International agencies have stressed the importance of early childhood development in improving child well-being and combating poverty. Many such programmes, however, are shaped by western models of parenting and child-rearing. Exaggerated claims of success may also lead to inappropriate interventions.

The first goal of the World Education Forum’s Education for All initiative is “expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, especially for the most vulnerable children”. Early childhood development (ECD) may take the form of nursery education, child care and health programmes. But little progress is being made. As currently delivered, ECD is not challenging inequality.

Most evidence about the effectiveness of ECD in influencing cognitive, social and economic outcomes for children is taken from experiments with white middle class children in North America and Europe. Across the world, ECD programmes are designed using a standard manual from the United States. Using the same methods in developing countries is likely to be simplistic, inaccurate or ineffective.

A paper from the Childhood Poverty Research and Policy Centre in the UK examines how development agencies design health, nutrition, education and parenting skills programmes. Case studies look at ECD in two middle-income states. In Kazakhstan, the Soviet system of kindergartens has broken down. In Swaziland’s hierarchical society kindergarten services are limited to children whose parents can pay for adequate services.

The author shows that:

• ECD programmes most widely cited as successful were all well-funded but this is not the case in developing countries.
• In developing countries ECD interventions supported by international agencies are generally low cost and low quality.
• Donor emphasis on working with the parents of young children, and encouraging them to ‘stimulate’ their children, is partly inspired by misunderstood research on brain development.
• Many ECD schemes in developing countries do not target poor people and are frequently converted into fee-paying institutions serving those who can afford it.
• ECD, especially in the form of child care provision, may provide practical support for children in extreme poverty.

On its own, ECD in its current form is unlikely to reduce poverty or improve the long-term prospects of individual children.

Policy makers need to realise that:

• Interpretations of ECD may differ considerably across countries and cultures, so it is impossible to provide globally relevant ECD guidelines.
• Child care schemes must be linked to existing local systems of education and health and evolve according to local and national expectations and norms.
• To be effective, ECD programmes must address problems faced by women in difficult circumstances.
• Over reliance on parental education projects and low-cost home-based care may maintain inequalities.
• More evaluation and monitoring are required to assess programme effectiveness.

Source(s):
‘Childcare and early childhood development programmes and policies: their relationship to eradicating child poverty’ by Helen Penn, CHIP Report 8, Childhood Poverty Research and Policy Centre, 2004 Full document.
'Unequal Childhoods: Young Children's Lives in Poor Countries', by Helen Penn, Routledge, 2005

Funded by: Save the Children UK

id21 Research Highlight: 25 July 2005

Further Information:
Helen Penn
School of Education and Community Studies
University of East London
Longbridge Rd
Essex RM9 2AS
UK

Tel: 44 (0) 208 223 7672
Fax: 44 (0) 208 223 2882
Contact the contributor: h.penn@uel.ac.uk

University of East London, UK

Childhood Poverty Research and Policy Centre (CHIP)
c/o Save the Children UK
1 St. John's Lane
London EC1M 4BL
UK

Tel: 44 (0) 20 7703 5400
Fax: 44 (0) 20 7793 7630
Contact the contributor: chip@scfuk.org.uk

Childhood Poverty Research and Policy Centre, UK

Other related links:
'Make childhood poverty history'

'Is subsidised childcare working in Guatemala City?'

'‘We were born poor and we’ll die poor’ - Escaping poverty cycles'

'Preparing for Schools and Schools for Children' from The Consultative Group on Early Childhood Care and Development