Quality 101: Identifying the Core Components of a High-Quality Early Childhood Program

Download the PDF here.

Every day, millions of American families go through a familiar ritual: dropping off their young child at child care or preschool. And while there are many reasons why parents choose a particular program—cost, location, the teachers, shared values, the program’s specific focus—one thing is universal: As parents walk away from the classroom in the morning to start their own day, each of them hopes that they have made the right decision and that their child will have a rich and fulfilling day, supported by a loving and affectionate caregiver.

Unfortunately, parents often have very few child care options and limited ways to really know the quality of care their child is receiving. The level to which basic needs are met—keeping the child well fed, safe, and clean—is usually easy to verify, but determining if one’s child is engaging sufficiently and is participating in age-appropriate learning activities is much harder to ascertain.

The need for high-quality early childhood education has never been greater. Increasingly, children are growing up in families where all available parents are working—out of necessity as well as choice. Furthermore, research continues to affirm the short- and long-term benefits for children who participate in high-quality early learning programs. 1 However, parents face significant barriers when searching for high-quality care. Waitlists are long and employers are inflexible, high-quality programs are expensive, and parents often lack the necessary tools to evaluate program quality. Many families live in child care “deserts,” and even when programs are available, quality is not well-regulated or supported by local, state, or federal policies, putting it out of reach for most families.2

This child care crisis has received increased attention in recent years, from policymakers, political candidates, and voters.3 However, there remains a critical need to better understand the components of high-quality programs to ensure policy solutions adequately support and promote access to quality for all families. To that end, this issue brief highlights three core indicators of high-quality early childhood programs, and identifies six structural supports that are necessary to achieve and maintain high quality. These indicators and supports provide a roadmap for policymakers as they develop solutions to the current child care crisis and can also serve as a guide for parents seeking to make the best and most informed choices for their child.

Why does quality matter?

A large body of research has demonstrated the critical importance of the first three years of a child’s life.4 The experiences and interactions children have in these early years significantly affects brain development and helps to establish the foundation for future learning.5 Warm and responsive interactions can create a nurturing and stable environment that enables the development of secure attachments between children and their caregivers—both those within and beyond their families. These attachments support children as they develop a sense of self and begin to understand their emotions, and they lay the foundation for establishing successful relationships at later ages.6 With an estimated 6 million young children enrolled in child care, it is clear that early learning programs, and the people who work in them, have a critical role to play in child development—a role that complements parents.7 Furthermore, this crucial development must be supported from infancy, when brain development is at its peak. Waiting until children enter preschool or kindergarten to introduce these vital interventions is simply too late.

The positive effects of high-quality early childhood programs on specific, short- and long-term outcomes for children, families, and communities, have been quantified by numerous research studies.8 In the short- to medium-term, children enrolled in high-quality early learning programs are less likely to need special education services during their K-12 years; are less likely to commit juvenile offenses; and more likely to graduate from high school. In the long term, those participating children are more likely to be employed and less likely to be dependent on government assistance.9 The positive effects are larger, and more likely to be sustained, when programs are high quality.10 In addition, the impact is greatest for children from low-income families.11 Differences in children’s cognitive abilities by income are evident at only nine months old and significantly widen by the time children are two years old.12 Children living in poverty are more likely to be subject to stressful home environments—which can have lifelong impacts on learning, cognition, and self-regulation—while parents living in poverty have limited resources to provide for their families and high barriers to accessing affordable, high-quality child care.13 High-quality early learning programs staffed by warm and responsive adults can help mitigate these effects, offering a safe and predictable learning environment that fosters children’s development.14

Despite evidence of the positive impact of high-quality early childhood education for all children, it remains out of reach for most low- and moderate-income families.15 The average price of center-based care in the United States accounts for nearly 30 percent of the median family income, and only 10 percent of child care programs are considered high quality.16 Publicly funded programs—such as Head Start, Early Head Start, child care, and state pre-K programs—are primarily targeted at low-income families, but limited funding for these programs severely hinders access.17 This lack of access to high-quality early childhood education perpetuates the achievement gap, evidenced by the fact that only 48 percent of low-income children are ready for kindergarten, compared with 75 percent of moderate- or high-income children.18

Moderate-income families are typically ineligible for these publicly funded programs, but at the same time, such families struggle to afford the high cost of care in the private sector.19 This leaves parents facing a series of difficult choices, including prioritizing child care expenses over other household necessities; settling for low-quality child care that fits their budget; patching together multiple informal care options; or leaving the workforce altogether.20 To ensure that all children can realize the gains that come from attending high-quality early childhood programs, policy solutions need to focus on improving program supports and creating funding strategies that will increase access to high-quality programs for children from all backgrounds.

What does high quality look like?

