peer reviewed articles on early childhood education

Disclaimer » Advertising

• HealthyChildren.org

• Previous Article
• Next Article

Quality Matters

Barriers to high-quality ece, steps to improve quality ece, recommendations for pediatricians, recommendations for community-level actions, recommendations for national- and state-level actions, lead author, council on early childhood executive committee, 2015–2016, quality early education and child care from birth to kindergarten.

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• CME Quiz Close Quiz
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Elaine A. Donoghue , COUNCIL ON EARLY CHILDHOOD , Dina Lieser , Beth DelConte , Elaine Donoghue , Marian Earls , Danette Glassy , Alan Mendelsohn , Terri McFadden , Seth Scholer , Jennifer Takagishi , Douglas Vanderbilt , P. Gail Williams; Quality Early Education and Child Care From Birth to Kindergarten. Pediatrics August 2017; 140 (2): e20171488. 10.1542/peds.2017-1488

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

High-quality early education and child care for young children improves physical and cognitive outcomes for the children and can result in enhanced school readiness. Preschool education can be viewed as an investment (especially for at-risk children), and studies show a positive return on that investment. Barriers to high-quality early childhood education include inadequate funding and staff education as well as variable regulation and enforcement. Steps that have been taken to improve the quality of early education and child care include creating multidisciplinary, evidence-based child care practice standards; establishing state quality rating and improvement systems; improving federal and state regulations; providing child care health consultation; as well as initiating other innovative partnerships. Pediatricians have a role in promoting quality early education and child care for all children not only in the medical home but also at the community, state, and national levels.

Children’s early experiences are all educational, whether they are at home, with extended family and friends, or in early education and child care settings. Those educational experiences can be positive or negative. At present, more than half of children less than 5 years old regularly attend some type of out-of-home child care or early childhood program, 1 and their experiences in these settings will affect their future lives. 1 The arrangements families make for their children can vary dramatically, including care by parents and relatives, center-based child care, family child care provided in a caregiver’s home, care provided in a child’s own home by nannies or baby-sitters, or a combination of these types of care. 1 , – 3 How a family chooses this care is influenced by family values, affordability, and availability. 2 , 4 For many families, high-quality child care is not available or affordable. 2 , 4 This policy statement outlines the importance of quality child care and what pediatricians can do to help children get care in high-quality early childhood education (ECE) settings.

When care is consistent, developmentally appropriate, and emotionally supportive, and the environment is healthy and safe, there is a positive effect on children and their families. 5 , – 14 Children who are exposed to poor-quality environments (whether at home or outside the home) are more likely to have unmet socioemotional needs and be less prepared for school demands. 5 , – 14 Behavioral problems in ECE can lead to preschool expulsion with cascading negative consequences. Each year, 5000 children are expelled from ECE settings, which is a rate 3 times higher than that of their school-aged counterparts. 15 When behavioral health consultation is available to preschool teachers, the rate of reported expulsions is half that of the control population. 15 , 16  

Early education does not exist in a silo; learning begins at birth and occurs in all environments. Early brain and child development research unequivocally demonstrates that human development is powerfully affected by contextual surroundings and experiences. 17 , – 19 A child’s day-to-day experiences affect the structural and functional development of his or her brain, including his or her intelligence and personality. 17 , – 19 Children begin to learn to regulate their emotions, solve problems, express their feelings, and organize their experiences at an early age and then use those skills when they arrive at school. 19 The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has recognized the importance of early brain and child development by making it a strategic priority.

Research of high-quality, intensive ECE programs for low-income children confirm lasting positive effects such as improved cognitive and social abilities (including better math and language skills than control groups). 5 , – 14 The indicators of high-quality ECE have been studied and are summarized in Table 1 .

Domains of Health and Safety Quality in ECE

Adapted from Stepping Stones 20  

There are different staff-to-child ratios for small-family homes, large-family homes, and centers. Ratios are also based on the ages of the children. Specific staff-to-child ratios are described in standard (1.1.1.2). 21  

Many families have no quality child care options in their immediate communities. 2 The positive effects from high-quality programs and the negative effects from poor-quality programs are magnified in children from disadvantaged situations or with special needs, and yet, these children are least likely to have access to quality early education and child care. 2 , 4 , 22 , 23 Barriers to high-quality ECE include inadequate funding and staff education as well as inconsistent regulation and enforcement. 15 Funding on the federal, state, and local levels (even when combined with parental fees) often does not provide adequate financial support to ensure proper training, reasonable compensation, or career advancement opportunities for the early education workforce. 2 , – 4 , 22 , – 25 Adequate compensation of early education providers promotes quality by recruiting and retaining trained staff and their directors. Young children, especially infants and toddlers, need stable, positive relationships with their caregivers to thrive, and staff retention helps maintain those strong relationships. 19 Budget restrictions also limit the number of children who can be served. 22 As of 2012, 23 states had wait lists for their child care subsidy programs, and many areas have wait lists for Head Start programs. 4 Finally, budget restrictions may limit a program’s ability to hire child care health consultants. ECE settings rarely have health professionals like school nurses despite the fact that the children served are younger, less able to express their symptoms, and are prone to more frequent infectious illnesses. 26 Some states require child care health consultants to visit infant and toddler programs regularly.

State regulations of ECE programs vary dramatically because of an absence of national regulation, and this contributes to variation in ECE quality. Family child care settings have different regulations than center-based care, and some forms of child care are exempt from regulation. 23 , 25 , 27 The variability in regulation, staff screening, staff training, and the availability of supports such as child care health consultation contribute to a wide variation in quality. Even when regulations are present, enforcement varies, and only 44 states conduct annual health and safety inspections. 23 , 25  

The definition of quality in ECE is becoming more evidence based as newer, validated measures become available. State licensing standards have been the traditional benchmarks, but they set a minimum standard that is typically considerably less than the recommendations of health and safety experts. 20 , 21 , 23 , 25 , 27 , 28 National organizations including the AAP, the American Public Health Association, and the National Association for the Education of Young Children have developed standards and voluntary systems of accreditation that are often more robust than state licensing regulations. The publication Caring for Our Children, Third Edition 21 includes evidence-based practice standards for nutrition, safety, hygiene, staff-to-child ratios, and numerous other subjects that have been shown to improve the quality of child care. 29 , 30  

The quality rating and improvement system (QRIS) is a method of quality improvement that is being implemented in >75% of states. 25 QRISs use research-based, measurable standards to define quality levels, which are often denoted by a star rating system. QRISs often use incentives (such as staff scholarships, tiered reimbursement for child care subsidies, and technical assistance and/or professional development) as strategies to improve ECE quality. Unfortunately, the QRIS does not always include key health and safety standards. Those who are responsible for implementing QRISs would benefit from input from pediatricians, who are familiar with health issues and with the challenges of translating research into practice. Child care resource and referral agencies are available nationwide, and they serve as regional resources for information about quality child care. They often also serve as a resource for QRIS implementation; however, most child care resource and referral agencies do not have adequate funding to hire early childhood health consultants as part of that technical assistance.

Improving access to child care health consultation is another way to positively affect the health and safety of children in ECE. Child care health consultants are health professionals who are trained to provide technical assistance and develop policies about health issues, such as medication administration, infection control, immunization, and injury prevention. 31 Child care health consultants also can provide developmental, hearing, oral health, and vision screenings and provide assistance with integrating children with special health care needs into ECE settings. 29 , 32 , 33  

The opportunities to use ECE programs to teach healthy habits (including healthy food choices, increased physical activity, and oral health practices) should not be overlooked. These messages can then be shared with families. Health screening services (such as vision and dental testing) also can be provided.

Innovative strategies to promote access to quality care and education also include state initiatives to promote cross-disciplinary teams (such as Early Childhood Advisory Councils), public-private funding partnerships, and universal preschool programs.

Ask families what child care arrangements they have made for their children, and educate them about the importance of high-quality child care. Resources include brochures (listed in Resources); checklists of quality, which can be accessed at www.aap.org/healthychildcare ; and referrals to local child care resources and referral agencies, which can be found at www.childcareaware.org .

Become educated about high-quality child care through the resources on the Healthy Child Care America Web site ( www.healthychildcare.org ), in Caring for Our Children , 21 and others (see Resources).

Be a medical home by participating in the 3-way collaboration with families and ECE professionals. The medical home concept of comprehensive, coordinated care is particularly critical for children with special health care needs. Three-way communication among the pediatricians, families, and ECEs can facilitate shared knowledge of the unique child care needs of children with special needs and foster implementation of child care policies and practices to meet those needs. 32 , 33 These activities are likely to improve access to ECE for these patients. Detailed care plans written in lay language assist in this collaboration. Medical team-based or time-based coding and billing may provide support for these efforts.

Advise families and early educators when children are having behavioral problems in ECE and are at risk for expulsion. Explain the triggers for behavior problems and recommend behavioral health resources as needed. 16 Some states have behavioral health resources available for young children through an Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation program. Read the AAP policy statement and technical report on toxic stress 19 and learn about the resources that are available through each state’s early care and education system.

Discuss the importance of guidelines on safe sleep, immunization, safe medication administration, infection control, healthy diet and physical activity, oral health, medical home access, and other health topics with local child care centers. Share resources such as Caring for Our Children , 21   Bright Futures , and the Healthy Child Care Web site ( www.healthychildcare.org ).

Become a child care health consultant or support your local child care health consultant nurses. Consider conducting a health and safety assessment in a local child care program by using a national health and safety checklist ( www.ucsfchildcarehealth.org ).

Educate policy makers about the science that supports the benefits of quality early child care and education and, conversely, the lost opportunities and setbacks that result from poor-quality care. 15 , 24  

Close the gaps between state regulations and the quality standards outlined in Caring for Our Children by encouraging strong state regulation and enforcement. Each AAP chapter has a legislative group that can help target these public policy makers with visits and letters. Nearly every AAP chapter also has an Early Childhood Champion, a pediatrician who is familiar with the early education and child care needs in that chapter and has knowledge about local resources to assist your efforts. Find your Early Childhood Champion at www.aap.org/coec .

Support a QRIS in your state if one is being implemented, and encourage robust child health and safety standards based on Caring for Our Children .

Advocate for improved funding for child care health consultation.

Encourage training of ECE professionals on health and safety topics, such as medication administration and safe sleep practices for infants. Consider providing training that uses the Healthy Futures curriculum provided on the Healthy Child Care Web site ( www.healthychildcare.org ).

Advocate and encourage expanded access to high-quality ECE through funding, such as expanded Child Care Developmental Block grants or Head Start funding. Reach out to legislators on the national and state levels to make the case for investing in quality early education as a good business, education, and social investment that has shown a strong return on investment. Encourage pediatric representation on state Early Childhood Advisory Councils or similar state groups to make the case to state officials personally.

American Academy of Pediatrics. Choosing Child Care: What’s Best for Your Family [Pamphlet]. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2002. Available through the AAP publications department: 800/433-9016 or at www.aap.org

American Academy of Pediatrics. The Pediatrician’s Role in Promoting Health and Safety in Child Care. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2001. Available at: www.healthychildcare.org

Child Care Aware, National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). Is this the right place for my child? 38 research-based indicators of quality child care. Available at: http://childcareaware.org/resources/printable-materials/

Child Care Aware, National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies (NACCRRA). Quality child care matters for infants and toddlers. Available at: http://childcareaware.org/families/choosing-quality-child-care

Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, local referral agencies that can assist families in finding quality, affordable programs. Available at: http://childcareaware.org/families/choosing-quality-child-care/selecting-a-child-care-program/

Head Start. Early childhood learning and knowledge center. Available at: http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/health

Healthy Child Care America. Federally funded and housed at the AAP, this Web site has many resources for health and ECE professionals. Available at: www.healthychildcare.org

National Association for the Education of Young Children. Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC); 2009. Available at: www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSDAP.pdf

National Resource Center for Health and Safety in Child Care and Early Education. Available at: www.nrckids.org

Zero to Three. Early Experiences Matter Policy Guide. Washington, DC: Zero to Three; 2009. Available at: https://www.zerotothree.org/resources/119-early-experiences-matter-policy-guide

Zero to Three. Matching Your Infant’s and Toddler’s Style to the Right Child Care Setting. Washington, DC: Zero to Three; 2001. Available at: https://www.zerotothree.org/resources/86-matching-your-infant-s-or-toddler-s-style-to-the-right-child-care-setting

American Academy of Pediatrics

early childhood education

quality rating and improvement system

Dr Donoghue updated the previous policy statement and revised that original document by adding references, updating the wording, and adding new sections based on updates from the field. The document went through several layers of review, and Dr Donoghue was responsible for responding to those comments.

This document is copyrighted and is property of the American Academy of Pediatrics and its Board of Directors. All authors have filed conflict of interest statements with the American Academy of Pediatrics. Any conflicts have been resolved through a process approved by the Board of Directors. The American Academy of Pediatrics has neither solicited nor accepted any commercial involvement in the development of the content of this publication.

Policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics benefit from expertise and resources of liaisons and internal (AAP) and external reviewers. However, policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics may not reflect the views of the liaisons or the organizations or government agencies that they represent.

The guidance in this statement does not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.

All policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics automatically expire 5 years after publication unless reaffirmed, revised, or retired at or before that time.

FUNDING: No external funding.

Elaine A. Donoghue, MD, FAAP

Jill Sells, MD, FAAP, Chairperson

Beth DelConte, MD, FAAP

Elaine Donoghue, MD, FAAP

Marian Earls, MD, FAAP

Danette Glassy, MD, FAAP

Alan Mendelsohn, MD, FAAP

Terri McFadden, MD, FAAP

Seth Scholer, MD, FAAP

Jennifer Takagishi, MD, FAAP

Douglas Vanderbilt, MD, FAAP

P. Gail Williams, MD, FAAP

Claire Lerner, LCSW, Zero to Three

Barbara U. Hamilton, MA, Maternal and Child Health Bureau

David Willis, MD, FAAP, Maternal and Child Health Bureau

Lynette Fraga, PhD, Child Care Aware

Abbey Alkon, RN, PNP, PhD, National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners

Laurel Hoffmann, MD, AAP Section on Medical Students, Residents, and Fellows in Training

Charlotte O. Zia, MPH, CHES

Competing Interests

Advertising Disclaimer »

Citing articles via

Email alerts.

