Introduction

Quality early learning and child care (ELCC) impacts both labour market growth and child development (Burger, 2010; McLeod et al., 2018). There is greater understanding of the early development of the brain (Mustard, 1999) that has led to increased attention on the importance of environments that support children’s growth and learning. Systematic examination of ELCC settings has highlighted the differential impacts on child developmental outcomes and the importance of quality in ELCC settings and systems (Burger, 2010; Magnuson & Shager, 2010; McCain et al., 2007). Internationally, attention to the concept of quality has been ongoing and has evolved as approaches to ELCC policy, programming, and processes shift to meet the changing needs of a population. At the same time, there has been increased emphasis on universal ELCC systems to support greater access for families, especially for those at socioeconomic disadvantage. As an example, the Canadian federal government through their Canada-Wide ELCC agreements with provincial and territorial governments has committed to work towards the creation of an affordable, accessible, high-quality, and inclusive system of ELCC (Doering, 2021). Further, universally funded programs targeting children prior to entry into the formal school system (typically four-years old or Pre-Kindergarten age) and co-located in existing school settings is a recent model for the delivery of ELCC (Carolan et al., 2020; Corter et al., 2012; Peters et al., 2016). Although there is an established body of research examining the general concept of quality (Layzer & Goodson, 2006; Slot, 2018), there is less known about specific quality elements reflected within ELCC programs that are universally funded and co-located in schools. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to conduct a scoping review to examine what was known about high-quality early childhood programming in publicly-funded, school-based settings.

Background

Well-designed ELCC programs can meet a number of objectives for families and children; along with social support for parents, there is the potential for rich educational experiences for children to shape their collective future (Friendly & Prentice, 2009; Pacini-Ketchabaw et al., 2021). The increasing focus on quality programming in ELCC systems demonstrates recognition of the value of intentional and responsive programming during the early years. Quality is most often discussed within the categories of structural and process quality (Ishimine et al., 2009; Slot, 2018). Structural quality refers to measurable program aspects that are determined by regulations which are believed to effect classroom quality (Bigras, 2010; Howes et al., 2008; Ishimine et al., 2009; Pianta et al., 2005; Slot, 2018). These elements include educator qualifications and training, adult-child ratios, and class group sizes. Process quality refers to more intangible aspects around the interactions and experiences of those within the program, including teachers, caregivers, and children (Bigras, 2010; Howes et al., 2008; Ishimine et al., 2009; Pianta et al., 2005; Slot, 2018). Structural elements of quality are often regulated and are considered precursors to process quality (Slot, 2018). For example, an educator’s qualifications can influence their interactions and relationships with children (Bigras, 2010). However, quality is a complex concept that can vary based on individual perspectives and experiences (Layzer & Goodson, 2006). For example, parents might be more likely to place an importance on school readiness and safety, whereas educators and other program staff may put an emphasis on working conditions like the physical space and co-worker relations (Friendly et al., 2006).

As the perception of child care shifts from being, predominantly, a labour-market support to that of a public service (All for Child Care, 2018; Bennett 2008; Savigny, 2017), an emphasis is placed on developing equitable systems that allow all families access to high-quality ELCC programs, not only those with higher income and education who can choose and pay for higher quality programs (Farran & Hofer, 2011). To this end, some regions are working towards universal access through the development and provision of programs for children the year before school entry, often focused on four-year old children (e.g., referred hereafter as Pre-K, also known Pre-Kindergarten, Junior-Kindergarten or Pre-primary) (Clifford et al., 2005; Friendly et al., 2021), which has been suggested as an opportunity to reduce socio-economic inequalities (West et al., 2010, p. 155). Pre-K programs can be located in a variety of settings, including within public schools, which offers a unique connection to the broader education system (Clifford et al., 2005). Co-locating ELCC programs within a public-school system offers a further advantage to universal programs by providing an infrastructure that allows all families to access publicly-funded, high quality ELCC within their community (McIsaac et al., 2019). This universal approach reaches children from low-income and vulnerable families along with families who are not considered vulnerable and has been associated with better-quality outcomes as compared to programs targeted to vulnerable populations (Akbari et al., 2021; Barnett, 2010).