All states have regulations or licensing standards that child care providers must meet in order to legally operate in the state. These regulations provide a baseline standard and are primarily focused on protecting children from harm rather than on advancing child development and early learning.21 While these standards are critically important to children’s well-being—mitigating risks from inadequate supervision, poor building and hygiene standards, and unsafe practices—they do not address the comprehensive needs of young children. As such, meeting licensing requirements serves only as a baseline providing the fundamental components necessary for operation rather than an indication of program quality. In addition, states have varying requirements when it comes to determining exactly which providers need to be licensed, often making exemptions for faith-based programs or based on the number of nonrelative children served. As a result, significant numbers of children attend license-exempt programs that are not required to meet even the minimum licensing standard.22

Moreover, the key to a high-quality program is what happens inside the classroom or family child care home, namely the interactions that take place between the teacher and child. 23 In a high-quality program, teachers engage children with learning strategies that are tailored to the age of the child and use an appropriate curriculum to structure the learning experience.24 A variety of supports are needed to facilitate these interactions so that high-quality teaching and learning can occur. As such, the quality of an early childhood program is dependent on the following three key factors.

Interpersonal interactions

The learning environment created by a teacher is critical to the quality of an early childhood program.25 The experiences that a child has in their earliest years shape their development, and teachers play an important role in creating those experiences. A well-trained and highly skilled teacher tailors their interactions to fit the needs of the child—using responsive language, engaging all children in classroom activities, fostering independence, and creating a language-rich environment.26 Effective early childhood teachers proactively prevent and redirect challenging behavior and respond to children’s needs with respect, warmth, and empathy. The experiences children have with teachers in their earliest years can also set the tone for their interactions with teachers in later grades and thus are crucial to promoting positive attitudes about school and approaches to learning.27                                                                             

Physical environment

Children need a physical setting—both inside and outdoors—where they can play, explore, and learn safely. The learning environment needs to include engaging and developmentally appropriate materials and be arranged to promote independence and exploration based on children’s different stages of development. For example, infants need to interact with their environment in a very physical way, examining cause and effect relationships by touching and feeling objects. The environment should therefore include toys made of different materials that are small enough to be picked up by an infant.

Toddlers and preschoolers use objects in more complex combinations and engage in socio-dramatic play with one another. Their environment needs toys that spark the imagination, such as play kitchens, and that can engage them in problem solving such as puzzles.28 Learning centers—clearly defined areas set aside in a learning environment where children can have easy access to materials and engage in independent and self-directed learning activities—can be an effective way to organize and support developing abilities, encourage interactions, create opportunities for role playing, and promote literacy skills.29

In addition to the indoor learning environment, children need access to outdoor space where they can move and engage with the natural world. Outdoor play has positive impacts on health and has been shown to combat childhood obesity and help develop stronger immune systems.30 Research also shows that children who play outdoors regularly have more active imaginations, lower stress levels, and have greater respect for themselves and others.31

Program support structure

A high-functioning operating environment is an essential element of a quality early childhood program. This administrative operational support takes a number of forms. First, programs need effective leaders who can provide instructional support to teachers as well as sound business management to the overall program.32 These multiple leadership functions are complex and often need to be fulfilled by more than one person. Second, external to the immediate program, programs need a series of structural supports, including access to professional development, quality improvement resources, stable and sufficient funding streams, and a pipeline of well-trained teachers. These external supports recognize that early childhood programs do not operate in a vacuum and rely on the wider early childhood system.33

All three factors need to be in place to ensure quality. A well-resourced classroom is not sufficient without an effective teacher to harness those resources. Meanwhile, an effective teacher is not sustainable without a support system to manage the business, support instruction, and provide professional development.

How states measure quality in early childhood

While there is no single definition of high quality and therefore no single measurement tool to determine and compare early childhood program quality across the United States, there are a number of tools that are widely used to assess and report the quality of early childhood programs.

  • Environment rating scales: The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, or ECERS for children ages 3–5, the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale, or ITERS, and the Family Child Care Environment Rating Scale, or FCCERS, are standardized tools used to measure process quality at the classroom level. The measures contain multiple items on which programs are rated, organized into seven subscales. These subscales include ratings of the space and furnishing, personal care routines, the activities and interactions that take place in the classroom, and how the program engages with families. Ultimately, these tools are designed to assess the various interactions that occur in the learning environment—for example, between staff and children and among children themselves, the interactions children have with materials and activities, and the structures that support these interactions such as the space and the schedule.34
  • CLASS: The Classroom Assessment Scoring System, or CLASS, is an observation tool that assesses the interactions between teachers and children that affect learning and development. CLASS has separate scales for different age groups, reflecting the differences in how infants, toddlers, and preschoolers learn. The infant observation has just one domain while the pre-K observation has three domains. The observation assesses the quality of relationships, routines, the organization of the physical environment, and the way language is used and interactions are facilitated to prompt children to think critically.35
  • National accreditation: Accreditation is a voluntary process that programs can use to help improve their level of quality and to demonstrate to families—both currently enrolled and prospective—that the program has gone above and beyond what is required by state regulation and achieved a specified level of quality.36 To achieve these accreditations, programs need to engage in extensive self-study and go through an external validation process.37 While these accreditations do differ, most contain a number of common standards. For example, they generally include standards related to the learning environment, teacher and child interactions, staff qualifications, professional development, and family engagement, among others.38
  • QRIS: All states either have a quality rating and improvement system, or QRIS; a pilot; or are in the planning process for a QRIS.39 QRIS are designed to assess, improve, and communicate the level of quality in early childhood education settings.40 Programs are assessed on multiple elements and receive a rating reflecting their level of quality—usually on a scale of 1 to 3 or 1 to 5. While there is not one single QRIS in use across the United States, each state has a unique QRIS reflecting their own priorities and context. Many QRIS do include environmental observations such as ECERS or CLASS as part of their assessment activities, and these scores factor into overall QRIS rating. Other elements of the rating might include family engagement activities, child assessments, and program management. Many QRIS also waive some requirements for programs with national accreditation, or automatically grant programs a certain QRIS rating as a result of their national accreditation.

