There is a large consensus among international organisations (e.g., United Nations and the World Bank) in considering Early Childhood Care and Education a prominent policy to equalise opportunities. Moreover, it is common opinion that interventions in early childhood aiming at equalising 'opportunities' rather than 'outcomes' will overcome political dissent. These two claims draw upon a particular interpretation of the work of contemporary egalitarian philosophers, as well as a number of studies in both developed and developing countries, finding higher benefits for disadvantaged children. Despite the tradition of analysing welfare provision from an equality perspective, the shift towards early childhood education as an equality policy has not yet fully been analysed. We critically examine the consensus advocated by international organisations regarding Early Childhood Care and Education as key to 'levelling the playing field' and suggest that the first claim (early childhood as greatest equaliser) should be considered with caution. We also argue that the alleged consensus on this claim may lead to a depoliticisation of social policy.

No abstract

This article aims to explore the relations between equality of opportunity and early childhood. By referring to the work of contemporary philosophers, i.e. Rawls, Sen, Dworkin, Cohen and Roemer, we argue for different possible interpretations, based on political discussions, concerning how to operationalize equality of opportunities. We represent these diverging options on a continuum, ranging from Responsibility‐oriented Equality of Opportunity (REOp) and Circumstances‐oriented Equality of Opportunity (CEOp). We then analyse how early childhood care and education policies can be constructed in relation to these conceptualisations and argue that the CEOp is a more plausible interpretative framework to operationalize equality of opportunity in early childhood.

No abstract

No abstract