In Germany, more than 163,000 children under the age of six, fleeing from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq, have applied for asylum in 2016, the year net immigration peaked (BAMF, 2017). Since then, immigration of families with young children still continues along with newly arrived mothers giving birth after arrival. While the early years of life lay foundations for long-term development, chaos, threat and deprivation in conjunction with displacement can threaten early child development [ECD] (Fazel et al., 2012; Park, Katsiaficas & McHugh, 2018). Distinctive evidence in Germany yields that young children from newly arrived refugee children families demonstrate higher rates of socio-emotional problems (Buchmüller et al., 2018), lower levels of cognitive, and host country language development but not motor development (author, under review). Slow developmental progress puts a lifelong equity in education and well-being at risk and calls for additional action to support refugee children’s ECD.
ECD programs promote positive youth development
Recent migration of young refugee children focused the attention of practitioners, policy makers and researchers on the early childhood education [ECE] sectors for addressing early developmental disparities. A body of evidence yields the largest long-term benefits for investments in lifespan development if spent during the early years (e.g., Anders, 2013; Schweinhart et al., 1993). Previous studies supported that especially disadvantaged children can benefit from ECD programs, enhancing their developmental potential (Sincovich, 2019; Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013; Winsler et al., 2008). ECD programs subsume a range of child- and caregiver-centered initiatives that aim to facilitate developmental growth and pre-academic learning of children below school age. Therefore, ECD programs not only stimulate children’s motor, social, emotional, language and cognitive skills (High, 2008) but also facilitate adjustment processes, and provide resources to family systems. Previous studies suggested that fostering socio-emotional learning and host country language acquisition via ECD programs has a positive impact on later academic achievements of immigrant and dual-language learning children (Castro et al., 2011; Votruba-Drzal et al., 2015). Notably, such effects seemed overall larger for immigrant- than for non-immigrant populations (Hancock et al., 2012; Weiland et al., 2013). ECD programs could thus contribute to sustainably mitigate developmental, educational and socio-emotional difficulties that have been found for refugee children.
Although the cited evidence documents ECD program effects on short- and also lifetime development trajectories, there is a larger debate on how those effects emerge and how they are determined. ECD programs are overall conceptualized to support young children through direct and indirect pathways. Indirectly, programs support child ecologies, largely through addressing caregivers, and thus especially promote ECD of children at risk (e.g., Lee et al., 2006). Correspondingly, Marti and colleagues (2018) found positive effects of caregivers’ program involvement on child outcomes. Representing direct effects, ECD programs facilitate ECD through the provision of nurturing environments and learning opportunities, in stimulating interactions with program organizers and other children. Dosage effects substantiate such direct pathways, thus the frequency of child program attendance predicts child development outcomes (Zaslow et al., 2016), especially for children from disadvantaged families. In the case of refugee children, ECD programs moreover facilitate the transfer of socio-cultural knowledge and practices of hosting countries after arrival (New et al., 2015). Still, evidence is required on refugee-targeted ECD programs and the distinct determinants of program effectiveness (Murphy et al, 2018).
Early childhood education quality determines effectiveness for child development
Previous research demonstrated that the effectiveness of ECD programs overall depends on ECE quality (Burchinal, et al. 2000; Büchner & Spiess, 2007; Sammons et al., 2014). Low-quality in ECD programs was associated with no or even detrimental effects on child outcomes (Britto, Yoshikawa & Boller, 2011). ECE quality subsumes the structural and process characteristics of a program. Structural quality of the ECE environment includes physical (e.g., group, staff, and equipment), spatial (e.g., location), and temporal characteristics (e.g., schedule and routines; Thomason & Paro, 2009). Process quality encompasses social, emotional, and instructional characteristics, mainly conveyed through caregiver-child interactions (Howes et al., 2008). Process quality can be further separated into instructional support (i.e., cognitive stimulation and pre-academic activity) and social-emotional support (i.e., feelings of comfort and security, positive social interactions). Previous studies demonstrated distinct effects of both structural and process quality on children’s academic and socio-emotional development (Anders et al., 2013; Bradley et al., 2001; Trawick-Smith et al., 2016). Beyond main effects, structural quality is considered to lay groundwork for effects of high process quality (Burchinal, 2018). Process quality was found to represent the primary driver for ECD elicited in ECE (Slot, 2015). Still, few studies with mainly qualitative approaches specifically inform on the relevant structural and process characteristics of ECD programs for refugee children (Hurley et al., 2013; Hurley et al., 2014). Those studies emphasized the importance of distinctive structural characteristics, such as clear routines and schedules, frequent use of symbols for communication and self-expression as well as links to local social service providers for refugee children. Beyond structural characteristics, ECE staff mentioned distinctive components of process characteristics for refugee children. These were high responsiveness and supportive interactions due to children’s high risk for socio-emotional problems. As most of the refugee children were dual language learners, staff moreover mentioned that interactions with a focus on language are especially important. Both studies by Hurley and colleagues aggregated idiosyncratic evidence, reflecting experiences of ECE staff working with refugee children in diverse ECD programs with overall unknown ECE quality.