Affiliations

• Editorial Board
• Editorial Policies
• Journal Blogs
• Pediatrics On Call
• Online ISSN 1098-4275
• Print ISSN 0031-4005
• Pediatrics Open Science
• Hospital Pediatrics
• Pediatrics in Review
• AAP Grand Rounds
• Latest News
• Pediatric Care Online
• Red Book Online
• Pediatric Patient Education
• AAP Toolkits
• AAP Pediatric Coding Newsletter

First 1,000 Days Knowledge Center

Institutions/librarians, group practices, licensing/permissions, integrations, advertising.

• Privacy Statement | Accessibility Statement | Terms of Use | Support Center | Contact Us
• © Copyright American Academy of Pediatrics

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

• Open access
• Published: 22 May 2021

Fostering socio-emotional learning through early childhood intervention

• Christina F. Mondi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1619-6389 1 ,
• Alison Giovanelli 2 &
• Arthur J. Reynolds 3  

International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy volume  15 , Article number:  6 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

32k Accesses

18 Citations

8 Altmetric

Metrics details

Educators and researchers are increasingly interested in evaluating and promoting socio-emotional learning (SEL) beginning in early childhood (Newman & Dusunbury in 2015; Zigler & Trickett in American Psychologist 33(9):789–798 https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.9.789 , 1978). Decades of research have linked participation in high-quality early childhood education (ECE) programs (e.g., public prekindergarten, Head Start) to multidimensional wellbeing. ECE programs also have demonstrated potential to be implemented at large scales with strong financial returns on investment. However, relatively few studies have investigated the effects of ECE programs on SEL, particularly compared to smaller-scale, skills-based SEL interventions. Furthermore, among studies that have examined SEL, there is a general lack of consensus about how to define and measure SEL in applied settings. The present paper begins to address these gaps in several ways. First, it discusses conceptual and methodological issues related to developmentally and culturally sensitive assessment of young children’s socio-emotional functioning. Second, it reviews the empirical research literature on the impacts of three types of early childhood programs (general prekindergarten programs; multi-component prekindergarten programs; and universal skills-based interventions) on SEL. Finally, it highlights future directions for research and practice.

Fostering socio-emotional learning through early childhood programming

What are the best ways to assess the effectiveness of early childhood intervention programs? This question has been debated for decades, and the answer has tremendous implications for public policy. During the mid-twentieth century, many research studies primarily examined whether intervention participation led to improvements in children’s IQ scores. Some researchers, however, argued for a more multidimensional approach to assessing intervention outcomes. Edward Zigler, one of the architects of Head Start, notably proposed that the primary outcome of interest in early childhood interventions should be children’s “social competence” (Raver & Zigler, 1997 ; Zigler & Trickett, 1978 ). Interest in social competence grew in the second half of the twentieth century, with numerous studies indicating that socio-emotional and motivational variables exert significant impacts on wellbeing in childhood and beyond (Greenberg et al., 2003 ; Jones et al., 2015 ). By the turn of the twenty-first century, a national sample of teachers reported that they believed that the ability to regulate emotions and behaviors is the most important component of school readiness (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000 ).

Today, educators and researchers continue to be interested in evaluating and promoting socio-emotional learning (SEL) starting in early childhood. Early childhood SEL skills develop rapidly, are uniquely malleable, and are strongly associated with later social, academic, cognitive, and health outcomes (Zins et al., 2007 ). Skills-based interventions that specifically target children’s SEL have been a major area of investigation (McClelland et al., 2017 ). However, relatively less is known about the impacts of large-scale early childhood education (ECE) programs on SEL, despite the potential of such programs to effect broad impacts. Furthermore, despite the growing enthusiasm surrounding the concept of SEL, many of the same methodological issues that Zigler and colleagues described in the 1970s still persist. Review of the literature reveals a lack of consensus among researchers and practitioners regarding how to define, evaluate, and promote SEL.

McCabe and Altamura ( 2011 ) previously reviewed the impact of a variety of preschool interventions on SEL, including both skills-based interventions and comprehensive classroom- and home-based programs. The authors reported that many programs were associated with short-term SEL benefits, but that there was a need for additional longitudinal research in this area. Notably, the authors did not explicate their review methodology or inclusion criteria, making it difficult to ascertain the representativeness and comprehensiveness of their findings. This limitation, combined with the publication of a number of studies since 2011, signal the need for an updated review of different intervention strategies for preschool-aged children.

The present paper reviews the most methodologically rigorous research that is available on the relationship between preschool intervention and SEL. We begin by discussing what the construct of SEL is (and is not)—a topic that that has been the subject of some debate and confusion in the literature. Having outlined a conceptual and methodological framework for SEL, we will then describe specific study aims and methods.

Socio-emotional competencies in early childhood

During the early 1990s, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) attempted to organize decades of empirical research on socio-emotional development into a socio-emotional learning (SEL) framework (Newman & Dusunbury, 2015 ). Since then, the CASEL framework has been widely used by researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike, informing the development of federal and state state legislation and learning standards.

According to CASEL researchers, SEL is the process of learning to “integrate thinking, feeling, and behaving to achieve important life tasks” (Zins et al., 2007 , p. 194). SEL encompasses children’s emerging abilities to “form close and secure…relationships; experience, regulate, and express emotions in socially and culturally appropriate ways; and explore the environment and learn—all in the context of family, community, and culture” (Yates et al., 2008 , p. 2). CASEL’s SEL framework is grounded in research on typical and atypical socio-emotional development and highlights five core competency areas: (a) self-awareness; (b) self-management; (c) social awareness; (d) relationship skills; and (e) responsible decision-making (Collaborative for Social & Emotional Learning [CASEL], 2012 ; “Core SEL Competencies”, 2019 ; Weissberg et al., 2016 ). These competences are outlined in Table 1 .

Importantly, while CASEL’s five core competency areas are common across most cultures, specific aspects of adaptive SEL functioning may vary based on race/ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, and other cultural factors. Cognitive, linguistic, and behavioral traits that are considered to be adaptive and desirable in non-majority culture communities may be perceived as problematic or even pathological by majority culture educators (Phillips, 1993 ; West-Olatunji et al., 2008 ). These perceptions may be partially attributed to educators’ own biases, and to disparities between the culture and structure of children’s home and school environments (Boykin, 1983 ; Han & Thomas, 2010 ; Ladson-Billings, 1995 ; McCarthy et al., 2006 ; Webb-Johnson, 2002 ). Thus, when assessing children’s SEL, researchers and educators should carefully consider the role that culture plays in shaping children’s behavior, and avoid conflating cultural behavioral differences with disorder.

Conceptual and measurement issues

Distinguishing sel from executive function.

SEL skills have often been referred to as “non-cognitive” skills in research and practice. Yet many researchers have argued that this designation is a misnomer, given that SEL skills are often grounded in skills related to cognition, learning, and memory. Among the most significant contributors to SEL are executive functioning (EF) skills, which include the cognitive processes necessary for planning, organizing, and problem-solving. Several studies have linked EF deficits to concurrent SEL deficits, and longitudinal work has indicated that EF skills in early childhood predict SEL competence later in life (e.g., Riggs et al., 2006 ). Thus, EF and SEL competencies, (including self-management, as identified by CASEL’s framework) can be conceptualized as distinct but related, and at times overlapping, constructs.

Distinguishing SEL from psychopathology

Psychologists increasingly agree that mental health is most accurately conceptualized on a continuum, ranging from clinically significant psychopathology to psychological wellbeing or flourishing (Keyes, 2002 ). Within this model, mental health or wellbeing is conceptualized not only as the absence of psychopathology symptoms, but as the presence of competencies that enable individuals to withstand adversity and to work towards positive outcomes. As Darling-Churchill and Lippman ( 2016 , p. 3) stated: “Problems and strengths do not fall neatly on a single continuum, and the absence of problems does not guarantee the presence of competencies; thus, it is important to measure both.” From this perspective, it is imperative that researchers and practitioners avoid conflating emergent SEL deficits with psychopathology (Halle & Darling-Churchill, 2016 ).

Children exhibiting emergent SEL deficits may or may not have comorbid psychiatric disorders. Children with diagnosable psychopathology must exhibit symptoms that coalesce into specific patterns and that are associated with significant functional impairment. The latter group would likely benefit from clinical treatment. Meanwhile, many children do not currently meet diagnostic criteria for a disorder, but exhibit emergent deficits in SEL skills relative to same-age peers (Jones et al., 2002 ; Wille et al., 2008 ). A multitude of factors may contribute to lagged SEL, including early deprivation or trauma, inconsistent caregiving, and cultural differences in socio-emotional expression. Children with emergent SEL deficits would likely benefit from broader-based interventions that provide opportunities for them to interact with high-quality caregivers, establish peer relationships, and practice SEL skills in the environments that they are already in (e.g., early care and education settings).

Emergent SEL deficits are distinct from clinical disorder; however, it is important to acknowledge the demonstrated link between early SEL deficits and long-term risk for the development of psychopathology. This link reflects the phenomenon of heterotypic continuity , in which an early behavior predicts the subsequent emergence of a different behavior in the same individual (Rutter et al., 2006 ). The concept of developmental cascades has been invoked as a potential mechanism for heterotypic continuity; in this case, an individual’s early SEL competencies interact with other individual and environmental factors (e.g., genetic, family, school) over time, influencing his or her risk of developing psychopathology (Burke et al., 2005 ). For example, a child who is lagging in SEL may have negative interactions with caregivers and peers and fall behind academically. These experiences may, in turn, increase the child’s probability of academic, psychological, and other difficulties over time. Conversely, a child who exhibits developmentally appropriate SEL will likely experience more social and academic success, which can lay foundations for lifelong wellbeing.

Other measurement issues

As noted above, it is critical that researchers utilize measures that assess children’s SEL skills (as distinguished from EF skills or psychopathology symptoms).

Several additional issues merit consideration when assessing SEL in early childhood (Committee on Developmental Outcomes, 2008 ; Darling-Churchill & Lippman, 2016 ; Halle & Darling-Churchill, 2016 ). Measurement should ideally occur across multiple time-points, as longitudinal assessment allows for stronger inference of causal relationships. Collecting repeated measurements over time will also allow researchers to observe trajectories of socio-emotional development over time. Finally, collecting data from multiple informants is considered ideal in order to gain more comprehensive, reliable pictures of children’s functioning. Integrating reports from different informants, who may perceive children’s behaviors differently or observe different behaviors in different settings (e.g., home versus school), can be challenging; however, several methodological solutions to this problem have been proposed (e.g., Offord et al., 1996 ).

Present review

The present paper reviews the current state of the literature on SEL interventions for preschool-aged children. This review makes several unique contributions. First, whereas previous reviews have primarily focused on skills-based SEL interventions, this review compares and contrasts the effects of three types of early childhood interventions on SEL: (a) general prekindergarten programs; (b) multi-component prekindergarten programs; and (c) skills-based interventions. This review specifically focuses on universal programs in each of the three categories (e.g., programs that are not specifically targeted to children with emergent SEL deficits or psychopathology). Second, whereas several previous reviews have examined the effects of early intervention on child psychopathology (e.g., internalizing, externalizing symptoms), the current review examines SEL outcomes, defined as children’s acquisition of developmentally appropriate social and emotional skills. Finally, rather than reviewing the entire literature, this review focuses on the most methodologically rigorous (e.g., peer-reviewed, longitudinal) extant research. Given these combined foci, the present review offers a thorough, up-to-date overview of the effects of different types of early childhood interventions on young children’s SEL.

Notably, while we believe that it is imperative to evaluate the strength of programs’ evidence bases using specific uniform criteria, our review reveals variable methodology and construct validity across individual studies, making it challenging to assess program efficacy in a reliable or systematic way. As such, we emphasize that the purpose of this review is not to make statements about the efficacy of individual programs, but rather to describe programs that are most promising and to identify knowledge gaps for future research to investigate.

Having reviewed key conceptual and methodological issues, we will now describe our review of universal interventions for preschool-aged children. We conducted searches in Web of Science, PsycInfo, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Numerous search terms were employed, including ones referencing socio-emotional skills (e.g., “socio-emotional”, “emotion regulation”, “non-cognitive”, “prosocial”), early childhood and ECE programming (e.g., “preschool,” “Head Start”), and commonly used SEL measures (e.g., “ Behavior Assessment System ”, “Conners”). Backwards and forward searches were conducted on landmark and highly cited articles.

Studies had to meet six inclusion criteria to be included in the present review. The purpose of these criteria was to identify the most methodologically rigorous studies on modern universal interventions and SEL. (1) studies had to be published in English in peer-reviewed journals by December 31, 2020. (2) Only studies that investigated prekindergarten interventions implemented in 1990 or later were included. (3) Interventions had to be universal (e.g., not specifically targeted to children with baseline SEL deficits or psychopathology) and delivered by laypeople (e.g., not researchers). (4) Critically, given that the focus of the present paper is the relations between intervention and SEL included, studies had to measure one or more SEL skills as previously defined. Studies were not included if they solely measured psychopathology outcomes (e.g., externalizing or internalizing symptoms, problem behaviors) or EF outcomes. (5) Studies had to assess children’s SEL skills at a minimum of two time-points, as skill development over the course of intervention can only be examined within longitudinal research designs. (6) Studies had to include a comparison or control group.

The first and second authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of identified studies to determine whether they met inclusion criteria. During this review process, both authors also determined which intervention category applied to each study. General public prekindergarten programs were defined as publicly funded programs administered by state and local agencies. Multi-component ECE programs were defined as programs which provide multiple academic, family and social support services (e.g., Head Start, the Child–Parent Center (CPC) Program, The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project), typically in center-based settings. Skills-based SEL interventions were defined as discrete interventions aimed at enhancing children’s SEL via direct skills instruction for children and/or their ECE caregivers (e.g., Al’s Pals, The Incredible Years). In cases of disagreement, both authors reviewed and discussed until consensus was reached. Overall, based on these criteria, the following studies are included in the present review: (a) one empirical study of a general public prekindergarten program; (b) three empirical studies of multi-component ECE interventions; (c) 23 empirical studies of skills-based SEL interventions; (d) three systematic reviews or meta-analyses of multi-component ECE interventions; and (e) five systematic reviews or meta-analyses of SEL skills-based interventions. See Tables 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 for details on these studies, including sample characteristics.

General public prekindergarten and multi-component ECE programs (Tables 2 , 3 , 4 )

General public prekindergarten and multi-component ECE programs (e.g., Head Start, the CPC program) are comprehensive ECE interventions, and stand in contrast to skills-based interventions which primarily target SEL. Nonetheless, there are several important distinctions between general public prekindergarten programs and multi-component ECE programs (e.g., Head Start, the CPC Program). There is often significant variability in general prekindergarten models and populations served, both across and within public school districts in the United States (Phillips et al., 2017 ). Meanwhile, multi-component ECE programs typically incorporate similar program elements and serve comparable populations across sites. Multi-component programs often operate in center-based settings, and typically provide a wider range of support services for children and families than general public prekindergarten programs.

