen (Cooperation between
kindergarten and school with due regard to children with special needs). Graz.
212. Holloway, S., & Reichhart-Erickson, M. (1998). The Relationship of Day
Care Quality to Children’s Free-play Behavior and Social Problem-solving Skills. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 3(1), 39–53.
213. Hornáčková, V. (2009). Akcentované schopnosti manažerky mateřské
školy ve vedení lidí (Accentuated abilities of preschool manager in the leading of
people). In Dítě předškolního věku a jeho paidagogos: sborník příspěvků z
mezinárodní vědecké konference. Králové: PdF UHK.
214. Horvat, M., Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2003). From Social Ties to
Social Capital: Class Differences in the Relations Between Schools and Parent
Networks. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319–351.
215. Houssemand, C., Meyers, R., & Stoffel, A. (2012). Combattre le
décrochage au Luxembourg à l’interface de l’école, de la famille et du marché de
l’emploi : l’Action Locale pour Jeunes. In Les alliances éducatives pour lutter contre le
décrochage (41–57). Berne: Peter Lang.
216. Howes, C. (1997). Children’s Experiences in Center-Based Child Care as
a Function of Teacher Background and Adult: Child Ratio. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,,
43(3), 404–425.
217. Hughes, P., & MacNaughton, G. (2000). Consensus, Dissensus or
Community: The Politics of Parent Involvement in Early Childhood Education.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 1(2), 241–258.
218. Huntsman, L. (2008). Determinants of Quality in Child Care: A Review
of the Research Evidence (p. 32). Centre for Parenting & Research Service System
Development Division NSW Department of Community Services. Retrieved from
http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/research_quality
childcare.pdf
219. IBE. (2011). Raport o stanie edukacji 2010 [Report on the state of
education). Warshaw: Institute for Education Studies.
September 2014
93
220. INCLUD-ED. (2009). Actions for Success in Schools in Europe (p. 81).
European
Commission,
Directorate-General
for
Research.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ub.edu/includ-ed/docs/INCLUDED_actions%20for%20success.pdf
221. Instituto de la Juventud (INJUVE). (2007). Jóvenes y fracaso escolar en
España (Youth and schoolfailure in Spain) (p. 386). Madrid: Instituto de la Juventud.
Retrieved
from
http://www.injuve.es/sites/default/files/2012/44/publicaciones/estudiojovenesyfracasoescolar-completo.pdf
222. Instituto Vasco de Evaluación e Investigación Educativa (ISEI-VEI).
(2009). Evaluación diagnóstica 2009. 4o Educación Primaria. Análisis de factores y
variables (Diagnostic evaluation 2009. 4th course of Primary Education) (p. 79).
Bilbao:
IVEI.
Retrieved
from
http://www.iseiivei.net/cast/pub/ED09_inf_variables/ED09_4EP_variables.pdf
223. Ionescu, M. (2003). The Actual Condition of Preschool Education in
Romania
(p.
109).
Bucharest:
ISE
and
UNICEF.
Retrieved
from
http://www.unicef.org/romania/ro/situatia_invata_prescolar_Rom.pdf
224. IPSOS. (2012). Analysis of compulsory education coverage, including
children that are not enrolled and childrenthat have drop out- needs assessment and
recommendations for full coverage (p. 188). Belgrade: Ministry of education and
science.
225. ISFOL (Institute for the Development of Professional Education). (2010).
Il nuovo accreditamento per l’obbligo di istruzione /diritto-dovere formativo (The new
accreditation system for the accomplishment of compulsory education/ right-and-duty
to
education)
(p.
172).
Roma:
ISFOL.
Retrieved
from
http://www.google.lt/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC8QFjA
B&url=http%3A%2F%2Feuropalavoro.lavoro.gov.it%2FDocuments%2Fnuovoaccreditamento.pdf&ei=cftcUr7hGZDFtAaD5YGwDA&usg=AFQjCNF5yh4OqWuMGwRrzC
O5WXwlqwbRVg&bvm=bv.53899372,d.bGE&cad=rja
226. Ishimine, K., Tayler, C., & Bennet, J. (2010). Quality and Early
Childhood Education and Care: A Policy Initiative for the 21st Century. International
Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 4(2), 67–80.
227. ISSA. (2010). Competent educators of the 21st Century: ISSA’s
principles of quality pedagogy. Amsterdam.
228. Iten, R., Stern, S., & Menegale, S. (2005). Combien de crèches et de
familles de jour faut-il en Suisse? (How many childcare facilities are needed in
Switzerland?)
(p.
20).
Zurich:
INFRAS.
Retrieved
from
http://www.nfp52.ch/files/download/EtudeabregeeIten_F.pdf
229. Ivić, I., & Pešikan, A. (2009). Obrazovanjem protiv siromaštva- analiza
efekata uvođenja PPP u Srbiji (Education Against Poverty: Analysis of Effects of PPP
Introduction in Serbia) (p. 52). Belgrade: MEST&SIPRU. Retrieved from
http://www.prsp.gov.rs/download/Analiza%20uticaja%20uvodjenja%20PPP.pdf
September 2014
94
230. Jackson, C. (2000). The Importance of Gender as an Aspect of Identity
at Key Transition Points in Compulsory Education. British Educational Research Journa,
26(3), 375–391.
231. Jacob, B., & Lefgren, L. (2009). The Effect of Grade Retention on High
School Completion (p. 45). Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.184.2180&rep=rep1&type
=pdf
232. Janosz, M., LeBlanc, M., Boulerice, B., & Tremblay, R. (1997).
Disentangling the weight of school dropout predictors: a test on two longitudinal
samples. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 733–762.
233. Jensen, B., Holm, A., Allerup, P., & Kragh, A. (2009). Effekter af
Indsatser for Social Udsatte Børn i Daginstitutioner: HPA-projektet. (Outcomes of
actions for socially disadvantaged children in preschool: The HPA project) (p. 266).
København:
Danmarks
Pædagogiske
Universitetsforlag.
Retrieved
from
https://pure.au.dk/portal/files/43950630/Effektog_IndsatsHPA._BILAG3.pdf
234. Jerald, C. (2006). Identifying Potential Dropouts: Key Lessons for
Building an Early Warning Data System (p. 53). Washington DC: Achieve, Inc.
Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/files/FINAL-dropouts_1.pdf
235. Jeynes, W. (2005). A Meta-Analysis of the Relation of Parental
Involvement to Urban Elementary School Student Academic Achievement. Urban
Education, 40(237), 34.
236. Jigău, M. (2006). Intervention Pilot Program Through the System
Priority Areas in Education (EPA) - final evaluation report. Bucharest: ALPHA MDN
Publishing House.
237. Kaczan, R., & Zwierzyńska, E. (2012). Motywacja do nauki ([Motivation
for studying). In Uczeń-szkoła-dom. Raport z badań (Student-School-Home. Research
report) (129–160). Warszawa.
238. Kagitcibasia, C., Sunar, D., Bekman, S., Baydar, N., & Cemalcilara, Z.
(2009). Continuing Effects of Early Enrichment in Adult Life: The Turkish Early
Enrichment Project 22 years later. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
30(6), 764–779.
239. Katz, L. (1993). Five Perspectives on Quality in Early Childhood
Programs (Perspectives from ERIC/EECE: A Monograph Series) (p. 101). Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED360101.pdf
240. Kittl, H., Mayr, A., & Schiffer, B. (2006). Early School Leaving und
Dropout. Eine empirische Studie über das Ausmaß von Schulabsentismus, die
Ursachen und die Bedingungen von Jugendlichen, die das Schulsystem ohne oder
höchstens mit Pflichtschulabschluss verlassen bzw. einen begonnenen Ausbildungsweg
abbrechen. Graz: Universität, Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft.
September 2014
95
241. Kohen, D. E., & et.al. (2006). The Association of Early Child Care and
Education to Children’s Experiences in Kindergarten. Human Early Learning
Partnership, University of British Columbia.
242. Kontos, S., & Wilcox-Herzog, A. (1997). Influences on Children’s
Competence in Early Childhood Classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
12(3), 247–262.
243. Krafft, C. (2011). Is Early Childhood Care and Education a Good
Investment for Egypt? Estimates of Educational Impacts, Costs, and Benefit (SYPE
Policy
Brief)
(p.
