1. Can preschool protect psychological development
Can preschool protect psychological development? Evidence from a longitudinal British investigation
James Hall, May 5th 2011
University of Warwick, Department of Psychology
& University of Oxford, Department of Education

2. Contents Overview Introduction to the effects of preschool
Background of prior research
The EPPSE Project (1997-)
Results:
Findings from the main EPPSE project (1997-)
EYTSEN sub-study ( ) :
“Protection against the risk of SEN”
ESRC /DfE CASE Studentship ( ) :
“The Contribution of Early Education to Vulnerable and Resilient Developmental Pathways”
Conclusions

3. Overview to today’s talk
Mixed evidence on the effects of preschool attendance for children’s development
...Yet preschool attendance is increasing
Until the mid 1990s there was a lack of high quality research into the impacts of early education and care
Though there has been a growth in research over the past 15 years, a number of important questions remain unanswered...
...One of these is,
“Can Preschool Protect Psychological Development?”

4. Aside: Why ‘psychological’ development?
To differentiate this aspect of child development from physical development...
... and from academic attainment
The term, ‘psychological’ development is here used in reference to the development of:
Cognitive skills
E.g. Verbal ability, non-verbal reasoning, spatial skills
Social and emotional skills
E.g. Self regulation; co‑operation & conformity;
peer sociability; anti‑social/worried behaviour
(Leaving aside other psychological areas such as personality development and moral understanding)

5. Introduction Question:
What do we know about the impacts of preschool attendance on children’s psychological development?

6. Introduction
Over the past 10 years:

7. Introduction
More recently (2010+):

8. Introduction Question:
Does it matter that preschool attendance has been found to have mixed effects on children’s development?

9. Introduction Preschool attendance over time:*

10. Introduction Preschool attendance over time: 2,002 2,003 England
Participation rates of UK children aged 3-4 in state-maintained preschool settings (as percentage): by region, January 2003*
Number of UK children aged 3-4 year in preschool settings of any type (thousands)**
2,002
2,003
England
1,142.7
1,190.6
Wales
55.6
Scotland
95.3
100.7
Northern Ireland
32.2
32.9
A further 28% of UK 3-4 year olds were also enrolled in preschool settings run out of the Private, Voluntary and Independent (PVI) sector (e.g. Playgroups)*** * **
***

11. Background of Prior Research
So,
Pre-school - good or bad for child development?
Emerging consensus of variation by child age:
Under 2 years: Strong Concerns
Between 2-3 years: Mixed Evidence
From 3 years: Generally Positive
Other factors differentiating impact include:
Duration of attendance (hours and/or days per week)
Quality of provision
Domain of child development

12. Can Preschool Protect Development?
Lets reconceptualise the emerging consensus over the impacts of preschool:
Consider, Preschool as Developmental Promotion:
As broad universal boosts to all above age 3 years
Consider, Preschool as Developmental Risk:
As possible detrimental effects for those under age 3
But what about other types of effect? For example,
Can preschool protect development against the impacts of otherwise significant risks?
...This is the focus of today’s presentation...
Lets first consider two past studies that have addressed this question...

13. Past Research
Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Bryant, & Clifford (2000):
Predictor: Poverty, Gender, Ethnicity
Potential Protector: Preschool quality
Outcome: Behaviour, Language skills, Preacademic skills
Finding: Only 1 instance of protected development:
Developmental Risk: Ethnic Minority Background
Protector: High-quality preschool
Outcome: Language ability
NICHD (2000):
Predictor: Combined risk (from PCA)
Potential protector: Preschool attendance
Outcome: Receptive language at 3 years of age
Finding: No evidence of developmental protection:
Though this was contrary to the expectations of the authors….

14. Past research
“Earlier research led to the expectation that the associations between child care and developmental outcomes might be different for children from different home environments.”
“Child care might compensate for limited resources and opportunities for learning at home, and, conversely, it might provide a less optimal environment than advantaged homes that offer rich and stimulating environments.”
“Like the studies by Burchinal et al. (2000) and Stipek et al. (1995), our analyses did not support these expectations” (NICHD, 2000)
So, weak evidence of preschool as protection, despite such effects being expected theoretically...
So, lets now consider UK-based evidence from the largest longitudinal European study to have investigated the effects of preschool:

15. The EPPSE project (1997+)
A longitudinal study funded by the (then) Department for Education and Skills (DfES), then the DCSF, now the DfE. Several phases:
Effective Provision of Preschool Education Project
(EPPE)
Effective Preschool and Primary Education Project
(EPPE 3-11)
Effective Preschool, Primary and Secondary Education Project
(EPPSE 3-14)
(EPPSE 16+)
These studies focus on the progress and development of ~3,000 children from entry to preschool onwards to Key Stage Three (from 3 to 14 years of age)

