Measuring the Quality of Early Childhood Education in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Abstract

Young children’s access to early childhood education (ECE) is increasing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), though often without attention to service quality. Monitoring quality requires classroom observations, but most observation tools available were developed in high-income western countries. In this article, we examine key issues in measuring ECE quality in LMICs and consider challenges and opportunities in balancing theoretical grounding, cultural- and contextual-adaptation, and empirical rigor. We then review the literature on observed classroom quality in LMICs, focusing on process quality. We find limited evidence that the constructs identified in high-income countries replicate in LMICs. Further, the very limited evidence that ECE quality measures used in LMICs predict child outcomes is almost exclusively cross-sectional and associations are mixed. We conclude by discussing how future research can build a stronger knowledge base about ECE quality and child development globally.

Profiles of Quality in Three Distinct Early Childhood Programs Using the Brief Early Childhood Quality Inventory (BEQI)

“…Although empirical and theoretical work outlines key aspects of quality, there is little work documenting quality in diverse early childhood settings (Chen & Wolf, 2021). Some work has raised the question of whether cross-cultural definitions of quality are appropriate or desirable, given the diversity in child-rearing values and goals around the world (Dahlberg et al, 1999;Myers, 2004).…”

“…A small set of tools has often been used to measure quality in early childhood settings: the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (Pianta et al, 2008) and the Early Childhood Environmental Ratings Scales (ECERS) (Harms et al, 1998). Chen and Wolf, (2021) offer a brief review of measurement specifically within low-and middle-income countries and Burchinal (2018) outlines commentary on use of existing scales within high-income countries. Although these measures were originally designed for high-income countries, adaptations are often used in lowand middle-income countries (Fernald et al, 2017).…”

“…Although these measures were originally designed for high-income countries, adaptations are often used in lowand middle-income countries (Fernald et al, 2017). Two recently developed tools, the Measuring Early Learning Environments Scale (MELE) (UNESCO, 2017) and the Teacher Instructional Practices and Processes System (TIPPS) (Seidman et al, 2014), were designed specifically for low-and middle-income country settings and have been used in several countries (Chen & Wolf, 2021;Ponguta et al, 2020;Raikes et al, 2020). Across all scales, there is an emphasis on capturing professional/ child interactions, and the extent to which early childhood professionals scaffold children's learning; engage in rich, stimulating discussions; and meet the developmental needs of children in ECCE settings.…”

“…The purpose of this study is to respond to the stated need for new approaches to cross-contextual quality measurement (Chen & Wolf, 2021) by providing descriptive information on a set of evidence-based practices in early childhood educational settings in three distinct country contexts: the USA (high income), Liberia (low income), and Colombia (upper middle income) (World Bank, 2021). The study design employed draws on principles of mixed-method research by highlighting the need to understand contextual influences on ECCE quality especially in real-life ECCE settings (Creswell et al, 2011).…”

Building inclusive preschool classrooms: How desirable and feasible is a set of strategies that facilitate teacher-child relationships?

“…Positive outcomes have been found for young children across samples of varying risk level, including those with and without disabilities, and across different socio-economic backgrounds, including those from low and middle-income countries (Rhoad-Drogalis et al, 2018;Chen and Wolf, 2021;Goldberg and Iruka, 2022). Studies around the world (e.g., Europe, China, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ghana, Greece, Latin America and the Caribbean, Kenya, Turkey, and the United States) have reported these associations using both crosssectional and longitudinal study designs (e.g., Lazzari et al, 2013;Yoshikawa et al, 2015;Gregoriadis et al, 2016;Kagan et al, 2016;Mungai et al, 2017;Soliday Hong and Udommana, 2018;Acar et al, 2019;Bernal et al, 2019;Ponguta et al, 2019;Rosa and Menezes, 2019;Wolf et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2020;Wang et al, 2020;Önder et al, 2020;Hu et al, 2021;Yang et al, 2021;Bartholo et al, 2022).…”