What components are necessary to achieve and maintain high levels of quality?

In addition to a core set of health and safety requirements, the three factors discussed above make up the key elements of a high-quality program.41 In order to achieve and maintain these elements of high quality, early childhood programs need access to a number of key structures and supports, many of which can be aided by policy. While each program’s pathway to quality will be unique, the following six elements represent the core components that are necessary for a quality program and are areas where policymakers should look to be supportive.

1. Professional and stable teacher workforce

The workforce is the most critical component of quality in an early childhood program. All teachers need to have a foundational knowledge of child development and be able to lead activities that promote children’s learning at various ages. This important role requires that teachers have formal education and training in early childhood education.42

Moreover, the early childhood workforce needs compensation that reflects the importance of their work and the expertise necessary to educate the nation’s youngest children. Providing professional compensation and benefits, comparable to kindergarten teachers, helps recruit and retain effective and educated teachers and promotes a stable healthy learning environment for children.43

In addition, programs need to be staffed at a level that allows for teacher-child ratios that are appropriate for the age of the children and the size of the group, such as those required for programs accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children.44 Low teacher-child ratios enable teachers to focus on the individual needs of the children and engage them in meaningful interactions.45 This means having both an adequate number of teachers specifically assigned to a classroom, as well as providing sufficient substitutes or floaters to cover for breaks, planning time, and paid leave.

The early childhood education workforce should also reflect the growing diversity of the child population, ensuring that children have teachers they can relate to and role models that reflect their own backgrounds.46

2. Effective leadership

Early childhood program administrators are responsible for a broad range of tasks, requiring many different competencies.47 First, programs need instructional leaders with a solid understanding of child development and teaching and learning strategies. Instructional leaders support teachers with lesson planning and curriculum implementation, behavior management strategies, and professional development.

Second, programs need leaders with sound business management skills. The majority of early childhood programs are private businesses, and similar to any other small business, their long-term stability is reliant on adequate business management and the implementation of good budgetary practices.48 Programs require clear enrollment, financial, and personnel policies and need leaders who can implement these policies in a fair and consistent manner.49

Finally, program administrators must be skilled in organizational management and relationship building. In addition to fostering relationships with families and the community, leaders play a key role in creating a positive atmosphere inside the program, which can minimize teacher turnover, increase program efficiency, and allow teachers to focus on the children.50

These multiple administrative roles need to be staffed sufficiently, which ideally includes more than one person, given the varied skill sets required.51 In smaller programs—with limited capacity to employ multiple administrators—leaders need to be supported in their various roles through access to external technical assistance, leadership resources, and targeted professional development.

3. Age-appropriate curriculum

All early childhood programs should adopt a research-based curriculum that is developmentally, culturally, and linguistically relevant for all children.52 Curricula can provide a guiding philosophy for program activities, including teacher interactions and the design of the physical indoor and outdoor environment. Curricula also help teachers effectively structure and sequence classroom activities, target particular activities to build skills or meet development milestones, and build on prior learning and experiences. Curricula provide varying levels of flexibility to individual teachers; some provide highly structured models for teachers to implement, while others offer guiding principles and expect teachers to determine the best way to implement.53

There are a large number of curricula available for programs to choose from, with some of the best known models being the Creative Curriculum, HighScope Curriculum, and Tools of the Mind.54 Research has found a positive impact on early achievement scores and socioemotional behavior when programs intentionally apply a curriculum that is supported by professional development, coaching, and sufficient resources.55 Programs should adopt a curriculum that best fits their program philosophy and ensure teachers receive professional development and ongoing support to adequately incorporate the curriculum into their practice. It is also important that a curriculum is adopted for all age groups, not just preschoolers. Infants and toddlers need a curriculum that focuses on their need to explore and discover the world around them, guided by supportive and responsive caregivers.56

Components of an effective curriculum

The National Center on Quality Teaching and Learning has identified 13 components that need to be present in an effective curriculum:57

  1. Grounded in child development principles
  2. Evidence-based
  3. Shows effects on child outcomes
  4. Comprehensive across learning domains
  5. Depth for each covered learning domain
  6. Specific learning goals
  7. Well-designed learning activities
  8. Responsive teaching
  9. Supports for individualized instruction
  10. Culturally and linguistically responsive
  11. Ongoing assessments
  12. Professional development opportunities
  13. Family involvement materials