16. The sample
Six Local Authorities - strategically selected to represent urban, suburban, and rural areas
141 Preschool centres randomly selected to include:
Nursery classes
Playgroups
Private day nurseries
Day care centres run by local authority
Nursery schools
Fully integrated centres (fledgling, prototype Sure Start Children’s Centres)
Approximately 2,800 children recruited from the 141 randomly chosen preschool centres, plus an additional 310 children recruited who did not go to preschool

17. School Entry Assessments N= 3,000+ Age 7 KS1 National Assessments
The EPPE project
Reception Year Year 2
(5 yrs) (6 yrs) (7 yrs)
Preschool Provision
(3+yrs)
25 nursery classes children
34 playgroups children
31 private day nurseries
520 children
20 nursery schools
7 integrated centres
190 children
24 local authority day care
nurseries children
Home comparison group
310 children
School Entry Assessments N= 3,000+
Age 7 KS1 National Assessments
Age 6 Assessments
N = 3,000+
N= 3,000+

18. Measuring the quality of preschool processes
ECERS-R (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998)
Provides a broad, encompassing assessment of quality:
Space and Furnishings; Personal Care Routines; Language-Reasoning; Activities; Interactions; Program Structure; Parents and Staff
ECERS-E (Sylva et al., 2006)
Focuses on curricular provision in 4 areas:
literacy, numeracy, science, and diversity
CIS (Arnett, 1989)
Designed to provide information on various socialisation practices:
Positive interactions
Punitiveness
Detachment
Permissiveness
N=6

19. Measuring the quality of preschool structures
Manager:
highest academic qualification
highest childcare qualification
Staff:
average age
average highest academic qualification
average highest childcare qualification
Centre size:
no. of staff
no. of children
N=7

20. Results Three sets of relevant results are going to be considered:
Findings from the main EPPSE project
Findings from EYTSEN sub-study ( ) :
“Protection against the risk of SEN”
Findings from an ESRC /DfE CASE Studentship ( ):
“The Contribution of Early Education to Vulnerable and Resilient Developmental Pathways”

21. 1. Findings from the main EPPSE project (1997-2004) (see sylva et al
1. Findings from the main EPPSE project ( ) (see sylva et al., 2004 ; Sammons et al., 2002, 2003)
At age 7 years -
The contribution of parental social class & preschool attendance to reading and writing at age 7 (end of Key Stage 1)
READING WRITING
protection
protection l l

22. At age 7 years - MATHEMATICS
The contribution of parental social class & preschool attendance to mathematics at age 7 (end of Key Stage 1)
MATHEMATICS
protection

23. Development from 5-7 years: Reading, Social Class, and Preschool attendance

24. Development from 5-7 years: Maths, Social Class, and Preschool attendance

25. At age 11 years (2008) – (see Sylva et al., 2008)
Protecting against gender-associated disadvantage: The impact of preschools that offered higher-quality educational provision (ECERS-E)

26. At age 11 years (2008) – (see Sylva et al., 2004)
Protecting against multiple early disadvantages : The impact of preschools that offered higher-quality educational provision (ECERS-E)

27. 2. EYTSEN sub-study: “Protection against the risk of SEN” ( ) (see Sammons et al., 2002b, 2004)
Outcomes:
Risk-of-SEN (cog. or soc.) at age 3 years
Teacher-reported SEN at age 5 years
Associated factors (cog. or soc.; ages 3 and 5) :
Protection?:
Attending preschool protected against likelihood of age 5 SEN:
25% of preschool attendees had age 5 SEN
40% of the ‘home’ group children had age 5 SEN
Attending a preschool higher on the ECERS-E and/or ECERS-R was significantly reduced the likelihood of age 3 ‘risk-of-SEN’ being followed-up by a teacher-reported SEN at age 5 years
Child variables
Parent Variables
Home Environment
Gender
Mother qualifications
Home Learning Environment Index:
Frequency of reading
Trips to the library
Teaching songs
Painting and drawing
Emphasis on teaching letters and numbers
EAL
Mother employment
prematurity
Father social class
Number of siblings
Father employment
Marital status
Frequency plays with friends

28. Separate Prediction of SEN at age 10 years (anders et al., 2010)
Outcomes: SEN status in reading or number work at age 10 years (year 5 of primary school)
Predictors: child, family, home, and preschool experience variables
Results:
Significant risks included:
Family: SES, early Home Learning Environment (HLE)
Child: low birth weight, early problems with health and/or development
Preschools that offered higher quality educational provision (ECERS-E) protected against the likelihood of teachers reporting children to have ‘number work SEN’ at age 10 years