6).
Retrieved
from
http://popcouncil.org/pdfs/2012PGY_SYPEPolicyBrief3.pdf
244. Krasowicz-Kupis, G. (2006). Rozwój i ocena umiejętności czytania dzieci
sześcioletnich (Development and assessment of reading skills among 6-year old
children) (p. 52). Warszawa: Centrum Metodyczne Pomocy PsychologicznoPedagogicznej.
Retrieved
from
http://www.bc.ore.edu.pl/Content/177/Zeszyt+5.+Rozw%C3%B3j+i+ocena+umiej%
C4%99tno%C5%9Bci+czytania+dzieci+sze%C5%9Bcioletnich.pdf
245. Kreader, J. L., Ferguson, D., & Lawrence, S. (2005). Infant and Toddler
Child Care Quality (p. 8). National Center for Children in Poverty. Retrieved from
http://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/resources/6872/pdf
246. Krek, J., & Metljak, M. (Eds.). (2011). Belaknjiga o vzgoji in
izobraževanju v RepublikiSloveniji (White book on education in the Republic of
Slovenia). Ljubljana: Zavod RS zašolstvo in Ministrstvozašolstvo in šport. Retrieved
from http://www.belaknjiga2011.si/pdf/bela_knjiga_2011.pdf
247. Kruszewska, A. (2011). Dziecko 6-letnie na progu szkolnym – jego
umiejętności społeczno-emocjonalne (6-years old child at entrance to the school – its
social and emotional competences). In Pedagogika przedszkolna i wczesnoszkolna:
badania, opinie, inspiracje. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie Żak.
248. La Paro, K., & Pianta, R. C. (2003). Improving Early School Success. The
First Years of School, 60(7), 24–29.
249. Lacuesta, A., Puente, S., & Villanueva, E. (2012). The schooling
response to a sustained increase in low-skillwages: evidence from Spain 1989-2009
(Documentos de Trabajo No. 1208) (p. 51). Madrid: Banco de España. Retrieved from
http://www.bde.es/f/webbde/SES/Secciones/Publicaciones/PublicacionesSeriadas/Doc
umentosTrabajo/12/Fich/dt1208e.pdf
250. Lamevai, B. (2011). Izveštaj za postiganjata na učenicite vo Republika
Makedonija. Skopje: Drzaven Ispiten Centar.
251. Layzer, J., & Goodson, B. (2006). The “Quality” of Early Care and
Education Settings: Definitional and Measurement Issues,. Evaluation Review, 30(5),
556–576.
September 2014
96
252. Lazzari, A., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2013). The impact of Early Childhood
Education and Care on Cognitive and Non-cognitive Development. A Review of
European
Studies
(p.
12).
Retrieved
from
http://www.vbjk.be/files/Impact%20of%20ECEC%20on%20%20cognitive%20and%2
0non-cognitive%20development%20in%20EU.pdf
253. Lazzari A. & Vandenbroeck, M. (2012). Literature review on the
participation of disadvantaged children and families in ECEC services in Europe, in
Bennet: Early childhood education and care (ECEC) for children from disadvantaged
backgrounds: Findings from a European literature review and two case studies, DG
EAC
254. Lee, J.-S., & Bowen, N. (2006). Parent Involvement, Cultural Capital,
and the Achievement Gap Among Elementary School Children. American Educational
Research Journal, 43(2), 193–218.
255. Leseman, P. P. M. (2002). Early childhood education and care for
children from low-income or minority backgrounds (p. 53). University of Amsterdam.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/1960663.pdf
256. Leseman, P. P. M. (2009). Integrated early childhood education and
care: Combating educational disadvantages of children from low income and
immigrant families. In Early childhood education and care in Europe: Tackling social
and educational inequalities (17–49). Brussels: European Commission.
257. Loeb, S., Bridges, M., Bassok, D., Fuller, B., & Rumberger, R. (2007).
How Much is Too Much? The Influence of Preschool Centers on Children’s Social and
Cognitive Development. Economics of Education Review, 26, 52–66.
258. Loeb, S., Kagan, L., Fuller, B., & Bidemi, C. (2004). Child Care in Poor
Communities: Early Learning Effects of Type, Quality, and Stability. Child
Development, 75, 47–65.
259. Love, J. M., Harrison, L., Sagi-Schwartz, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., &
Ross, C. (2003). Child Care Quality Matters: How Conclusions May Vary With Context
(p. 15). Faculty Publications, Department of Child, Youth, and Family Studies.
Retrieved
from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=famconfacp
ub
260. Lucey, H., & Reay, D. (2002). Carrying the Beacon of Excellence: Social
Class Differentiation and Vulnerable Children. Journal of Education Policy, 17(3), 321–
336.
261. Luketin, D., & Longo, I. (2006). Prijelaz djeteta iz vrtića u školu (Child’s
transition from the kindergarten to the elementary school). Retrieved from
http://www.igor-longo.com/wpcontent/uploads/2007/08/prijelaz_djeteta_vrtica_sinj_2006.pdf
262. Lynch, R. (2005). Early Childhood Investment Yields Big Payoff. Policy
Perspective. WestED, 12.
September 2014
97
263. Machin, S., Pelkonen, P., & Salvanes, K. (2008). Education and Mobility
(p.
49).
Center
for
the
Economics
of
Education.
Retrieved
from
http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/18630/1/18630.pdf
264. Mackenzie, E., McMaugh, A., & O’Sullivan, K. (2012). Perceptions of
primary to secondary school transitions: Challenge or threat? Issues In Educational
Research, 22(2), 298–314.
265. Manotvani, S. (2007). Early Childhood Education in Italy. In Early
Childhood Education. In An International Encyclopedia. Preager.
266. Margetts, K. (2007). Preparing Children for School- benefits and
privileges. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 32(2), 43–50.
267. Marjanovič-Umek, L., Sočan, G., & Bajc, K. (2006). Šolska ocena: koliko
jo lahko pojasnimo z individualnimi značilnostmi mladostnika in koliko z dejavniki
družinskega okolja (School grade: How much of it can be axplained with the
adolescent’s individual characteristics and how much with the variables of the family
environment). Psihološkaobzorja, 15(4), 26 – 52.
268. Marks, G., & McMillian, J. (2001). Early School Leavers: Who Are They,
Why Do They Leave, and What Are the Consequences? Australian Council for
Educational Research, 8.
269. Markussen, E. (2010), “Frafall i Utdanning for 16-20-åringer i Norden”
(Dropout from Education among 16-20-year-olds in the Nordic Countries), in E.
Markussen (ed.), Frafall i Utdanning for 16-20- åringer i Norden (Dropout from
Education among 16-20-year-olds in the Nordic Countries), Nordic Council of Ministers,
Copenhagen, 193-226
270. Martín, E., Martínez-Arias, R., Marchesi, A., & Pérez, E. (2008).
Variables that Predict Academic Achievement in the Spanish Compulsory Secondary
Educational System: A Longitudinal, Multi-Level Analysis. The Spanish Journal of
Psychology, 11(2), 400–413.
271. Martišauskienė, D. (2010). The Modeling of Quality management of Preschool Education based on Parents-Consumers’ Needs (doctor thesis). Šiauliai
University.
272.
Maslov, A. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivatio. Psychological Review.
273. Mastalerz-Jakus, K. (2012). Raport: Warunki edukacji przedszkolnej po
pierwszym roku obowiązkowej nauki dzieci pięcioletnich (Report: Conditions of preschool education after the first year of obligatory education for five-year-olds) (p.
101). Stowarzyszenie i Fundacja Rzecznik Praw Rodziców (The Association and
Foundation
of
the
Parents’
Rights’
Representative).
Retrieved
from
http://www.rzecznikrodzicow.pl/sites/default/files/raport_edukacja_przedszkolna_calo
sc.pdf
274. Matković, T. (2010). Obrazovanje roditelja, materijalni status I rano
napuštanje školovanja u Hrvatskoj: Trendovi u proteklom desetljeću. (Parental
September 2014
98
education, income level and early school leaving in Croatia: Trends of the last decade).
Društvena istraživanja, 19(4-5), 643–667.