Theoretical Framework

The application of systems thinking as a theoretical framework can be used to further understand the impacts that environments and interactions have on influencing quality in ELCC. Viewed through a systems framework, macro-level sociocultural (values and beliefs) and meso-level temporal (political, economic and environmental circumstances within a jurisdiction) factors are critical overarching elements required to implement and sustain quality programs within an ELCC system (Kagan & Roth, 2017). Infrastructure sub-systems, such as program quality, assessment and family/community engagement all interact as related elements that operationalize high-quality programs at a proximal level within the broader ELCC system (Kagan & Roth, 2017). A systems framework allows consideration of change over time (i.e., chronosystem) and identification of different levels of influence (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Paquette & Ryan, 2001) that can provide a roadmap to ensure high-quality programming.

Study Purpose

There is growing attention to universal, publicly-funded programs and an understanding that high-quality programs are necessary to achieve the developmental goals for children (Barnett, 2010). However, given the unique nature of universal ELCC programs, particularly those that are co-located in schools, it is important to clarify the concepts that relate to program quality in these settings and to identify knowledge gaps (Munn et al., 2018). A scoping review methodology provides a valid systematic search process to address the purpose of this study which focused on the following research question: What is known about high-quality early childhood programming in publicly-funded, school-based settings? Scoping reviews offer a relevant approach to summarizing literature to map the scope and range of literature to provide a definition and conceptual boundary for a complex topic (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Peters et al., 2015). A systems framework was used to help interpret the findings of the review and advance our understanding about high-quality early childhood programming specifically in publicly-funded, school-based settings.

Methods

Identifying Relevant Studies

Given the expected complexity and heterogeneity of the literature (i.e., non-peer reviewed sources indexed outside of traditional academic databases), a modified scoping review process (Cooper et al., 2018) was used to involve a selection of experts to identify relevant academic and grey literature in addition to the methodological approach recommended by the PRISMA-ScR checklist (Tricco et al., 2018). A list of 28 international early childhood education experts was developed by the research team based on published expertise in early childhood program quality. Experts were contacted by email and were provided an outline of our review question, initial inclusion/exclusion criteria, and were asked to recommend potential research articles and other pertinent literature.

With support from an evidence synthesis expert and with a selection of target articles, we developed a key word search strategy that initially focused on the population context, “early childhood,” AND “public system/education.” Next, the results from this search were combined with the search concept of “program quality” OR “assessment.” Variations for each key word were combined with the “OR” operation to maximize results. EBSCO was the primary electronic database that was searched, which included literature from January 2000-May 2020 indexed within ERIC, Education Research Complete (ERC), Child Development and Adolescent Studies (CDAS), Canadian Business and Current Affairs (CBCA) Complete, and Scopus. We also explored grey literature using an advanced Google search within the websites of key organizations or associations focusing on key terms (see Supplementary Material for Search Translation information).

Our inclusion and exclusion criteria were developed as we gained familiarity with the literature (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005), focusing on population/context, concept, types of literature (see Table 1). We were interested in literature that included the following three population criteria related to early childhood programs that were: (1) delivered through universal, publicly-funded system in high-income countries (OECD, 2020; The World Bank, n.d.); (2) connected to education or school systems, and (3) focused on children in the year before public school entry. Included literature also needed to provide an explicit definition or contribute to the identifying elements of program quality in the respective early childhood setting. We excluded literature that did not focus on the above stated population criteria or contribute to the concept of program quality, as well as being published prior to 2000 and that were not written in the English language.

Table 1 Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Full size table

Following the electronic searches and expert recommendations, all literature was imported into a systematic review management platform (Covidence) for screening. Duplicates were removed before the process of reviewing and assessing literature to determine if they fit the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers independently completed the first level (title and abstracts) and second level (full-text) of screening title and abstracts, and conflict resolution through reviewer discussion occurred as needed. Team consultation was used when the conflict could not be resolved between the reviewers. For grey literature, one reviewer scanned the first two pages of the search results from the organization and potentially relevant literature was screened by two reviewers to determine if it met the inclusion criteria.

