Early childhood education and care (ECEC) has become an increasingly important issue in the U.S. in response to the dramatic rise in labor force participation rates of married women with young children, the changed expectations concerning the employment of poor single mothers, and the growing interest in ensuring that children begin primary school ready to learn. A just-completed three-year study of ECEC policies and programs  in 12 advanced industrialized countries, which are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and  Development (OECD), highlights the importance of these programs throughout the advanced industrialized world. It also adds to the three factors identified above, a fourth, namely, the value of these programs in enhancing and supporting children's cognitive, social, and emotional development generally.

While avoiding rankings, the study Starting Strong: Early Childhood Education and Care underscores the gap between U.S. developments and those of most other countries in the study through its description of the contrasting state of ECEC in the U.S. and elsewhere. A leading participant in the conference held in Stockholm, Sweden, on June 14  -15 was Sheila B. Kamerman, Director of the Columbia University Institute for Child and Family Policy. She  stated, "If school readiness is a key goal, if meeting the needs of working mothers is an essential response, and if maximizing the health and well-being of children is a desirable outcome, Americans should take a look at this report of what is occurring in other industrialized countries. The contrast is dramatic, in most of these countries children are guaranteed a place in subsidized, decent quality ECEC programs - at the age of 1 in Denmark, Finland and Sweden; at 2 in France; at 2 ½ in Belgium; at 3 in Italy and Germany; and at 4 in Britain." 

• Report Highlights
• Availability of Care
• Financing
• Quality of Care
• Curriculum
• Integration of Child Care and Early Education
• Locating ECEC Policies and Programs under Education
• Social Inclusion/Exclusion
• Conclusion

Report Highlights
Here we highlight for American discussion some of the major findings of the study. Thereafter we assess how the U.S. compares to the other countries reviewed. 

• There is a growing trend among countries toward universal access to early childhood education and care services. Access is already universal in most countries for 3- 4- and 5- year olds. In several countries access to early childhood education and care is a legal right. 

• The supply of services for children under three years does not meet current demand. Many countries have responded by expanding their infant and toddler programs and by introducing generous job protection and paid parental leave policies, thus assuring the option of infant care by a parent. 

• Governments are increasingly recognizing that substantial public investment is necessary to support a quality system of early childhood education and care. Most governments invest by subsidizing providers. 

• Raising the quality of early childhood education and care is at the forefront of policy priorities in most countries. 

• Many countries are seeking to balance the view of childhood in the "here and now" with views of childhood as an investment with the future adult in mind. 

• Integration of childcare and early childhood education has become an increasingly strong trend among countries. 

• There is a growing trend toward locating early childhood education and care policies and programs under public education auspices. 

• Children from immigrant, racial or ethnic minority backgrounds are often under-represented in regular ECEC programs. 

Availability of Care
Universal Access: 3- to 6- year olds 

In several countries, access to ECEC is a statutory right. It begins at age 1 in Denmark, Finland and Sweden; at 2  in France; at 2 ½ in Belgium; at 3 in Italy and Germany; and at 4 in Britain. The trend in all countries is toward full coverage of the 3- to 6- year old age group aiming to give all children at least two years of free publicly funded services before beginning compulsory school. In contrast to most other OECD countries, policy in the U.S. has not been based on the notion of statutory entitlement to a place in ECEC, especially for young children. Until recently, access to publicly funded ECEC in the U.S. has been limited to low-income families or children deemed "at risk". Even for these groups access is not universal. There are beginning efforts toward universal access for 4-year-olds under education auspices through local government initiatives. The number of part-time state-funded pre-kindergarten programs for 3- and 4-year olds has grown significantly. Like Head Start, most of these programs are targeted at children considered to be at-risk of later school failure. Two states - New York and Georgia - have developed universal pre-kindergarten initiatives for all 4-year-olds regardless of family income. Almost all 5-year-olds attend kindergarten within the formal school system, largely part-day. 

Under 3s 

Subsidized services for under 3s is the most developed in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Belgium provides for about 30% of children under 30 months. In the past five years, the Netherlands, Norway, and more recently, the UK have significantly expanded publicly-funded services for infants and toddlers. In the U.S. private center-based ECEC and family day care is the most usual form of service for children up to age 3, but the supply is nowhere adequate to meet the demand. 

Parental Leave Policies 

With the exception of Australia and the U.S., mandatory job-protection and paid maternity and/or parental leave policies exist for working mothers in all the countries reviewed. In European countries, leave policies range from the minimal standards set by the EU Directives to the generous leave schemes available in the Nordic countries. Across OECD countries, the average duration of parental leave is 44 weeks (10 months), with paid leave lasting an average of 36 weeks. In the U.S., lack of legally guaranteed paid parental leave and limited public investment in ECEC services means that many low- and middle-income parents struggle to find high-quality, affordable arrangements for infants as young as twelve weeks old. In 2000, almost 60% of American women with children under age 1 were in the labor force. 

Financing
In almost all countries in the review, governments pay the largest share of costs, with parents covering about 25% - 30% (and significantly less in some countries such as Finland where parent fees are only 15% of operating costs). The two or three years of ECEC prior to compulsory schooling are often free. Direct provision or subsidy of services make up the bulk of government assistance in most countries. Even when the mix of public and private providers is great, a high percentage of services receive direct or indirect public funding. Affordability remains a barrier to equitable access, particularly in the U.S. where the cost burden falls on parents. ECEC is under-funded relative to other publicly-funded education program and social services. Parents pay an average of 60% of the costs (rising to 70-80% of costs of ECEC outside the school system), at a time in their life when their earnings are likely to be the lowest. For some low-income children, the U.S. Federal Government contributes 25% and States and local governments contribute about 15% of costs. Depending on the State, parents pay on average more than $3,000 annually per child for childcare, with low-income families paying on average 18% of income, and families earning less than $1,200 per month paying 25% of income. Some costs can be recuperated through Federal tax benefits for parents. Low-income families can benefit from fee subsidies through the Child Care and Development Fund block grant, but many low-income families tend to use informal and unregulated arrangements. 