275. McCoach, B., & Siegle, D. (2001). A Comparison of High Achievers’ and
Low Achievers’ Attitudes, Perceptions, and Motivations. Academic Exchange Quarterly,
5(2), 6.
276. McGee,, C., Ward,, R., Gibbsons, J., & Harlow, A. (2003). Transition to
Secondary School: A Literature Review (p. 78). New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Retrieved from
277. McWayne, M., Hampton, V., Cohen, H., & Sekino, Y. (2004). A
Multivariate Examination of Parent Involvement and the Social and Academic
Competencies of Urban Kindergarten Children. Psychology in the Schools, 31(3), 363–
377.
278. Mehlbye, J. (2010). Den højt præsterende skole – hvordan kan skolen
løfte eleverne med svag social baggrund (The high-performing school - how can the
school improve students with low social background) (AKF report) (p. 74). AKF.
Retrieved
from
http://www.akf.dk/udgivelser/2010/pdf/5026_hoejt_praesterende_skole.pdf/
279. Melhuish, E. C., Kathy, S., Sammons, P., Blatchford, I.-S., & Taggar, B.
(2008). Preschool Influences on Mathematics Achievement. Science, 321, 1161–1162.
280. Melhuish, E., Sylva, K., Taggart, B., Sammons, P., & Siraj-Blatchford, I.S. (2001). The Effective provision of pre school education project (No. 7). London
Institute of Education/DfEE.
281. Menegale, S., & Stern, S. (2009). Accueil extrafamilial de la prime
enfance : situation dans les cantons. (Childcare facilities; situation in the cantons) (p.
69).
INFRAS.
Retrieved
from
http://sodk.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/Fachbereiche/Familie_und_Generationen/2010.1
2.10_Bericht_Infras_FEB_in_den_Kantonen_f.pdf
282. Mickovska, G. (2001). National Assessment in Math and Language
Achievement in Atudents Grade 4 in Primary Education (TIMSS report). Skopje: Biro
for Education Development.
283. Ministry of Education and Sports, Croatia. (2012). Akcijski plan
desetljeća za uključivanje Roma – izvješća za 2011. i 2012. (Action plan of the decade
for
Roma
inclusion
reports
for 2011
and
2012).
Retrieved
from
http://public.mzos.hr/Default.aspx?art=12159
284. Ministry of Education, Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs. (2011).
Hellas-National Report on the Implementation of the Strategic Framework for
European Cooperation in Education and Training (p. 46). Ministry of Education,
Lifelong Learning and Religious Affairs, Directorate for European Union Affairs.
Retrieved
from
http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learningpolicy/doc/natreport11/greece_en.pdf
September 2014
99
285. Mitchell, L., Wylie, C., & Carr, Ma. (2008). Outcomes of Early Childhood
Education: Literature Review (p. 125). New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved
from http://www.nzcer.org.nz/system/files/885_Outcomes.pdf
286. Moafi, H., & Såheim Bjørkli, E. (2011). Barnefamiliers tilsynsordninger,
høsten 2010. (Families’ child care preferences in 2010) (p. 163). Oslo: Statistics
Norway.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ssb.no/a/publikasjoner/pdf/rapp_201134/rapp_201134.pdf
287. Monkevičienė, O., Glebuvienė, V. S., Montvilaitė, S., & et.al. (2008).
Ikimokyklinio ugdymo įvairovė: esama situacija ir visuomenės lūkesčiai. Galutinė
mokslinė ataskaita (Variety of Pre-School Education: Current Situation and Beliefs of
Society:
Scientific
Research
Report)
(p.
190).
Vilnius. Retrieved
from
http://www.smm.lt/uploads/lawacts/docs/45_b0a53bfe21666c0097e4fac58eff54e8.pd
f
288. Morabito, C, Vandenbroeck, M. and Roose,R (2013) The Greatest of
Equalisers’: A Critical Review of International Organisations’ Views on Early Childhood
Care and Education. Journal of Social Policy
289. Moret, J., & Fibbi, R. (2010). Enfants migrants de 0 à 6 ans : quelle
participation des parents ? (Migrant children from 0 to 6 years: which participation of
the
parents?)
(p.
49).
Berne:
CDIP.
Retrieved
from
http://edudoc.ch/record/39050/files/StuB31B.pdf
290. Moss, P. (Ed.). (2013). Early Childhood and Compulsory Education
Reconceptualising the relationship. Routledge.
291. Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1994). Valuing quality in early childhood
services : new approaches to defining quality. London: P. Chapman.
292. Moss, P. (2011). Democracy as first practice in early childhood
education and care. Encyclopaedia on Early Childhood Development: Montreal, Centre
of Excellence for Early Childhood Development
293. Mullis, I., Martin, M., & Foy, P. (2005). IEA’s TIMSS 2003 International
Report on Achievement in the Mathematics Cognitive Domains (p. 116). IEA. Retrieved
from http://timssandpirls.bc.edu/pdf/t03_download/t03mcogdrpt.pdf
294. Munkhammar, I. (2001). Från samverkan till integration. Arena för
gömda motsägelser och förgivet tagna sanningar (From collaboration to integration.
An arena for hidden contradictions and taken for granted truths) (doctor thesis). Luleå
Tekniska Universitet, Luleå.
295. Nap-Kolhoff, E., Schilt-Mol, T., Simons, M., & Sontag, L. (2008). VVE
onder de loep. Een studie naar de uitvoering en effectiviteit van voor- en
vroegschoolse educatieve programma’s (p. 159). Tilburg: IVA. Retrieved from
http://www.hetpon.nl/pdf/E-1.pdf
September 2014
100
296. National High School Center. (2006). Report on key practices and
policies of consistently higher performing high schools. Washington DC: National High
School Center.
297. Naudeau, S., Naoko, K., Valeria, A., & Neuman, M. (2011). Investing in
Young Children : An Early Childhood development Guide for Policy Dialogue and
Pproject Preparation (p. 320). The International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development
/
The
World
Bank.
Retrieved
from
http://wwwwds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2012/05/24/000333
038_20120524234213/Rendered/PDF/578760REPLACEM053783B09780821385265.pd
f
298. NCSE. (2010). Literature Review of the Principles and Practices relating
to Inclusive Education for Children with Special Educational Needs (p. 1000). National
Council
for
Special
Education.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ncse.ie/uploads/1/ncse_inclusion.pdf
299. Nelson, C., Thomas, K., & de Haan, M. (2006). Neuroscience and
Cognitive Development: The Role of Experience and the Developing Brain. Wiley.
300. Nelson, G., Westhues, A., & MacLeod, J. (2003). A Meta-Analysis of
Longitudinal Research on Preschool Prevention Programs for Children. Prevention &
Treatment,, 6(1), 1–34.
301. Neniškienė, I. (2005). Blogai besimokančių mokinių asmenybės ir
elgesio ypatumai: Magistro darbas. (Peculiarities of Under-achieving Student‘s
Personality and Behavior) (Master thesis). Vilniaus pedagoginis universitetas, Vilnius.
Retrieved
from
http://vddb.laba.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa0001:E.02~2005~D_20050615_181016-81694/DS.005.0.02.ETD
302. NESSE. (2010). Early School Leaving Lessons from Research for Policy
Makers
(p.
60).
DGEAC.
Retrieved
from
http://www.spd.dcu.ie/site/edc/documents/nesse2010early-school-leaving-report.pdf
303. Neuman, M. (2000). Hand in Hand: Improving the Links Between ECEC
and
Schools
in
OECD
Countries.
Retrieved
from
http://www.childpolicyintl.org/publications/Hand%20in%20Hand%20Improving%20th
e%20Links%20Between%20ECEC%20and%20Schools%20in%20OECD%20Countries_
Michelle%20Neuman.pdf
304. NICHD. (2006). Child Care Effect Sizes for the NICHD Study of Early
Child Care and Youth Development. American Psychologist, 61, 99 – 116.
305. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1996). Characteristics of
infant child care; Factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 11(3), 296–306.
306. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). Characteristics and
quality of child care for toddlers and preschoolers. Applied Developmental Science, 4,
116–135.
September 2014
101
307. NIEER. (2003). Research on Preschool Teachers With degrees. Can a
College Degree Help Preschoolers Learn? National Institute for Early Education
Research. Retrieved from http://nieer.org/resources/factsheets/5.pdf
308. Niesel, R., & Griebel, W. (2005). Transition Competence And Resiliency
In Educational Institutions. International Journal of Transitions in Childhood, 1, 8.