Identifying ECE quality among diverse ECD programs
Measuring ECE quality, however, has been a difficult endeavor for several reasons. First, ECD programs can have rather different conceptual orientations. While some programs have more holistic orientations focusing on indirect effects (i.e., family systems or support child ecologies in which ECD occurs), others are more specific in their goals and exclusively child-directed (i.e., center-based child groups). Second, ECD programs can be universal, for all children, or rather specific, targeting at particular groups of children and families at risk. Stronger than in previous ECE research, such conceptual differences need consideration in the construction and administration of ECE quality measurement. If not, results on ECE quality are likely a function of the concept or also implementation setting.
Previous ECE quality observation tools adhere to program regulations and are embedded in the contexts, especially the ECE systems, that underlie stakeholder authority reach or certain ECE paradigms. For example, the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS-R; Harms et al., 2015) is a widely used observation tool designed to examine mainly structural characteristics of state-funded and center-based preschool groups in Western, high-income countries (see Betancur et al., 2021 for a discussion and cross-context adaptation). In contrast, playgroups are more heterogenous and flexible ECD programs which tend to emphasize social learning goals (e.g., connecting caregivers and children with the community, fostering a sense of belonging) and joyful activities over children’s progress in pre-academic learning. Distinct from center-based preschool programs, playgroups are typically set up in informal settings and directly engage caregivers (Sincovich et al., 2019). Substantially less work investigated integrating playgroup models and standardized tools for measuring ECE quality among playgroups (Commerford & Robinson, 2016). One reason might be that it is more difficult to propose univocal guidelines given the diverse concepts and goals among playgroups to support ECD. Some previous work (Commerford & Hunter, 2017; Jackson, 2013) proposed core playgroup principles as generated from workshops and focus groups. Key concepts of those principles are to appropriately stimulate early childhood experiences, increase parental knowledge on ECD and learning, facilitate social networks, support transitioning into education and provide resources as well as referral to appropriate services. For low- and middle-income countries, international initiatives recently generated sets of items measuring ECE quality of playgroup-like ECE services. Those sets however are developed along with specific ECD program curricula or distinctively for low-resource contexts and blend structural with process quality aspects for feasibility and easy administration (UNESCO, 2017).
Taken together, previous evidence on policy-based ECD programs has limitations relevant to our research study. First, ECE quality of diverse ECD programs, ranging from center-based preschool programs to playgroups, is seldom considered specific for heterogenous target groups and implementation contexts. However, considering ECE quality as adaptive, or context-dependent, could better contribute to understanding the range of impact and impact heterogeneity among different ECD programs. This is especially important when implementing in emergency contexts (e.g., Child Friendly Spaces, Meltzer et al, 2019) and providing to ethnoculturally-diverse refugee populations (e.g., Dybdahl et al, 2001). Adding to this, some authors have raised ethnocentric concerns when conventional tools are used in different contexts and with diverse populations (e.g., Urban, 2019). Lacking adaption of ECE quality could transport Western views and thus reinforce inequity by marginalizing different definitions of quality and ECD (Hu, 2015). Second, evidence on specific ECE quality at population levels is yet scarce. Such evidence could however directly inform ECE policies in accordance with international and inclusive ECE guidelines. Beyond efforts on program upscaling and enrollment, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, Target 4.2, more recently expanded the focus to ECE quality for maximizing ECE impact for all children worldwide.
Flexible ECD Program Initiative - Bridging Projects in Germany
The challenge to set up and effectively regulate policy-based ECD programs for refugee children has been emerging in Germany since 2015. The Ministry of Children, Families, Refugees and Integration (MKFFI) of the largest German state, North-Rhine Westphalia (NRW), then introduced an ECE policy to support ECD of newly arrived refugee children. Local stakeholders in ECE, such as the Communal Youth Welfare offices and private ECE agencies were granted flexibility in implementing a range of ECD programs, so called “Bridging Projects”, to adapt to local circumstances and the diverse needs of young refugee children and their families. Based on that policy, more than 1,000 ECE programs with an overall capacity of more than 10,000 children have been annually funded. On average, BPs offered enrollment to 8.6 (SD= 4.05) children per group, had a duration of 33.5 weeks (SD= 14.23), and a caretaking time of 10.41 hours per week (SD= 8.27; own calculations based on registration data for BPs). Attendance is fully subsidized as BP organizers receive a flat rate of €30 per hour for caretaking of one to five children. The few regulations request that at least one staff member per group has a qualification in ECE (i.e., formal training or a degree in an ECE-related subject), and the staff-child ratio should be 1:5 or better. Volunteers are encouraged to support trained staff. BP organizers are free to choose the location, time, frequency as well as the age range of children before school entry, and the involvement of parents. Such specialized ECD programs can thus range from highly structured preschool programs to low-barrier mother-child playgroups. At the time of policy implementation, the majority of ECE staff in Germany had no previous experience in teaching larger numbers of refugee children.
Study Aim
Studying the implementation of policy-based and refugee-targeted ECD programs contributes to generate meaningful ECE strategies to stimulate ECD of refugee children. Specifically, assessing ECE quality can inform stakeholders on (1) variations between ECD programs especially when policies provide only few regulations and, (2) on how to refine program guidelines when programs are created locally and regulated at scale. Our study contributes to these pending issues as we investigated the implementation and ECE quality of the BPs. Using a two-phase approach in this study, we (A) explored diverse realizations of BPs and generated a set of measurements to assess ECE quality among diverse BPs. We then, (B), examined ECE quality of the various forms of BPs. We discuss our results in the light of addressing refugee children’s ECD needs at scale and the challenges arising in ECE quality assessments among diverse ECD programs.