Why is Quality ECEC important? Evidence from research Siraj 14 … · appear to improve quality and...
Transcript of Why is Quality ECEC important? Evidence from research Siraj 14 … · appear to improve quality and...
15th September,
GLASGOW, SCOTLAND
Why is Quality ECEC important? Evidence
from research
Iram Siraj
Professor of Child Development & Education
University of Oxford
Twitter: @SirajIram
Principal Investigators: Kathy Sylva1, Edward Melhuish1, Pam Sammons1,Iram Siraj1 and Brenda Taggart2
1University of Oxford; 2Institute of Education, University of London
A longitudinal study funded by the UK Dept for Education, Sutton Trust
‘Effective Pre-School, Primary and Secondary Education’ (EPPSE )
1997 – 2016
3+ years
Key Stage 1
600
schools
Key Stage 2
800
schools
Key Stage 3
800
schools
Effective Preschool, Primary and Secondary Education (EPPSE) design
6 Local Regions, 141 preschools, 3,000 children
34 playgroups (voluntary)
610 children
31 private day nurseries
520 children
20 nursery schools
520 children
7 children’s (integrated) centres
190 children
24 local authority day care nurseries
430 children
Home
310 children
25 nursery classes in schools
590 children
Age 5 - 7 Age 7 - 11 Age 11 - 16
Assessments age 3-11 years(age 16 and age 18 followed)
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL DATA
Assessment Age 3 5 6 7 10 11
Cognitive assessments√ √
√ NFER
tests
√ National
Assessment
√ NFER
tests √ National
Assessment
Social/behavioural profiles √ √ √ √ √ √
Home Learning Environment (HLE) √ Early
years
HLE
√ KS1
HLE
√ KS2
HLE
Pupils’ self-report √ √
Community characteristics/
neighbourhood √ √
PRE-SCHOOL/SCHOOL LEVEL DATA
Institution characteristics –
quality and effectiveness√ √ Across KS2
Academic effectiveness √ Across KS2
Additional information in sub-sample of 125 schools:
Observation / Teacher report:
classroom/school processes,
quality of teaching
√
Ofsted judgements of school √ Across KS2
Many influences on child outcomes at age 5, 7, 11 & 16
Child Factors
Family
Factors
Home-
Learning-
Environment
Primary SchoolPre-School
Cognitive outcomes:English & maths tests
Social/Behavioural outcomes: extended Goodman
Self RegulationLikes to work things out for selfPro-socialConsiderate of others feelingsHyperactivityRestless, cannot stay still for longAnti-social Fights with other children
Key take-home messages….
• If children come from disadvantaged backgrounds they are ‘at risk’ of social problems, then high quality pre-school/early years will make an important contribution to improving their social development, esp. boys.
• Children with no pre-school experience (the ‘home’ group) had poorer intellectual attainment, sociability and concentration when they started school, even after taking account of home background.
• More terms in pre-school (after the age of 2 years) is related to better cognitive and social progress (dose effect).