309. Nolan, A., Hamm, C., McCartin, J., & Hunt, J. (2009). Outcomes and
Indicators of a Positive Start to School (p. 55). Melbourne: Victoria University.
Retrieved
from
https://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/earlychildhood/learning/outcomesfinal-vicuni.pdf
310. Nores, M., & Barnett, S. (2010). Benefits of Early Childhood
Interventions Across the World: (Under) Investing in the Very Young. Economics of
Education Review, 29(2), 271–282.
311. Nussbaum, M. (2000) Women and Human Development, Oxford: Oxford
University Press
312. O’Conell, M., & Shekih, H. (2009). Non-cognitive abilities and early
school dropout: longitudinal evidence from NELS. . Educational Studies, 35(4).
313.
OECD. (2001). Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care (p.
216).
Paris:
OECD.
Retrieved
from
http://browse.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/pdfs/product/9101011e.pdf
314. OECD. (2004). Starting Strong-Curricula and Pedagogies in Early
Childhood Education and Care Five Curriculum Outlines (p. 34). Paris: OECD.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/school/31672150.pdf
315. OECD. (2005). School Factors Related to Quality and Equity-Results
from
PISA
2000,
(p.
158).
Paris:
OECD.
Retrieved
from
http://www.oecd.org/education/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentp
isa/34668095.pdf
316. OECD. (2006a). Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care
(p. 445). Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/37425999.pdf
317. OECD. (2006b). Starting Strong II: Early Childhood Education and Care
(p. 445). Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/37425999.pdf
318. OECD. (2007a). Education Policies for Students at Risk and those with
Disabilities in South Eastern Europe: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo,
FYR of Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Romania and Serbia (p. 378). Paris: OECD.
Retrieved
from
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/educationpoliciesforstudentsatriskandthosewithdisabil
itiesinsoutheasterneuropebosniaherzegovinabulgariacroatiakosovofyrofmacedoniamoldovamontenegroromaniaandserbi
a.htm
September 2014
102
319. OECD. (2007b). No More Failures: Ten Steps to Equity in Education (p.
143). Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://firgoa.usc.es/drupal/files/ocde_equity.pdf
320. OECD. (2008). Assessment for learning: Formative assessment,
OECD/CERI International Conference Learning in the 21st century: Research,
Innovation and Policy, the Centre for Education Research and Innovation (p. 25).
Paris: CERI. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40600533.pdf
321. OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming Social Background –
Equity in Learning Opportunities and Outcomes (Volume II) (p. 224). Paris: OECD.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/48852584.pdf
322. OECD (2012). Research brief: qualifications, education and professional
development matter, Encouraging Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care
(ECEC)
323. OECD. (2012a). Equity and Quality in
Disadvantaged Students and Schools (p. 170). Paris:
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/50293148.pdf
Education: Supporting
OECD. Retrieved from
324. OECD. (2012b). Starting Strong III - A Quality Toolbox for Early
Childhood Education and Care (p. 374). Paris: OECD. Retrieved from
http://stofnanir.hi.is/rannung/sites/files/rannung/Starting%20Strong%20III.pdf
325. OECD (2013). PISA 2012 Results: Excellence Through Equity: Giving
Every Student the Chance to Succeed (Volume II), Paris: OECD Publishing
326. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful?
Resources, Policies and Practices, (Volume IV) (PISA report). Paris: OECD.
327. OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results: What Students Know and Can do :
Student Performance in Mathematics, Reading and Science (Volume I) [Revised
edition February 2014]. OECD.
328. OECD - Social Policy Division - Directorate of Employment, Labour and
Social Affairs. (2010). PF4.2: Quality of childcare and early education services (p. 6).
Paris: OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/37864559.pdf
329. OECD Network on Early Childhood Education and Care. (2011). Survey
for the Quality Toolbox and ECEC Portal (p. 9). Paris: OECD. Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/49322268.pdf
330. Open Society Foundation. (2010). Indikatori jednake dostupnosti
kvalitetnog obrazovanja za Rome (Indicators of equal availability of quality education
for
Roma)
(p.
257).
Open
Society
Foundation.
Retrieved
from
http://www.cipcentar.org/i_roditelji_se_pitaju/PDF/literatura/Indikatori%20jednake%
20dostupnosti%20obrazovanja.pdf
331. Open Society Institute. (2006). Roma Education Initiative – Final Report
(p. 96). Budapest: Education Support Program of the Open Society Institute.
September 2014
103
Retrieved
from
http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/reifinal_20070116.pdf
332. Osakwe, R. N. (2009). The Effect of Early Childhood Education
Experience on the Academic Performances of Primary School Children. Stud Home
Comm Sci, 3(2), 143–147.
333. OSI, REF & UNICEF (2012.) The Roma Early Childhood Inclusion
Overview Report. UNICEF, Geneva
334. Oszwa, U. (2006). Rozwój i ocena umiejętności matematycznych dzieci
sześcioletnich.sześcioletnich (Development and assesment of mathematic skills among
6-year old children). Warszawa: Centrum Metodyczne Pomocy PsychologicznoPedagogicznej.
335. Özgan, H. (2010). Comparison of Early Childhood Education (Preschool
Education) in Turkey and OECD Countries. Educational Research and Review, 5(9),
499–507.
336. Pagnossin, E. (2009). Le case management “formation professionnelle”
en Suisse romande (Case management in the French speaking part of Switzerland) (].
Paper presented at the Colloque international de l’Association francophone d’éducation
comparée (AFEC)).
337. Papanastasiou, E., & Zembylas, M. (2005). Job Satisfaction Variance
among Public and Private Kindergarden School Teachers in Cyprus. International
Journal of Educational Research, 43(3), 147–167.
338. Parreira do Amaral, M., Walther, A., & Litau, J. (2013). Governance of
educational Trajectories in EuropeAccess, Coping and Relevance of Education for
Young People in European Knowledge Societies in Comparative Perspective (Project
Final
Report)
(p.
52).
University
of
Frankfurt.
Retrieved
from
http://www.google.lt/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDMQFjA
C&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goete.eu%2Fdownload%2Fworkingpapers%2Fdoc_download%2F70-goete-finalreport&ei=YB9dUpP4MYbXsgas3YCgBw&usg=AFQjCNGnd2EsbkMk8pHkt3PcBHdZEANFw&bvm=bv.53899372,d.bGE&cad=rja
339. Pavlović-Babić, D., & Baucal, A. (2010). Čitalačka pismenost kao mera
kvaliteta obrazovanja - procena na osnovu PISA 2009 podataka (). Reading literacy as
a measure of the quality of education: Estimates based on PISA 2009 data).
Psihološka istraživanja, 13(2), 241–260.
340. Peček, M., & Razdevšek-Pučko, C. (2003). Uspešnost in pravičnost v šoli
(Effectiveness and equity in school). Ljubljana: Pedagoska fakulteta.
341. Pecorini, M., Le Roy, O., & Ruffinen, Z. (2005). Les besoins de garde de
la petite enfance: enquête auprès des familles ayant des jeunes enfants (Needs for
childcare of early childhood: a survey among families having young children) (Note du
SRED)
(p.
191).
Geneva.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ge.ch/rechercheeducation/doc/publications/docsred/2005/bgpe.pdf
September 2014
104
342. Peeters, J. (2009). Qualitätspolitik im System der frühkindlichen
Bildung, Erziehung und Betreuung in Flandern. In Qualitätsmanagement In Der
Frühkindlichen Bildung, Erziehung Und Betreuung: Perspektiven für eine öffentliche
Qualitätspolitik (p. 264). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
343. Peisner-Feinberg, E., Burchinal, M., Clifford, R., & Yazejian, N. (1999).
The Children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study Go to School: Executive
summary
(p.
28).
PG
Child
Development
Center.
Retrieved
from
http://www.fpg.unc.edu/sites/fpg.unc.edu/files/resources/reports-and-policybriefs/NCEDL_CQO_executive_summary.pdf
344. Penn, H. (2011). Quality in Early Childhood Services - An International
Perspective. Open University Press.