Data Abstraction and Synthesis

We synthesized the included literature using a process of independent charting by two researchers using Microsoft Excel focusing on key characteristics including: author(s); publication year; geographic location; article title; purpose statement; research study design; child age in program term; child age in years, theoretical frameworks/perspectives; program details; connection to school; funding structure; universal access; measures of quality; and standards of quality (see Supplementary Item). Further study abstraction included a descriptive numerical summary that focused on frequency counts on key study elements as well as a thematic analysis of the quality descriptions across the included literature (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Open coding was applied using MAXQDA to the quality descriptors by two researchers to identify common concepts that were used to describe/define quality in the included literature. Following open coding, the two researchers grouped concepts together informed by a systems framework (Kagan & Roth, 2017) to capture how common concepts of quality effect the different levels of the ELCC system, including at the system, program, and individual level.

Results

Search Outcome

Following the retrieval of documents from electronic databases, field experts, and grey literature, and the removal of duplicates, a total of 6335 (6201, 87 and 47 respectively) literature sources remained for screening. Figure 1 depicts the screening process resulting in a total of 41 included literature sources. Table 1 provides a descriptive overview of the included literature sources and includes categorical definitions for key charting components of funding, access and connection to school. The majority of the literature were considered descriptive reports (n = 27) and were related to ELCC contexts in the United States of America (n = 26). Other countries with literature included Canada (n = 3), Australia (n = 3), United Kingdom (n = 3), and there was one each from Chile, Spain, and Ireland. Four sources included multiple countries and in two cases, on more than one continent. Much of the included literature discussed mixed funding (59%), meaning both private and public provision, with the remaining literature directly referencing public funding. Included literature often referenced programs that were categorized as located in schools (n = 21), such as publicly administered preschool or Pre-K classrooms. Other literature was categorized as either being administered by a public system (n = 3), mixed delivery in schools and administered by the public system (n = 7), or that it was not clearly identified (n = 10). The most frequently referenced types of access were mixed programs (42%), meaning that the source discussed two or more different types of programs, including programs delivered through a universal, targeted, or hybrid model. Universal (n = 11), targeted (n = 5) and hybrid (n = 3) programs were also identified with some being not clearly identified (n = 5).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Prisma Flow Chart

Full size image

Qualitative Thematic Analysis: Quality Descriptions

A thematic analysis was completed on the quality descriptions noted in the included literature and a systems-thinking approach to identify the relationships among these identified elements. The resulting figure demonstrates the identified themes impacting quality within publicly-funded, universally accessible, programming for four-year-olds connected to the public-school system. Consistent with a systems lens, our results suggest an overarching influence from system-level policies that intersect with practice, people and place within early childhood education and care (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Themes identified as influencing early childhood education and care in universal, publicly-funded settings

Full size image

Policies

This overarching theme included references to internal and external policies related to ELCC systems that can influence quality at all systems levels and includes elements such as government investment/funding, regulations and standards, assessment and evaluation.

Government Investment

Sufficient levels of government investment and funding (n = 10) was found to be an important foundation of quality ELCC to both develop and maintain a system that meets the needs of children and families (Friendly et al., 2006; Kagan & Rigby, 2003; Minervino, 2014). Given that this review focused on publicly-funded programs, it was expected that government involvement would be an included element; however, several sources in the review specifically noted it was an essential component of quality (Barbarin et al., 2006; Jenkins, 2003; Saluja et al., 2001; Bertram & Pascal, 2016) further noted that countries with a high quality ELCC have a policy strategy that is led by government. The most referenced form of public funding was government/public funds (e.g., national/regional level or departmental), as well as grants and subsidies.

