Early Childhood Education in the U.S. and U.K.: A Comparative Review

Introduction

Early childhood education (ECE) is becoming an issue of greater importance in nations all over the world. Levine (2005, p. 196) points out that globalization and technological innovation have, in many ways, been the great equalizers, transforming social, political, and economic relationships within and among both developed and developing countries. It is imperative, Levine writes, to "recognize the urgent need for greater investment in preschool education — an essential engine for expanding human potential and accelerating economic growth" (p. 196). The United States lags behind other nations in its commitment to provide standardized, quality early childhood education programs to its population. Children of the United Kingdom have fared better, though there is still work to be done.

The purpose of this paper is to look critically at ECE programs in the United States and the United Kingdom. Current literature will be reviewed and the programs of the two nations will also be evaluated against programs in other nations. By looking at current best practices and identifying gaps, it is possible to draw conclusions about the state of ECE in the U.S. and the U.K. and make some recommendations for future study.

Background on Early Childhood Education

Early childhood education in the United States has a long history of changing roles and revised goals (Kagan and Reid 2009, p. 572). It has been charged that the same is true in the United Kingdom, with both nations lagging behind the practices, programs, and government support found in other European nations (Moss 1999, p. 230). Focus in and on ECE has experienced a number of shifts in response to changing social, economic, and political events. In the U.S., for example, there were Infant Schools in the early days of the republic, designed to help the children of indigent families with the goal of reversing the effects of generational poverty. Depression-era nursery schools, likewise government-funded, were designed largely to address the same need, as has been the intent of the more modern program, Head Start.

The origins of the current British system stem from "long-forgotten 19th-century political considerations" (Moss 1999, p. 231). In some ways, the long history of ECE in the U.S. and the U.K. has been its downfall. Early childhood education, comparatively new in developing nations such as China, Egypt, and Brazil, has been better able to address current needs without having to make large paradigm shifts. It may be easier to start fresh than to revise and restructure systems that have long been entrenched.

The Advantages of Early Childhood Education

The benefits of early childhood education are not in dispute. Research in a variety of disciplines demonstrates how and why high-quality ECE makes a difference. Levine (2005, p. 197) summarized key points supported by numerous studies: (1) in the first five years of life, children acquire the "building blocks" of subsequent development; (2) the "growth trajectory" gains momentum, fostering development in a child's learning, health, and emotional growth; (3) long-term economic benefits in developing nations have already been demonstrated; and (4) low-income families in the U.S. have particularly benefited from quality ECE programs, with proven outcomes that include increased achievement, decreased rates of grade retention, fewer referrals for special education, and reductions in crime, delinquency, and dropout rates.

The findings of Bruder (2009, p. 340) support the work of many others in various child-related disciplines, reporting that over fifty years of research demonstrates the benefits of early education with respect to children with disabilities. It seems clear that ECE has a significant and positive effect for all children and serves to bridge a gap between the average child and those who are disadvantaged, whether because of socioeconomic background or physical or cognitive impairments. Research on children in the U.S. and the U.K. can be generalized to populations throughout the world, whether they are the children of developed nations such as Canada, Japan, Australia, and the highly developed nations of Europe, middle-income nations such as China and Mexico, or low-income nations such as India, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Indonesia.

With the benefits of ECE so strongly supported by research, it is difficult to understand why American and British systems have floundered. The findings reviewed for this paper support the conclusion that ECE is valued, at least rhetorically, but numerous challenges to systematic implementation of quality programs remain as experts and policymakers continue to debate large issues such as delivery, standardization, assessment, and funding. No one would argue that children — our future — are anything but vitally important, and yet ECE does not always receive the prominent attention it deserves, nor the immediacy of action that is required.

ECE in the United States and the United Kingdom

One of the central issues with respect to ECE in the U.S. is a fundamental one: whether young children should be served outside their homes at all (Kagan & Reid 2009, p. 573). The founding ideology of the U.S. is linked to the notion of freedom and what Kagan and Reid (2009, p. 573) call the "mantra" of the primacy and privacy of the home. ECE programs never enjoyed the same legitimacy as K–12 education and have often had to justify their very existence. Until fairly recently — perhaps the past fifty years — the majority of women stayed at home with their young children, educating them according to their own abilities, cultural norms, and personal preferences. As more and more women have joined the workforce, childcare and early childhood education programs have received greater attention. However, perceptions of need have ebbed and flowed, as has federal funding. The result, as Kagan and Reid (2009, p. 573) point out, is a significant deficit in the "three essential mainstays" of quality ECE programs: vision, permanence, and infrastructure.

There has long been a disparity in programs and target populations. Federally supported programs have been geared toward children from low-income families, while the private sector has catered to children from middle- and upper-income families. Since there is no consensus on the mission of ECE, the problem is exacerbated. There are questions as to whether ECE should focus on care or on socialization and education. One could fairly argue that a quality program does both, but when children's levels of preparedness vary because of cultural and socioeconomic factors, the questions surrounding equity and standardization become even more problematic.

In the U.K., education is compulsory from the age of five. In the U.S., that is equivalent to students beginning kindergarten, which is mandated at the state level and therefore inconsistent nationwide. Not all states have compulsory kindergarten, and even within states, availability can vary by district and by whether full- or half-day programs are offered. In Britain and in the U.S., children sometimes begin their compulsory education at the age of four when parents assert their preference. Young students thus come to school at various stages of developmental readiness, a diversity in kindergarten classes that stems partly from this variation and partly from school readiness as shaped by prior ECE experiences.

The concept of early childhood — defined as the first six years of life and constituting the first stage of the education system — was adopted in Spain in 1990 (Moss 1999, p. 231). The distinction is an important one, and one toward which many nations, including Britain and the U.S., are moving. When ECE is viewed as the first stage in education, it gains credibility and importance as a component of the entire education system. If it is not viewed in this way, ECE remains a separate entity. Focus will remain on parental choice — most often in the cases of upper-income families where mothers stay at home or can afford in-home help — and on addressing the needs of lower-income children as a way to bridge socioeconomic gaps. This focus will do little to support efforts to standardize ECE and make it equally accessible and beneficial to all children. Valentine, Thomson, and Antcliff (2009, p. 211) suggest that partnerships between the for-profit and non-profit sectors may be one solution, although their research and experiences in Australia may not generalize easily to populations in the U.K. and particularly in the U.S., where there are greater numbers of children and greater cultural diversity.

Davis (2010, p. 286) argues that much of the controversy about programs and implementation in the U.K. stems from long-standing philosophical traditions about the period from infancy to age seven — the so-called "age of reason." Earlier models of ECE were framed largely from an aristocratic perspective in which "relatively distant parental figures have outsourced their educational and emotional responsibilities to a range of professional nurses, tutors and mentors" (Davis 2010, p. 286). Although this has been less characteristic of the United States, given the nation's shorter history and heightened efforts in the last fifty years to make programs and access more equitable, both the U.S. and the U.K. must redouble their efforts to bring quality ECE to their nations' children.

Conclusion

Early childhood education programs around the world have proven to be effective in enhancing the cognitive, emotional, social, and physical development of children. Although there remains some debate, particularly in the U.S., that children fare better under total parental care in the early years, there are no longitudinal studies that support this claim. There are too many variables — from parents' educational, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds to the myriad variables inherent in the ECE system itself, including program responses to the diverse needs of different populations. Experts agree that children benefit from quality ECE programs; the challenge is to bring such programs into existence and ensure their sustainability.