345. Penn, H., Burton, L., Potter, S., Mugford, M., & Potter, S. (2006). Early
Years-What is Known About the Long-term Economic Impact of Centre-based Early
Childhood Interventions? (p. 56). London: Centre, Social Science Research Unit,
Institute
of
Education,
University
of
London.
Retrieved
from
http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=l5do4A7UCSo%3D&tabid=676&mid
=1572
346. Perlman, M., Zellman, G. L., & Le, V.-N. (2004). Examining the
psychometric properties of the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised
(ECERS-R). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(3), 398–412.
347. Persson, S. (2012). Förskolans betydelse för barns lärande, utveckling
och hälsa. (The importance of preschool for children’s learning, development and
health) (p. 36). Malmö: kommissionen för ett socialt hållbart Malmö. Retrieved from
http://www.malmo.se/download/18.d8bc6b31373089f7d9800010476/F%C3%B6rskol
ans+betydelse+f%C3%B6r+barns+utveckling,+l%C3%A4rande+och+h%C3%A4lsa.p
df
348. Pessanha, M., Aguiar, C., & Bairrão, J. (2007). Influence of Structural
Features on Portuguese Toddler Child Care Quality. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 22(2), 204–214.
349. Peters, S. (2010). Literature review: Transition from Early Childhood
Education to School (p. 106). Wellington: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from
http://lnxweb1.manukau.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/85841/956_ECELitReview
.pdf
350. Petrongolo, B., & San Segundo, S. S. (2004). Staying-on at School at
Sixteen: the Impact of Labor Market Conditions in Spain. Economics of Education
Review, 21(4), 353–367.
351. Pharris-Ciurej, N., Hirschman, C., & Willhoft, J. (2012). The 9th grade
shock and the high school dropout crisis. Social Science Research, 41, 709–730.
352. Phillips, D., Mekos, D., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., & Abbot-Shim, M.
(2000). Within and Beyond the Classroom Door: Assessing Quality in Child Care
Centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(4), 475–496.
September 2014
105
353. Phillipsen, L., Burchinal, M., Howes, C., & Cryer, D. (1997). The
prediction of process quality from structural features of child care. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 12(2), 281–303.
354. Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., & Houts, R. (2008). Classroom
Effects on Children’s Achievement Trajectories in Elementary School. American
Educational Research Journal, 45, 365–397.
355. Pineda Herrero, P., Moreno Andrés, M. V., Úcar Martínez, X., & Belvis
Pons, E. (2008). Derecho a la calidad: evaluación de la formación permanente en el
sector de la Educación Infantil en España (Right to quality: evaluation of on-the-job
training in pre-primary education in Spain). Revista de Educación, 347, 101–126.
356. Pirard, F. (2011). From the Curriculum Framework to Its Dissemination:
The Accompaniment of Educational Practices in Care Facilities for Children under Three
Years. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 19(2), 255–268.
357. Plank, S., DeLuca, S., & Estacion, A. (2008). High School Dropout and
the Role of Career and Technical Education: A Survival Analysis of Surviving High
School,. Sociology of Education, 81, 345–370.
358. Planta, R., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., & Houts, R. (2008). Classroom
Effects on Children’s Achievement Trajectories in Elementary School. American
Educational Research Journal, 45, 365–397.
359. Plewis, I. (1991). Underachievement: A Case of Conceptual Confusion.
British Educational Research Journal, 17(4), 377–385.
360. Popenici, S. (2008). The Influence of the Cultural Heritage of Family on
Academic Success. Bucharest: ISE.
361. Popović, J. (2007). Strategije in ukrepi spodbujanja ekonomske in
socialne integracije šolskih osipnikov. Magistrsko delo (Strategies and measures for
supporting the economic and social integration of early school leavers. Master’s
thesis). Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana. Retrieved from http://www.cek.ef.unilj.si/magister/popovic3442.pdf
362. Powell, R., Smith, R., Jones, G., & Reakes, A. (2006). Transition from
Primary to Secondary School: Current Arrangements and Good Practice in Wales (p.
86). NFER.
363. Pramling Samuelsson, I., & Asplund Carlson, M. (2008). The playing
learning child: towards a pedagog of early childhood. Scandinavian Journal of
Educational Research, 52(6), 623–641.
364. Prusik, A. (2010). Rozwód rodziców przyczyną osiągania niskich
wyników dziecka w nauce szkolnej. Historiajednejgimnazjalistki (Parents’ divorce as
the cause of school underachievement). In Sukcesyiporażki w edukacjidzieciimłodzieży
[Success and failure in the education of children and youth). Olsztyn: Prospekt PR,.
September 2014
106
365. Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., & Heid, C. (2012). Third Grade Follow-up
to the Head Start Impact Study-Final report, (OPRE Report) (p. 346). Office of
Planning, Research and Evaluation Administration for Children and Families U.S.
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services.
Retrieved
from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/head_start_report.pdf
366. Quint, J. (2006). Meeting Five Critical Challenges of High School Reform,
Lessons from Research on Three Reform Models (Policy brief) (p. 12). New York:
MRDC. Retrieved from http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_vafis01c03.pdf
367. Rabušicová, M. (2004). Postavení rodičů jako výchovných a sociálních
partnerů školy. (The role of parents as educational and social partners of school).
Pedagogika, 54(4), 326–341.
368. Rabušicová, M., Čiháček, V., Emmerová, K., & Šeďová, K. (2003). Role
rodičů ve vztahu ke škole – empirická zjištění. (The role of parents in the relationships
with school – empirical findings). Pedagogika, 53(3), 309–328.
369. Rao, N., Koong, M., Kwong, M., & Wong, M. (2003). Predictors of
Preschool Process quality in a Chinese Context. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
18(3), 331–350.
370. Reinomägi, A. (2007). Lasterikaste perede toimetulek ja vajadused.
(Living conditions and needs of families with many children). Sotsiaalministeeriumi
Toimetised, 7, 1–18.
371. Reis, S. M., & McCoach, B. (2000). The Underachievement of Gifted
Students: What Do We Know and Where Do We Go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 4, 152–
170.
372. Reynolds, A. (2000). The state of early intervention. In Success in Early
Intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers. University of Nebraska Press.
373. Reynolds, A., Temple, J., White, B., & Ou, S.-R. (2011). Age 26 Cost–
Benefit Analysis of the Child-Parent Center Early Education Program. Child
Development, 82(1), 379–404.
374. Rivas, S., & Sobrino, Á. (2009). Determining quality of early childhood
education programmes in Spain: a case study (Determinación de la calidad de los
programas de Educación Infantil en España: un estudio de caso). Revista de
Educación, 355, 257–283.
375. Rivas, S., Sobrino, Á., & Peralta, F. (2010). Weaknesses and strengths
in assessing early childhood programmes: an assessment of an early childhood
Spanish trilingual programme in two‐ to three‐ year‐ old children. Early Child
Development and Care, 180(5), 685–701.
376. Rodrigues, M. I. (2005). Do Jardim de Infância à Escola: Estudo
Longitudinal duma Coorte de Alunos (From pre-school to primary school: Longitudinal
study of a students cohort). Interações, 1, 7–24.
September 2014
107
377. Rodríguez, M.-J. L. (2007). Calidad de la Educación Infantil:
instrumentos de evaluation (Quality of Pre-Primary Education: evaluation tools).
Revista de Educación, 343, 301–323.
378. Rovšek, M. (2013). Usmerjanje otrok in mladostnikov z motnjami v
duševnem razvoju. Neobjavljeno poročilo raziskave. (Placement of children and
adolescents with intellectual disabilities. Unpublished research report).
379. Rumberger, R., & Lamb, S. (2003). The early employment and further
education experiences of high school dropouts: a comparative study of the United
States and Australia. Economics of Education Review, 22, 353–366.
380. Rumberger, R. and Lim, S. (2008), Why Students Drop Out of School: A
Review of 25 Years of Research, California Dropout Research Project, Santa Barbara
381. Ruškus, J., Žvirdauskas, D., & Eskyte, I. (2009). Ikimokyklinio,
priešmokyklinio ugdymo vadybos kokybės vertinimas: Tyrimo ataskaita.(Assessment
of Pre-school Education Management Quality) (p. 135). Švietimo ir mokslo
ministerija.Mokytojų
kompetencijos
centras.
