IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v19y2023i4ne1363.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Centre‐based early education interventions for improving school readiness: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Claire J. McCartan
  • Jennifer Roberts
  • Julie‐Ann Jordan

Abstract

Background Globally, children are legally obliged to attend school at a certain age (ranging from 4 to 7 years old). Developmental differences are rarely considered at school entry nor are they always reflected in the teaching and learning environment. Children who start school without being ready to cope may be significantly disadvantaged. Failure at school can impact directly on long‐term outcomes such as unemployment, crime, adolescent pregnancy, and psychological and physical morbidity in adulthood. In contrast, experiencing success at school can impact positively on a child's self esteem, behaviour, attitude, and future outcomes. School readiness interventions aim to prepare a child for the academic content of education and the psychosocial competencies considered important for learning such as self‐regulation, listening, following instructions and learning to share in play and other social settings. There is a need for evidence of the effectiveness of centre‐based school readiness interventions. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of centre‐based interventions for improving school readiness in preschool children. Search Methods In October 2021 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, ERIC, eight additional databases and three trials registers. Other eligible studies were identified through handsearches of reference lists, reports, reviews and relevant websites. Selection Criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi‐RCTs comparing centre‐based school readiness interventions to no intervention, wait‐list control or treatment as usual (TAU) for children (aged three to 7 years before starting compulsory education). The primary outcomes were school readiness and adverse effects. Data Collection and Analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Main Results We included data from 32 trials involving 16,899 children (6590 included in at least one meta‐analysis). Four studies compared centre‐based early education interventions with no treatment controls. Twenty‐two trials compared an enriched school curriculum to treatment as usual (TAU). Children were aged between 3 and 7 years old (mean age 4.4 years), 51.7% were boys and at least 70% were from a racial/ethnic minority group. Most studies were conducted in the USA and mainly located in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation. Interventions were delivered in centre‐based settings (pre‐kindergarten or elementary schools), for at least one half day, 4 days per week over the academic year. Follow‐up ranged from up to 1 year (short‐term), 1–2 years (medium‐term) and over 2 years (long‐term). We judged the certainty of evidence to be very low to moderate across all outcome measures. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence because the included studies were at an unclear or high risk of bias due to poor reporting, imprecision arising from small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals, and inconsistency due to statistical heterogeneity. Most studies were considered to be low or unclear risk for selection, detection, performance, attrition, selective reporting, and other bias. Allocation bias was at high risk in 10 studies. The US federal government funded most of the studies. Comparison 1. Centre‐based early education interventions for improving school readiness versus no intervention Cognitive development. There may be little to no difference in cognitive development between centre‐based early education interventions and no intervention at long‐term follow‐up (MD: 3.28, 95% CI: 0.23 to 6.34; p = 0.04; 2 studies, 361 participants; low certainty evidence). Emotional well‐being and social competence. There may be no clear difference in social skills in centre‐based early education interventions compared to the no intervention control group at short‐term follow‐up (SMD: −0.11, 95% CI: −0.54 to 0.33; p = 0.63; 3 studies, 632 participants; low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was substantial (I² = 71%). Health development. Narrative analysis from a single study showed that centre‐based early education interventions may improve health development outcomes such as health checks, immunisation compliance and dental care (1 study, 142 participants; low certainty evidence). None of the studies reported on school readiness, adverse effects, or physical development. Comparison 2. Centre‐based early education interventions for improving school readiness versus TAU School readiness. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of centre‐based early education interventions compared to TAU on school readiness up to 1 year post‐intervention (SMD: 1.17, 95% CI: −0.61 to 2.95; p = 0.20; 2 studies, 374 participants; very low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was considerable (I² = 95%). Cognitive development. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on cognitive development between centre‐based early education interventions and TAU at long‐term follow‐up (MD: 9.34, 95% CI: −6.64 to 25.32; p = 0.25; 2 studies, 136 participants; very low certainty evidence). Heterogeneity for this outcome was considerable (I² = 92%). Emotional well‐being and social competence. A meta‐analysis of 12 studies demonstrated there may be little to no difference in social skills between centre‐based early education interventions and TAU at short‐term follow‐up (SMD: 0.11, 95% CI: −0.05 to 0.28; p = 0.19; 12 studies, 4806 participants; low certainty evidence). Physical development. Evidence from one study showed that centre‐based early education interventions likely have little to no difference in increasing fine motor skills compared to TAU at short‐term follow‐up (MD: 0.80, 95% CI: −1.11 to 2.71; 1 study, 334 participants; moderate certainty evidence). None of the studies measured adverse effects or health development. Authors' Conclusions We found very low, low and moderate‐certainty evidence that centre‐based interventions convey little to no difference to children starting school compared to no intervention or TAU, up to 1 year. More research, measuring relevant outcomes, conducted outside the USA, is required to improve programmes designed to meet the needs of children starting school.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire J. McCartan & Jennifer Roberts & Julie‐Ann Jordan, 2023. "Centre‐based early education interventions for improving school readiness: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:19:y:2023:i:4:n:e1363
    DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1363
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1363
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/cl2.1363?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James Heckman & Rodrigo Pinto & Peter Savelyev, 2013. "Understanding the Mechanisms through Which an Influential Early Childhood Program Boosted Adult Outcomes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2052-2086, October.
    2. Elizabeth Dhuey & David Figlio & Krzysztof Karbownik & Jeffrey Roth, 2019. "School Starting Age and Cognitive Development," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(3), pages 538-578, June.
    3. Anthony Petrosino & Claire Morgan & Trevor A. Fronius & Emily E. Tanner‐Smith & Robert F. Boruch, 2012. "Interventions in Developing Nations for Improving Primary and Secondary School Enrollment of Children: A Systematic Review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(1), pages -192.
    4. Rafael Matta & Rafael P. Ribas & Breno Sampaio & Gustavo R. Sampaio, 2016. "The effect of age at school entry on college admission and earnings: a regression-discontinuity approach," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 5(1), pages 1-25, December.
    5. Reem M. Ghandour & Kristin Anderson Moore & Kelly Murphy & Christina Bethell & Jessica R. Jones & Robin Harwood & Jessica Buerlein & Michael Kogan & Michael Lu, 2019. "School Readiness among U.S. Children: Development of a Pilot Measure," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 12(4), pages 1389-1411, August.
    6. Jenkins, Jade M. & Duncan, Greg J. & Auger, Anamarie & Bitler, Marianne & Domina, Thurston & Burchinal, Margaret, 2018. "Boosting school readiness: Should preschool teachers target skills or the whole child?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 107-125.
    7. Jones, Damon E. & Bierman, Karen L. & Crowley, D. Max & Welsh, Janet A. & Gest, Julia, 2019. "Important issues in estimating costs of early childhood educational interventions: An example from the REDI program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. Pears, Katherine C. & Kim, Hyoun K. & Fisher, Philip A., 2012. "Effects of a school readiness intervention for children in foster care on oppositional and aggressive behaviors in kindergarten," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 2361-2366.
    9. Philip J. Cook & Songman Kang, 2016. "Birthdays, Schooling, and Crime: Regression-Discontinuity Analysis of School Performance, Delinquency, Dropout, and Crime Initiation," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 33-57, January.
    10. Datar, Ashlesha, 2006. "Does delaying kindergarten entrance give children a head start?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 43-62, February.
    11. Connolly, Sara & Micklewright, John & Nickell, Stephen, 1992. "The Occupational Success of Young Men Who Left School at Sixteen," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(3), pages 460-479, July.
    12. Hieu T. M. Nguyen & Blane D. Lewis, 2020. "Teenage Marriage and Motherhood in Vietnam: The Negative Effects of Starting School Early," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 39(4), pages 739-762, August.