4. Comprehensive family engagement activities

A high-quality program recognizes that families are essential to children’s educational success and has policies in place to engage families in children’s learning. Programs need to develop family engagement strategies that encourage families to participate in their child’s learning and promote two-way communication, enabling parents to share with teachers the unique strengths and talents of their child.58 Strategies must also be responsive to family needs, recognizing the increasing diversity of the child population and the specific needs that arise as a result. Engaging with families in an inclusive and reciprocal way can help providers understand a family’s culture and values, which can inform the development of culturally responsive learning experiences.59

Family engagement often involves providing feedback on children’s progress and discussing how parents can sustain learning activities at home.60 This can take many forms, including regular parent-teacher conferences; daily communications between teachers and families, for example through daily report sheets and emails; monthly newsletters; parent-in-classroom events; family open nights; and other events intended to build a community that includes children, families, teachers, and program leaders. High-quality family engagement activities can help build trusting and positive relationships between teachers and families, which can help address any concerns—such as behavior problems or developmental delays—and better coordinate a response before issues become significant and affect children’s learning.61

5. Multilevel continuous quality improvement system

Achieving high quality in an early childhood program is not a one-time milestone. Programs must constantly monitor, reflect, and revise policies and practices to ensure that they maintain quality. In addition to measuring children’s developmental progress, it is important that structures are also in place to assess the overall program, individual classrooms, and employees, using data to inform positive and proactive improvements.62

Given that data shows many programs are not currently operating at high quality, it is critically important that quality improvement supports are available to help programs increase and then maintain quality.63 Quality improvement supports can take many forms—including formal training opportunities, mentor programs, coaching, communities of practice, and informal networks of support—and can be accessed through state or national technical assistance providers or by local networks.64 Most states have a QRIS, which can be a mechanism for directing quality improvement supports. In many QRIS, providers can access professional development and coaching opportunities and can receive financial incentives to purchase materials or equipment.65 While QRIS offer a promising framework for accessing continuous quality improvement supports, these systems are still in the formative stages and are often under-resourced, resulting in supports being insufficient to sustain increased quality.

6. Sustainable and sufficient set of funding mechanisms

In order to support the highly qualified workforce, the safe and engaging physical and learning environment, and the stable business infrastructure necessary to achieve and maintain high quality, programs need to be able to access funding that supports the actual cost of operation.66 Many public funding streams are insufficient to support the costs of high quality, and low- and middle-income families struggle to afford the cost of tuition at high-quality programs. In order to ensure high-quality programs are available to all children, public funding needs to be sufficient to cover the costs of quality and provide families with help to afford the cost of private tuition.

In addition, funding needs to be stable so that programs can make staffing and other business decisions based on anticipated income that is not subject to annual appropriations or fluctuations due to child absences. The total funding available to a program therefore needs to be adequate to cover the actual cost of operating at high quality and secure enough for programs to make plans beyond the short term.67

High quality should be accessible for all children

These six elements are key to achieving and maintaining high quality in all early childhood settings. Given the huge variation in early childhood programs in the United States, there is not a one-size-fits-all approach to quality, and quality is not restricted to one program type. Family child care homes, child care centers—both for-profit and nonprofit—and public schools can all provide high-quality early childhood education for children of all ages. While targeted supports or modifications to standards might be required to take into account specific circumstances, the focus on children’s learning, development, and overall well-being can be maintained in all these child care settings. For example:

  • Curricula can be implemented for infants and toddlers, not just preschoolers
  • Family child care providers could access quality improvement supports through family child care provider networks
  • Small programs might access administrative supports through a shared services alliance
  • Rural private providers might partner with public schools or Head Start/Early Head Start programs to leverage services and supports
  • Providers serving predominantly low-income or dual language learners can tailor family engagement activities to take into account the unique needs of their populations

Neither the demographic background of a child and family nor the type of facility in which the child is enrolled should be a barrier to accessing high-quality programs. However, programs need support to achieve and maintain quality. The six elements outlined above offer a roadmap to policymakers and stakeholders that allows them to focus on the key structures necessary to support high quality.


The need for high-quality early childhood education has never been greater, but programs are increasingly out of reach for a majority of Americans. As policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels develop strategies to address the child care crisis, they must simultaneously focus on the importance of quality. To achieve the goal of increasing access to high-quality programs for all children, it is vital that families and policymakers fully understand what quality looks like and what structures are needed to support it. The quality indicators identified in this issue brief can serve as a roadmap for policymakers to ensure the key supports are in place to help programs achieve and maintain quality and to help families access those high-quality programs.

Simon Workman is the Associate Director of Early Childhood Policy at the Center for American Progress. Rebecca Ullrich is a Policy Analyst for the Early Childhood Policy team at the Center.


The authors would like to thank Harriet Dichter and Anne Mitchell for their insights and feedback on previous drafts of this issue brief, as well as our colleagues Katie Hamm and Rachel Herzfeldt-Kamprath at American Progress for their comments and edits.