Regulations and Standards

A prominent influence on quality identified within the literature was the development and application of regulations and standards (n = 11). Regulations and standards, generally developed and monitored by a jurisdictional regulatory body, (e.g., a government department or ministry), provide a minimum floor of quality for programs to meet (Jenkins, 2003; Bertram & Pascal, 2016) noted in their examination of early childhood systems in eight countries that the development and application of ELCC regulations, standards, and services are better managed when they fall under one regulatory authority, yet in many jurisdictions the responsibility of ELCC is often split into two or more departments. Regulatable features, which generally focus on children’s health, safety, well-being, and protection, often include maximum class sizes, educator qualification levels, and educator to child ratio (Early Childhood Development Steering Committee, 2009; Kagan, 2008.; Kagan & Reid 2008). Specific to the focus of this review, two of the literature sources noted that additional regulations and standards should be considered for elements specific to school-based locations, such as playground accessibility, school principal training, and school environments (Farran, 2017; Sandstrom, 2012).

Assessment and Evaluation

Assessment of the ELCC system was discussed as a way of supporting quality through both child outcomes and assessment of programs (n = 13). Assessment can allow for the improvement in quality, as it is a tool to gather evidence about how quality can be improved (Frede, 2005; Dwyer et al., 2000) noted that program assessments can serve a variety of purposes including a way to communicate with parents, monitor goals, identify supports needed for inclusion, and as a general tool that can be used in both monitoring and planning instruction. Regular program assessment and evaluation was also suggested as contributing to quality by allowing for data-driven decision-making related to funding, programming, policies, and long-term strategic planning (Weisenfeld et al., 2018). Monitoring and accreditation (n = 8) were also referenced as components of a quality ELCC system. Specifically, using program monitoring to identify areas of improvement and collecting data for the purposes of accreditation were viewed as a means to support quality in ELCC programs (Bertram & Pascal, 2016; Early et al., 2006; Murphy, 2015). Accreditation was described as motivating programs to go beyond base level standards by providing them with rewards, recognition, or financial incentives as a means of acknowledging and promoting quality (Jenkins & Englander, 2016; Kagan & Rigby, 2003; Pianta et al., 2016).

Practice

This theme includes components of pedagogy; adult-child ratios, and class sizes; educator/child interactions; and inclusion and diversity.

Pedagogy

Pedagogical elements are an integral part of a high-quality care environment and were often described in the literature (n = 34). Many jurisdictions have introduced curriculum frameworks to guide the practice of ECEs working with young children in the years before formal school entry. In their examination of European curriculum frameworks, Melhuish et al., (2015) found that there was an emphasis on optimal child development through activities that “follow children’s individual ways of learning, and encourage play, exploration, and self-expression” (p.54). Bertram & Pascal (2016) studied pedagogical approaches across eight countries and found that most used a play-based approach.

Adult-Child Ratios and Class Sizes

Other commonly referenced program features included adult-child ratios (n = 27) and class sizes (n = 23). Lower adult-child ratios and class sizes were noted as being elements of higher quality programming (Bogatic et al., 2017; Gallagher et al., 2001; Jenkins & Englander, 2016; McCartney et al., 2011; Peterson, 2013; Rouse et al., 2005; Minervino, 2014) found that in high-quality Pre-K programs, the classrooms had two adults and a class size of twenty-two children or less. Rebell et al., (2013), recommended that for those classrooms that have children requiring additional support (e.g., children with disabilities, English language learners), programs should have lower-class sizes. One literature source in Ireland noted that lower adult-child ratio was a standard quality measure, and those programs that did not meet this standard, resulted in ‘poor outcomes’ for children with disabilities (The National Disability Authority, 2014).

Educator-to-Child Interactions

The various interactions that occur within the ELCC program were also described as influencing quality, such as those that involved educator-to-child (n = 14) and child-to-child (n = 4). The type and quality of interactions children experience can support their development, specifically, their language development, social and cognitive development, and self-regulation (Siraj et al., 2016). Quality measures should include the nature of educator-child interactions, with a focus on ensuring positive relationships (Boufford, 2014; Little, 2018; Magnuson & Waldfogel, 2005; Sylva et al., 2010; Goelman et al., 2008) described how good quality programs were those which included “adult-child interactions that were responsive, cognitively challenging, and encouraged joint attention and negotiation of sustained shared thinking” (p.8).