Despite the differences between general public prekindergarten and multi-component ECE programs, we present our findings for both program types simultaneously below. This is because, based on our review and to our knowledge, only one peer-reviewed study (Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013 ) has examined the effects of general public prekindergarten participation on SEL. A small number of studies have examined the relations between public prekindergarten participation and emotional and behavioral problems in childhood (e.g., internalizing and externalizing symptoms) (e.g., Gormley et al., 2011 ; Magnuson et al., 2007 ); however, as previously discussed, the focus of this review is on the relationship between intervention and SEL, not psychopathology symptoms. The lack of research on SEL in the context of public prekindergarten is a major gap that we will discuss in more depth later in this paper. In the interim, we present our findings on both types of non-SEL-skills-based interventions (general public prekindergarten and multi-component ECE programs).

Meta-analyses and reviews (Table 3 )

Our review did not uncover any peer-reviewed meta-analyses or systematic reviews of the relations between public prekindergarten programming and SEL. On the contrary, several peer-reviewed meta-analyses and systematic reviews have investigated the effects of multi-component ECE programs on SEL. The authors of these publications have typically constructed outcome variables using a combination of measures assessing SEL skills, mental health symptoms, and outcomes from other domains that are related to socio-emotional functioning (e.g., special education placement, criminal justice system involvement). These publications will be briefly reviewed herein.

Nelson et. al. ( 2003 ) published one of the first meta-analyses examining preschool prevention programs for low-income children and families. Inclusion criteria included (1) presence of a prospective research design, (2) control or comparison group, and (3) at least one follow-up assessment in elementary school or beyond. In all, 34 qualifying interventions were identified. The authors reported that preschool programs exerted small to moderate effects on socio-emotional functioning in both the short-term (Kindergarten through eighth grade; d  = 0.27) and long-term (high school and beyond; d  = 0.33). Age at program entry was not related to program impacts; however, higher program dosage was linked to stronger effects on socio-emotional functioning. Results also indicated that African American children were more likely to participate in the most intensive interventions, and that programs that predominately served the latter group were associated with the greatest socio-emotional benefits.

Several years later, Camilli et. al. ( 2010 ) conducted another meta-analysis examining the effects of ECE participation on child outcomes. To be included in the meta-analysis, interventions had to: (1) be center-based, (2) provide direct educational services to children, with a strong focus on cognitive and/or language development; (3) take place for at least 10 h per week for two months, and (4) serve the general population. Studies also had to have a comparison group. The authors identified 123 studies spanning five decades that met inclusion criteria; however, only 43 of these examined socio-emotional outcomes. The authors combined “social/emotional and anti-social outcome[s]” for analysis, including children’s self-esteem, school adjustment, educational goals, aggression, and antisocial behaviors (p. 592). Results indicated that participation in ECE programs was associated with modest positive effects on children’s social skills and school progress (unweighted mean ES = 0.16 for treatment versus control group analyses). These treatment effects were maintained over the course of longitudinal follow-up. Two instructional practices were positively correlated with socio-emotional gains among treatment group members: teacher-directed instruction and small-group learning.

D’Onise et. al. ( 2014 ) conducted a systematic literature review examining the effects of center-based preschool programs on health outcomes. They identified 13 studies that examined the effects of program participation on “social competence” between grades one and 11. Several of these studies utilized measures that assessed both positive social behaviors (e.g., cooperation, self-control) and problem behaviors (e.g., externalizing and internalizing problems, hyperactivity). D’Onise and colleagues reported that eight of the 13 studies identified beneficial effects of preschool participation on social competence, broadly construed, whereas six found no significant effects. Program duration and quality were not significantly associated with impacts on socio-emotional functioning.

Studies not included in meta-analyses and reviews (Tables 2 and 4 )

Several additional studies have been published since the aforementioned meta-analyses and reviews on the relationship between early intervention and SEL. This notably includes the only peer-reviewed study on the relations between public prekindergarten participation and SEL that our review uncovered: Weiland and Yoshikawa’s ( 2013 ) investigation of the Boston Public Schools prekindergarten program (Table 1 ). Boston Public School preschoolers were compared to control group members who had a variety of experiences during the prekindergarten year, ranging from familial care to center-based preschool programming. All participants completed performance-based and observational assessments of SEL across the preschool year. Results indicated that public prekindergarten participants exhibited significantly greater growth in emotion regulation and inhibitory control over time than the control group.

Several recent studies have also investigated the relations between multi-component ECE program participation and SEL. For example, Brown and Sax ( 2013 ) reported on the SEL of preschoolers attending an arts-integrated Head Start site, the Settlement Music School’s Kaleidoscope Preschool Arts Enrichment program (“Kaleidoscope”). The Kaleidoscope site combined traditional early learning strategies with comprehensive arts programming (e.g., visual art classes, dance and creative movement, music). This programming drew from varied cultural traditions, and was designed to support children’s creativity and emotional expression. Results indicated that Kaleidoscope participants exhibited significantly greater growth in both positive and negative emotion regulation over the course of the school year, compared to children attending a traditional Head Start site. These results underscore the potential value of multi-component programming (including arts enrichment) in promoting young children’s SEL.

Several years later, Reynolds et. al. ( 2016 ) published an evaluation study examining the effects of the Child–Parent Center (CPC) program on SEL. The CPC program provides comprehensive, center-based educational and family support services to low-income children between Preschool and third grade. Reynolds and colleagues’ study utilized a quasi-experimental, matched-group cohort design which included 1724 children who attended CPC preschool, and a comparison group of 906 children who attended alternative prekindergarten programming. Teachers rated children’s SEL across the preschool year using the observation-based Teaching Strategies Gold Assessment System (TSGOLD). Overall, teachers rated CPC participants as having significantly higher overall SEL (including self-regulation, sustaining positive relationships, and participating constructively in group situations) at the end of preschool than comparison group members (standardized mean difference = 0.44). These results should be interpreted in the context of the non-randomized design and reliance on teacher ratings; however, they suggest that participation in public school-based ECE programs may enhance the SEL of low-income children.

Richardson et. al. ( 2017 ) also examined SEL in the context of the CPC program. Their study’s intervention group included 1289 low-income children who attended CPC preschool in Chicago. The comparison group included 591 children who attended public preschool programs at matched school sites. Teachers rated children’s SEL skills at three time-points throughout the preschool year using TSGOLD. Results indicated that teachers rated CPC participants as having significantly higher SEL school readiness than control group members. Positive impacts were detected for children who attended both the full- and half-day CPC programs, and for children from free-lunch eligible and Spanish-speaking families.

Skills-based SEL interventions

Discrete skills-based interventions to augment SEL are appealing in that they can be delivered by a teacher in the school setting, and generally require a finite investment of time, training, and resources. These types of interventions often target student competencies through a combination of indirect methods such as teacher skills augmented through professional development and strategies to alter classroom quality or parent training, and direct methods like didactic teaching and practice of socio-emotional and self-regulation skills.

It should be noted that many programs that may come to mind when discussing interventions focusing on social skills within preschool programs use measures of psychopathology outcomes (e.g., emotional or behavioral disorders; symptoms of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder or clinically significant conduct problems) as proxies for “socio-emotional competencies” and as such, were not included in this review for reasons of construct validity discussed above. Several studies were also excluded from the present review due to lacking a control group, having a cross-sectional design, or taking place before 1990. Few studies collected long-term follow-up data, and therefore in many cases sustained effects of skills-based interventions are unknown. Every effort was made to review a representative body of evidence for the programs described below; however, for several programs, we were only able to identify one empirical study that met our inclusion criteria.

Reviews of skills-based SEL interventions (Table 5 )

While there have been several reviews of programs designed to reduce challenging and increasing prosocial behaviors, only two comprehensive, peer-reviewed systematic reviews focused on skills-based SEL programs for young children had been published by our cutoff (Barton et al., 2014 ; Joseph & Strain, 2003 ). The scope of these reviews is somewhat broader than that of the present paper, as both included studies of interventions across the elementary years in addition to those targeting preschoolers, as well as interventions that focused primary on parents and parenting practices. However, both reviews did evaluate the evidence base for many programs relevant to the current review—namely, universal SEL skills-based programs designed to be implemented by teachers in preschool settings.

Both Joseph and Strain ( 2003 ; Fig. 1 ) and Barton et. al. ( 2014 ; Fig. 2 ) have published reviews of socio-emotional curricula. In both reviews, studies had to meet the following criteria: (a) intervention targeted socio-emotional and behavioral competencies, (b) intervention targeted children from birth to age five, (c) intervention had a published manual, and (d) findings were published in a peer-reviewed journal article. Figures 1 and 2 summarize the number of studies that the authors identified, and the criteria that they used to judge program efficacy and implementation success. In both studies, programs were rated as having high, medium, or low levels of empirical evidence.

Summary of Joseph and Strain’s ( 2003 ) review of skills-based SEL interventions

Summary of Barton et. al.’s ( 2014 ) review of skills-based SEL interventions

The aforementioned reviews have served as a valuable and informative starting point for the present study’s investigation of the current state of the research on skills-based SEL programs; however, the criteria for choosing studies in the present paper differed considerably. Specifically, several of the interventions evaluated in Joseph and Strain’s ( 2003 ) and Barton et. al. ( 2014 ) reviews were last evaluated prior to 1990; were primarily focused on mental health, psychopathology, or antisocial behavior as opposed to socio-emotional functioning; or were evaluated in kindergartners or older elementary school aged children. Overall, most studies did not evaluate SEL using independent observers or multiple raters, and long-term follow-up was rare.

Meanwhile, two recently published meta-analyses investigated the effects of skills-based SEL interventions on young children’s SEL (Luo et al., 2020 ; Murano et al., 2020 ). Luo et. al. ( 2020 ) meta-analysis investigated the impacts of classroom-wide social-emotional interventions (e.g., universal, skills-based interventions) on preschoolers’ social, emotional, and behavioral functioning. They identified 30 studies which reported sufficient data to calculate effect sizes, and which examined intervention effects on social competence. Meta-analytic results indicated that classroom-wide interventions had moderate positive effects on social competence ( g  = 0.42, z  = 5.77, p  < 0.001, k  = 34), though there was significant heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies. Follow-up analyses indicated that interventions that incorporated family-focused programming had greater impacts on social competence than those that did not include family members. Meanwhile, in meta-analysis of 12 studies that examined emotional competence, Luo and colleagues reported that classroom-wide interventions had moderate positive effects on emotional competence ( g  = 0.33, z  = 2.85, p  = 0.004, k  = 14). Interestingly, univariate moderator analyses did not identify linkages between most intervention variables (including dosage) and children’s SEL outcomes.

In another recent meta-analysis, Murano et. al. ( 2020 ) examined the effects of both universal and targeted skills-based SEL interventions on preschoolers’ SEL skills and problem behaviors. They identified 48 empirical studies which met their inclusion criteria, and reported that both universal and targeted interventions had moderate effects on children’s social and emotional skills ( g  = 0.34 and g  = 0.44, respectively). Similar to the findings reported by Luo et. al. ( 2020 ), Murano and colleagues indicated that there was significant heterogeneity in effect sizes across studies, and that 83% of this heterogeneity was attributable to the specific intervention implemented. They also reported that interventions that included family members had stronger impacts on children’s SEL than those that did not include family members—also in keeping with Luo and colleagues’ results.

Taken together, Luo et. al. ( 2020 ) and Murano et. al. ( 2020 ) meta-analyses support the effectiveness of skills-based SEL interventions in promoting young children’s SEL. Their results indicate that both universal and targeted interventions can be beneficial, and that interventions that operate at multiple social-ecological levels tend to be most effective. Building on these findings, we will now summarize the empirical evidence bases for several SEL skills-based interventions in depth. Our intention is to describe several high-quality interventions, as a way of highlighting exemplary research as well as conceptual and methodological issues for future researchers to address.

Child and teacher-focused skills-based interventions

This group of interventions provides a teacher-training component combined with a child curriculum consisting of discrete, manualized lessons on SEL topics. These curricula often take the form of teaching didactic SEL skills instruction to children, typically in group-based settings in the context of Head Start and other publicly funded preschool programs. Due to space constraints, three exemplar programs will be discussed in detail below. Table 6 describes additional skills-based interventions meeting our criteria.

One child and teacher-focused skills-based intervention is the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) curriculum (Domitrovich et al., 2004 ). PATHS is one of the most extensively evaluated SEL programs for young children (Arda & Ocak, 2012 ; Domitrovich et al., 2007 ; Hamre et al., 2012 ; Hughes & Cline, 2015 ; Stefan & Miclea, 2012 ). The developers describe PATHS as based on the Affective–Behavioral–Cognitive–Dynamic (ABCD) model of development (Greenberg & Kusche, 1993 ), which “suggests that emotional development is an important precursor to other cognitive and language skills and that the successful development of emotion knowledge and regulation is foundational to the development of the broad spectrum of social competencies described previously as central to school success (Hamre et al., 2012 , p. 811).” Although implementation appears to vary slightly by site and evaluation team, the curriculum generally consists of several dozen lessons, delivered once per week by Head Start preschool teachers during “circle time,” and focuses on emotion knowledge, regulation, prosocial skills, and problem-solving. The intervention also often includes extension activities that were intended to generalize the weekly lessons and to foster an environment that would encourage children’s use of socio-emotional skills. Teachers are generally provided with support, ranging from access to a website with examples of teachers implementing PATHS to ongoing site visits and consultation from designated PATHS coordinators. Implementation fidelity has also been monitored in a variety of ways, including via the site visits or through submission and coding of videos. Studies utilized a range of tools for assessing outcomes, including direct assessment, observation, and parent and teacher reports of emotion knowledge, prosocial and problem behavior, and attentional skills. Evaluators generally reported medium effect sizes, ranging from 0.20 to 0.50, across socio-emotional and behavioral domains. However, as in many of the studies included here, parents and teachers in all of the evaluations were not blind to the intervention condition, which could have biased ratings.