29. 3. “The Contribution of Early Education to Vulnerable and Resilient Developmental Pathways” ( ) (Hall et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2010, submitted)
Introduction:
Earlier research (NICHD, 2000; Burchinal et al, 2000) failed to identify the instances of pre-school protected development that were suggested by the literature…
Arguably due to difficulties prevalent in the fields of :
Early years education
Risk and resilience research
Here, a secondary analysis addressed this disparity through particularly sensitive measurement of two developmental effects:
The impacts of risks acting in combination
Direct and protective effects of pre-school quality (all EPPE measures)
Three domains of development were examined in children aged 3-5 years:
General Cognitive Ability (via BAS)
Self Regulation (via factor analysed SDQ)
Antisocial/worried behaviour (via factor analysed ASBI)

30. Identifying instances of protected development
Level of risk

31. Analysis procedure Two-step procedure:
Analysed the effects of risks acting in combination to negatively impact child development
Leading to derived measures of ‘combined risk’
Determined whether the quality of preschool could protect developmental skills against the impacts of these ‘combined risk’ measures

32. Step 1: Studying the impact of combined child-level risks
Standardised Factor Loadings
RISK:
To age 5 year General Cognitive Ability:
To age 5 year Self Regulation:
To age 5 year Anti-Social/Worried Behaviour:
1) Male gender
0.28***
0.73***
0.59***
2) English an Additional Language?
0.48a
0.45a
0.55a
3) (lower) Birth weight
0.37***
0.34***
0.21***
4) No. of siblings
0.25**
5) Birth order
6a) Bangladeshi?
0.12*
6b) Black?
0.25***
6c) Indian?
6d) Mixed ethnicity?
0.14**
6e) Other ethnicity?
0.13*
6f) Pakistani?
0.31**
7) “Event affected development?” 32
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001
ª Unstandardised factor loadings set to 1 so there is no returned significance

33. Step 1: Studying the impact of combined family-level risks
Standardised Factor Loadings
RISK
To age 5 year General Cognitive Ability
To age 5 year Self Regulation
To age 5 year Anti-Social/Worried Behaviour
1) Home Learning Environment
0.45a
0.69a
0.68a
2) (low) Mother’s qualifications
0.25***
0.17*
3) (low) Family salary
0.17**
0.25*
4) (low) Mother’s occupational status
0.19*
5) Partner (not) working
0.09*
6) No. of non-parental carers
0.14***
7) (low) Partner’s age
0.21*
0.24*
8) (low) Mother’s age
9) (low) Partner’s qualifications
10) Mother (not) working
0.23**
11) Partner’s occupational status
12) Highest family status
13) Either parent working
14) Single parent family 33
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001
ª Unstandardised factor loadings set to 1 so there is no returned significance

34. Step 1: Real-life examples of highly at-risk children
Child-Level combined risk to cognitive development:
E.g.:
A boy with 3 siblings, who weighed 2.38kg (5lb and 4oz) at birth, and who spoke English as an additional language (EAL)
His General Cognitive Ability at entry to reception was 2.37 standard deviations lower than the EPPE average
Family-Level combined risk to cognitive development:
A child raised by a single mum who held vocational qualifications, earned a very low salary (£2.5k), and who provided a poorer home learning environment
Their General Cognitive Ability at entry to reception was 2.04 standard deviations lower than the EPPE average

35. Step 2: pre-school protection against risks:
One slide summary of a 4 year study...
Instances of significant protection were less likely...
Instances of significant protection were more likely...
...when examining:
Child-Level Risks
Pre-school Process Qualities
Longer Duration in Pre-school
Cognitive Development
...when examining:
Family-Level Risks
Pre-school Structural Qualities
Shorter Duration in Pre-school
Social/Behavioural Development

36. Step 2: preschool-protected psychological development (1)
Protection though quality of processes:
Combined Latent Risk
Process Qualities
Psychological development at age 5 years
(unstandardized βs)
General Cognitive Ability
Self Regulation
Antisocial / Worried Behavior
Child-Level
Positive Relationship
2-Waya (0.04*)
3-Wayb (0.04**)
3-Wayb (-0.06***)
Punitiveness
3-Wayb (-0.04***)
Permissiveness
Detachment
2-Waya (-0.03*)
3-Wayb (-0.04**)
3-Wayb (0.06**)
Global Quality
Educational Quality
2-Waya (0.02*)
3-Wayb (-0.05*)
Duration
2-Wayc (0.04*)
Family- Level
2-Waya (0.03***)
2-Waya (0.02**)
a 2-Way interaction: risk x quality;
b 3-Way interaction: (risk x quality) x duration of pre-school attendance;
c 2-Way interaction: risk x duration of pre-school attendance;
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