Inclusion and Diversity

High quality ELCC programs were described as being inclusive of all children, acknowledging and celebrating diverse abilities, cultural backgrounds, and family structures (n = 13). As described by Goelman et al., (2008), cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic differences between families and communities may create access barriers to ELCC programs. Further, the importance of having a range of additional services to meet the diverse needs of at-risk children and families was described in the literature as important to ensuring equitable access (Pianta et al., 2009; Rebell et al., 2013).

Place

The place, or location of an early learning program was commonly referenced as a component of quality ELCC programing, as was the time spent in the place. In the literature that specifically referenced universally accessible programs, the care environment was the element of quality most frequently mentioned.

Learning Environment

This component was described through references to the physical space, such as access to materials and equipment and space furnishings as well as location within a school environment (n = 15). Intangibles, such as the emotional climate and safety, were also included when examining the care environment. Early et al., (2007), noted that even the most highly qualified educators need the necessary classroom characteristics, such as adequate materials, to create a quality learning experience.

Location

Although there were few examples in the included literature that directly connected location to quality, there was some evidence in several sources (n = 5) that situating ELCC programs within a public-school system can provide easier access for families and allows for increased public investment through the creation of integrated ministries/departments for both education and care. Goelman et al., (2008) describe what this successful integration looks like in the Nordic countries where seamless sets of services are provided for children allowing them to remain in one physical space, rather than being moved between different environments. Locations in schools provide a stable infrastructure for universal Pre-K program delivery and provide the opportunity for collaboration between Pre-K and Kindergarten teachers (Kagan & Reid, 2008; Little, 2018).

Dosage

The amount of time spent within the space (dosage) was related to positive outcomes for children (n = 8) both in terms of the number of years that a child attended and the number of hours per day and days per week that a child attended a program (Little, 2018; Minervino, 2013; Pianta et al., 2016; Preston et al., 2011). In a review of the research on early intervention and early learning programs, Goelman et al., (2008) found that “developmental outcomes depend upon program duration (how long the child has attended the program) and intensity (the coherence, clarity, and implementation of the learning activities”.

People

This theme identifies the influences of early childhood educators on quality programming as well as the impacts that other stakeholders have including school personnel, families, and community and partnerships among these individuals, on the quality of ELCC programs in publicly-funded, school-based settings.

Educator Qualifications and Experience

The majority of literature included in this review (n = 36), referenced educator qualifications as playing an important role in quality programming. These literature sources highlight that higher, more formal qualifications meant educators were better able to provide quality programming that met the developmental needs of this age group. As Melhuish & Gardiner (2019) found, while state-funded nurseries had less favorable ratios, they still showed higher process quality compared to private programs, most likely due to higher caregiver qualifications (Melhuish & Gardiner, 2019; Goelman et al., 2008) stated that teacher education is a “major predictor of children’s developmental outcomes” (p. 7).

In addition to post-secondary qualifications, having experience specific to early childhood education (n = 5) was another element of quality cited in the literature and was commonly linked to qualifications. Multiple literature sources suggested that “even a good curriculum cannot replace experienced teachers who have an in-depth understanding of early childhood development and education and are more likely than other teachers to make the most effective use of the chosen curriculum” (Saluja et al., 2001, p. 20).

Professional Development and Training

Professional development and training were cited as indicators of quality in almost half of the included literature sources (n = 19). Access and participation in professional development supports high quality care, regardless of educational background (Pascoe & Brennan, 2017; Marshall et al., 2002), found that those educators with “additional training in early childhood education were more likely to provide the levels of stimulation associated with greater school readiness” (p.6). Access to PD and training appeared to be consistently noted as an important tool in ensuring and/or to improve quality (Bertram & Pascal, 2016; Early et al., 2006, 2007; Leyva et al., 2014; Melhuish et al., 2015; Minervino, 2014; Peterson, 2013; Pianta, 2011; Weiland, 2016).