• Children who attend pre-school settings part-time develop as well as those children attending full-time
• Pre-school Attendance and quality
• predicted emergent literacy (pre-reading)
ECERS-R
Based on observation
7 sub-scales:
Space and furnishings
Personal care routines
Language reasoning
Activities
Interaction
Programme structure
Parents and staff
Harms, Clifford & Cryer (1998)
ECERS-E
Based on observation
4 sub-scales:
Literacy
Mathematics
Science and environment
Diversity
Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart (2010)
Two Early Childhood Environment Observation Rating Scales
Example of Rating the ERS
Inadequate Minimal Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Example ECERS-E item: Book and literacy areas (Literacy)
Inadequate Minimal Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.1 Books are
unattractive and/or not
of a suitable age level
3.1 Some books of
different kinds are
available
5.1 A variety of types of
book are available
7.1 Book area is
comfortable (rug and
cushions or comfortable
seating) and filled with a
wide range of books at
many levels of
complexity
3.2 An easily accessible
area of the room is set
aside for books
5.2 Book area used
independently by
children (outside group
reading times)
7.2 Adults encourage
children to use books
and direct them to the
book area
3.3 Some reading takes
place in the book area
7.3 Books are included
in learning areas outside
of the book corner
Example ECERS-E item: Food preparation (Science)
Inadequate Minimal Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.1 No preparation of
food/drink is undertaken
in front of children
3.1 Food preparation is
undertaken by staff in
front of the children
5.1 Food preparation /
cooking activities are
provided regularly
7.1 A variety of cooking
activities in which all
children may take part
are provided regularly
3.2 Some children can
choose to participate in
food preparation
5.2 Most of the children
have the opportunity to
participate in food
preparation
7.2 The ingredients are
attractive and the end
result is edible and
appreciated
3.3 Some food-related
discussion takes place
where appropriate
5.3 The staff lead
discussion about the
food involved and use
appropriate language
7.3 The staff lead and
encourage discussion on
the process of food
preparation and/or
question children about it
5.4 Children are
encouraged to use more
than one sense (feel,
smell, taste) to explore
raw ingredients
Duration and quality of preschool make a difference
Value added fixed effects models
12
Pre-literacy : phono awareness plus letter ID
Developmental advantage (in months of development) on pre-literacy at school entry: age 5
The impact of Pre-school quality (ECERS-E) on
English & Mathematics in Year 6
0.12
0.22
0.29
0.12
0.26
0.34
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
Low Quality Medium Quality High Quality
English
Mathematics
Net Effect of Quality (ECERS-E) of Pre-School
on English and Mathematics at Age 11
Eff
ect
Siz
e
Reference Group:
Home Children
The impact of pre-school pedagogical quality (ECERS-E) on English and Mathematics SATs: controlled for pre-test at baseline and
family and child co-variates
There is no effect of the ECERS-R on English or Mathematics at age 11. (However there was an effect on
social behavioural outcomes)
Effects of the global quality (ECERS-R) on academic attainment
The impact of Pre-school quality (ECERS-R and ECERS-E) on
Self regulation and Pro-social Behaviour
0.00 0.00
0.06
0.02
0.15
0.17
0.240.25
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-R)
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-E)
Eff
ect
Siz
es:
Self
-reg
ula
tio
n
Home children - Reference group Low quality Medium quality High quality
0.00 0.00
0.06
0.02
0.15
0.17
0.240.25
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-R)
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-E)
Eff
ect
Siz
es:
Self
-reg
ula
tio
n
Home children - Reference group Low quality Medium quality High quality
0.00 0.00
0.16 0.160.15
0.18
0.28
0.23
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-R)
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-E)
Eff
ect
Siz
es:
Pro
-so
cia
l B
eh
avio
ur
Home children - Reference group Low quality Medium quality High quality
0.00 0.00
0.16 0.160.15
0.18
0.28
0.23
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-R)
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-E)
Eff
ect
Siz
es:
Pro
-so
cia
l B
eh
avio
ur
Home children - Reference group Low quality Medium quality High quality
The impact of pre-school quality (ECERS-R and ECERS-E) on self-regulation at age 11 after controlling for co-variates
The impact of Pre-school quality (ECERS-R and ECERS-E) on
Hyperactivity and Anti-social Behaviour
0.00 0.00
0.22 0.22
0.17
0.14
-0.01
0.02
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-R)
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-E)
Eff
ect
Siz
es:
Hyp
eracti
vit
y
Home children - Reference group Low quality Medium quality High quality
0.00 0.00
0.22 0.22
0.17
0.14
-0.01
0.02
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-R)
