4. Reporting early childhood development
4.1 How has ECD been measured to date?
In recent years, attention has focused on
development of regionally- or globally-comparable population-based measures of ECD. All the tools summarised in Table 4.1 are designed to capture children’s development in the late preschool years using a combination of mathematics, literacy, language, and social/emotional and motor development items. Several measures are used across more than one country and at the population level (see Figure 4.1).
There are advantages and disadvantages for each type of tool. Direct assessment is sometimes considered to be the most objective way to capture information on children’s development. In many cases, this type of assessment may not be feasible unless it is carried out within a household survey and may not be capable of capturing many aspects of social/
emotional development. Parents may not be accurate in reporting on specific details of their children’s development as direct observers, even though they have the most depth and breadth of knowledge and therefore offer different information from that captured by other forms of direct assessment. Teachers are good reporters of children’s behaviour in schools and therefore may be well-suited to predict which children will succeed over time, but only if they have the chance to get to know each child individually.
50 This discussion reflects the papers written by Anderson and Raikes (2017) and Yoshikawa et al. (2017) for GAML Task Force 4.
Figure 4.1 Map of selected ECD tools
Table 4.1 ECD measurement tools for 5-year-olds which have been tested in more than one country
Tool Type of administration
Income level of country where it was tested
East Asia Pacific Child Development Scales
(EAP-CDS) Direct assessment Middle-income
Early Development Instrument Teacher survey High-and middle-income income Early Human Capability Index (EHCI) Direct child assessment Middle-income
International Development and Early Learning
Assessment (IDELA) Direct child assessment
and caregiver survey Low- and middle-income MICS Early Child Development Index (ECDI) Parent survey Low- and middle-income income MELQO Measure of Development and Early
Learning (MODEL) Direct assessment or
parent or caregiver survey Low- and middle-income Regional Project on Child Development
Indicators (PRIDI) Direct child assessment Middle-income UNICEF WCARO Early Learning Assessment
(ELA) of Primary Education Entrants Direct child assessment
and group assessment Low- and middle-income Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Parent survey Low-, middle- and high-income
Source: Anderson and Raikes, 2017.
MICS
IDELA EDI
Young Lives MELQO
EHCI
Note: The ECD initiatives on the map are not indicative of any national or regional sampling.
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS).
Figure 4.1 Map of selected ECD tools
4.1.1 Defining “globally-comparable”
The SDG target identifies health, learning and psychosocial well-being as key domains in determining readiness for primary school. Within each of these broad domains, a smaller sub-set of domains can be selected for global monitoring based on feasibility and desirability. There are a few key considerations to keep in mind when evaluating the extent to which the domains may be considered globally-comparable.
First, developmental science points strongly towards a holistic view of early childhood development, because early development is interconnected, with many skills supporting development across domains. This means that multiple domains are necessary to describe children’s learning and development, regardless of comparability.
Second, some domains are more easily indexed than others. For some domains, internationally-comparable data may be easier to reliably achieve across countries because children typically follow a predictable pattern of progressively more complex development. However, the harder-to-index skills may be some of the most critical to measure (i.e. social/emotional development) and the least comparable across contexts.
Third, nearly all major assessments of child
development include multiple domains, with different names and/or the same items, but often assigned to different domains. Assessment of comparability thus should include careful examination of constructs and items, as well as domains.
Finally, there is currently no systematic approach to determining standards for testing international comparability in early childhood. While there are certainly standards that can be applied from primary school learning measurement, the unique nature of ECD means that a specific set of standards should be developed and applied, before determining whether existing data point towards comparability or lack thereof in domains.
4.1.2 “Developmentally on track”
There are presently no agreed-upon definitions of
“developmentally on track” that are specific enough to guide internationally-comparable, regional or national measurement. Conceptually, identifying some children as “developmentally on track” implies that other children are not “developmentally on track” simply by the nature of the statement, which is articulated as a binary option (either “on” or “off” track).
Box 4.1. Issues in globally-comparable measurement
An immediate step is to decide on standards for international comparability in early childhood data and to assess existing data sources against these standards.
There are potential tensions between feasibility and precision, and the challenges are technical and with financial constraints.
Household surveys are typically more expensive than centre- or school-based assessments, because it is
necessary to sample and visit individual households. Less travel time is required when a group of children is in one location.
Theoretically, all domains of child development could be measured in an internationally-comparable way. By considering existing data and finding a balance between feasibility and desirability, the GAML Task Force on Indicator 4.2.1 discussed the possibility of a stepping-stone strategy (e.g. starting with the easiest domain or what would be measured in subsequent levels of education), but this was discarded (see discussion below for more information).
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS).
Figure 1.1 Interim reporting of SDG 4 indicators
Option 1: Rely on national standards. Many countries have gone through the process of developing early learning development standards (ELDS) or other types of standards that include children’s development. These standards are holistic in nature and are intended to inform measurement by outlining consensus on what children should be able to do at certain ages. This approach runs the risk of perpetuating inequity because the quality of the standards and the extent to which the standards are developmentally appropriate may vary considerably by country. To generate a globally-comparable estimate, the purchasing power parity (PPP) estimate is calculated, based on a common global currency scale. The applicability of this approach to ECD could be explored as a path towards synchronising national-level and globally-relevant data.
Option 2: Invest in the creation of a global scale.
The World Health Organization (WHO) invested in the development of growth scales that have had a profound impact on attention to malnutrition. A similar approach could be explored for older children as well. A first step would be careful examination of the pros and cons of the feasibility and desirability of this approach, including costs and expected benefits.
Option 3: Leave undefined. Assume that
“developmentally on track” is useful as a conceptual model but that it cannot be precisely quantified and therefore will not be measured anytime soon.
Overtime, it could be informed empirically by using existing data to more fully define a cross-nationally-relevant definition.
GAML Task Force members proposed a hybrid approach between Options 1 and 2, where national standards are reviewed and used to develop a global definition of “developmentally on track“ and a possible global scale.