    13. Thomas S. Dee & Hans Henrik Sievertsen, 2018. "The gift of time? School starting age and mental health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(5), pages 781-802, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yoosik Shin, 2023. "School starting age policy and students' risky health behaviors," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(11), pages 2446-2459, November.
    2. Julio Cáceres-Delpiano & Eugenio Giolito, 2024. "School starting age and the impact on school admission," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 67(1), pages 225-251, July.
    3. Görlitz, Katja & Penny, Merlin & Tamm, Marcus, 2022. "The long-term effect of age at school entry on cognitive competencies in adulthood," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 194(C), pages 91-104.
    4. Guo, Chuanyi & Wang, Xuening & Meng, Chen, 2023. "Does the early bird catch the worm? Evidence and interpretation on the long-term impact of school entry age in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    5. Krzysztof Karbownik & Umut Özek, 2023. "Setting a Good Example? Examining Sibling Spillovers in Educational Achievement Using a Regression Discontinuity Design," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(5), pages 1567-1607.
    6. Tony Beatton & Michael P. Kidd & Anthony Niu & Francis Vella, 2023. "Age of Starting School, Academic Performance, and the Impact of Non‐Compliance: An Experiment within an Experiment, Evidence from Australia," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 99(325), pages 175-206, June.
    7. Hieu T. M. Nguyen & Blane D. Lewis, 2020. "Teenage Marriage and Motherhood in Vietnam: The Negative Effects of Starting School Early," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 39(4), pages 739-762, August.
    8. Kaestner, Robert, 2016. "Do `Skills Beget Skills'? Evidence on the effect of kindergarten entrance age on the evolution of cognitive and non-cognitive skill gaps in childhoodAuthor-Name: Lubotsky, Darren," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 194-206.
    9. Grace Arnold & Briggs Depew, 2018. "School starting age and long‐run health in the United States," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(12), pages 1904-1920, December.
    10. YAMAGUCHI Shintaro & ITO Hirotake & NAKAMURO Makiko, 2020. "Month-of-Birth Effects on Skills and Skill Formation," Discussion papers 20079, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    11. Cristina Borra & Libertad González & David Patiño, 2024. "Mothers' school starting age and infant health," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(6), pages 1153-1191, June.
    12. Görlitz, Katja & Heß, Pascal & Tamm, Marcus, 2024. "Should States Allow Early School Enrollment? An Analysis of Individuals' Long-Term Labor Market Effects," IZA Discussion Papers 17303, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Tony Beatton & Michael P. Kidd & Matteo Sandi, 2020. "School indiscipline and crime," CEP Discussion Papers dp1727, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    14. Depew, Briggs & Eren, Ozkan, 2016. "Born on the wrong day? School entry age and juvenile crime," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 73-90.
    15. Mauricio Villamizar‐Villegas & Freddy A. Pinzon‐Puerto & Maria Alejandra Ruiz‐Sanchez, 2022. "A comprehensive history of regression discontinuity designs: An empirical survey of the last 60 years," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 1130-1178, September.
    16. Berniell, Inés & Estrada, Ricardo, 2020. "Poor little children: The socioeconomic gap in parental responses to school disadvantage," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    17. Fougère, Denis & Filatriau, Olivier & Tô, Maxime, 2013. "Will Sooner Be Better? The Impact of Early Preschool Enrollment on Cognitive and Noncognitive Achievement of Children," CEPR Discussion Papers 9480, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/6vfmfoopnt95qblsf6jj9f6ics is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Dimiski, Anastasia, 2023. "How does pre-school attendance affect school performance? An application of Gini-BMA methodology on PISA 2018 dataset," The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    20. Insu Chang & Heeran Park & Hosung Sohn, 2021. "Causal Impact of School Starting Age on the Tempo of Childbirths: Evidence from Working Mothers and School Entry Cutoff Using Exact Date of Birth," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 37(4), pages 997-1022, November.
    21. Levasseur, Pierre, 2022. "School starting age and nutritional outcomes: Evidence from Brazil," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:19:y:2023:i:4:n:e1363. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.