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-E)
Eff
ect
Siz
es:
Hyp
eracti
vit
y
Home children - Reference group Low quality Medium quality High quality
0.00 0.00
-0.05
-0.08-0.08-0.10
-0.23-0.22
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-R)
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-E)
Eff
ect
Siz
es:
An
ti-s
ocia
l b
eh
avio
ur
Home children - Reference group Low quality Medium quality High quality
0.00 0.00
-0.05
-0.08-0.08-0.10
-0.23-0.22
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-R)
Pre-school Quality
(ECERS-E)
Eff
ect
Siz
es:
An
ti-s
ocia
l b
eh
avio
ur
Home children - Reference group Low quality Medium quality High quality
The impact of pre-school quality (ECERS-R and ECERS-E) on anti-social behaviour at age 11
Short term impact – Aged 5
(entry to school) Social-behavioural
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Cooperation and
conformity
Independence and
concentration
Peer sociability
Effe
ct siz
e
....the benefits last
Reading KS1, age 7 : Self regulation, KS2, age 10 :
social class and attendance at pre-school quality of pre-school and social behaviours
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.8
Effe
ct s
ize
in s
tan
dar
d d
evia
tio
n u
nit
sLiteracy
Numeracy
Effects upon Age 11; literacy and numeracy
Pre-school Quality and Self-regulation and Pro-social behaviour (age 11 and 14)
Self-regulation
Low
0.05
0.00
0.15
0.10
0.25
0.20
0.30
MediumHigh
Pro-social behaviour
Effe
ct s
ize
0.02
0.17
0.25
0.16
0.18
0.23
Pre-school quality
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8E
ffec
t si
ze
Literacy
Numeracy
Effect sizes for 16 year olds
Quality of relational pedagogy matters:
Caregiver Interaction Scale (Arnett)
• Positive relationships is a subscale made up of 10 items
indicating warmth and enthusiasm interaction with children by
the caregiver.
• Punitiveness is a subscale made up of 8 items indicating
harsh or over-controlling behaviour in interaction with children
by the caregiver.
• Permissiveness is a subscale made up of 4 items indicating
avoidance of discipline and control of children by the caregiver.
• Detachment is a subscale made up of 4 items indicating lack
of involvement in interaction with children by the caregiver.
Pre-
reading
Early
number
concepts
Independence
&
Concentration
Co-operation
& Conformity
Peer
Sociability
Positive
relationships + + + + +
Punitiveness
- - -
Permissive
- - - -
Detachment
- - - -
Impact of quality as measured by the Caregivers Interaction Scale on cognitive and social behaviour outcomes
Summary
• Early years shape future development
• Pre-schooling is vital component of a successful society
• High quality pre-school boosts outcomes
• Disadvantaged children experience poorer quality education across phases
• The maintained sector, with better leadership and qualified teachers, is better positioned to drive quality improvements which matter most for disadvantaged children
• Further work on pedagogy, assessment and workforce will strengthen quality – simply focussing on curriculum is not enough.
25
Parents as Home-based Pedagogues
Early years Home Learning Environment (HLE)
being read to
painting and drawing
going to the library
playing with letters/numbers
learning activities with the alphabet
learning activities with numbers/shapes
learning activities with songs/poems/nursery rhymes
Early Years Home Learning3+
Pre-school quality and Effectiveness3-5 years
Literacyages 7, 11, 14
Numeracyages 7, 11, 14
Self-regulationat age 5
Pathways to attainment in literacy and numeracy
DVD
EasyPeasy clips… Parents…..
Components of self regulation
Emotional (not improved) • Is calm and easy going• Gets over being upset quickly• Waits their turn in activities• Usually obeys instructions or requests• Argues with adults (reversed)• Often loses temper, has tantrums (reversed)• Shows wide mood swings (reversed)
Behavioural (not improved)• Fidgets or squirms a lot (reversed)• Waits their turn in activities• Gets over excited (reversed)• Usually obeys instructions or requests• Argues with adults (reversed)• Restless, does not keep still for long (reversed)• Cooperates with requests• Is impulsive, acts without thinking (reversed)
Cognitive (significantly
improved in EasyPeasy RCT)
• Persists with difficult tasks• Chooses activities on their own• Does not need much help with
tasks• Persists with tasks until completed• Waits their turn in activities• Likes to work things out for self
Questionnaire from Howard, Melhuish
Early Years Toolkit
Intentionality (Pianta, 2003)
‘Directed, designed interactions between children and teachers in which teachers purposefully challenge, scaffold and extend children’s skills’
30
Summary
• Emerging concensus on adding ‘soft skills’ to ECE curriculum (CARE 2015, 2016)
• Certain types of PD to support play/games/interactions appear to improve quality and self regulation (Siraj et al 2017, Sylva and Richards 2016, in small RCT on EasyPeasy app but more research needed)
• Pre-school quality (and duration) leads to improved self regulation in English EPPSE sample
• Global v pedagogical quality?