Stefan and Miclea ( 2012 ) evaluated the implementation of a program that they called “Fast Track,” in which PATHS was the SEL intervention, in a preschool population in Romania. In addition to teacher training, they utilized a parent component, which was delivered via group and individual training sessions, and focused on positive discipline strategies and increasing parents’ knowledge of how to support their child’s social and emotional development. The authors found medium to large intervention effects for all outcomes. Children in medium and high-risk subgroups appeared to benefit more from the intervention even when controlling for baseline differences on tasks. This study is distinguished by the fact that the authors conducted follow-up assessments three months after the post-intervention data was collected, and found that intervention effects were maintained for both social and emotional competencies. However, there was no direct observation of child classroom behaviors, and as teacher, parent, and child components were delivered concurrently, mechanisms of effects are unknown.

Head Start REDI

Another Head Start-based program, Head Start Research-based, Developmentally Informed (REDI), which uses PATHs to target socio-emotional skills in the context of a broader program intended to enhance both social competence and literacy in preschoolers, has been the subject of several studies with long-term follow-up (Bierman et al., 2014 ; Bierman, Domitrovich, et al., 2008 ; Bierman, Nix, et al., 2008 ; Nix et al., 2016 ). Initial investigations of the REDI program on preschoolers found small to medium effect sizes for social competence and executive functioning outcomes (Bierman, Domitrovich, et al., 2008 ; Bierman, Nix, et al., 2008 ). Results of a 1-year follow-up on children in Head Start REDI as preschoolers compared to those who had attended “usual practice” Head Start indicated sustained direct effects for social problem-solving ( d  = 0.40) and parent and teacher-rated aggressive behaviors ( d  = − 0.20 and d  = − 0.25, respectively) for kindergarten children who were in REDI as preschoolers, with effect sizes at the 1-year follow-up equal to or larger than those at the end of the intervention year. Teacher-rated social competence was also significantly higher for intervention students ( d  = 0.26), but only for those in kindergarten at schools where overall student achievement was low (Bierman et al., 2014 ). Several years later, Bierman et. al. ( 2017 ) combined the samples of the two previous randomized trials to investigate the sustained effects of REDI, three years post-intervention. Intervention group participants received either the REDI Classroom Program (REDI-C), or both REDI-C and the REDI-Parent home visiting program (REDI-P). Comparison group members attended standard Head Start programming. Results indicated that REDI-C graduates exhibited significantly higher classroom participation ( d  =  ~ 0.25), social competence ( d  =  ~ 0.25), and student–teacher relationships ( d  =  ~ 0.4) in second grade relative to the comparison group. Children who had received both REDI-C and REDI-P exhibited higher perceived social competence ( d  =  ~ 0.75) compared to children who had only received REDI-C.

Taken together, these studies provide strong evidence that the PATHS curriculum, when implemented with fidelity, can effectively increase the SEL competencies of preschoolers both within the context of the literacy-promoting REDI intervention and when used independently.

Kindness Curriculum

The Kindness Curriculum, a mindfulness-based intervention designed to increase empathy, prosocial behavior, and self-regulation in preschoolers, has been evaluated in two empirical studies meeting our criteria (Flook et al., 2015 ; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016 ). In both evaluations, the 10-h training was delivered to preschoolers over the course of 12 weeks via stories, music, and movement. The program emphasizes kindness, emotion regulation, and attentional capacity. Flook et. al. ( 2015 ), in the initial study, found via teacher ratings and direct assessment that the intervention group showed greater improvements across domains of social competence ( d  = 0.26–0.29) compared to the control group, in addition to significant effects for cognitive flexibility ( d  = 0.43) and delay of gratification ( d  = 0.23–0.37). Children who were initially lower in social competence and executive functioning skills evinced larger gains in social competence.

Poehlmann-Tynan et. al. ( 2016 ) also found promising effects when investigating this curriculum in economically disadvantaged preschoolers and assessed prosocial behavior (e.g., empathy and compassion), self-regulation, and executive functioning via direct assessment and observation. They found that the children in the KC intervention group increased their capacity for self-regulation and attention (partial η 2  = 0.26–0.33) relative to the control group; however, unlike Flook, they found no changes in observer-rated or directly assessed prosocial behaviors. The positive effects, however, persisted at a 3-month follow-up assessment. It is important to note that the curricula were delivered by “experienced mindfulness instructors.” The evidence base for effectiveness and scalability of the KC intervention in a preschool setting would be strengthened by an investigation of the program delivered by classroom teachers.

Skills-based interventions incorporating parent involvement

This group of interventions supplements skills-based interventions for children and/or teachers with parent involvement initiatives. Due to space constraints, three exemplar programs will be discussed in detail below. Table 6 describes additional skills-based interventions.

The RECAP intervention

Han et. al. ( 2005 ) have published the only study to date evaluating the Reaching Educators, Children, and Parents (RECAP) program in preschoolers. The study aimed to enhance preschoolers’ problem solving and social skills and also attempted to incorporate a parenting component. The program included curricular and behavior management components, provided teachers with weekly trainings and ongoing consultations, and offered a bi-weekly parent group. Study participants were primarily low-income 4 to 5-year-old children in public prekindergarten classrooms. The evaluators collected parent- and teacher-report of internalizing and externalizing behaviors and social skills. They found no changes in children’s parent-rated functioning over time. However, they did find significant improvements for intervention group participants on teacher-rated total social skills ( F [1, 144] = 5.73, p  < 0.05), cooperation ( F [1, 144] = 3.99, p  < 0.05) and assertion ( F [1, 144] = 7.12, p  < 0.01). Notably, parent group attendance was extremely low, and as such, the effectiveness of the parent component of this intervention was not able to be evaluated. Other limitations included the self-report nature of the outcome measures, and baseline group differences in teacher-reported levels of problem behaviors and skills, and on family income.

Making choices and strong families (Conner & Fraser, 2011 )

The Making Choices program is one of the few studies of an SEL skills-based curriculum for preschoolers that included a successfully implemented parenting component. The SEL-focused component, Making Choices, is a manualized program with theoretical bases in social information processing, designed for preschool-aged children. The program was delivered twice weekly for 14 weeks with the aim of strengthening social information processing, emotion regulation skills, and prosocial interactions with peers. The parent training component, Strong Families, had distinct but complementary goals, including increasing positive parent–child interaction patterns and decreasing coercion. The study sample was drawn from a group of part-day preschool centers, and the comparison group received typical Head Start services. Investigators directly assessed child-level competencies (e.g., academic competence, achievement motivation, social competence, peer acceptance, depression/anxiety and aggression/hostility) and family and child functioning. Results revealed significant effects for all child competencies ( F [20, 46] = 3.05, p  < 0.001; r 2  = 0.35), with higher gain scores among intervention group participants, as well as positive changes in caregiver behaviors ( F [10, 56] = 6.88, p  < 0.001; r 2  = 0.36). While these outcomes are promising, the sample sizes are quite small, and about 35% of eligible families moved or otherwise became ineligible before assignment to a treatment group. No follow-up or replication studies in preschoolers have been conducted to date, and as the interventions were delivered together, it is unclear if one or both was driving effects.

Incredible Years (IY)

The Incredible Years program was originally designed as a treatment for children with Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorder diagnoses (Webster-Stratton, 1990 ), with theoretical bases in social learning theory and the effects of adult–child interaction processes in child behavior. The program has been adapted for use with several age groups and populations, including as a classroom-based prevention program aiming to augment socio-emotional skills and decrease problem behaviors in preschoolers. Of particular interest to the present review are the IY Teacher Classroom Management Training (TCM), the IY Child Program: Dinosaur Classroom Curriculum, and the IY Parent Program used in conjunction with the teacher or child programs. The IY programs, implemented as universal prevention programs in preschool-aged children, have been evaluated by Webster-Stratton and colleagues (Webster-Stratton, 1998 ; Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2004 ; Webster-Stratton et al., 2001 , 2008 ). Several independent evaluations of IY programs have also been conducted; however, many specifically evaluated children with high levels of disruptive or oppositional behaviors in the preschool setting (e.g., Baker-Henningham et al., 2012 ), did not utilize a control group (e.g., Shernoff & Kratochwill, 2007 ), or did not measure SEL outcomes (e.g., Williford & Shelton, 2008 ). As such, they did not meet our inclusion criteria.

Webster-Stratton et. al. ( 2001 ) evaluated IY TCM program in combination with the Parent Training as a universal prevention program in Head Start. The intervention group parents and teachers participated in the IY programs, and the control group received usual practice Head Start services. The teacher training consisted of 36 h of training on classroom management, child development, and promotion of prosocial and reduction of antisocial behaviors. The parent training had similar content, adapted for the home context and focused on reducing coercive discipline and increasing positive parenting practices. Teachers and parents in the intervention group evinced more positive practices, while children engaged in more prosocial behavior and were rated as more socially competent. Specifically, 71% of intervention group children rated as having problems with social competence at baseline fell in the normative range at the end of school, compared to 36.6% of the control group children initially rated as lower in social competence ( χ 2 [1, 26] = 4.12, p  < 0.04).

Webster-Stratton and colleagues have also evaluated the IY TCM program in combination with the Dinosaur School curriculum in Head Start settings (Webster-Stratton et al., 2008 ). Children received 30 bi-weekly lessons promoting socio-emotional skills, problem-solving, self-regulation, and school behavior over the course of a year, communicated via vignettes, small-group activities, puppets, and games. Teachers participated in 28 h of workshops focused on classroom management and promotion of socio-emotional competence, spread out over four months. A research staff-member led lessons alongside the classroom teacher to ensure implementation fidelity. Outcomes were measured via classroom observations, as well as direct assessment of competencies such as problem-solving skills and emotion knowledge. The authors reported that teachers in the intervention were more likely to use teaching strategies to promote SEL (e.g., teaching prosocial behavior, problem-solving, shaping peer play, encouraging feelings language, and promoting social competence) in intervention group teachers ( d  = 0.96). The intervention was also associated with higher levels of teacher-reported child social competence and self-regulation (effect sizes not reported), particularly for students with low levels at baseline, as well as improvements in problem-solving ( η 2  = 0.41) and feelings knowledge ( η 2  = 0.14).

Overall, the evidence base for the Incredible Years intervention is encouraging; however, evaluation methodology has been inconsistent and further investigation is needed to determine efficacy of the program as a universal prevention strategy for preschool-aged children.

Teacher-focused skills-based interventions

This group of interventions provides training and other forms of professional development to teachers, with the aim of improving teacher–child interactions and children’s socio-emotional functioning.

Pyramid Model

The Pyramid Model for Promoting Young Children’s Socio-Emotional Competence (the “Pyramid Model”; PM) is a professional development intervention that includes research-informed practices for promoting healthy socio-emotional development and high-quality relationships between caregivers and children. PM practices include universal strategies for teachers to promote family engagement and children’s peer social skills, as well as individualized interventions strategies for children exhibiting challenging behaviors. These practices are taught through multi-day workshops and implementation guides. Teachers also receive classroom materials (e.g., puppets, books) for implementing the practices.

Hemmeter et. al. ( 2016 ) conducted a cluster-randomized controlled potential efficacy trial to evaluate the effects of classroom-wide implementation of PM on teacher practices and child outcomes. Teachers in the intervention group participated in the initial PM workshops, and subsequently received weekly individualized coaching, which included in-classroom observation. Results indicated that children whose teachers participated in PM had higher teacher-rated social skills at post-test than children whose teachers did not participate in PM ( d  = 0.43). These results are promising, but should be interpreted with caution given the study’s reliance on teacher ratings of children’s social skills.

Foundations of Learning (FOL)

Foundations of Learning is a professional development intervention that combines teacher training and mental health consultation. FOL teachers participate in workshops on proactively supporting positive behavior and managing challenging behaviors in the classroom, and on personal stress management. They also receive weekly classroom-level mental health consultation, and individualized mental health consultation as needed for children exhibiting persistent challenging behaviors. FOL’s teacher training component is adapted from the Incredible Years curriculum; the intervention is also based on the previously discussed, smaller-scale Chicago School Readiness Project (CSPR) intervention.

Morris et. al. ( 2013 ) conducted a cluster-randomized controlled study to evaluate the effects of FOL on preschool teacher practices and child outcomes. Results revealed positive impacts on teachers’ ability to manage challenging behaviors and promote a positive emotional climate in the classroom. At the child outcome level, results indicated that children whose teachers participated in FOL exhibited less problem behaviors (e.g., peer and teacher conflict, as rated by trained observer) than children whose teachers did not participate in FOL. However, no significant effects on either observer- or teacher-rated positive social behavior (e.g., communication, sociability, compliance) were detected between groups. Positive intervention effects on children’s approaches to learning (e.g., self-control, focus, and participation in classroom activities) were detected at the trending level ( p  < 0.10).

Jensen et. al. ( 2017 ) evaluated the VIDA (a Danish acronym for Knowledge-based efforts for socially disadvantaged children in daycare) intervention, which aims to augment socio-emotional functioning in preschool children by altering their social context. The primary mode of change is via teacher training to improve the preschool environment. Intervention teachers attended 17 full days of training over the course of 2 years, gaining theoretical knowledge about child development and the bioecological system, encouraging reflection, enhancing communication with students, and requiring teachers to use the training to design their own activities focused on socio-emotional skills (e.g., improving friendships, managing conflict). Jensen et. al. ( 2017 ) explain:

“The initial step of the teachers’ learning process takes place as a top-down process that presents participants with predefined topics [...] Through reflection, everyday experiences are related to the research-based knowledge and the teaches are using this to change their practice. The process transforms what was initially top-down, course-based theoretical knowledge into bottom-up, practice-oriented teacher learning and innovation” (p. 28).

Teacher ratings revealed a trending effect of the intervention on prosocial behavior. Further evaluation of the program is warranted, and results may not be generalizable due to the high dosage of the program. It is also unclear whether students retained the same teacher over the course of the intervention, which could be an important confounding factor. Finally, conclusions would be strengthened by measurement of SEL outcomes via more diverse tools, as the only outcome measure in the present study was teacher-reported.

Comparing program types

General public prekindergarten programs.

Access to public prekindergarten programs has expanded dramatically in the United States over the last several decades, with approximately one-third of 4-year-old children enrolled in state-funded programs in 2017 (National Institute for Early Education Research [NIEER], 2018 ). These programs have historically focused on enhancing children’s pre-academic skills (e.g., language, numeracy), but have also increasingly targeted SEL.

Participation in public prekindergarten may enhance SEL by several mechanisms. For example, high-quality teacher–child relationships have been linked to improvements in children’s SEL (Merritt et al., 2012 ). Prekindergarten participation also provides children with consistent opportunities for socialization with peers and social skill practice. Finally, improvements in children’s academic and cognitive skills at the individual and classroom levels may also contribute to improvements in SEL over time through spillover effects. For most children, this may be sufficient, but it is important to evaluate whether public prekindergarten programs can exert significant and sufficient benefits on children’s SEL, or whether more targeted SEL services are needed.