Quality of Care
Child-Staff Ratio

There is a continuum going from the low child-staff ratio of center-based services in Denmark (3:1 for infants; 6:1 for pre-school), Sweden (6:1 for both infants and preschool)), Finland (4:1 for infants; 7:1 for preschool), and Norway (7:1 – 9:1 for infants; 14:1-18:1 for preschool)) to ratios commonly found in school-based services in Belgium (7:1 for infants; 18:1 for preschool), the Netherlands (4:1-6:1 for infants; 20:1 for preschool), Portugal (10:1 for infants; 15:1 for preschool), and the UK (4:1 for infants; 13:1 for preschool nursery class). Quality is an increasingly important issue in ECEC but the variations in quality in the U.S. are startling. Child-staff ratios in the United States vary from state to state and it is difficult to describe these ratios for the U.S. as a whole because of different State regulations and standards. In general: ratios of 4-6:1 are required for infants; 10-20:1 for pre-school children, with 2-3-year old children having ratios somewhere in the middle. However, because of the predominance of informal settings, especially with regard to the under 3s, and the inability of many States to inspect centers and family day care homes regularly, the actual child-staff ratios can be much higher. In fact, only 14% of centers and 13% of family childcare homes are rated as being of good quality. 

Teacher Qualifications 

There is a widespread movement toward longer and higher levels of basic training for the professional staff working with children from the age of 3, and sometimes younger. In the Western European countries, center-based and school-based staff with primary responsibility for young children are required to complete at least three years of training at the tertiary level either in universities as in Italy, Finland, Portugal, and Sweden or in higher education institutions, as in Denmark, Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands and the UK. The training situation is more varied for staff working with infants and toddlers. In Belgium, Italy and the UK, staff with group responsibility for infants and toddlers tend to have completed about two to three years of vocational training. There is currently no agreed U.S. national framework for staff qualifications, and regulations vary across states and territories. The status and pay of early childhood staff outside the public school system are low, and staff turnover is three times higher than among schoolteachers. No coherent system exists to set the qualification of early childhood workers.

Curriculum
Most countries in the review have adopted an emergent literacy approach. The emergent literacy approach encourages (play-) reading, (play-) writing, counting, scientific theory and numbers as they arise naturally from the normal interest of children. The child’s environment is enriched by symbols and literacy materials, but little attempt is made before the year immediately proceeding entry to primary school to approach literacy or numeracy in a formal manner or to evaluate children’s progress in these areas. This is the dominant approach in Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden. The U.S. emphasizes more formal instruction and assessment of literacy and numeracy skills during the early years to ensure that children will develop mastery of these important skills at the beginning of primary school. This is seen particularly in programs that target children deemed at-risk of school failure. The goals and curriculum of Head Start programs are framed by “performance standards” which endorse a comprehensive approach to fostering child development and school readiness. Recent legislation mandates more explicit attention to tracking and fostering children’s progress on specific indicators of language and literacy development. At the state level, many of the pre-kindergarten initiatives also prioritize the development of literacy and numeracy skills to ensure that children are prepared for primary school. 

Integration of Child Care and Early Childhood Education
Many countries have recognized the importance of integrating services in order to meet the wide-ranging needs of children and families, particularly those at-risk, in a holistic manner. Denmark, England, Finland, New Zealand, Scotland, Spain and Sweden have all moved toward integrating child care and early childhood education in one system. Throughout the U.S., there is increasing recognition of the fact that care and education must go together but there are only traces of it in actual operating programs.

Locating ECEC Policies and Programs under Education
In a growing number of countries (England, New Zealand, Scotland, Spain and Sweden) ECEC policies and provisions are unified under education. Public education is primarily a state responsibility within the United States. The Federal Government plays an important role, however, through Congress, which formulates ECEC policies and goals, and whose focus is primarily on funding services to children considered “at risk”. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provides most funding for social services (including the Head Start program, which is also educational) while the U.S. Department of Education funds compensatory and special education for disadvantaged 3-to-5 year olds.

Social Inclusion/ Exclusion
Most countries favor mainstreaming young children with physical, mental, and learning disabilities into ECEC services. In several countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden), there is a conscious policy to ensure that such children have priority in enrolment and additional resources are allocated to reduce child-staff ratios and to provide more individualized attention and specialized staff. The US Federal Government has been a leader for many years in promoting access and equity issues related to special education. Depending on the state, there is growing inclusion of such children. Ten percent of available places in Head Start are intended for children with disabilities (the actual percentage of children with disabilities in Head Start programs is 12 percent). Most countries recognize the role of ECEC in increasing the educational opportunities of those at risk of social exclusion, especially children in poverty or from immigrant backgrounds. As a result, many countries give additional subsidies to families or to areas in need of special support to facilitate access to ECEC, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, and the UK. In Australia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK, “bilingual assistants” work in pre-schools with new immigrant children and parents to help strengthen their home language and develop proficiency in the country language. Other countries including Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands, favor language immersion and training in the national language. Despite some decline in recent years, the U.S. continues to have the highest child poverty rate among the advanced industrialized countries and the rate is even higher among African-American and Hispanic children. Persistent poverty among young children has serious negative consequences and only further underscores the importance of these children’s access to ECEC. 

Conclusion
Dr. Sheila Kamerman commented: “Most countries are giving major attention to ECEC. This latest study shows progress at an accelerated rate almost everywhere. But the U.S. has not yet made the critical political commitment. The U.S. leads in child development research, I think it is time for us to catch up in practice.”