31
Family of UK/European CLIQRS scales look at:
• Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale –Extension (ECERS-E) (3 to 5 years)
• Sustained Shared Thinking and Emotional Wellbeing (SSTEW) Scale (2 to 5 years)
• Movement Environment Rating Scale
(MOVERS)(2 to 6 years)
Curriculum, Leadership and Interaction Quality Rating Scales (CLIQRS) UCL-IOE Press
Comparing ECERS-E and SSTEW Scale
ECERS-E
• Based on observation – 4 sub-scales
Literacy
Mathematics
Science and environment
Diversity
Sylva, Siraj-Blatchford & Taggart (2003)
SSTEW Scale
• Based on observation – 5 sub-scales
Building trust, confidence and independence
Social and emotional well-being
Supporting and extending language and communication
Supporting learning and critical thinking
Assessing learning and language
Siraj, Kingston & Melhuish (2015)
Heavily focussed on interactions
Children’s interactions with educators and peers, more than any other program feature, can determine what children learn and how they feel about learning
(Driscoll et al., 2011; Epstein, 2014; National Research Council, 2000; Pianta, 2012).
34
Sustained Shared thinking
• “An episode in which two or more individuals “work together” in an intellectual way to resolve a problem, clarify a concept, evaluate activities, extend a narrative etc. Both parties must contribute to the thinking and it must develop and extend” (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2002)
• “the active engagement of practitioners in children’s learning and extending thinking.”
(Siraj, Kingston and Melhuish, 2015)
35
Sustained Shared Thinking.
• Can be verbal or non-verbal.
• Emphasis on “contribution to thinking”
• The educator may ‘stand back’, ‘intervene’, ‘model’, ‘question’ ‘provoke’ etc
• The educator needs to be sensitive not necessarily talkative – the responsive adult who intentionally scaffolds learning.
36
Format of SSTEW Scale
• Same structure as the ECERS-R
• Items assessed on a seven point scale
• Divided into five sub-scales:– Building trust, confidence and independence
– Social and emotional well-being
– Supporting and extending language and communication
– Supporting learning and critical thinking
– Assessing learning and language
Measuring Quality:
Sustained Shared Thinking and Emotional Well-Being
(SSTEW) Scale for 2-5 year olds provision
There are 5 Subscales and 14 items:
1 Building trust, confidence and independence
– Self-regulation and social development
– Encouraging choices and independent play
– Planning for small group and individual interactions/adult deployment
2 Social and emotional well-being
– Supporting socio-emotional wellbeing
3 Supporting and extending language and communication
– Encouraging children to interact with others
– Staff actively listen to children and encourage children to listen
– Staff support children’s language use
– Sensitive responsiveness
4 Supporting learning and critical thinking
– Supporting curiosity and problem solving
– Encouraging sustained, shared thinking during story time
– Encouraging sustained, shared thinking in investigation and exploration
– Supporting concept development and higher order thinking
5 Assessing learning and language
– Using assessment to support and extend learning and critical thinking
– Assessing language development
Authors: Iram Siraj, Denise Kingston, Edward Melhuish
Trentham and IoE Press, February, 2015
(www.ioepress.ac.uk )
Quality Interactions clips…..during free play
There are 5 Subscales and 14 items
Sub-scale 3: Supporting and extending language and communication
Item Inadequate
1
2
Minimal
3
4
Good
5
6
Excellent
7
Item 8: Sensitive responsiveness
1.1 Little effort is made to engage with the children (e.g. in conversation, to show any interest in what the children are doing etc.). 1.2 Staff often talk amongst themselves and ignore the children in front of them. 1.3 Little effort is made to treat the children as individuals, instead children are communicated with “en masse” (as a group) at all times. 1.4 Children are left in obvious distress.