  1. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Characteristics of Families Summary (U.S. Department of Labor, 2016), available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.nr0.htm; See, for example, Jorge Luis Garcia and others, “The Life-cycle Benefits of an Influential Early Childhood Program.” HCEO Working Paper 2016-035 (The University of Chicago, 2016), available at https://econresearch.uchicago.edu/sites/econresearch.uchicago.edu/files/Garcia_Heckman_Leaf_etal_2016_life-cycle-benefits-ecp_r1.pdf.
  2. Rasheed Malik and others, “Child Care Deserts: An Analysis of Child Care Centers by ZIP Code in 8 States” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2016), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/reports/2016/10/27/225703/child-care-deserts/; National Institutes of Health, The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development: Findings for Children up to Age 4 1/2 Years (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016), available at https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/documents/seccyd_06.pdf.
  3. Emily Parker, Bruce Atchison, and Emily Workman, “State Pre-K Funding for 2015-16 Fiscal Year: National trends in state preschool funding” (Denver: Education Commission of the States, 2016), available at http://www.ecs.org/ec-content/uploads/01252016_Prek-K_Funding_report-4.pdf; Hillary for America, “Early Childhood Education,” available at https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education (last accessed September 2016); Donald J Trump for President, Inc.,
    Fact Sheet: Donald J. Trump’s New Child Care Plan,” available at https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/fact-sheet-donald-j.-trumps-new-child-care-plan (last accessed September 2016).
  4. For a compilation of evidence, see Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, “Social Programs That Work: Prenatal/Early Childhood,” available at http://evidencebasedprograms.org/about/early-childhood (last accessed October 2016); Hirokazu Yoshikawa and others, “Investing In Our Future: The Evidence Base on Preschool Education” (Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development; New York: Foundation for Child Development, 2013), available at http://www.srcd.org/sites/default/files/documents/washington/mb_2013_10_16_investing_in_children.pdf.
  5. Harvard University Center on the Developing Child, “InBrief: The Science of Early Childhood Development” (2007), available at http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/inbrief-science-of-ecd/.
  6. National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, “Young Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships.” Working Paper 1 (Harvard University, 2004), available at http://developingchild.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2004/04/Young-Children-Develop-in-an-Environment-of-Relationships.pdf.
  7. Bureau of the Census, Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Spring 2011 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2013), available at https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p70-135.pdf.
  8. For a complication of evidence, see Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, “Social Programs That Work”; Yoshikawa and others, “Investing In Our Future.” While much of this research focused on preschool programs for three- and four-year-olds, a number of studies have demonstrated the benefits of early childhood programs for infants and toddlers. One of the most well respected and frequently cited studies—the Abecedarian Project—included children from birth to five-year-olds, and a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development study found positive effects on cognitive and language development for children six months and older who attended a child care center. For more, see Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, “Social Programs That Work: Abecedarian Project,” available at http://evidencebasedprograms.org/1366-2/abecedarian-project (last accessed September 2016); National Institutes of Health, The NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development.” In addition, numerous studies of home visiting programs—which focus on supports for pregnant women and young infants—have found long-term benefits, including significant gains in school readiness and achievement. See Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “Return on investment: Evidence-based options to improve statewide outcomes” (2012), available at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1102/Wsipp_Return-on-Investment-Evidence-Based-Options-to-Improve-Statewide-Outcomes-April-2012-Update_Full-Report.pdf; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Care, “Child Development and School Readiness,” available at http://homvee.acf.hhs.gov/Outcome/2/Child-Development-and-SchoolReadiness/3/1 (last accessed August 2016).
  9. Lynn A. Karoly and James H. Bigelow, “The economics of investing in universal preschool education in California” (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 2005), available at http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG349.pdf.
  10. Yoshikawa and others, “Investing In Our Future.”
  11. Ibid. 
  12. National Center for Education Statistics, “Early Childhood Longitudinal Program (ECLS): Birth Cohort (ECLS-B),” available at https://nces.ed.gov/ecls/birth.asp (last accessed April 2016).
