Early childhood education quality and child outcomes in China: Evidence from Zhejiang Province

• The quality of early care and education (ECE) in China and its associations with child developmental outcomes were examined using a large and diverse sample from a relatively developed province of China.
• ECE quality and child outcomes were measured using tools developed and validated in China to provide culturally appropriate assessment.
• ECE quality in this province was deemed as moderately low overall, with lower quality in rural than urban areas, and in private than public programs.
• Multilevel analyses indicated that one dimension of ECE quality, teaching and interactions, was modestly associated with child outcomes in language, early math, and social cognition.

Despite high rates of Chinese kindergarteners (3–6 years old) enrollment in early care and education (ECE), the quality of that care has not been widely examined. Following rapid economic growth in urban areas in the past three decades, there are growing concerns within China that families in urban and rural areas are experiencing an ECE opportunity gap. To address this concern, this study examined ECE quality and its association with child outcomes based on a relatively large sample of kindergartens in China. Using a stratified and random sampling method, the study recruited 1, 012 children (age 3–6) from 178 classrooms in Zhejiang Province, a relatively developed region with a population of over 54 million people. We used the Chinese Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale to measure ECE quality and found moderately low quality for the study sample. Also, lower quality was observed in rural than urban areas, in private than public programs, and in programs with overall low parent education than those with high parent education. One dimension of quality, teaching and interactions, predicted child outcomes in language, early math, and social cognition as measured by the Children's Developmental Scale of China (age 3–6) in hierarchical linear models. The possible sociocultural and contextual reasons for these findings and implications for policymakers and practitioners are discussed in this paper.