Wages and Working Conditions

Wages and working conditions included elements such as, staff turnover (n = 4), wages (n = 9), working conditions (n = 2), and sufficient staffing (n = 2). Higher staff/educator wages and lower turnover are common features of high-quality programming (Jenkins, 2003; Melhuish & Gardiner, 2018; Minervino, 2014; Saluja et al., 2001). Two sources also indicated that turnover can have a negative effect on children and argued that programs in public school systems may be able to ensure lower turnover rates. (Early et al., 2007; Saluja et al., 2001).

Partnerships with Administrative Staff, Teaching Assistants, and Principals

Personnel such as administrative staff, teaching assistants and principals were identified as affecting the level of quality in a program, as they provide support for educators and can influence program features. Leadership (n = 7) was the most identified feature, followed by qualified personnel (n = 5). A principal in place who understands early childhood education, either through formal training or previous experience, seemed to make a difference in the success and quality of preschool programs located in schools (Early et al., 2007; Farran, 2017; Jenkins, 2003; Saluja et al., 2001).

Involvement of Families and Communities

Through the included literature, both family (n = 12) and community (n = 3) engagement were recognized as elements of program quality. One study commented on the physical, cultural and social inclusion of children and families in ELCC, placing an emphasis on the need to support Indigenous peoples with the development of ELCC for their communities. Another source spoke to how educators can work to encourage parental involvement in their children’s learning, outlining expectations for parent involvement by setting indicators which included respecting parents, encouraging trust and participation, communicating daily and on an ongoing basis with parents, outlining specific expectations for parent engagement, and involving parents in the design of the program in order to meet the needs of their child(ren) (Dwyer et al., 2000).

Cultural context also played a role in family engagement, with sources noting differing perceptions of quality related to cultural background. One source found that African Americans viewed home-partnerships as important, more so than other groups included in the study (Barbarin et al., 2006). Another focused on quality care for Indigenous groups and communities and noted the importance of engaging parents and the community (Preston et al., 2011). They suggested empowerment of Indigenous communities by promoting family participation (Preston et al., 2011; Dwyer et al., 2000) also highlighted the need for educators to be competent in working with diverse families. Recommendations for educators and/or staff included having knowledge of the cultural and social contexts that children exist in, having respect for diverse families and their traditions and values, and accommodating a family’s preferred language when communicating.

Discussion

The purpose of this review was to identify what is known in the literature about high-quality early childhood programming in publicly-funded, school-based settings. Defining quality in this specific setting is not a straightforward process, given the complexity of the concept and the unique characteristics of this setting (Layzer & Goodson, 2006). There are different systems and perspectives to consider and, for this reason, confining the conversation to the more traditional categories of structural and process quality (Ishimine et al., 2009; Slot, 2018) is likely incomplete. Using systems-thinking as a theoretical framework, this scoping review expanded the image of quality to include internal and external influences on quality programming, specifically examining the themes of policies, practice, place, and people. In this section, we discuss these broader themes to provide considerations to further support quality in early learning programs, both directly and indirectly.

A key finding of this review is the foundational importance of the initial and ongoing policies that govern publicly-funded, school-based early learning programs. Sustainable funding, adherence to regulations, government investment and ongoing assessment and evaluation are key to the provision of quality programming (Friendly et al., 2006; Friendly & Beach, 2005). Ongoing, planned, and well-resourced assessment and evaluation of such programs could also contribute to supporting high quality practice, by determining if programs are reaching goals and ensuring funding effectiveness (Friendly et al., 2006). Practices identified in the literature that support high quality programs in Pre-K include following a pedagogical approach that is responsive to children’s ways of learning, for example using a play-based approach that supports exploration and self-expression. Other practices described in the literature as being indicators of quality include lower adult-to-child ratios (Friendly et al., 2006), with even smaller class sizes and ratio depending on the individual support needs of children within the classroom (Rebell et al., 2013). In addition to group size, warm, responsive, and positive relationships between educators and children were also identified in the review, with these relationships being seen as critical to supporting joint attention and sustained shared thinking. The extent to which programs support and promote inclusion and diversity was also found to be related to the quality of the program. Inclusion referred to the acknowledgement and celebration of diverse abilities, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, family structures, and differences in socioeconomic differences (Goelman et al., 2006). It could also include any reference to additional or specialized service supports that are provided to children and families in the program (Pianta et al., 2009; Rebell et al., 2013).