  13. Jack P. Shonkoff and others, “The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress,” Pediatrics 129 (1) (2012), available at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/129/1/e232.full.pdf; Amar Hamoudi and others, “Self-Regulation and Toxic Stress: A Review of Ecological, Biological, and Developmental Studies of Self-Regulation and Stress” (Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/acf_report_2_rev_022415_final_508.pdf; Harvard University Center on the Developing Child, “Tackling Toxic Stress,” available at http://developingchild.harvard.edu/science/key-concepts/toxic-stress/tackling-toxic-stress/ (last accessed March 2016); Heather Sandstrom and Sandra Huerta, “The Negative Effects of Instability on Child Development: A Research Synthesis” (Washington: Urban Institute, 2013), available at http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/412899-The-Negative-Effects-of-Instability-on-Child-Development-A-Research-Synthesis.PDF; Malik and others, “Child Care Deserts.”; Patrice L. Engle and Maureen M. Black, “The Effect of Poverty on Child Development and Educational Outcomes” (San Luis Obispo, CA: California Polytechnic State University; Baltimore: University of Maryland Baltimore, 2008), available at http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=psycd_fac; Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being 2002 (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2002), available at https://www.childstats.gov/pdf/ac2002/ac_02.pdf.  
  14. Ross A. Thompson and Ron Haskins, “Early Stress Gets under the Skin: Promising Initiatives to Help Children Facing Chronic Adversity” (The Future of Children, 2014), available at http://futureofchildren.org/publications/docs/24_01_Policy_Brief.pdf.
  15. Karen Schulman and W. Steven Barnett, “The Benefits of Prekindergarten for Middle-Income Children” Policy Report (New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research, 2005), available at http://nieer.org/policy-issue/policy-report-the-benefits-of-prekindergarten-for-middle-income-children (last access October 2016); Marcia Meyers and more, “Inequality in Early Childhood Education and Care: What Do We Know?” In Kathryn M. Neckerman, ed., Social Inequality (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004).
  16. Jessica Troe, “Early Learning in the United States” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2016), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/report/2016/07/19/141234/early-learning-in-the-united-states/.
  17. Head Start programs on average only have enough capacity to serve 4 in 10 eligible children. The federal child care subsidy program, which subsidizes care for children from low-income families, only serves 1 in 6 eligible children. See The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, “Head Start’s Capacity to Serve Eligible Low-Income Children,” available at http://www.diversitydatakids.org/files/Policy/Head Start/Capacity/Participation POIs/Head Start’s Capacity to Serve Eligible Low-Income Children.pdf; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Estimates of Child Care Eligibility and Receipt for Fiscal Year 2011 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015), available at https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/estimates-child-care-eligibility-and-receipt-fiscal-year-2011.
  18. Danielle Ewen and Rachel Herzfeldt-Kamprath, “Examining Quality Across the Preschool-to-Third Grade Continuum” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2016), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/reports/2016/01/28/128439/examining-quality-across-the-preschool-to-third-grade-continuum/.
  19. Katie Hamm, “Early Childhood.” In Carmel Martin, Andy Green, and Brendan Duke, eds., “Raising Wages and Rebuilding Wealth: A Roadmap for Middle-Class Economic Security” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2016), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2016/09/08/143585/raising-wages-and-rebuilding-wealth/.
  20. Michael Madowitz, Alex Rowell, and Katie Hamm, “Calculating the Hidden Cost of Interrupting a Career for Child Care” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2016), available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early-childhood/report/2016/06/21/139731/calculating-the-hidden-cost-of-interrupting-a-career-for-child-care/.
  21. Licensing standards are typically related to items such as staff credential and training requirements; employee background checks; maximum group sizes and adult-child ratios; immunization requirements for children; and health and safety procedures, such as hand-washing, diapering, and maintaining daily attendance records. For more details, see Office of Child Care, Trends in Child Care Center Licensing Regulations and Policies for 2014, (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015),  available at https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/resource/research-brief-1-trends-child-care-center-licensing-regulations-and-policies-2014.
  22. Across all states, 15 percent of children receiving state child care subsidies are enrolled in providers that are license-exempt. In eight states and territories, at least 35 percent of children participate in license-exempt providers. See Office of Child Care, Supporting License-Exempt Family Child Care (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015), available at https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/public/supporting_exempt_fcc.pdf.
  23. In this brief, the word “teacher” is used to describe the lead adult that is primarily responsible for the children in their care. As such, this term includes both center- and school-based teachers as well as family child care providers.
  24. Andrew J. Mashburn and others, “Measures of Classroom Quality in Prekindergarten and Children’s Development of Academic, Language, and Social Skills” Child Development 79 (3) (2008): 732–749, available at http://files.webydo.com/175519/Masburn_CLASS.pdf.
  25. Ibid.; Robert C. Pianta and Megan W. Stuhlman, “Teacher-Child Relationships and Children’s Success in the First Years of School,” School Psychology Review 33 (3) (2004): 444–458, available at http://pages.erau.edu/~andrewsa/Project_2/Christian_John/DuneProject/Teaching.pdf.
  26. The National Center on Quality Teaching and Learning, “Improving Teacher-Child Interactions: Using the CLASS in Head Start Preschool Programs” (2013), available at http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/teaching/docs/using-the-class.pdf.
  27. Pianta and Stuhlman, “Teacher-Child Relationships and Children’s Success in the First Years of School.”
  28. Rebecca Isbell, “An Environment that Positively Impacts Young Children,” Earlychildhood News, available at http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=334 (last accessed September 2016).
