Kathy Sylva on how different methods in early years education research can draw different conclusions.
We know that educational inequalities set in before children start school. At age five, there is already a 19-month difference in school readiness between the very richest and the poorest children, a gap that only widens and becomes more entrenched throughout school and later in life.
The Sutton Trust is one of several organisations to argue that investing in high-quality early years education is one of the best ways to close the attainment gap before it takes hold. Their position is rooted in evidence; research has consistently shown how important good early years’ experiences are for later academic outcomes, especially for the poorest children.
But in February, academics at the London School of Economics (LSE) published an investigation into the effects of pre-school on children’s development. Their findings contradicted much of the existing research that has shown quality pre-school and early experiences have significant positive effects on outcomes. It was disheartening to see the results seized upon by some as an excuse to reduce spending in a chronically under-funded sector.
If the weight of evidence tells us that early years education from qualified practitioners does make a difference, why has this new piece of research drawn such very different conclusions?
The devil is in the detail of the research methods.
The LSE paper analyses information on about 1.8 million children born between September 2003 and August 2006 and uses data to link the development of children (aged five and seven) with the quality of their pre-schools, measured by the child’s access to a degree-level teacher and by Ofsted inspection ratings.
This large number of children analysed is the paper’s unique selling point, but it comes at the price of weak methodology.
Here are the four main reasons why:
For these reasons, we think the limitations of the LSE papers’ data and design mean it is unable to provide reliable results on pre-school effects and underestimates the effects of pre-school quality and staffing.
By contrast a recent review of the international literature found consistent, although modest, effects of pre-school quality on children’s developmental outcomes. The observations reported in the review required highly trained researchers using validated research instruments. Moreover, the child outcomes were finely differentiated tests and rating scales, not broad brush teacher assessments.
Another recent study found an association between teacher qualifications and systematically observed quality in England and Finland, but not in other countries. Again, the measure of quality was systematically observed by trained researchers using research validated instruments.
I would urge anyone involved in policymaking or the early years to put the LSE study in the context of the wider research base – a research base that overwhelmingly tells us that good quality early years education matters. If we are to improve social mobility, that evidence says we must find ways to achieve high quality. There is only one thing more expensive than investing in high quality early education – and that is NOT investing in it!
Kathy Sylva is Professor of Education at the Department of Education at the University of Oxford.
If you're a journalist with a question about our work, get in touch with Sam or Rocky on the number below. The number is also monitored out of hours.
E: [email protected] T: 0204 536 4642