37. Step 2: preschool-protected psychological development (2)
Protection though quality of structures:
Combined Latent Risk
Structural Quality
Psychological development at age 5 years
(unstandardized βs)
General Cognitive Ability
Self Regulation
Antisocial / Worried Behavior
Child-Level
Manager: Highest Academic Qualification
3-Wayb (0.03*)
Highest Childcare Qualification
3-Wayb (0.03**)
Staff: Mean Age
2-Waya (0.02**)
and 3-Wayb (-0.03*)
Mean Highest Academic Qualification
Mean Highest Childcare Qualification
3-Wayb (-0.03*)
Number of Staff
Number of Children
3-Wayb (-0.11*)
Duration
2-Wayc (0.04*)
Family-Level
3-Wayb (-0.05*)
3-Wayb (-0.02*)
3-Wayb (-0.01*)
2-Waya (0.38**)
a 2-Way interaction: risk x quality; b 3-Way interaction: (risk x quality) x duration of pre-school attendance;
c 2-Way interaction: risk x duration of pre-school attendance; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

38. Step 2: Protected development graphed. Example one:
Family-level risk to child cognitive development:
Protected by :
Attending pre-schools of higher quality educational provision
(A relatively simple example)

39. Combined family-level risk to cognitive development
(mean) 1 2
Combined family-level risk to cognitive development

40. Step 2: Protected development graphed. Example two:
Child-level risk to child cognitive development:
Protected by a combination of:
More highly qualified pre-school managers
Longer duration of child attendance at pre-school
However,
Managerial qualifications only protected cognitive development when children attended pre-school for longer periods.
Thus:
“duration-dependant quality-protection”

42. So, What do all these findings from EPPSE tell us when taken together?
What’s the big picture?

43. Conclusions from the EPPSE study
To re-cap:
The percentage of UK children experiencing preschool has been increasing for decades...
Yet preschool can have positive and negative effects on child cognitive and social skills depending on:
child-age, quality of provision, domain of development...
Prior studies have found surprisingly limited findings when investigating preschool as developmental protection
The UK-based EPPSE study is largest longitudinal European study to have investigated the effects of preschool:
2,800 children, 141 preschools
Detailed measurement of quality and development outcomes suggests that high-quality processes may be able to partially protect child psychological development, particularly of cognition skills
Finally - Some evidence of legacy effects post-preschool but more research is necessary to untangle mechanisms

44. FIN Thank you for coming along and listening! Any Questions?
For further Information about the EPPSE project
visit their website at:
Or visit the Oxford Education Department‘s Families,
Early Learning, and Literacy (FELL) research group at:

45. References
Arnett, J. (1989). Caregivers in day care centres: Does training matter? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology (10),
Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Bryant, D. M., & Clifford, R. (2000). Children's social and cognitive development and child-care quality: Testing for differential associations related to poverty, gender, or ethnicity. Applied Developmental Science, 4(3),
Hall, J. (2009a). The Contribution of Early Education to Vulnerable and Resilient Developmental Pathways. Unpublished D.Phil thesis. University of Oxford
Hall, J., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2009b). The role of pre-school quality in promoting resilience in the cognitive development of young children. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3).
Hall, J., Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Taggart, B., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Smees, R. (2010). Measuring the combined risk to young children’s cognitive development: An alternative to cumulative indices. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(2)
Hall, J., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B. (submitted). Can pre-school protect young children’s cognitive and social development? Variation by center quality and duration of attendance. School Effectiveness and School Improvement.
Harms, T., Clifford, R., & Cryer, D. (1998). Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, Revised Edition. New York: Teachers' College Press.
NICHD. (2000). The interaction of child care and family risk in relation to child development at 24 and 36 months. Applied Developmental Science, 6(3),
Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Elliot, K. (2002). EPPE Technical Paper 8a: Measuring the impact of Pre-school on Children's Cognitive Progress over the Pre-school Period. London: DfES/Institute of Education.
Sammons, P., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., & Elliot, K. (2003). EPPE Technical Paper 8b: Measuring the Impact of Pre-School on Children's Social/Behavioural Development over the Preschool Period. London: DfES/Institute of Education.
Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Smees, R., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., et al. (2002b). EYTSEN Technical Paper 1: Special Educational Needs across the Pre-School Period. London: DfES/Institute of Education.
Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Smees, R., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Siraj-Blatchford, I., et al. (2004). EYTSEN Technical Paper 2: Special Educational Needs in the Early Years: Primary School Entry upto the end of Year 1. London: DfES/Institute of Education.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2004). EPPE Technical Paper 12: Effective Provision of Pre-school Education, The Final Report. London: DfES/Institute of Education.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2008). Final Report from the Primary Phase: Pre-school, Schooland Family Influences on Children's Development During Key Stage 2 (Age 7-11). London: DCSF/Institute of Education.