Section Two: Previous Research on the Effectiveness of Pre-School
Education and Care.
The vast majority of longitudinal research on early education has been carried out in the U.S.
Two of the studies cited most often are the Abecedarian Project and the Perry Pre-school
Programme (Ramey & Ramey, 1998; Schweinhart and Weikart, 1997). Both used
randomised control trial methods to demonstrate the lasting effects of high quality early
intervention. These landmark studies, begun in the 1970s, have been followed by further
small scale ‘experiments’ (see the Early Head Start, Love et al., 2001) and larger cohort
studies (See Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Melhuish, 2004a, for reviews). This huge body of
literature points to the many positive effects of centre-based care and education.
Attention has turned away from establishing the simple effects of early education and towards an
understanding of the familial and educational processes that underlie change in the
developmental trajectories of young children. Brooks-Gunn (ibid) shows how poverty, low
education and low socio-economic status work together to create a home environment of
low hope, low expectations and few of the kinds of parenting interactions that stimulate
young minds. It is important for current research into the effects of early education to take
into account aspects of the child’s home environment; children’s outcomes are the joint
product of home and pre-school and any research on the effects of early education will have
to take into account influences from the home. This was a major element of the EPPE
research.
There has been little large-scale, systematic research on the effects of early childhood education
in the UK. The ‘Start Right’ Enquiry (Ball 1994; Sylva 1994) reviewed the evidence of British
research and concluded that small-scale studies suggested a positive impact but that large-scale
research was inconclusive. The Start Right enquiry recommended more rigorous longitudinal
studies with baseline measures so that the ‘value added’ to children’s development by pre-school
education could be established. EPPE has responded to this with a ‘value added’ design.
Feinstein, Robertson & Symons (1998) attempted to evaluate the effects of pre-schooling on
children’s subsequent progress, but birth cohort designs may not be appropriate for the study of
the influence of pre-school education. The absence of data about children’s attainments at entry
to pre-school means that neither the British Birth Cohort Study (Butler, 1980) nor the National
Child Development Study (Davie, 1972) can be used to explore the effects of pre-school
education on children’s progress. These studies are also limited by the time lapse and many
changes in the nature of pre-school provision that have occurred. Before EPPE no research
using multilevel models (Goldstein, 1987) had been used to investigate the impact of both type of
provision and individual centre effects. Thus little research in the UK had explored whether
some forms of provision have greater benefits than others. Schagen (1994) attempted multilevel
modelling of pre-school effects in large samples but did not have adequate control at entry to
pre-school.
In the UK there is a long tradition of variation in pre-school provision both between types (e.g.
playgroup, local authority, private nursery or nursery classes) and in different parts of the country
reflecting Local Authority funding and geographical conditions (i.e. urban/rural and local access
to centres). A series of reports (House of Commons Select Committee 1989; DES Rumbold
Report, 1990; Ball, 1994) have questioned whether Britain's pre-school education is as effective
as it might be and have urged better co-ordination of services and research into the impact of
different forms of provision (Siraj-Blatchford, 1995). The EPPE project is thus the first large-
scale British study on the effects of different kinds of pre-school provision and the impact of
attendance at individual centres. In line with the recent American research, EPPE studied both
the effects of pre-school experience and also the effects of family support for children’s learning
at home. To understand children’s developmental trajectories it is necessary to take both into
account.