1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«In this study, we propose a more direct empirical comparison using integrated data from several different countries. Our goal was to compare participation rates and socioeconomic selection into ECEC [early childhood education and care] across policy contexts and in relation to specific policy elements.» (p. 2)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
«We selected five longitudinal studies conducted in high-income, developed countries. All five studies contained data about ECEC attendance in infancy and early childhood, as well as family demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. These studies are the Millennium Cohort Study (MCS) in the UK; the National Institute of Child Health and Development Study of Early Childcare and Youth Development (SECCYD) in the USA; the Generation R Study from Rotterdam in the Netherlands; the Québec Longitudinal Study of Child Development (QLSCD) in the province of Québec, Canada; and the Behavior Outlook Norwegian Developmental Study (BONDS) in South East Norway» (p. 2-3)

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

«We found important differences across policy contexts in participation rates and the extent to which they were affected by socioeconomic selection, in both infancy (5–9 months) and early childhood (36–41 months). Among children who participated in ECEC, we also found important differences across policy contexts in the proportion attending center-based vs. non-center-based services; however, this was less subject to socioeconomic selection. Planned country contrasts showed significant associations between specific policy elements and patterns of ECEC use.» (p. 18) The authors note that «[d]uring infancy, children in Canada [Québec] and Norway, whose parents could benefit from paid maternity or parental leave, were less likely than those from other countries to participate in ECEC. Once they reached early childhood, however, those children were more likely to attend ECEC, supporting the idea that paid leave does not compromise parents’ attachment to the job market in the longer term […]. [Also, the] findings illustrate that universal subsidies do not guarantee full participation rates [for example in Québec] subsidized places were limited and insufficient to meet the demand.» (p. 18)