Our review identified only one peer-reviewed study examining the effects of a general public prekindergarten program (Boston Public Schools) on SEL (Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013 ). Major strengths of this study include the socioeconomically diverse sample, utilization of performance-based measures of SEL skills, and examination of subgroup effects by race/ethnicity and free/reduced lunch status. Effect sizes on cognitive inhibitory control and emotion recognition were small, but statistically significant. The authors posited a “spill-over” hypothesis to explain program impacts on inhibitory control. The results of this study suggest that high-quality general public prekindergarten programming may have a positive impact on children’s SEL, but that children who exhibit delays in developmentally appropriate SEL skills may benefit from more targeted intervention. This finding is consistent with a significant body of research suggesting that children with higher needs tend to benefit more from early childhood intervention (Reynolds et al., 2011 ; Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2014 ). Nonetheless, given that prekindergarten programs vary widely by school district, there is a need for additional studies in this domain. There is a particular need for studies examining the differential contributions of various program components. This is an important consideration in Weiland and Yoshikawa’s ( 2013 ) study given the unusually high quality of the Boston Public Schools prekindergarten program, which includes equal educational requirements and pay scale for teachers from prekindergarten through high school, a research-based academic curriculum and a district-designed teacher coaching system.

Multi-component ECE programs

Multi-component ECE programs (e.g., Head Start, the Child–Parent Center (CPC) Program) typically provide a more comprehensive array of academic and family support services than general public prekindergarten programs. These programs also commonly prioritize enrollment of low-income children, who often lag behind in acquisition of pre-academic and SEL skills. Previous research has demonstrated that participation in these programs is most beneficial for children with the lowest levels of skills and the highest levels of psychosocial risk at program entry (Karoly & Bigelow, 2005 ; Reynolds et al., 2007 ). Hypothetically, multi-component programs may enhance children’s SEL by addressing risk and protective factors at multiple social-ecological levels. This is accomplished through a variety of means, from comprehensive academic curricula to wraparound family and social services.

The present review identified several literature reviews and meta-analyses examining the effects of multi-component prekindergarten programs on SEL. Many of these studies constructed outcome variables that combined SEL and mental health outcomes; thus, their results should be interpreted with significant caution. Nonetheless, aggregate results indicated that program participation was associated with small to moderate gains in SEL compared to comparison group members, with multiple studies reporting that children affected by the highest psychosocial risk exhibited the greatest gains. Findings on the impact of program duration were mixed. One meta-analysis reported that didactic instruction and small-group learning were positively associated with participants’ SEL gains (Camilli et al., 2010 ), suggesting that a balance of teacher-directed instruction, and child-initiated and small group activities may be beneficial for SEL. Meanwhile, two additional studies indicated that participation in the CPC prekindergarten program was associated with moderate enhancements in SEL for low-income children from diverse backgrounds (Reynolds et al., 2016 ; Richardson et al., 2017 ).

This body of research is small, but suggests that multi-component programs hold promise for promoting SEL. Notably, most studies did not examine the differential impacts of various program components on SEL (e.g., professional development, curricula, classroom structure), making it difficult to determine whether SEL benefits were driven by the overall combination of program components or a small number of “active ingredients.”

There is no shortage of skills-based SEL interventions for young children; however, they vary widely in scope, focus, size, theoretical foundations, and quality of the evidence base. Generally, such programs are based on manualized curricula, and are designed to supplement or enrich typical preschool programs. This type of intervention can be efficient, cost-effective, and scalable. For example, schools are not required to adopt an entirely new multi-component educational program, and the explicit targeting of specific SEL skills through games, songs, vignettes, role playing and modeling, and didactic teaching, and/or through teacher professional development and parent coaching can be a developmentally appropriate, engaging, and effective way to reach preschool-aged children. All of these factors likely contribute to the abundance of skills-based programs meeting our criteria for review in the present article.

We first identified two previously published reviews of skills-based SEL interventions (Barton et al., 2014 ; Joseph & Strain, 2003 ). Importantly, the authors state that they only reviewed studies of programs used in “at-risk” populations or with children demonstrating behavioral challenges. This review, in contrast, intentionally focused on empirical studies of the effectiveness of programs (some of which also appeared in the aforementioned reviews) in a general classroom setting. We felt that this was crucial, as all children can benefit from SEL skills training, and expanding the use of high-quality universal programs can help to shift the paradigm from pathologizing children with SEL “deficits” to normalizing and encouraging SEL growth for all children. Strain of the 2003 review was also an author on the 2014 paper, and as such, both papers used the same criteria for inclusion and assessment of quality. Ultimately, their conclusions were quite mixed. Of the SEL-focused programs evaluated in preschool settings after 1990s, the authors of both reviews identified one program with “high” levels of evidence, three with “medium” levels of evidence, and four with “low” levels of evidence.

We also identified two recently published meta-analyses, which examined the evidence base on skills-based SEL interventions for preschoolers (Luo et al., 2020 ; Murano et al., 2020 ). These meta-analyses indicated that both universal and targeted skills-based interventions had significant, moderate effects on preschoolers’ SEL skills. Both studies also reported limited evidence for moderating effects, and noted that interventions with family components were more effective than those that did not include family members. These results provide the strongest evidence to date that skills-based interventions can support the SEL of young children, including those affected by sociodemographic risk factors.

Overall, the results of the aforementioned systematic reviews and meta-analyses are consistent with the present review. We found considerable variation in delivery methods, assessment methods, and outcomes across interventions, in addition to variation in the use of control groups, random assignment, outcome measurement, follow-up, and other crucial elements of empirical research. While some programs were explicitly grounded in theory (some in social learning theory and principles of social information processing; others in more broadly defined developmental, self-regulation, and systems theories), effect sizes varied considerably within and across programs.

Despite these challenges, several programs with strong theoretical bases have been evaluated with large sample sizes, random assignment, multiple sources of outcome assessment, and short-term follow-up, and as such, it is our cautious conclusion that skills-based programs can be an effective way to augment SEL skills in young children. Whether such programs are the optimal way to augment these skills (as opposed to the other approaches examined in the present paper) remains to be seen. The next step is to investigate impacts in well-designed quasi-experimental or randomized designs, while establishing and maintaining construct validity around SEL and ensuring that programs can be effectively delivered in real-world settings.

Synthesis: three intervention approaches

There are clear benefits and drawbacks to the three intervention approaches that were reviewed in the present paper. From a developmental perspective, there is considerable evidence for the use of multi-component ECE programs, which aim to promote holistic development by enhancing protective factors and reducing risk factors at multiple social-ecological levels. However, there is also promising evidence for several skills-based SEL programs, which have the benefit of facilitating adoption and implementation within existing frameworks.

Decades of developmental research have indicated that sensitive, responsive caregiving is an essential catalyst for healthy development in infancy and early childhood (Ainsworth et al., 1978 ; Landry et al., 2000 ). Given this evidence, prekindergarten programs that facilitate high-quality teacher–child relationships (e.g., via professional development, small class sizes) and safe, stable learning environments are likely to exert positive impacts on children’s SEL. Multi-component ECE programs, which typically include interventions at multiple levels of children’s social ecologies, may have an advantage in this domain over skills-based SEL programs. To this end, multi-component ECE programs fall under the category of promotion programming, as identified by the Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Learning (CESFEL; Duran et al., n.d.). Promotion programming includes interventions, practices, and policies that ensure that all children are receiving high-quality caregiving and education, which will facilitate developmentally appropriate SEL. Universal skills-based interventions that are offered to all children in a classroom may also fall under the promotion realm. Skills-based interventions may also be offered at the prevention level (Duran et al., n.d.). Programming at the prevention level provides targeted SEL support services for children with emergent SEL challenges, with the goal of addressing these challenges before they develop into more serious psychopathology. Offering skills-based SEL interventions at the prevention level for indicated populations may be more cost-effective than universal implementation; however, this strategy requires a screening process for identifying children at risk. School-based, skills-based SEL interventions may not be sufficient for children with more serious SEL deficits and/or clinical psychopathology; this population may benefit from more intensive intervention services in a mental health setting (Duran et al., n. d.).

Beyond program efficacy, several other factors must be considered when selecting an intervention, including cost, ease of implementation, and scale-up potential. Substantial financial resources and infrastructure are required to implement multi-component ECE programs and public prekindergarten programs; however, cost–benefit analyses have indicated that these initial investments may yield significant returns over time. For example, Heckman and colleagues have estimated that high-quality ECE programs can produce financial returns of as much as 13% per annum (Garcia et al., 2016 ). Longitudinal research has also demonstrated that ECE programs can exert enduring benefits on many aspects of wellbeing (e.g., Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, 1983 ; Reynolds & Ou, 2011 ).

Researchers have also investigated the monetary value of interventions that specifically target SEL, and have found that such programs can yield substantial economic returns (e.g., Belfield et al., 2015 ). Studies indicate that these savings stem from improved functioning among program graduates, including reductions in substance abuse and increases in earnings, often mediated through variables such as educational attainment and self-esteem (Araujo & Lagos, 2013 ; Klapp et al., 2017 ). Aspects of SEL often characterized as “self-control” variables (e.g., executive functioning, self-regulatory skills) may also help to explain returns on investment in SEL programs. Childhood self-control has been found to predict costly outcomes, including physical health, substance use, income, and crime in adulthood (Moffitt et al., 2011 ). Finally, several studies have investigated a subset of SEL-informed intervention programs which narrowly focus on reducing delinquency and substance use. They note that these programs tend to target a small subset of SEL-related skills (e.g., impulse control) and can yield cost savings by reducing involvement in the criminal justice system (Miller & Hendrie, 2008 ).

Future research directions

The present paper aimed to review the highest quality literature available on the relationship between prekindergarten programs and SEL. Our review indicated a number of common methodological issues which should be addressed in future work.

Definitions and measurement of SEL

Evaluation studies of prekindergarten programs have typically examined cognitive and academic outcomes, with few studies investigating impacts on children’s SEL. Meanwhile, studies that have examined socio-emotional outcomes have typically focused on maladaptive behaviors and psychopathology (e.g., internalizing and externalizing symptoms). This is problematic, given that prekindergarten programming is not primarily intended to prevent or treat psychological symptoms. Rather, prekindergarten programs are designed to promote acquisition of developmentally appropriate skills. As such, researchers should carefully attend to construct validity by: (a) clarifying whether they are measuring psychopathology outcomes, SEL, or both; and (b) specify the SEL domains they are investigating, how they are operationalizing them, and how they are tracking growth in SEL competencies over time. At the broader field level, efforts must also be made to develop consensus on critical issues related to SEL measurement, concepts, and dimensions of relevance. While the work of CASEL ( 2012 ) and others has provided some clarity on these issues, researchers continue to use a wide array of labels for SEL phenomena (e.g., SEL, social competence, wellbeing, self-regulation) without clear definitions or parameters. Many studies have also stated that they are investigating “SEL” or similar phenomena, while solely utilizing outcome measures that assess psychopathology. Developing consensus on these issues will help to ensure construct validity, and also enable more rigorous comparative evaluations of different interventions.

When examining all three types of interventions addressed in this review, it is also important for researchers to consider other potentially salient program components. For example, curriculum type, parent involvement, timing and duration of SEL components, and teacher and student supports that are not necessarily explicit components of the SEL training may all affect children’s outcomes.

Cultural considerations

The present review indicates that relatively few studies have carefully attended to potential differential impacts of prekindergarten interventions on SEL for children from diverse cultural backgrounds. Research examining whether and how interventions impact the SEL of different subgroups of children could inform efforts to tailor interventions to the needs of specific populations.

Researchers should also carefully select assessment measures that are appropriate for use with multicultural populations. The present review indicates that most previous studies have utilized deficits-focused outcome measures (e.g., assessing the effects of intervention on psychopathology symptoms). Moving towards strengths/skills-focused outcome measures (e.g., assessing the effects of intervention on developmentally and culturally appropriate SEL skills) will likely increase the cultural sensitivity of research in this domain, and help to ensure that children from non-dominant cultures are not being improperly identified as having SEL deficits.

Our review revealed that numerous studies relied on non-blinded, single-informant reports of SEL outcomes—typically, reports from classroom teachers who were delivering interventions. Previous research has demonstrated the importance of utilizing multiple informants to minimize reporting bias (Totura et al., 2009 ). For example, surveying both teachers and parents can provide a more nuanced perspective on children’s SEL skills in multiple environments (school and home). The use of trained observers or performance-based measures may also yield unique information about children’s functioning.

Control groups

Our review identified and excluded a number of program evaluation studies that lacked control/comparison groups. The absence of control groups makes it impossible to determine whether changes in children’s SEL are due to program participation as opposed to other factors like developmental maturation. It is essential that future studies include well-defined control/comparison groups so that program impacts can be adequately estimated.

Measurement of multiple intervention components

Several of the skills-based programs had professional development, didactic child skills, and parent-focused aspects, with little investigation of differential impacts of each program element or mechanism. The issue of mechanisms is not confined to multi-pronged interventions; rather, none of the programs reviewed analyzed how child-focused programs transmit positive impacts to the outcomes of interest. Future research should determine which and how specific aspects of programs (e.g., didactic instruction in problem-solving and conflict resolution; teacher-facilitated emotion recognition and expression) impact knowledge and behavior.

Implementation fidelity

We identified relatively few studies that provided information about implementation fidelity. Fidelity measurement is essential to accurately estimate program impacts. Fidelity measurement can also provide important information about whether program scale-up is feasible, or whether adaptations are needed to increase the program’s practicality or cultural relevance (e.g., replacing doctoral-level clinicians with trained laypeople).

Longitudinal follow-up

Our review revealed a paucity of studies examining the longitudinal impacts of prekindergarten programs on SEL. Studies that did include multiple time-points rarely continued past early elementary school. This is an important limitation that raises questions about the stability of program impacts on SEL over time. Moving forward, there is a need for longitudinal studies that include pre-program assessments of baseline SEL, and that investigate participant outcomes through the school years and beyond.

Conclusions and implications

Interest in scalable strategies for enhancing children’s SEL has grown steadily since the 1970s, when Edward Zigler argued that promoting ‘social competence’ should be the primary aim of early childhood interventions (Zigler & Trickett, 1978 ). During the 1990s and 2000s, the development of the interdisciplinary SEL framework spurred additional research and policy initiatives in this domain. Numerous skills-based interventions have been developed for use in early care and education settings (Tables 5 , 6 ), and general public prekindergarten programs and multi-component interventions have also demonstrated impacts on SEL (Tables 2 , 3 , 4 ). These developments are promising; however, moving forward it is essential that stakeholders define and measure SEL in ways that are consistent, developmentally appropriate, and culturally sensitive. Collaboration among diverse groups of stakeholders (e.g., community-based researchers, policymakers, parents, and early childhood leaders) will be essential to accomplishing these aims.