  29. TeacherVision, “Learning Centers,” available at https://www.teachervision.com/learning-center/new-teacher/48462.html (last accessed October 2016); Gayle M. Stuber, “Centering Your Classroom: Setting the Stage for Engaged Learners” (National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education, 2007), available at https://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200707/OfPrimaryInterest.pdf.
  30. Ingunn Fjortoft, “Landscape as Playscape: The Effects of Natural Environments on Children’s Play and Motor Development” Children, Youth and Environments 14 (2) (2004): 21–44, available at http://www.springzaad.nl/litdocs/landscape_as_playscape_the_effects_of_natural_environments_on_childrens_play_and_motor_development.pdf.
  31. Hillary L. Burdette and Robert C. Whitaker, “Resurrecting Free Play in Young Children: Looking Beyond Fitness and Fatness to Attention, Affiliation, and Affect,” JAMA Pediatrics 159 (1) (2005): 46–50, available at http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=485902.
  32. Charles Kivunja, “Leadership in Early Childhood Education Contexts: Looks, Roles, and Functions” Creative Education 6 (2015): 1710–1717, available at http://file.scirp.org/pdf/CE_2015091611423350.pdf.
  33. Elliot Regenstein and Katherine Lipper, “A Framework for Choosing a State-Level Early Childhood Governance System” (Boston: BUILD Initiative, 2013), available at http://www.buildinitiative.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Early%20Childhood%20Governance%20for%20Web.pdf; Julia Coffman, “A Framework for Evaluating Systems Initiatives” (Boston: BUILD Initiative, 2007), available at http://www.buildinitiative.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Framework%20for%20Evaluating%20Systems%20Initiatives.pdf.
  34. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, “Environment Rating Scales,” available at http://ers.fpg.unc.edu/ (last accessed September 2016).
  35. Teachstone, “CLASS Domains & Dimensions,” available at http://teachstone.com/classroom-assessment-scoring-system/class-domains-dimensions/ (last accessed September 2016).
  36. Among the most well-known accreditation bodies are the National Association for the Education of Young Children, the National Early Childhood Program Accreditation, the National Accreditation Commission for Early Care and Education Programs, the National Association for Family Child Care, the Council on Accreditation, and the American Montessori Society.
  37. National Center on Child Care Quality Improvement, National Accreditation Organizations for Early Childhood Programs (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011), p. 1–3, available at https://qrisguide.acf.hhs.gov/files/National_Accred.pdf.
  38. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance, “National Program Standards Crosswalk Tool,” available at https://qrisguide.acf.hhs.gov/crosswalk/ (last accessed October 2016).
  39. QRIS National Learning Network, “Current Status of QRIS In States: January 2017” available at http://qrisnetwork.org/sites/all/files/maps/QRISMap_0.pdf (last accessed February 2017).
  40. Anne W. Mitchell, “Stair Steps to Quality: A Guide for States and Communities Developing Quality Rating Systems for Early Care and Education” (United Way, 2005), available at http://www.earlychildhoodfinance.org/downloads/2005/MitchStairSteps_2005.pdf.
  41. For example, employee background checks and first aid training, adult-child ratios and safe equipment, and environmental health standards. For more, see Early Childhood Development Interagency Coordination, Caring for our Children Basics: Health and Safety Foundations for Early Care and Education (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2015), available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ecd/caring_for_our_children_basics.pdf.
  42. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, “Transforming the Workforce for Children Birth Through Age 8: A Unifying Foundation” (Washington: The National Academies Press, 2015), available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/19401/transforming-the-workforce-for-children-birth-through-age-8-a.
  43. Marcy Whitebrook, Deborah Phillips, and Carollee Howes, “Worthy Work, STILL Unlivable Wages: The Early Childhood Workforce 25 Years after the National Child Care Staffing Study” (Berkeley, CA: Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, 2014), available at http://cscce.berkeley.edu/files/2014/ReportFINAL.pdf; National Institute for Early Education Research, “Preschool Policy Matters” Issue 2, December 2004, available at http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2.pdf.  
  44. National Association for the Education of Young Children, “Teacher-Child Ratio Chart,” available at http://www.naeyc.org/academy/files/academy/file/Teacher_Child_Ratio_Chart.pdf (last accessed January 2017).
  45. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Encouraging Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), Research Brief: Working Conditions Matter,” available at http://www.oecd.org/education/school/49322250.pdf (last accessed September 2016).
  46. Mary E. Dilworth and Marcus J. Coleman “Time for a Change: Diversity in Teaching Revisited” (Washington: National Education Association, 2014), available at http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/Time_for_a_Change_Diversity_in_Teaching_Revisited_(web).pdf; Leo Casey and others, “The State of Teacher Diversity in American Education” (Washington: Albert Shanker Institute, 2015), available at http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/teacherdiversity
  47. Mary L. Culkin, “Administrative Leadership.” In Sharon L. Kagan and Barbara T. Bowman, eds., Leadership in Early Care and Education (Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1997).
  48. Denise M. Scott, “Early Childhood Leaders on Leadership” (Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2005), available at https://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200501/Scott.pdf.