3.1 Staff focus on small groups of children and respond to individuals within the group. 3.2 Staff listen out for and respond to any questions or comments from children in an interested way. 3.3 Praise is used, but indiscriminately and generally to the whole group.
5.1 Staff ensure that most children receive extended individual attention at least once during the session*. 5.2 Help is willingly offered if the staff feel that children may be struggling with the task in hand. 5.3 Praise and encouragement is readily given to individuals when appropriate.
7.1 Most children are given “one on one” interactive attention more than once during the session*. 7.2 Any comments or requests from children are responded to or dealt with promptly – if necessary involving another member of staff to ensure that children are not left waiting and wondering*. 7.3 Although staff members may wish to focus on an individual child, no other child in the group is made to feel excluded. .
40
• Closed questions: rhetorical, elicit short/factual answers, guess-what-the-teacher-is thinking (Edwards & Furlong 1978, Fisher 1995
• Open questions: stimulate ‘higher order thinking’
(Galton 1999, Alexander 2000)
• 70% of children aged 4 to 6 used conversations for routine business…..rather than making meaning (Tizard and Hughes 1984)
• 40% of all total ‘ conversational moves’ by adult were classified as ‘controlling’ – ‘tendency to ignore children, talk over them and generally dominate the proceedings was the single most striking feature’… had definite consequences for the way children responded or participated in classroom talk (Woods 1980)
Quality of Interactions & Questioning
41
It was July in a three-year-old room. It was circle time. The teacher had written
on a flip chart the words “Things I Like To Do On My Summer Holiday” and listed
every child’s name down the side of the paper. She started the lesson by telling
the class that summer was coming and school would soon be over. They would
be on holiday. She wanted to know what they liked to do on their summer
holiday.
Teacher: [To the first child on her right] Tyler, what do you like to do in the summer?
Tyler: Bake.
Teacher: No, you can bake anytime, but what do you like to do in the summer?
Tyler: Bake.
Teacher: No, baking is something you do inside. In the summer it is warm and sunny.
What do you like to do in the summer when it is warm and sunny?
Tyler: Bake.
Teacher: Tyler, can you think of anything else you would like to do this summer?
Tyler: No, my mum said she is going to take off work and we are going to bake
together any day I want.
Teacher: Ok. [She writes “bake” on the chart next to Tyler’s name].
[Talking to the next child in the circle] Josh, and what do you like to do in the
summer?
The Jelly Fish Story
42
Josh: Bake.
Teacher: Can you think of anything else?
Josh: No.
Teacher: [Reluctantly writes “bake” next to Josh’s name]. Brian, what do you like to
do in the summer?
Brian: Go to the beach.
Teacher: [With a big smile] Yes, that’s right. In the summer we like to go to the
beach and swim in the water.
Nicole: [From across the circle] I don’t like to swim because last year I went to the
beach and I got stung by a jelly fish.
Andrew: Me too and it really hurt and I had to go to the lifeguard and he gave my
daddy medicine to rub on it and it really hurt and it bit me.
Dani: Jelly fish can’t bite you they don’t have teeth they just have long arms I saw
them on the beach and they were all dead and they can’t bite.
Nicole: Uh huh they bite and they sting and I hate them and I am never going to the
beach cause they bite and they sting like a bee.
Matthew: I like jelly fish. They have them in the “quarium”.
Teacher: Children, we are not talking about jelly fish now, we are talking about what
we like to do on our summer holiday. Julie, can you tell me what you like to do in the
summer?
43
The Light-Up Shoes. Adult:child interaction
A few four-year-olds were sitting together. Three of the children were wearing
trainers that would light up when they stepped down on them.
Teacher: Wow! Look at your shoes! That is so cool. They light up when you step down.
Child 1: Yes, they do this. [Jumps up and down several times]
Teacher: How does that happen? How does it light up?