Finally, investments should be made into efforts to support children’s SEL at multiple ecological levels, from home- and school-based interventions to public policies that support healthy development. Specifically, early childhood educators should place SEL skills alongside literacy and numeracy skills as an important part of a balanced early childhood curriculum. Policymakers, parents, and early childhood leaders can assist teachers in implementing SEL interventions or infusing SEL into existing programming by advocating for increased funding and materials for these efforts.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study. Please contact the authors with any questions.

Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation . Lawrence Erlbaum.

Google Scholar  

Araujo, P., & Lagos, S. (2013). Self-esteem, education, and wages revisited. Journal of Economic Psychology, 34 (C), 120–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.12.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Arda, T. B., & Ocak, S. (2012). Social competence and promoting alternative thinking strategies—PATHS preschool curriculum. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 12 (4), 2691–2698.

Baker-Henningham, H., Scott, S., Jones, K., & Walker, S. (2012). Reducing child conduct problems and promoting social skills in a middle-income country: Cluster randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Psychiatry, 201 , 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.12.00110.1192/bjp.bp.111.096834

Barton, E. E., Steed, E. A., Strain, P., Dunlap, G., Powell, D., & Payne, C. J. (2014). An analysis of classroom-based and parent-focused social-emotional programs for young children. Infants & Young Children, 27 (1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000001

Belfield, C., Bowden, A. B., Klapp, A., Levin, H., Shand, R., & Zander, S. (2015). The economic value of social and emotional learning. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 6 (3), 508–544. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2015.55

Bierman, K. L., Domitrovich, C. E., Nix, R. L., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., Nelson, K. E., & Gill, S. (2008a). Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI program. Child Development, 79 , 1802–1817. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01227.x

Bierman, K. L., Heinrichs, B. S., Welsh, J. A., Nix, R. L., & Gest, S. D. (2017). Enriching preschool classrooms and home visits with evidence-based programming: Sustained benefits for low-income children. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 58 (2), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12618

Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008b). Executive functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI Program. Development and Psychopathology, 20 , 821–843. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000394

Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Heinrichs, B. S., Domitrovich, C. E., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., & Gill, S. (2014). Effects of Head Start REDI on children’s outcomes one year later in different kindergarten contexts. Child Development, 85 , 140–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12117

Boykin, A. W. (1983). The academic performance of Afro-American children. In J. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 324–371). W. H. Freeman.

Brown, E. D., & Sax, K. L. (2013). Arts enrichment and preschool emotions for low-income children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28 , 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.08.002

Burke, J. D., Loeber, R., Lahey, B. B., & Rathouz, P. J. (2005). Developmental transitions among affective and behavioral disorders in adolescent boys. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 46 (11), 1200–2120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.00422.x

Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112 (3), 579–620.

Collaborative for Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL). (2012). 2013 CASEL guide: Effective social and emotional learning programs—Preschool and elementary school edition . http://www.casel.org/preschool-and-elementary-edition-casel-guide

Committee on Developmental Outcomes and Assessments for Young Children. (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how . The National Academies Press.

Conner, N. W., & Fraser, M. W. (2011). Preschool social-emotional skills training: A controlled pilot test of the making choices and strong families program. Research of Social Work Practice, 21 (6), 699–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731511408115

Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. (1983). As the twig is bent: Lasting effects of preschool programs . Lawrence Erlbaum.

Core SEL Competencies. (2019). https://casel.org/core-competencies/

D’Onise, K., McDermott, R. A., & Lynch, J. W. (2014). Center-based preschool programs: Systematic review of child and adult health outcomes. In A. J. Reynolds, A. J. Rolnick, & J. A. Temple (Eds.), Health and education in early childhood: Predictors, interventions, and policies (pp. 145–207). Cambridge University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Darling-Churchill, K. E., & Lippman, L. (2016). Early childhood social and emotional development: Advancing the field of measurement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 45 , 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.02.002

Denham, S. A., & Burton, R. (1996). A social-emotional intervention for at-risk 4-year-olds. Journal of School Psychology, 34 (3), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-4405(96)00013-1

Domitrovich, C. E., Cortes, R. C., & Greenberg, M. T. (2007). Improving young children’s social and emotional competence: A randomized trial of the preschool “PATHS” curriculum. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 28 (2), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-007-0081-0

Domitrovich, C. E., Greenberg, M. T., Kusche, C. A., & Cortes, R. (2004). The PATHS preschool curriculum .

Duran, F. B., Hepburn, K. S., Kaufmann, R. K., & Le, L. T. (n.d.). Research synthesis: Early childhood mental health consultation . The Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Learning.

Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). Promoting prosocial behavior and self-regulatory skills in preschool children through a mindfulness-based kindness curriculum. Developmental Psychology, 51 (1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038256

Garcia, J. L., Heckman, J. J., Leaf, D. E., & Prados, M. J. (2016). The life-cycle benefits of an influential early childhood program . Human capital and economic opportunity working paper seriesThe University of Chicago.

Book   Google Scholar  

Gormley, W. T., Phillips, D. A., Welti, K., Newmark, K., & Adelstein, S. (2011). Social-emotional effects of early childhood education programs in Tulsa. Child Development, 82 (6), 2095–2109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01648.x

Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1993). Promoting social and emotional development in deaf children: The PATHS project . University of Washington Press.

Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik, H., & Elias, M. J. (2003). Enhancing school-based prevention and youth development through coordinated social and emotional learning. American Psychologist, 58 , 466–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.466

Halle, T. G., & Darling-Churchill, K. E. (2016). Review of measures of social and emotional development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 45 , 8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2016.02.003

Hamre, B. K., Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., & Downer, J. T. (2012). Promoting young children’s social competence through the preschool PATHS curriculum and MyTeachingPartner professional development resources. Early Education and Development, 23 (6), 809–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.607360

Han, S. S., Catron, T., Weiss, B., & Marciel, K. K. (2005). A teacher-consultation approach to social skills training for pre-kindergarten children: Treatment model and short-term outcome effects. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33 (6), 681–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-005-7647-1

Han, H. S., & Thomas, M. S. (2010). No child misunderstood: Enhancing early childhood teachers’ multicultural responsiveness to the social competence of diverse children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 37 (6), 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-009-0369-1

Hemmeter, M., Synder, P. A., Fox, L., & Algina, J. (2016). Evaluating the implementation of the pyramid model for promoting social-emotional competence in early childhood classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 36 (3), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121416653386

Hughes, C., & Cline, T. (2015). An evaluation of the preschool PATHS curriculum on the development of preschool children. Educational Psychology in Practice, 31 (1), 73–85.

Izard, C. E., King, K. A., Trentacosta, C. J., Morgan, J. K., Laurenceau, J. P., Krauthamer-Ewing, E. S., & Finlon, K. J. (2008). Accelerating the development of emotion competence in Head Start children: Effects on adaptive and maladaptive behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 20 (1), 369–397. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000175

Jensen, B., Jensen, P., & Rasmussen, A. W. (2017). Does professional development of preschool teachers improve children’s socio-emotional outcomes? Labour Economics, 45 , 26–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.11.004

Jones, D., Dodge, K. A., Foster, E. M., Nix, R., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (2002). Early identification of children at risk for costly mental health service use. Prevention Science, 3 (4), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020896607298

Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health, 105 (11), 2283–2290. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302630

Joseph, G. E., & Strain, P. S. (2003). Comprehensive evidence-based social-emotional curricula for young children: An analysis of efficacious adoption potential. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23 (2), 62–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/02711214030230020201

Karoly, L. A., & Bigelow, J. H. (2005). The economics of investing in universal preschool education in California . Rand Corporation.

Kemple, K. M., Lee, I., & Ellis, S. M. (2019). The impact of a primary prevention program on preschool children’s social-emotional competence. Early Childhod Education Journal, 47 , 641–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-019-00963-3

Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Research, 43 , 207–222.

Klapp, A., Belfield, C., Bowden, B., Levin, H., Shand, R., & Zander, S. (2017). A benefit-cost analysis of a long-term intervention on social and emotional learning in compulsory school. International Journal of Emotional Education, 9 (1), 3–19.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32 (3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163320

Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R., & Miller-Loncar, C. L. (2000). Early maternal and child influences on children’s later independent cognitive and social functioning. Child Development, 71 (2), 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00150

Luo, L., Reichow, B., Snyder, P., Harrington, J., & Polignano, J. (2020). Systematic review and meta-analysis of classroom-wide social-emotional interventions for preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education . https://doi.org/10.1177/02171121420935579

Lynch, K. B., Geller, S. R., & Schmidt, M. G. (2004). Multi-year evaluation of the effectiveness of a resilience-based prevention program for young children. Journal of Primary Prevention, 24 (3), 335–353. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOPP.0000018052.12488.d1

Magnuson, K. A., Ruhm, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2007). Does prekindergarten improve school preparation and performance? Economics of Education Review, 26 (1), 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.09.008

McCabe, P. C., & Altamura, M. (2011). Empirically valid strategies to improve social and emotional competence of preschool children. Psychology in the Schools, 48 (5), 513–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20570

McCarthy, A., Lee, K., Itakura, S., & Muir, D. W. (2006). Cultural display rules during eye gaze during thinking. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37 (6), 717–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106292079

McClelland, M. M., Tominey, S. L., Schmitt, S. A., & Duncan, R. (2017). SEL interventions in early childhood. The Future of Children, 27 (1), 33–47.

Merritt, E. G., Wanless, S. B., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Cameron, C., & Peugh, J. L. (2012). The contribution of teachers’ emotional support to children’s social behaviors and self-regulatory skills in first grade. School Psychology Review, 41 (2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2012.12087517

Miller, T., & Hendrie, D. (2008). Substance abuse prevention dollars and cents: A cost-benefit analysis . Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP), SAMHSA. DHHS Pub, (07-4298).

Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B. W., Ross, S., & Sears, M. R. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (7), 2693–2698. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108

Morris, P., Millenky, M., Raver, C., & Jones, S. M. (2013). Does a preschool social and emotional learning intervention pay off for classroom instruction and children’s behavior and academic skills? Evidence from the foundations of learning project. Early Education and Development, 24 (7), 1020–1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2013.825187

Murano, D., Sawyer, J. E., & Lipnevich, A. A. (2020). A meta-analytic review of preschool social and emotional learning interventions. Review of Educational Research, 90 (2), 227–263. https://doi.org/10.31092/0034654320914743

Muratori, P., Giuli, C., Bertacchi, I., Orsolini, L., Ruglioni, L., & Lochman, J. E. (2017). Coping power for preschool-aged children: A pilot randomized control trial study. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 11 (6), 532–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12346

National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). (2018). The state of preschool 2017 . Rutgers.

Nelson, G., Westhues, A., & MacLeod, J. (2003). A meta-analysis of longitudinal research on preschool prevention programs for children. Prevention and Treatment, 6 , 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/1522-3736.6.1.631a

Newman, J., & Dusenbury, L. (2015). Social and emotional learning (SEL): A framework for academic, social, and emotional success. In K. Bosworth (Ed.), Prevention science in school settings (pp. 287–306). Springer

Nix, R. L., Bierman, K. L., Heinrich, B. S., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2016). The randomized controlled trial of Head Start REDI: Sustained effects on developmental trajectories of social-emotional functioning. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 84 (4), 310–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039937

Offord, D. R., Boyle, M. H., Racine, Y., Szatmari, P., Fleming, J. E., Sanford, M., & Lipman, E. L. (1996). Integrating assessment data from multiple informants. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35 (8), 1078–1085. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199608000-00019

Phillips, C. B. (1993). The movement of African American children through sociocultural contexts: A case of conflict resolution. In B. Mallory & R. New (Eds.), Diversity & developmentally appropriate practices (pp. 137–154). Teachers College Press.

Phillips, D. A., Lipsey, M. W., Dodge, K. A., Haskins, R., Bassok, D., Burchinal, M. R., Duncan, G. J., Dynarski, M., Magnuson, K. A., & Weiland, C. (2017). Puzzling it out: The current state of scientific knowledge on pre-kindergarten effects . The Brookings Institution.

Pickens, J. (2009). Socio-emotional programme promotes positive behaviour in preschoolers. Child Care in Practice, 15 (4), 261–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575270903149323

Poehlmann-Tynan, J., Vigna, A. B., Weymouth, L. A., Gerstein, E. D., Burnson, C., Zabransky, M., Lee, P., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2016). A pilot study of contemplative practices with economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Children’s empathic and self-regulatory behaviors. Mindfulness, 7 (1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0426-3

Raver, C. C., & Zigler, E. F. (1997). Social competence: An untapped dimension in evaluating Head Start’s success. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12 (4), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(97)90017-X

Reynolds, A. J., & Ou, S. (2011). Paths of effects from preschool to adult well-being: A confirmatory analysis of the Child–Parent Center Program. Child Development, 82 (2), 555–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01562.x

Reynolds, A. J., Richardson, B. A., Hayakawa, M., Englund, M. M., & Ou, S. (2016). Multi-site expansion of an early childhood intervention and school readiness. Pediatrics . https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-4587

Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S., Arteaga, I. A., & White, B. A. (2011). School-based early childhood education and age-28 well-being: effects by timing, dosage, and subgroups. Science, 333 (6040), 360–364. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1203618

Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Ou, S., Robertson, D. L., Mersky, J. P., Topitzes, J. W., & Niles, M. D. (2007). Effects of a school-based, early childhood intervention on adult health and well-being: A 19-year follow-up of low-income families. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161 (8), 730–739. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.161.8.730

Richardson, B. A., Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., & Smerillo, N. E. (2017). School readiness in the Midwest Child–Parent Center expansion: A propensity score analysis of year 1 impacts. Children and Youth Services Review, 79 , 620–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.042

Riggs, N. R., Jahromi, L. B., Razza, R. P., Dillworth-Bart, J. E., & Mueller, U. (2006). Executive function and the promotion of social-emotional competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27 (4), 300–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2006.04.002

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to kindergarten. Psychology and Neuroscience, 15 (2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(00)00049-1

Rutter, M., Kim-Cohen, J., & Maughan, B. (2006). Continuities and discontinuities in psychopathology between childhood and adult life. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47 (3–4), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01614.x

Shernoff, E. S., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2007). Transporting an evidence-based classroom management program for preschoolers with disruptive behavior problems to a school: An analysis of implementation, outcomes, and contextual variables. School Psychology Quarterly, 22 (3), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/1045-3830.22.3.449

Stefan, C. A., & Miclea, M. (2012). Classroom effects of a hybrid universal and indicated prevention program for preschool children: A comparative analysis based on social and emotional competence screening. Early Education and Development, 23 (3), 393–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.554756

Stefan, C. A., & Miclea, M. (2013). Effects of a multifocused prevention program on preschool children’s competencies and behavior problems. Psychology in the Schools, 50 (4), 382–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21683

Totura, C. M., Green, A. E., Karver, M. S., & Gesten, E. L. (2009). Multiple informants in the assessment of psychological, behavioral, and academic correlates of bullying and victimization in middle school. Journal of Adolescence, 32 (2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.04.005

Upshur, C., Wenz-Gross, M., & Reed, G. (2013). A pilot study of a primary prevention curriculum to address preschool behavior problems. Journal of Primary Prevention, 34 , 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0316-1

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2014). Early childhood education for low-income students: A review of the evidence and benefit-cost analysis . Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Webb-Johnson, G. (2002). Are schools ready for Joshua? Dimensions of African-American culture among students identified as having behavioral/emotional disorders. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 15 (6), 653–671. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839022000014367

Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2004). Strengthening social and emotional competence in young children—The foundation for early school readiness and success—Incredible years classroom social skills and problem-solving curriculum. Infants & Young Children, 17 (2), 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001163-200404000-00002

Webster-Stratton, C. (1990). The teachers and children’s videotape series: Dina Dinosaur’s social skills and problem-solving curriculum . University of Washington Press.