  49. Data from the National Survey of Early Care & Education shows that nearly 60 percent of teachers and caregivers work in a nonpublic setting and only 16 percent of children enrolled in center-based early childhood programs are attending a program run by a government agency. See National Survey of Early Care and Education, “Number and Characteristics of Early Care and Education (ECE) Teachers and Caregivers: Initial Findings from the National Survey of Early Care and Education (NSECE)” (2013), available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nsece_wf_brief_102913_0.pdf; National Survey of Early Care and Education, “Characteristics of Center-based Early Care and Education Programs,” available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/characteristics_of_cb_fact_sheet_final_111014.pdf (last accessed October 2016); Alliance for Early Childhood Finance, “The Iron Triangle: A Simple Formula for Financial Policy in ECE Programs,” available at http://www.earlychildhoodfinance.org/downloads/2010/IronTriangle_10.2010.pdf (last accessed October 2016).
  50. Clive R. Belfield, “The Fiscal Impacts of Universal Pre-K: Case Study Analysis for Three States.” Working Paper 6 (Flushing, NY: Queens College, 2006), available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=
  51. For example, some programs have an educational coordinator or identify master teachers, in addition to the program director, while others employ business managers to handle the administrative side of the program.
  52. National Association for the Education of Young Children and the National Association of the Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education, “Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation,” available at http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/pscape.pdf (last accessed September 2015).
  53. Stacie G. Goffin, “The Role of Curriculum Models in Early Childhood Education” (Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, 2000), available at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED443597.pdf.
  54. The National Center on Quality Teaching and Learning, “Preschool Curriculum Consumer Report” (2015), available at https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/teaching/practice/docs/curriculum-consumer-report.pdf.
  55. Greg J. Duncan and others, “Boosting School Readiness: Should Preschools Target Skills or the Whole Child?” (Irvine, CA: Irvine Network on Interventions in Development, 2015), available at http://inid.gse.uci.edu/files/2011/03/Duncan_etal_Preschool_JHRsubmit.pdf; Yoshikawa and others, “Investing In Our Future.”
  56. Desalyn De-Souza, “Infant & Toddler Curriculum & Individualization” (2015), available at http://www.nysecac.org/files/3614/2184/7874/Infant_Toddler_Curriculum_NYS_Infancy_Conference_Curriculum.pdf.
  57. The National Center on Quality Teaching and Learning, “Preschool Curriculum Consumer Report.”
  58. Linda C. Halgunseth and others, “Family Engagement, Diverse Families, and Early Childhood Education Programs: An Integrated Review of the Literature” (Washington: National Association for the Education of Young Children; The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2009), available at https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/research/FamEngage.pdf.
  59. Policy Statement on Family Engagement: From the Early Years to the Early Grades (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Education, 2016), available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/earlylearning/files/policy-statement-on-family-engagement.pdf.
  60. Linda C. Halgunseth and others, “Family Engagement, Diverse Families, and Early Childhood Education Programs.”
  61. The National Center on Parent, Family, and Community Engagement, Understanding Family Engagement Outcomes: Research to Practice Series, Families as Lifelong Educators (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016), available at http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/family/docs/rtp-series-families-as-lifelong-educators.pdf.
  62. Debi Mathias, “Chapter 8: Impact of the Early Learning Challenge on State Quality Rating and Improvement Systems.” In BUILD Initiative, Rising to the Challenge: Building Effective Systems for Young Children and Families, available at http://www.buildinitiative.org/Portals/0/Uploads/Documents/Chapter8Mathias.pdf (last accessed August 2016).
  63. Kathryn Tout and others, “A Blueprint for Early Care and Education Quality Improvement Initiatives: Final Report” (Minneapolis: Child Trends, Inc., 2015) available at http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/2015-07BlueprintEarlyCareandEd.pdf.
  64. QRIS National Learning Network, “Continuous Quality Improvement Framework – Supported Resources and Initiative,” available at http://qrisnetwork.org/sites/all/files/materials/Continuous%20Quality%20Improvement%20Framework%20-%20Supported%20Resources%20and%20Initiatives_0.docx (last accessed November 2016).
  65. QRIS Compendium, “A Catalog and Comparison of Quality Rating and Improvement Systems (QRIS),” available at http://qriscompendium.org/ (last accessed October 2016).
  66. groundWork Ohio, “The Dollars and Cents of Early Learning: Investing in Success” (2016), available at http://www.earlychildhoodfinance.org/dev/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Dollars-and-Cents-FINAL-031416.pdf; Louise Stoney, “Financing High-Quality Center-Based Infant-Toddler Care: Options and Opportunities” (Fairfax, VA: ICF International, 2015), available at https://earlyeducatorcentral.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/public/resources/Financing%20High%20Quality%20Center%20Based%20Infant%20Toddler%20Care%20Options%20and%20Opportunities.pdf.
  67. Alliance for Early Childhood Finance, “The Iron Triangle: A Simple Formula for Financial Policy in ECE Programs,” available at http://www.earlychildhoodfinance.org/downloads/2010/IronTriangle_10.2010.pdf (last accessed October 2016); Margie Wallen and Angela Hubbard, “Blending and Braiding Early Childhood Program Funding Streams Toolkit: Enhancing Financing for High-Quality Early Learning Programs” (Chicago: Ounce of Prevention Fund, 2013) available at www.theounce.org/pubs/policy-pubs/NPT-Blended-Funding-Toolkit.pdf.