The location and the time spent in the learning environment, as well as the structure of the learning environment itself are all considered important components of quality under the theme of place. Location in schools provides a stable infrastructure for the programming and allows for potential collaborations between early childhood educators and the primary (i.e. Kindergarten) teachers. The time spent in the program, or ‘dosage’ is an important component of quality, as well. Therefore, the more time spent in a quality early learning program designed for children in the year prior to school entry supports positive outcomes for children (Minervino, 2013). Further, as with most educational programs and care environments, the people who work and participate in Pre-K programs determine the quality of the program being offered. For educators, their level of post-secondary education specific to early childhood education is a major indicator of positive developmental outcomes for children (Howes et al., 2003); more formal qualifications often related to better quality programming (Manning et al., 2017). As well, having experience specific to early childhood education was also cited as a predictor of quality (Jenkins, 2003; Saluja et al., 2001), as was their ongoing professional development and training (Marshall et al., 2002; Son et al., 2013). Most jurisdictions require more ECEs with post-secondary qualifications than are currently working in the field and, therefore, the development of a workforce strategy, focusing on key aspects related to qualifications, remuneration, and working conditions can help to strengthen and maintain a qualified ECE workforce (Barnett, 2003; Friendly et al., 2006; Halfon & Langford, 2015). Further, those who partner with educators in these universal early learning settings also determine the level of program quality. Specifically, personnel such as school administrators, principals, and teaching assistants were identified as having an influence on the quality of programming in similar school-based settings (Bish et al., 2011). Finally, the literature in this review identified that the involvement of families and communities has an impact on program quality (Dwyer et al., 2000). When parents, families, and community members are welcomed to participate in an early learning setting at a level that is possible for them in terms of their resources and availability, educators become more aware of families’ perspectives of quality and gain knowledge of the cultural and social contexts of the children in their program. This is essential if programs are to be inclusive and responsive to the needs of the families and the community.

Limitations

While this review identified many essential elements of quality, there are elements that have likely been missed or limited in their prominence within the literature. The most prominent discussion missing surrounds the role of culture and diversity in quality programming (Ishimine & Tayler, 2014; Jalongo et al., 2004; Tobin, 2005). While this discussion was limited within the literature, there is an increasing awareness about the need to ensure that programs and ELCC systems, including post-secondary training programs are responsive to the different stakeholders involved in the program, including families, children, staff, communities, and marginalized groups. The increased understanding of the importance of providing culturally responsive and diverse programs requires a rethinking of the possibility or the appropriateness of creating an all encompassing or universal definition of quality. There is a need to examine quality definitions with the understanding that any definitions, and consequential standards governing publicly-funded programs, need to be responsive to the various communities in which they operate.

Conclusions

This scoping review provides insight into the complexities involved when attempting to define quality in early learning programs, especially in relation to school-based, universal, publicly-funded Pre-K programs. With that said, the literature did identify specific factors that appear to influence quality. These factors are situated within the overarching theme of policies that govern the operation of Pre-K programs which is, in turn, linked to the three distinct themes of people, place and practice. Broadening the definition of quality to include these themes underscores the connections between the many systems and stakeholders involved in the development and operation of early learning programs and how the quality of these programs is affected at any and all of these levels. The findings of this scoping review also point to gaps in the literature specific to defining and assessing quality in publicly-funded, school-based early learning programs, highlighting the need for further research in this area.