Retrieved
from
http://www.upc.smm.lt/projektai/pletra/Tyrimai/J.%20Ruskaus%20tyrimo%20ataskai
ta/Ikimokyklinio,%20priesmokyklinio%20ugdymo%20vadybos%20kokybes%20vertini
mas%20Tyrimo%20ataskaita2009%2008%2031.pdf
382.
the Costs.
Russell, M. (2009). Centre-based Childcare: Can the Benefits Outweigh
383. Sabol, T. J., Soliday Hong, S. L., Pianta, R. C., & Burchinal, M. (2013).
Can Rating Pre-K Programs Predict Children’s Learning? Education Forum, 2.
384. Saito, M. (2003). Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: A
critical exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 33(1), 17–31.
385. Sakellariou, M., & Rentzou, K. (2011). Cypriot Pre-Service Kindergarten
Teachers’ Beliefs about and Practices of Developmentally Appropriate Practices in Early
Childhood Education. Early Child Development and Care, 181(10), 1381–1396.
386. Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I.-S., Taggart,
B., Grabbe, Y., & Barreau, S. (2007). The Effective Pre-School and Primary Education
3-11 Project (EPPE 3-11): Influences on Children’s Development and Progress in Key
Stage 2: Social/ behavioural outcomes in Year 5 (p. 63). London: IoEL. Retrieved from
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/https://www.education.g
ov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR828.pdf
387. Samms-Vaughan, M. (2010). Improving early Childhood Development
(ECD) in 0-3 Year Olds: The Jamaican Approach. Presented at the World Conference
on
Early
Childhood
Care
and
Education,
Moscow.
Retrieved
from
http://www.unesco.org/education/WCECCE/presentations/SammsVaughn.pdf
388. San Segundo, M.-J., & Petrongolo, B. (2004). School-leaving
andUunemployment: Evidence from Spain and the UK. In Human Capital Over the Life
Cycle. A European Perspective (71–89). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
September 2014
108
389.
53, 95–108.
Scarr, S. (1998). American Child Care Today. American Psychologist,
390. SCB.
(2007).
Tema
Utbildning.
Ungdomar
utan
fullföljd
gymnasieutbildning (Young people who have not completed upper secondary school).
Befolkning och Välfärd.
391.
Schulman, K. (2005). Overlooked Benefits of Prekindergarten (Policy
report)
(p.
10).
NIEER.
Retrieved
from
http://nieer.org/resources/policyreports/report6.pdf
392. Schweinhart, L., & Weikart, D. (1997). Lasting differences: The
HighScope Preschool Curriculum Comparison study through age 23. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 12, 117–143.
393. Šeďová, K. (2003). Televize v rodinách předškoláků.(Television in
families with preschool children) (p. 11). Presented at the Sociální souvislosti výchovy
a
vzdělávání,
Brno:
Paido.
Retrieved
from
http://www.ped.muni.cz/capv11/4sekce/4_CAPV_Sedova.pdf
394. Sen, A. (1995). Gender, Inequality and Theories of Justice. In Women,
Culture and Development: a Study of Human Capabilities. Oxford.
395. Ševčíková, V. (Ed.). (2010). Rómské děti a preprimární edukace aneb
proč vlastně rómské děti nechodí do školy. (Roma children and preprimary education
or why Roma children do not come to school). In Aktuální otázky preprimárního a
primárního vzdělávání.Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference. Ostrava: PdF OU.
396. Sheldon, S. B. (2003). Linking School–Family–Community Partnerships
in Urban Elementary Schools to Student Achievement on State Tests. The Urban
Review, 35(2), 149–165.
397. Sheridan, S. (2001). Pedagogical Quality in Preschool-An issue of
perspectives (Göteborg studies in educational studies No. 160) (p. 123). Gothenburg.
Retrieved
from
https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/10307/1/gupea_2077_10307_1.pdf
398. Sheridan, S. (2010). Quality Evaluation and Quality Enhancement in
Preschool: A Model of Competence Development,. Early Child Development and Care,
166(1), 7–27.
399. Sheridan, S., Pramling S., I., & Johansson, E. (2009). Barns tidigalärandeen tvärsnittsstudie om förskolan som miljö för barns lärande (Children’s early
learning- A cross-sectional study of preschool as an environment for children’s
learning) (Göteborg studies in educational studies No. 284) (p. 369). Göteborg.
Retrieved
from
https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/20404/1/gupea_2077_20404_1.pdf
400. Shonkoff, J., & Phillips, D. (Eds.). (2000). From Neurons to
Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington DC:
National
Academy
Press.
Retrieved
from
September 2014
109
http://www.uwbec.org/documents/school_readiness/Neurons%20to%20Neighborhood
s.pdf
401. Silva, J., & Melo, M. (2012). Do Pré-Escolar ao 1o Ciclo do Ensino
Básico: Experiências e Vivências da Transição (From Pré-school to Primary school:
experiences of transition). International Journal of Developmental and Educational
Psychology, 24(1), 93–102.
402. Silva, J., & Melo, Ma. (2011). Do Pré-Escolar ao 1o Ciclo do Ensino
básico: (des) continuidades e primeiros impactos da transição (From pre-school to 1st
cycle of Basica education: (dis)continuities and first impacts in transition). In Actas do
XI Congreso Internacional Galego-Portugués de Psicopedagoxía (1401–1413).
Universidade da Coruña: Universidade da c.
403. Simancas, R., Pedraja, F., & Santín, M. (2012). Mes de nacimiento,
probabilidad de repetir y resultados educativos en España según PISA 2009 (Month of
birth, probability of repeating a course and educational achievements according to
PISA 2009) (paper presented at the XIX Encuentro de Economía Pública, 26th-27th
January 2012).
404. Skolverket. (2007). Preschool is for Your Child: A Brochure about the
Preschool Curriculum. Swedish National Agency for Education. Retrieved from
http://www.google.rs/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjA
A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stockholm.se%2FGlobal%2FStadsdelar%2F%25C3%25
96stermalm%2FFamilj%2520%2526%2520Relation%2FBarnomsorg%2FAlexandra%2
FPreschool%2520is%2520for%2520your%2520child.pdf&ei=Q9Y_UuTyKKfW0gXi0YGo
Aw&usg=AFQjCNGJbFl7X9MSIC6__OAaCgxyIqmNdw&sig2=2ygoIBrXOiAoDF5dmQUGw
Q&bvm=bv.52434380,d.bGE&cad=rja
405. Skolverket. (2009). Vad påverkar resultaten i svensk skola? (Which
factors have an impact on student´s performances in school?) (p. 60). Stockholm.
Retrieved
from
http://gul.gu.se/public/pp/public_courses/course44744/published/1289291146518/res
ourceId/15954389/content/Sammanfattande%20analys%20Vad%20p%C3%A5verkar.
pdf
406. Skrzypniak, R. (2011). Niepowodzenia szkolne mlodzieży społecznie
niedostosowanej (School underachievement of socially maladjusted youth). In
Horyzonty edukacji w dialogu i perspektywie [Horizons of educationin dialogue and in
perspective) (213–225). Warszawa: Diffin.
407. Šmelová, E. (2005). Předškolní vzdělávání očima rodičovské veřejnosti
(Preschool education in the view of parents). Pedagogická orientace, 15(1), 52–58.
408. Smith, P.R. (2004), Caring for Paid Caregivers: Linking Quality Child
Care with Improved Working Conditions, University of Cincinnati Law review, 73 (2),
399-431
September 2014
110
409. Spiess, K. C., Büchel, F., & Wagner, G. (2003). Children’s School
Placement in Germany: Does Kindergarten Attendance Matter? (p. 29). IZA. Retrieved
from http://ftp.iza.org/dp722.pdf
410. Stamm, M., Reinwand, V., Burger, K., & Schmid, K. (2009). Éducation
de la petite enfance en Suisse. Étude de base élaborée à la demande de la
Commission suisse pour l’UNESCO. (Education of early childhood in Switzerland. Basic
study elaborated at the request of the Swiss Commission for UNESCO) (p. 9).
Département des sciences de l’éducation de l’Université de Fribourg. Retrieved from
http://www.fruehkindlichebildung.ch/fileadmin/documents/forschung/Management_Summary_F.pdf
411. Stănculescu, M. S. (2012). Child în Romania – A Multidimensional
Diagnosis
(p.
