A question of quality: do children from disadvantaged backgrounds receive lower quality early childhood education and care?

Abstract

LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author's final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. 1A question of quality: Do children from disadvantaged backgrounds receive lower quality early childhood education and care? accessed by three and four year olds in England varies by children's background.Focusing on the free entitlement to early education, the analysis combines information from three administrative datasets for 2010-11, the Early Years Census, the Schools Census and the Ofsted inspections dataset, to obtain two main indicators of quality: staff qualification levels and Ofsted ratings. These data are combined with child-level indicators of area deprivation (IDACI scores) as a proxy measure of children's background.The paper finds that children from more disadvantaged areas have access to better qualified staff, largely because they are more likely than children from richer areas to attend maintained nursery classes staffed by teachers, and less likely to attend services in the private, voluntary and independent (PVI) sectors.However, within both maintained and PVI sectors, services catering for more disadvantaged children receive poorer quality ratings from Ofsted, with a higher concentration of children from disadvantaged areas itself appearing to reduce the likelihood of top Ofsted grades. This may be in part because Ofsted ratings reflect levels of child development, and therefore reward settings where children enter at a more advanced starting point, but it may also be that it is genuinely harder to deliver an outstanding service to a more disadvantaged intake. The Questions therefore remain about the extent to which quality of provision is consistent across the sector. 4Our focus in this paper is on the way in which variations in quality are associated with children's background. If early education is to play a role in ensuring a more equal starting point for children from different backgrounds, it is important that the highest quality provision is accessible for the children who need it most. We ask how far this appears to be the case in practice in England. Are children who experience disadvantage at home more or less likely than children from richer households to access the highest quality early education?To address this question we combine information from three administrative dat...

‘Universal’ early education: Who benefits? Patterns in take‐up of the entitlement to free early education among three‐year‐olds in England

“…Recent research into the universal offer has focused largely on this question of quality, examining disparities between settings and the way this affects children from disadvantaged backgrounds in particular (e.g. Mathers & Smees, ; Gambaro et al ., ). Blanden et al .…”

Parental choice of childcare in England: Choosing in phases and the split market

“…Furthermore, they have to organise a full‐day service which cannot be covered by the 30 free hours, and the fees for additional hours are growing by a larger rate than their wage (BBC News, ). The research findings that private and voluntary providers are generally of lower quality (Gambaro et al ., ; Melhuish & Gardiner, ) are relevant here, given the middle‐class parents’ reliance on this sector. We argue that full‐time working middle‐class parents are operating in a particular, distinct position in the childcare market, unless they have a more flexible schedule or enough income to combine a nanny with nursery school or a school‐based nursery class.…”

“…For example, Raikes et al's (2012) analysis reported 'whether the provider was licensed or accredited' as one of the key criteria used by American parents, while this may not apply to countries where there is a compulsory registration and inspection system, such as in the UK. Surprisingly, although it is now well established from a variety of research that a complex and unequal pattern of childcare use amongst English parents exists (Vincent & Ball, 2001, 2006Vincent et al, 2004Vincent et al, , 2010Gambaro et al, 2015;Speight et al, 2015;Huskinson et al, 2016), there has been little detailed investigation of current parental childcare choosing processes given the unique English childcare market features. For example, the extent to which parents consult Ofsted reports has remained unclear.…”

What characteristics of funding, provision and regulation are associated with effective social investment in ECEC in England, France and Germany?

“…In England, only maintained nursery schools and nursery classes (not private providers) must employ qualified teachers. One consequence is that three-and four-year-old children from more disadvantaged areas have access to better qualified staff, as they are more likely than those from richer areas to attend nursery classes (Gambaro et al, 2015). In Germany, the majority of pedagogical staff in childcare centres in Western and Eastern Länder are pre-primary 'educators' (Erzieher/in) (73% and 87%) (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2018a), with a three-year post-secondary vocational qualification (OECD, 2016d).…”