Child 1: Because they are new.
Teacher: Um. Mine are new too but they don’t light up.
Child 2: No, because they light up when you step down on them. [Steps down hard
several times]
Teacher: [Steps down hard several times] That’s funny. Mine don’t light up when I step
down.
Child 3: No, no, no, you have to have these holes [points to the holes]
Teacher: [Pointing to the holes in her own shoe] But I have holes and mine still don’t light
up, and Josh has holes in his trainers too and his do not light up either. I wonder why?
Child 4: I think you need batteries. Kids, you need batteries.
Child 1: Yeah, you need batteries to make them work. [Thinks for a while]. But I did not
see batteries when I put my toes in.
Child 4: I think they are under the toes.
Child 2: I can’t feel the batteries under my toes.
Teacher: I wonder how we can find out about this?
• Tuning in • Showing genuine interest• Respecting children’s own decisions and choices• Inviting children to elaborate• Re-capping• Offering your own experience• Clarifying ideas• Suggesting• Reminding• Using encouragement to further thinking• Offering an alternative viewpoint• Speculating• Reciprocating• Asking open questions• Modelling thinking
Characteristics of Sustained Shared Thinking (Early Ed. SST Project)
45
Tell me what you think… Why do you agree…
What do you imagine… Why do you like that......
Do you think everyone would think the same......
How can we find out....... Was it always like this......
Why do you think that..... Tell me more about that...
When I think about that I.....................
What do you think is happening?
I wondered why you had…
What does this do?
I don’t know, what do you think.....
Conversations and questions
46
Areas identified for professional development (PD) for URLEY (England), FEEL (NSW) and REEL (Vic) studies
ECERS-E:
1. Language and Literacy
2. Maths and number
3. Science and the environment
4. Diversity (meeting and planning for the needs of individuals and groups)
Areas identified for PD
SSTEW:
• Building trust, confidence and independence
• Social and emotional well-being
• Supporting and extending language and communication
• Supporting learning and critical thinking
• Assessing learning and language
Child-initiated learning and focused learning (DCSF (2009)
Learning, Playing and Interacting. Nottingham: DCSF)
• What priority do we give to recognising, supporting and extending children’s thinking during play, physical and cognitive tasks
– in our organisation of time, variety, pace and space– in our interactions with individuals?
• How effectively do we monitor and engage with children’s conversations?
• How well does our learning environments and the activities and routines we provide support, extend and challenge children’s language and thinking?
• How visible do we make our own and the children’s thinking?
• What do we need to do to improve this aspect of our practice?
Child-to-child SST
Pedagogical policy implications:
50
EPPSE Project - www.ioe.ac.uk/eppse
Archer, C. & Siraj, I (2017) Movement Environmental Rating Scale (MOVERS). & UCL-IoEPress, London Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock. S., Gilden, R., & Bell, D. (2002). Researching Effective Pedagogy in the
Early Years. Research Report 356. London: DfES.Siraj, I., Kingston, D and Melhuish, E. (2015) Assessing Quality: Sustained Shared Thinking and Emotional Well
being (SSTEW) rating scale. UCL-IoE Press, LondonSiraj, Kingston, Neilsen-Hewett, Howard, Melhuish, de Rosnay, Duursma & Luu (2017) A review of the current
international evidence considering quality in early childhood education and care programmes – in delivery, pedagogy and child outcomes. NSW DoE, Australia
Sylva, K., Ereky-Stevens, K., Pastori, G., Slot, P. L., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2016). Integrative Report on a culture-sensitive quality & curriculum framework. http://ecec-care.org/
Sylva,K, Melhuish,E, Sammons, P, Siraj-Blatchford, I and Taggart, B, (2010) Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education project. London, Routledge.
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj, I. and Taggart, B. (2014) The Effective Pre-school, Primary and Secondary Education Project (EPPSE 3-16+) Students’ educational outcomes at age 16. Department for Education. RR 354.
Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B., (2010) The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale Extended Version ECERS-E, Teachers College Press