136).
Bucharest:
UNICEF.
Retrieved
from
http://www.unicef.org/romania/Being_a_child.pdf
412. Stavrides, M. (2000). Cyprus National Report: Education for All 2000
Assessment.
UNESCO.
Retrieved
from
http://www.unesco.org/education/wef/countryreports/Cyprus/rapport_1.html
413. Steiner, M. (2009). Early School Leaving und Schulversagen im
österreichischen Bildungssystem (Early school leaving and academic failure). In
Nationaler Bildungsbericht. Österreich 2009. Band 2 [National education survey.
Austria 2009. Volume 2) (p. 141). Graz: Leykam.
414. Sutherland, R., Ching Yee, W., & McNess, E. (2010). Supporting
Learning in the Transition from Primary to Secondary Schools (p. 93). School of
Geographical
Sciences,
University
of
Bristol.
Retrieved
from
http://www.bris.ac.uk/cmpo/publications/other/transition.pdf
415. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Blatchford, I.-S., & Taggart, B.
(2004). The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education [EPPE] Project (Project Final
Report)
(p.
107).
Retrieved
from
http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/e/eppe%20final%20report%202004.pd
f
416. Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I.-S., & Taggart, B. (2003). Assessing
Quality in the Early Years: Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale : Extension
(ECERS-E), Four Curricular. Trentham Books.
417. Sylva, K. et al. (2010), Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the
Effective Pre-school and Primary Education project, Routledge, London/New York
418. Symeuo, L., Karagiorgi, Y., Roussounidou, E., & Kaloyiroub, C. (2009).
Roma and Their Education in Cyprus: Reflections on Insetrom Teacher Training for
Roma Inclusion. Intercultural Education, 20(6), 511–521.
419. Symeuo, L., Martinez-Gonzalez, R.-A., & Alvarez-Blanco, L. (2012).
Dropping Out of Hgh School in Cyprus: do Parents and the Family Matter?
International Journal of Adolescence and Youth.
September 2014
111
420. Syslová, Z. (2009). Problémové oblasti řízení mateřské školy.
(Problematic parts of running/managing the kindergarten). In Dítě předškolního věku
a jeho paidagogos: sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní vědecké konference. Hradec
Králové: Gaudeamus.
421. Szilágyi, I. (2009). Óvodából iskolába (Transition from kindergarten to
school). Retrieved from http://www.ofi.hu/tudastar/jovo-eloszobaja/ovodabol-iskolaba
422. Taguma, M., Litjens, I., & Makowiecki, K. (2012). Quality Matters in
Early Childhood Education and Care: New Zealand (p. 60). Paris: OECD. Retrieved
from
http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/NEW%20ZEALAND%20policy%20profile%20%20published%203-8-2012.pdf
423.
TD Economics. (2012). Early Childhood Education Has Widespread and
Long
Lasting
Benefits
(p.
9).
Retrieved
from
http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/di1112_EarlyChildhoodEducatio
n.pdf
424. The National Economic and Social Forum. (2002). Forum Report on
Early
School
Leavers
(No.
24)
(p.
135).
Retrieved
from
http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/5234/1/NESF_Early-School-Leavers.pdf
425. Tiko, A. (2008). Underachievement in the First Grade – Challenge for
Cooperation Between Estonian Social and Educational System. In International Views
on Early Childhood Education (1–11). Savolinna: University of Joensuu. Retrieved from
http://sokl.uef.fi/verkkojulkaisut/varhais/tiko.pdf
426. Torpsten, A.-C. (2008). Erbjudet och upplevt lärande i mötet med
svenska som andraspråk och svensk skola. (Affordances ans experienced learning.
How student´s with Swedish as a second language encounter school) (p. 196). Växjö:
Institutionen
för
pedagogik.
Retrieved
from
http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:206370/FULLTEXT01.pdf
427. Traag, T. (2012). Early School-leaving in the Netherlands: A
Multidisciplinary Study of rRsk and Protective Factors Explaining Early School-leaving
(p.
132).
Statistics
Netherlands.
Retrieved
from
http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/CAFDC1FC-E23B-49C8-98332AE9E639E4E3/0/2012X11Traagpub.pdf
428. Traag, T., Lubbers, M., & van der Velden, R. (2012). That’s What
Friends Are For? The Impact of Peer Characteristics on Early School-leaving, (p. 33).
Maastricht: ROA, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market. Retrieved
from http://www.roa.unimaas.nl/pdf_publications/2012/ROA_RM_2012_6.pdf
429. Traag, T., & van der Velden, R. (2008). Early school-leaving in the
Netherlands -The Role of Student, Family and School Factors for Early School Leaving
in Lower Secondary Education (p. 34). Maastricht: Research Centre for Education and
the
Labour
Market.
Retrieved
from
http://www.roa.unimaas.nl/pdf_publications/2008/ROA_RM_2008_3.pdf
September 2014
112
430. Trimikliniotis, N., & Demetriou, C. (2009). The Cypriot Roma and the
Failure of Education: Anti-Discrimination and Multiculturalism as a Post-Accession
Challenge. In The Minorities of Cyprus: Development Patterns and the Identity of the
Internal-Exclusion (241–264). Newcastle upon Thames: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
Retrieved
from
http://ec.europa.eu/ewsi/UDRW/images/items/docl_10566_685935952.pdf
431. Trnková, K., & Čiháček, V. (2003). Možnosti prosazování zájmů rodičů
ve škole. (Possibilities of parents to push theire interests through in school).
Pedagogická orientace, 13(2), 22–38.
432. Troyna, B. (1991). Underachievers or Underrated? The Experience of
Pupils of South Asian Origin in a Secondary School. British Educational Research
Journal, 17(4), 361–376.
433. Ulug, S. (2010). Approaches for Preventing Drop-outs in Turkey.
Presented at the Strategic reflections on best practices and approaches for the
prevention of early school leaving : focus on interculturality. Retrieved from
http://www.rickscafenetwork.eu/sites/default/files/RICK%27S%20cafe%27%20ppt%2
0BOLU%20TEAM.pdf
434. UNDP. (2012). Report on the Living Conditions of Roma Households in
Slovakia
2010
(p.
225).
Bratislava.
Retrieved
from
http://issuu.com/undp_in_europe_cis/docs/romalivingconditions
435. UNESCO. (2004). Education for All- the quality imperative (p. 428).
UNESCO.
Retrieved
from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001373/137333e.pdf
436.
UNESCO. (2010). Early Childhood Care and Education, Regional Report.
Europe
and
North
America
(p.
132).
Retrieved
from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001892/189211e.pdf
437. UNICEF. (2012). Investing in Early Childhood Education in Serbia Costing models for ensuring preschool education for all (p. 112). Belgrade.
438. UNICEF, & UNESCO. (2012). Finishing school - A Right for Children’s
Development: A Joint Effort (p. 50). UNICEF & UNESCO. Retrieved from
http://www.uis.unesco.org/Education/Documents/oosci-lac-executive-summary-2012en.pdf
439. Urban, M. (Ed.). (2013). Dealing with uncertainty: challenges and
possibilities for the early childhood profession. In Professionalism in Early Childhood
Education and Care: International Perspectives (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
440. Urban, M., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2011). Competences Requirements in
Early Childhood Education and care (Study for the European Commission DG Education
and
Culture).
Retrieved
from
http://www.vbjk.be/files/CoRe%20Final%20Report%202011.pdf
September 2014
113
441. Váchová, A., & Čupová, M. (2010). Logopedická prevence v mateřských
školách.(Logopedic prevention in kindergartens). In Aktuální otázky preprimárního a
primárního vzdělávání.Sborník příspěvků z mezinárodní konference. Ostrava: PdF OU.
Retrieved from http://theses.cz/id/jmnx7a/downloadPraceContent_adipIdno_12087
442. Van Landeghem, G., De Fraine, Gielen, & Van Damme, J. (2012).
Vroege schoolverlaters in Vlaanderen tot 2010. Een analyse van de invloed van de
financieel-economische crisis van 2008. (Early school leavers in Flanders up to 2010.
