6.1 Early Learning as a Bridge Linking Two Systems

Toward Quality Early Learning: Systems for Success | 247

Many—but Two Focal—Systems

To begin to address systemic challenges associated with early learning services, it must be acknowledged that the “mess” was not created by any single program or discipline. Consequently, its solution must be grounded in multiple disciplines and the institutional systems that bring them to reality. Many systems influence young children, including the family system, the (embryonic in most countries) ECEC system, the education system, the health system, the welfare system, the neighborhood or housing system, and the economic and political systems. Despite their distinct functions, structures, and cultures, they all are supported by public policies that often reinforce their insularity and render them somewhat impervious to change. Embedded in the social and operational fabric of countries, they all influence young children, albeit to different degrees.

But do all these systems affect early learning services, the focus of this volume, to the same degree? Throughout this volume, and as noted, early learning services refer to the array of activities that children ages three to six experience when they are in center-based education services outside the home; such services primarily focus on developing and delivering pedagogical opportunities to advance young children’s learning. Using this definition, early learning services around the world are delivered through two main systems: ECEC and education (figure 6.1). Some countries deliver

Figure 6.1 Early Learning as a Bridge Linking Two Systems

ECEC SYSTEM

EARLY LEARNING EDUCATION SYSTEM

248 | Quality Early Learning

most early learning services through an ECEC system, other countries deliver them through the national or local education system, and others use a combination of the two.3

Irrespective of which system has the legal authority for early learning, alignment between the ECEC and education systems is critical. But each of these systems has its own perspectives, values, methodologies, and pedagogies; as a result, the systems are often hesitant to change. Moreover, and as noted herein, alignment efforts have typically primarily addressed pedagogical and program alignment, with scant attention accorded to alignment of systemic elements that compose the infrastructure. In contrast, and presenting a fresh perspective, this chapter contends that, to achieve alignment and to scale early learning services, all elements of the infrastructure must also be aligned. To accomplish this alignment, and as a prelude to discussing how early learning can be implemented and scaled, the chapter discusses and provides examples of ECEC systems, describes their elements, and then discusses the education system. By presenting each system individually, the chapter aims to sketch their contextual and operational distinctions, identify the position of early learning within them, and, critical to the thesis of this chapter, more clearly determine the systemic challenges that need to be addressed and aligned to advance and scale early learning services.

The ECEC system

ECEC system efforts in action. In comparison with the education system, the emergence of ECEC systems is quite recent and, in some countries, still nascent. However embryonic, ECEC systems are gaining popularity and emerging across the globe in response to the expansion of services for young children and their families. As new research promoted increased funding for ECEC programs in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, many countries—particularly present-day high-income countries, but low- and middle-income countries as well—expanded their services for young children. Often such expansion took place somewhat hurriedly, typically with limited long-term planning and under the aegis of different ministries. Rapid expansion, although welcome, had diverse side effects, including questionable quality, inequitable distribution among populations, and uncertainty regarding programmatic distinctions, availability, and accessibility for parents, the public, and policy makers. These sometimes chaotic and often confusing conditions propelled the need for a more systematic and efficient approach to service delivery. ECEC systems were born of necessity to coordinate often disparate and burgeoning services.

Long advocated in the United States (Kagan and Cohen 1997; Sugarman 1991), ECEC systems work is now being implemented globally. For example, Chile Crece Contigo, a major systems initiative in Chile, coordinates efforts among the Ministry of Social Development and other line ministries,

Toward Quality Early Learning: Systems for Success | 249

with the goal of promoting consistent management and regulation of services. In Colombia, De Cero a Siempre coordinates ECEC among different agencies, with both national and subnational coordinating mechanisms. Singapore consolidated ECEC from the Ministries of Education, Health, and Community, Youth, and Sports to create a single Early Childhood Development Agency in 2013 (Bull and Bautista 2018). In the Republic of Korea, although there is no single governance entity, the Office of Government Policy Coordination (part of the Prime Minister’s Secretariat) has been tasked with coordinating efforts between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health and Welfare (Moon and Landsberg 2018). And in Hong Kong SAR, China, despite its strong private sector orientation, the government recognizes systemic differences and fosters alignment of programs through economic incentives (Rao and Lau 2018).

Understanding ECEC systems. Beyond these implementation efforts, ECEC systems work is receiving scholarly attention. Often launched with the goal of better understanding systems, discerning their impact, and producing data that will improve their quality, such studies in countries around the world complement efforts in the field (Adams et al. 2019; Araujo et al. 2016; Bertram and Pascal 2016; Kagan et al. 2016; Kagan and Landsberg 2019; Meloy, Gardner, and Darling-Hammond 2019; Neuman, Roth, and Kagan, forthcoming; OECD 2001, 2017a, 2017b; Vargas-Barón 2013; Weiland and Yoshikawa 2013; World Bank 2018). To garner a contemporary perspective on this issue, a recent comparative analysis examines ECEC systems and their infrastructure in six jurisdictions—Australia; England; Finland; Hong Kong SAR, China; Korea; and Singapore (Kagan and Landsberg 2019).

In all these high-performing countries, the study finds that, although the direct services and the ministries under whose auspices they operate varied considerably, the countries demonstrated strong infrastructure commitments in five pillar areas: strong policy foundations (pillar I); durable funding and governance structures (pillar II); knowledgeable and supported workforce and families (pillar III); informed, individualized, and continuous pedagogy (pillar IV); and data that are used to drive improvement (pillar V). Moreover, the study finds that, under ideal circumstances, these five pillars would be supported by 15 well-defined and well-implemented building blocks, as depicted in figure 6.2.

Noting that not all countries implemented each of the 15 building blocks in the same way or to the same degree, the study acknowledges the importance of conceptualizing systems that include all 15 blocks, with the understanding that specific implementation patterns and processes will vary. First, under ideal conditions, building a functional ECEC system requires a strong policy foundation, defined as one that recognizes both the social and economic importance of investing in young children. Countries with strong policy foundations also respect the distinct needs of families, communities,