Webster-Stratton, C. (1998). Preventing problems in Head Start children: Strengthening parent competencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66 , 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.66.5.715

Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, J., & Hammond, M. (2001). Preventing conduct problems, promoting social competence: A parent and teacher training partnership in Head Start. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30 , 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JCCP3003_2

Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness: Evaluation of the incredible years teacher and child training program in high-risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49 (5), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01861.x

Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children’s mathematics, language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development, 84 (6), 2112–2130. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12099

Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Domitrovich, C. E., & Gullotta, T. P. (2016). Social and emotional learning: Past, present, and future. In J. A. Durlak, C. E. Domitrovich, R. P. Weissberg, & T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning: Research and practice. Guildford Press.

West-Olatunji, C. A., Behar-Horenstein, L., Rant, J., & Cohen-Phillips, L. N. (2008). Enhancing cultural competence among teachers of African American children using mediated lesson study. Journal of Negro Education, 77 (1), 27–38.

Wille, N., Bettge, S., Wittchen, Ravens-Sieberer, U., & BELLA Study Group. (2008). Risk and protective factors for children’s and adolescents’ mental health: Results of the BELLA Study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 17 , 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-008-1015-y

Williams, K. E., & Berthelesen, D. (2019). Implementation of a rhythm and movement intervention to support self-regulation skills of preschool-aged children in disadvantaged communities. Psychology of Music, 47 (6), 800–820. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735619861433

Williford, A. P., & Shelton, T. L. (2008). Using mental health consultation to decrease disruptive behaviors in preschoolers: Adapting an empirically-supported intervention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49 (2), 191–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01839.x

Wilson, K. R., Havighurst, S. S., & Harley, A. E. (2012). Tuning in to kids: An effectiveness trial of a parenting program targeting emotion socialization of preschoolers. Journal of Family Psychology, 26 (1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026480

Yates, T., Ostrosky, M. M., Cheatham, G. A., Fettig, A., Shaffer, L., & Santos, R. M. (2008). Research synthesis on screening and assessing social-emotional competence. http://csefel.vanderbilt.edu/documents/rs_screening_assessment.pdf

Zigler, E., & Trickett, P. K. (1978). IQ, social competence, and evaluation of early childhood intervention programs. American Psychologist, 33 (9), 789–798. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.33.9.789

Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2007). The scientific basis linking social and emotional learning to school success. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 17 (2 & 3), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410701413145

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

CMR’s work on this manuscript was funded by a Doris Duke Fellowship for the Promotion of Child Well-Being. The views and findings presented herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Doris Duke Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Developmental Medicine, Brazelton Touchpoints Center, Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1295 Boylston St., Suite 320, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

Christina F. Mondi

Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, USA

Alison Giovanelli

Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA

Arthur J. Reynolds

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The manuscript was co-conceptualized by CM, AG, and AJR. CM and AG conducted the literature review and were the major contributors in writing the manuscript. AJR edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christina F. Mondi .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mondi, C.F., Giovanelli, A. & Reynolds, A.J. Fostering socio-emotional learning through early childhood intervention. ICEP 15 , 6 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-021-00084-8

Download citation

Received : 02 April 2020

Accepted : 10 May 2021

Published : 22 May 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-021-00084-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Early childhood
• Socio-emotional learning
• Mental health
• Early intervention

• NAEYC Login
• Member Profile
• Hello Community
• Accreditation Portal
• Online Learning
• Online Store

Popular Searches:   DAP ;  Coping with COVID-19 ;  E-books ;  Anti-Bias Education ;  Online Store

The Power of Playful Learning in the Early Childhood Setting

You are here

Play versus learning represents a false dichotomy in education (e.g., Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff 2008). In part, the persistent belief that learning must be rigid and teacher directed—the opposite of play—is motivated by the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes playful learning (Zosh et al. 2018). And, in part, it is motivated by older perceptions of play and learning. Newer research, however, allows us to reframe the debate as learning via play—as playful learning.

This piece, which is an excerpt from Chapter 5 in  Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8, Fourth Edition (NAEYC 2022), suggests that defining play on a spectrum (Zosh et al. 2018, an idea first introduced by Bergen 1988) helps to resolve old divisions and provides a powerful framework that puts  playful learning —rich curriculum coupled with a playful pedagogy—front and center as a model for all early childhood educators. ( See below for a discussion of play on a spectrum.)

This excerpt also illustrates the ways in which play and learning mutually support one another and how teachers connect learning goals to children’s play. Whether solitary, dramatic, parallel, social, cooperative, onlooker, object, fantasy, physical, constructive, or games with rules, play, in all of its forms, is a teaching practice that optimally facilitates young children’s development and learning. By maximizing children’s choice, promoting wonder and enthusiasm for learning, and leveraging joy, playful learning pedagogies support development across domains and content areas and increase learning relative to more didactic methods (Alfieri et al. 2011; Bonawitz et al. 2011; Sim & Xu 2015).

Playful Learning: A Powerful Teaching Tool

This narrowing of the curriculum and high-stakes assessment practices (such as paper-and-pencil tests for kindergartners) increased stress on educators, children, and families but failed to deliver on the promise of narrowing—let alone closing—the gap.  All  children need well-thought-out curricula, including reading and STEM experiences and an emphasis on executive function skills such as attention, impulse control, and memory (Duncan et al. 2007). But to promote happy, successful, lifelong learners, children must be immersed in developmentally appropriate practice and rich curricular learning that is culturally relevant (NAEYC 2020). Playful learning is a vehicle for achieving this. Schools must also address the inequitable access to play afforded to children (see “Both/And: Early Childhood Education Needs Both Play and Equity,” by Ijumaa Jordan.) All children should be afforded opportunities to play, regardless of their racial group, socioeconomic class, and disability if they have been diagnosed with one. We second the call of Maria Souto-Manning (2017): “Although play has traditionally been positioned as a privilege, it must be (re)positioned as a right, as outlined by the  United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 31” (785).

What Is Playful Learning?

Playful learning describes a learning context in which children learn content while playing freely (free play or self-directed play), with teacher guidance (guided play), or in a structured game. By harnessing children’s natural curiosity and their proclivities to experiment, explore, problem solve, and stay engaged in meaningful activities—especially when doing so with others—teachers maximize learning while individualizing learning goals. Central to this concept is the idea that teachers act more as the Socratic “guide at the side” than a “sage on the stage” (e.g., King 1993, 30; Smith 1993, 35). Rather than view children as empty vessels receiving information, teachers see children as active explorers and discoverers who bring their prior knowledge into the learning experience and construct an understanding of, for example, words such as  forecast  and  low pressure  as they explore weather patterns and the science behind them. In other words, teachers support children as active learners.

Importantly, playful learning pedagogies naturally align with the characteristics that research in the science of learning suggests help humans learn. Playful learning leverages the power of active (minds-on), engaging (not distracting), meaningful, socially interactive, and iterative thinking and learning (Zosh et al. 2018) in powerful ways that lead to increased learning.

Free play lets children explore and express themselves—to be the captains of their own ship. While free play is important, if a teacher has a learning goal, guided play and games are the road to successful outcomes for children (see Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff 2013 for a review). Playful learning in the form of guided play, in which the teacher builds in the learning as part of a fun context such as a weather report, keeps the child’s agency but adds an intentional component to the play that helps children learn more from the experience. In fact, when researchers compared children’s skill development during free play in comparison to guided play, they found that children learned more vocabulary (Toub et al. 2018) and spatial skills (Fisher et al. 2013) in guided play than in free play.

Self-Directed Play, Free Play

NAEYC’s 2020 position statement on developmentally appropriate practice uses the term  self-directed play  to refer to play that is initiated and directed by children. Such play is termed  free play  in the larger works of the authors of this excerpt; therefore, free play is the primary term used in this article, with occasional references to self-directed play, the term used in the rest of the DAP book.

Imagine an everyday block corner. The children are immersed in play with each other—some trying to build high towers and others creating a tunnel for the small toy cars on the nearby shelves. But what if there were a few model pictures on the wall of what children could strive to make as they collaborated in that block corner? Might they rotate certain pieces purposely? Might they communicate with one another that the rectangle needs to go on top of the square? Again, a simple insertion of a design that children can try to copy turns a play situation into one ripe with spatial learning. Play is a particularly effective way to engage children with specific content learning when there is a learning goal.

Why Playful Learning Is Critical

Teachers play a crucial role in creating places and spaces where they can introduce playful learning to help all children master not only content but also the skills they will need for future success. The science of learning literature (e.g., Fisher et al. 2013; Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff 2013; Zosh et al. 2018) suggests that playful learning can change the “old equation” for learning, which posited that direct, teacher-led instruction, such as lectures and worksheets, was the way to achieve rich content learning. This “new equation” moves beyond a sole focus on content and instead views playful learning as a way to support a breadth of skills while embracing developmentally appropriate practice guidelines (see Hirsh-Pasek et al. 2020).

Using a playful learning pedagogical approach leverages the skill sets of today’s educators and enhances their ability to help children attain curricular goals. It engages what has been termed active learning that is also developmentally appropriate and offers a more equitable way of engaging children by increasing access to participation. When topics are important and culturally relevant to children, they can better identify with the subject and the learning becomes more seamless.

While educators of younger children are already well versed in creating playful and joyful experiences to support social goals (e.g., taking turns and resolving conflicts), they can use this same skill set to support more content-focused curricular goals (e.g., mathematics and literacy). Similarly, while teachers of older children have plenty of experience determining concrete content-based learning goals (e.g., attaining Common Core Standards), they can build upon this set of skills and use playful learning as a pedagogy to meet those goals.

Learning Through Play: A Play Spectrum

As noted previously, play can be thought of as lying on a spectrum that includes free play (or self-directed play), guided play, games, playful instruction, and direct instruction (Bergen 1988; Zosh et al. 2018). For the purposes of this piece, we use a spectrum that includes the first three of these aspects of playful learning, as illustrated in “Play Spectrum Showing Three Types of Playful Learning Situations” below.

The following variables determine the degree to which an activity can be considered playful learning:

• level of adult involvement
• extent to which the child is directing the learning
• presence of a learning goal

Toward the left end of the spectrum are activities with more child agency, less adult involvement, and loosely defined or no particular learning goals. Further to the right, adults are more involved, but children still direct the activity or interaction.

Developmentally appropriate practice does not mean primarily that children play without a planned learning environment or learn mostly through direct instruction (NAEYC 2020). Educators in high-quality early childhood programs offer a range of learning experiences that fall all along this spectrum. By thinking of play as a spectrum, educators can more easily assess where their learning activities and lessons fall on this spectrum by considering the components and intentions of the lesson. Using their professional knowledge of how children develop and learn, their knowledge of individual children, and their understanding of social and cultural contexts, educators can then begin to think strategically about how to target playful learning (especially guided play and games) to leverage how children naturally learn. This more nuanced view of play and playful learning can be used to both meet age-appropriate learning objectives and support engaged, meaningful learning.   

In the kindergarten classroom in the following vignette, children have ample time for play and exploration in centers, where they decide what to play with and what they want to create. These play centers are the focus of the room and the main tool for developing social and emotional as well as academic skills; they reflect and support what the children are learning through whole-group discussions, lessons, and skills-focused stations. In the vignette, the teacher embeds guided play opportunities within the children’s free play.

Studying Bears: Self-Directed Play that Extends What Kindergartners Are Learning

While studying the habits of animals in winter, the class is taking a deeper dive into the lives of American black bears, animals that make their homes in their region. In the block center, one small group of children uses short lengths and cross-sections of real tree branches as blocks along with construction paper to create a forest habitat for black bear figurines. They enlist their friends in the art center to assist in making trees and bushes. Two children are in the writing center. Hearing that their friends are looking for help to create a habitat, they look around and decide a hole punch and blue paper are the perfect tools for making blueberries—a snack black bears love to eat! Now multiple centers and groups of children are involved in making the block center become a black bear habitat.

In the dramatic play center, some of the children pretend to be bear biologists, using stethoscopes, scales, and magnifying glasses to study the health of a couple of plush black bears. When these checkups are complete, the teacher suggests the children could describe the bears’ health in a written “report,” thus embedding guided play within their free play. A few children at the easels in the art center are painting pictures of black bears.

Contributed by Amy Blessing

Free play, or self-directed play, is often heralded as the gold standard of play. It encourages children’s initiative, independence, and problem solving and has been linked to benefits in social and emotional development (e.g., Singer & Singer 1990; Pagani et al. 2010; Romano et al. 2010; Gray 2013) and language and literacy (e.g., Neuman & Roskos 1992). Through play, children explore and make sense of their world, develop imaginative and symbolic thinking, and develop physical competence. The kindergarten children in the example above were developing their fine motor and collaboration skills, displaying their understanding of science concepts (such as the needs of animals and living things), and exercising their literacy and writing skills. Such benefits are precisely why free play has an important role in developmentally appropriate practice. To maximize learning, teachers also provide guided play experiences.