An analysis of the impact of the financial and economic crisis of 2008). Leuven: KU
Leuven, Steunpunt Studie- en Schoolloopbanen.
443. Van Landeghem, G., & Van Damme, J. (2011). Vroege schoolverlaters
uit het voltijds beroepsonderwijs. Vertrek punt voor een gedifferentieerde aanpak.
(Early school leavers from full-time vocational education. Starting point for a policy of
differentiation). Leuven: KU Leuven, SteunpuntStudie- en Schoolloopbanen.
444. Van Tuijl, C., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2007). Increases in the Verbal and
Fluid Cognitive Abilities of Disadvantaged Children Attending Preschool in the
Netherlands. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(2), 188–203.
445. Vandel, D. L., Belsky, J., & Burchinal, M. (2010). Do Eeffects of Early
Child Care extend to Age 15 Years? Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care
and Youth Development. Child Development, 81(3), 737–756.
446. Vandel, D. L., & Wolfe, B. (2000). Child Care Quality: Does It Matter and
Does It Need to Be Improved? (Special report) (p. 129). Institute for Research on
Poverty. Retrieved from http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/sr/pdfs/sr78.pdf
447. Vassenden, A., Thygesen, J., & Bayer, B. (2011). Barnehagens
organisering og strukturelle faktorers betydning for kvalitet. (The organisation of the
kindergarten and structural factors’ importance on quality) (p. 211). Stavanger:
International
Research
Institute
of
Stavanger.
Retrieved
from
http://www.skoleanlegg.utdanningsdirektoratet.no/asset/2587/1/2587_1.pdf
448. Vernon-Feagans, L., Emanuel, D. C., & Blood, I. (1997). The Effect of
Otitis Media and Quality of Daycare on Children’s Language Developmen. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 395–409.
449. Voženílek, B. (2001). Příprava ředitelek MŠ na výkon funkce, jejich další
vzdělávání. (Preparation of kindergarten directors to their work, their further
education) (Nové možnosti vzdělávání a pedagogický výzkum.Sborník z IX.celostátní
konference ČAPV s mezinárodní účastí) (151–157). Ostrava: PdF OU.
450. Vrinioti, K., Einarsdottir, J., & Broström, S. (2010). Transitions from Preschool to Primary School, Early Years Transition Programme (EARLY YEARS
TRANSITION
PROGRAMME)
(p.
8).
Retrieved
from
http://www.easeeu.com/documents/compendium/chapter02.pdf
451. Vrkoslavová, M. (2007). Zájmová činnost předškolního dítěte v
mateřské
škole
(vztah
mezi
vzdělávacím
programem
a
nadstandardní
nabídkou).(Amateur activities of preschool child in kindergarten – relation between
September 2014
114
educational program and above standard offer). In Dítě předškolního věku dříve a
dnes. Dítě předškolního věku dnes a dříve (67–71). Praha: PedF UK.
452. Vyšniauskaitė, J. (2010). Ikimokyklinio ugdymo paslaugų šeimai ir
vaikui kokybės raiška prieinamumo principo kontekste. Magistro darbas. (Quality of
Pre-school Services for Children and Families within the Context of Accessibility).
Šiaulių universitetas. Retrieved from http://vddb.library.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa0001:E.02~2010~D_20100903_165340-12068/DS.005.0.02.ETD
453. Waller, T. (2008). Modern Childhood: Contemporary Theories and
Children’s Lives. SAGE Publications Ltd;
454. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a
Knowledge Base for School Learning. Review of Educational Research, 63(249), 47.
455. Webb, J. T., Gore, J. L., Amend, E., & DeVries, A. (2007). A Parent’s
Guide to Gifted Children, Scottsdale. Great Potential Pr.
456. Weikart, D. (2000), Early childhood education: need and opportunity,
Fundamentals of education planning, 65, UNESCO
457. Wetzel, G. (2000a). Erziehung und Betreuung im Vor- und
Volksschulalter Österreichspezifische Analysen auf Familien- und Kinderebene im
internationalen Vergleich, (Education in school and prior to school. Analyses for Austria
and international comparisons).
458. Wetzel, G. (2000b). Qualitätsmerkmale von Kindergärten und soziale
Integration von Kindern mit besonderen Bedürfnissen [Quality aspects of kindergarten
and social inclusion of children with special needs).
459. Woodhead, M., & Moss, P. (2007). Early Childhood and Primary
Education, Early Childhood Education in Focus 2: Transitions in the Lives of Young
Children
(p. 42).
Walton Hall: The Open University. Retrieved from
http://www.google.rs/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjA
A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bernardvanleer.org%2FEarly_Childhood_and_Primary_E
ducation_Transitions_in_the_Lives_of_Young_Children%3Fpubnr%3D521%26downloa
d%3D1&ei=SEVBUrWNL7SK4gSho4HIBQ&usg=AFQjCNEj12s7FNdp4g2qrkOZgg0WNvT
a9A&sig2=q2t8dP3LA8wujYz8yJwKMg&bvm=bv.52434380,d.bGE
460. World Bank. (2006). Repositioning Nutrition as Central to Development:
A Strategy for Large-Scale Action (p. 272). Washington DC: World Bank. Retrieved
from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/NUTRITION/Resources/2818461131636806329/NutritionStrategy.pdf
461. World Bank. (2010). Turkey: Expanding Opportunities for the Next
Generation
(p.
54).
Washington
DC:
World
Bank.
Retrieved
from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/TURKEYEXTN/Resources/3617111270026284729/ExpandingOpportunitiesForTheNextGeneration-en.pdf
462. Wylie, C., Hodgen, E., Hipkins, R., & Vaughan, K. (2009). Competent
Learners on the Edge of Adulthood: A Aummary of Key Findings from the Competent
September 2014
115
Learners at 16 project. New Zealand Council for Educational Research. Retrieved from
http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/2567/35076/35079
463. Ziegler, A., & Stoeger, H. (2012). Shortcomings of the IQ Based
Construct of Underachievement-Shortcomings of the IQ Based Construct of
Underachievement. Roeper Review, 34(2), 123–132.
464. Zirkel, S. (2008). The Influence of Multicultural Educational Practices on
Student Outcomes and Intergroup Relations,. Teachers College Record, 110, 1147–
1181.
465. Zuljan-Valenčič, M., & et.al. (2012). Kazalniki socialnega kapitala,
kulturnega kapitala in šolske klime v napovedovanju šolske uspešnosti otrok in
mladostnikov. Raziskovalno poročilo (Indicators of social capital, cultural capital and
school climate in predicting school success of children and adolescents.Research
report) (p. 421). Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta in Filozofska fakulteta. Retrieved from
http://www.mizs.gov.si/fileadmin/mizs.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/razvoj_solstva/ev
alvacija/pdf/POROCILOKazalniki_socialnega_kulturnega_kapitala_in_solske_klime....pdf
466. Zuoza, R. (2010). Mokyklos nelankymo problemos ir jų sprendimo
galimybės (Problems of Early School Leaving and Their Solving). Retrieved from
http://www.google.rs/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCcQFjA
A&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vaikogerove.lt%2Fupl%2Fbaigiamoji_konferencija%2Fm
okyklos_nelankymo_problemos.pps&ei=2kBBUo6bMMzBtAacu4GIAw&usg=AFQjCNEuB
hXyIwXo5u7TJUJcCzLwZ72iIw&sig2=P3TeMrCGAe7CKMx_WOt5tQ&bvm=bv.52434380
,d.bGE
467. Zupancic, M., & Kavcic, T. (2006). The Age of Entry into High-Quality
Preschool, Child and Family Factors, and Developmental Outcomes in Early Childhood.
European Early Childhood Education Research Journa, 14(1), 91–111.
September 2014
116
Numéro de catalogue: NC-04-14-323-EN-N
doi:10. 2766/81487
ISBN: 978-92-79-39671-7

Publications for Mitchell

Prof. Nóirín Hayes [PDF]

Incentives and standards for preschool operators by MOE

JOB POSTING Tri-County Virginia, OIC is seeking the following

Download (86Kb)

Voices Action Ideas Vision

AS/Pol/OE (2015) OJ 01 - Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of

Early Childhood Brochure 2014-2015 NEW.pub (Read

www.saga

Parent Volunteer Application Form - Hong Wen School