Guided Play

While free play has great value for children, empirical evidence suggests that it is not always sufficient  when there is a pedagogical goal at stake  (Smith & Pellegrini 2008; Alfieri et al. 2011; Fisher et al. 2013; Lillard 2013; Weisberg, Hirsh-Pasek, & Golinkoff 2013; Toub et al. 2018). This is where guided play comes in.

Guided play allows teachers to focus children’s play around specific learning goals (e.g., standards-based goals), which can be applied to a variety of topics, from learning place value in math to identifying rhyming words in literacy activities. Note, however, that the teacher does not take over the play activity or even direct it. Instead, she asks probing questions that guide the next level of child-directed exploration. This is a perfect example of how a teacher can initiate a context for learning while still leaving the child in charge. In the previous kindergarten vignette, the teacher guided the children in developing their literacy skills as she embedded writing activities within the free play at the centers.

Facilitating Guided Play

Skilled teachers set up environments and facilitate development and learning throughout the early childhood years, such as in the following:

• Ms. Taglieri notices what 4-month-old Anthony looks at and shows interest in. Following his interest and attention, she plays Peekaboo, adjusting her actions (where she places the blanket and peeks out at him) to maintain engagement.
• Ms. Eberhard notices that 22-month-old Abe knows the color yellow. She prepares her environment based on this observation, placing a few yellow objects along with a few red ones on a small table. Abe immediately goes to the table, picking up each yellow item and verbally labeling them (“Lellow!”).
• Mr. Gorga creates intrigue and participation by inviting his preschool class to “be shape detectives” and to “discover the secret of shapes.” As the children explore the shapes, Mr. Gorga offers questions and prompts to guide children to answer the question “What makes them the same kind of shapes?”

An analogy for facilitating guided play is bumper bowling. If bumpers are in place, most children are more likely than not to knock down some pins when they throw the ball down the lane. That is different than teaching children exactly how to throw it (although some children, such as those who have disabilities or who become frustrated if they feel a challenge is too great, may require that level of support or instruction). Guided play is not a one-size-fits-all prescriptive pedagogical technique. Instead, teachers match the level of support they give in guided play to the children in front of them.

Critically, many teachers already implement these kinds of playful activities. When the children are excited by the birds they have seen outside of their window for the past couple of days, the teachers may capitalize on this interest and provide children with materials for a set of playful activities about bird names, diets, habitats, and songs. Asking children to use their hands to mimic an elephant’s trunk when learning vocabulary can promote learning through playful instruction that involves movement. Similarly, embedding vocabulary in stories that are culturally relevant promotes language and early literacy development (García-Alvarado, Arreguín, & Ruiz-Escalante 2020). For example, a teacher who has several children in his class with Mexican heritage decides to read aloud  Too Many Tamales  (by Gary Soto, illus. Ed Martinez) and have the children reenact scenes from it, learning about different literary themes and concepts through play. The children learn more vocabulary, have a better comprehension of the text, and see themselves and their experiences reflected. The teacher also adds some of the ingredients and props for making tamales into the sociodramatic play center (Salinas-González, Arreguín-Anderson, & Alanís 2018) and invites families to share stories about family  tamaladas  (tamale-making parties).

Evidence Supporting Guided Play as a Powerful Pedagogical Tool

Evidence from the science of learning suggests that discovery-based guided play actually results in increased learning for all children relative to both free play and direct instruction (see Alferi et al. 2011). These effects hold across content areas including spatial learning (Fisher et al. 2013), literacy (Han et al. 2010; Nicolopoulou et al. 2015; Hassinger-Das et al. 2016; Cavanaugh et al. 2017; Toub et al. 2018; Moedt & Holmes 2020), and mathematics (Zosh et al. 2016).

There are several possible reasons for guided play’s effectiveness. First, it harnesses the joy that is critical to creativity and learning (e.g., Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki 1987; Resnick 2007). Second, during guided play, the adults help “set the stage for thought and action” by essentially limiting the number of possible outcomes for the children so that the learning goal is discoverable, but children still direct the activity (Weisberg et al. 2014, 276). Teachers work to provide high-quality materials, eliminate distractions, and prepare the space, but then, critically, they let the child play the active role of construction. Third, in guided play, the teacher points the way toward a positive outcome and hence lessens the ambiguity (the degrees of freedom) without directing children to an answer or limiting children to a single discovery (e.g., Bonawitz et al. 2011). And finally, guided play provides the opportunity for new information to be integrated with existing knowledge and updated as children explore.

Reinforcing Numeracy with a Game

The children in Mr. Cohen’s preschool class are at varying levels of understanding in early numeracy skills (e.g., cardinality, one-to-one correspondence, order irrelevance). He knows that his children need some practice with these skills but wants to make the experience joyful while also building these foundational skills. One day, he brings out a new game for them to play—The Great Race. Carla and Michael look up expectantly, and their faces light up when they realize they will be playing a game instead of completing a worksheet. The two quickly pull out the box, setting up the board and choosing their game pieces. Michael begins by flicking the spinner with his finger, landing on 2. “Nice!” Carla exclaims, as Michael moves his game piece, counting “One, two.” Carla takes a turn next, spinning a 1 and promptly counting “one” as she moves her piece one space ahead. “My turn!” Michael says, eager to win the race. As he spins a 2, he pauses. “One . . . two,” he says, hesitating, as he moves his piece to space 4 on the board. Carla corrects him, “I think you mean ‘three, four,’ right? You have to count up from where you are on the board.” Michael nods, remembering the rules Mr. Cohen taught him earlier that day. “Right,” he says, “three, four.”

Similar to guided play, games can be designed in ways that help support learning goals (Hassinger-Das et al. 2017). In this case, instead of adults playing the role of curating the activity, the games themselves provide this type of external scaffolding. The example with Michael and Carla shows how children can learn through games, which is supported by research. In one well-known study, playing a board game (i.e., The Great Race) in which children navigated through a linear, numerical-based game board (i.e., the game board had equally spaced game spaces that go from left to right) resulted in increased numerical development as compared to playing the same game where the numbers were replaced by colors (Siegler & Ramani 2008) or with numbers organized in a circular fashion (Siegler & Ramani 2009). Structuring experiences so that the learning goal is intertwined naturally with children’s play supports their learning. A critical point with both guided play and games is that children are provided with support but still lead their own learning.

Digital educational games have become enormously popular, with tens of thousands of apps marketed as “educational,” although there is no independent review of these apps. Apps and digital games may have educational value when they inspire active, engaged, meaningful, and socially interactive experiences (Hirsh-Pasek et al. 2015), but recent research suggests that many of the most downloaded educational apps do not actually align with these characteristics that lead to learning (Meyer et al. 2021). Teachers should exercise caution and evaluate any activity—digital or not—to see how well it harnesses the power of playful learning.

Next Steps for Educators

Educators are uniquely positioned to prepare today’s children for achievement today and success tomorrow. Further, the evidence is mounting that playful pedagogies appear to be an accessible, powerful tool that harnesses the pillars of learning. This approach can be used across ages and is effective in learning across domains.

By leveraging children’s own interests and mindfully creating activities that let children play their way to new understanding and skills, educators can start using this powerful approach today. By harnessing the children’s interests at different ages and engaging them in playful learning activities, educators can help children learn while having fun. And, importantly, educators will have more fun too when they see children happy and engaged.

As the tide begins to change in individual classrooms, educators need to acknowledge that vast inequalities (e.g., socioeconomic achievement gaps) continue to exist (Kearney & Levine 2016). The larger challenge remains in propelling a cultural shift so that administrators, families, and policymakers understand the way in which educators can support the success of all children through high-quality, playful learning experiences.

Consider the following reflection questions as you reflect how to support equitable playful learning experiences for each and every child:

• One of the best places to start is by thinking about your teaching strengths. Perhaps you are great at sparking joy and engagement. Or maybe you are able to frequently leverage children’s home lives in your lessons. How can you expand practices you already use as an educator or are learning about in your courses to incorporate the playful learning described in this article?
• How can you share the information in this chapter with families, administrators, and other educators? How can you help them understand how play can engage children in deep, joyful learning?

This piece is excerpted from NAEYC’s recently published book  Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8,  Fourth Edition. For more information about the book, visit  NAEYC.org/resources/pubs/books/dap-fourth-edition .

Teaching Play Skills

Pamela Brillante

While many young children with autism spectrum disorder enjoy playing, they can have difficulty engaging in traditional play activities. They may engage in activities that do not look like ordinary play, including playing with only a few specific toys or playing in a specific, repetitive way.

Even though most children learn play skills naturally, sometimes families and teachers have to teach children how to play. Learning how to play will help develop many other skills young children need for the future, including

• social skills:  taking turns, sharing, and working cooperatively
• cognitive skills:  problem-solving skills, early academic skills
• communication skills:  responding to others, asking questions
• physical skills:  body awareness, fine and gross motor coordination

Several evidence-based therapeutic approaches to teaching young children with autism focus on teaching play skills, including

• The Play Project:  https://playproject.org
• The Greenspan Floortime approach: https://stanleygreenspan.com
• Integrated Play Group (IPG) Model: www.wolfberg.com

While many children with autism have professionals and therapists working with them, teachers and families should work collaboratively and provide multiple opportunities for children to practice new skills and engage in play at their own level. For example, focus on simple activities that promote engagement between the adult and the child as well as the child and their peers without disabilities, including playing with things such as bubbles, cause-and-effect toys, and interactive books. You can also use the child’s preferred toy in the play, like having the Spider-Man figure be the one popping the bubbles.

Pamela Brillante , EdD, has spent 30 years working as a special education teacher, administrator, consultant, and professor. In addition to her full-time faculty position in the Department of Special Education, Professional Counseling and Disability Studies at William Paterson University of New Jersey, Dr. Brillante continues to consult with school districts and present to teachers and families on the topic of high-quality, inclusive early childhood practices.  

Photographs: © Getty Images Copyright © 2022 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. See Permissions and Reprints online at  NAEYC.org/resources/permissions .

Alfieri, L., P.J. Brooks, N.J. Aldrich, & H.R. Tenenbaum. 2011. “Does Discovery-Based Instruction Enhance Learning?” Journal of Educational Psychology 103 (1): 1–18.  

Bassok, D., S. Latham, & A. Rorem. 2016. “Is Kindergarten the New First Grade?” AERA Open 2 (1): 1–31. doi.10.1177/2332858415616358. 

Bergen, D., ed. 1988. Play as a Medium for Learning and Development: A Handbook of Theory and Practice . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books. 

Bonawitz, E.B., P. Shafto, H. Gweon, N.D. Goodman, E.S. Spelke, & L. Schulz. 2011. “The Double-Edged Sword of Pedagogy: Instruction Limits Spontaneous Exploration and Discovery.” Cognition 120 (3): 322–30. 

Cavanaugh, D.M., K.J. Clemence, M.M. Teale, A.C. Rule, & S.E. Montgomery. 2017. “Kindergarten Scores, Storytelling, Executive Function, and Motivation Improved Through Literacy-Rich Guided Play.” Journal of Early Childhood Education 45 (6): 1–13. 

Christakis, E. 2016. The Importance of Being Little: What Preschoolers Really Need from Grownups . New York: Penguin Books.  

Duncan, G. J., A. Claessens, A.C. Huston, L.S. Pagani, M. Engel, H. Sexton, C.J. Dowsett, K. Magnuson, P. Klebanov, L. Feinstein, J. Brooks-Gunn, K. Duckworth, & C. Japel. 2007. “School Readiness and Later Achievement.” Developmental Psychology 43 (6): 1428–46. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428 .  

Fisher, K.R., K. Hirsh-Pasek, N. Newcombe, & R.M. Golinkoff. 2013. “Taking Shape: Supporting Preschoolers’ Acquisition of Geometric Knowledge Through Guided Play.” Child Development 84 (6): 1872–78. 

García-Alvarado, S., M.G. Arreguín, & J.A. Ruiz-Escalante. 2020. “Mexican-American Preschoolers as Co-Creators of Zones of Proximal Development During Retellings of Culturally Relevant Stories: A Participatory Study.” Journal of Early Childhood Literacy : 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1468798420930339 . 

Gray, P. 2013. Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students for Life . New York: Basic Books.  

Han, M., N. Moore, C. Vukelich, & M. Buell. 2010. “Does Play Make a Difference? How Play Intervention Affects the Vocabulary Learning of At-Risk Preschoolers.” American Journal of Play 3 (1): 82–105. 

Hannaway, J., & L. Hamilton. 2008. Accountability Policies: Implications for School and Classroom Practices . Washington, DC: Urban Institute. http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/411779.html . 

Hassinger-Das, B., K. Ridge, A. Parker, R.M. Golinkoff, K. Hirsh-Pasek, & D.K. Dickinson. 2016. “Building Vocabulary Knowledge in Preschoolers Through Shared Book Reading and Gameplay.” Mind, Brain, and Education 10 (2): 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.12103 . 

Hassinger-Das, B., T.S. Toub, J.M. Zosh, J. Michnick, R. Golinkoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek. 2017. “More Than Just Fun: A Place for Games in Playful Learning.” Infancia y aprendizaje: Journal for the Study of Education and Development 40 (2): 191–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1292684 . 

Hirsh-Pasek, K., & R.M. Golinkoff. 2008. “Why Play = Learning.” In Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online], eds. R.E. Tremblay, M. Boivin, & R.D. Peters, topic ed. P.K. Smith, 1–6. Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development. www.child-encyclopedia.com/play/according-experts/why-play-learning . 

Hirsh-Pasek, K., H. S. Hadani, E. Blinkoff, & R. M. Golinkoff. 2020. A new path to education reform: Playful learning promotes 21st-century skills in schools and beyond . The Brookings Institution: Big Ideas Policy Report. www.brookings.edu/policy2020/bigideas/a-new-path-to-education-reform-playful-learning-promotes-21st-century-skills-in-schools-and-beyond . 

Hirsh-Pasek, K., J.M. Zosh, R.M. Golinkoff, J.H. Gray, M.B. Robb, & J. Kaufman. 2015. “Putting Education in ‘Educational’ Apps: Lessons from the Science of Learning.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 16 (1): 3–34. 

Isen, A.M., K.A. Daubman, & G.P. Nowicki. 1987. “Positive Affect Facilitates Creative Problem Solving.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (6): 1122–31. 

Kearney, M.S., & P.B. Levine. (2016, Spring). Income, Inequality, Social Mobility, and the Decision to Drop Out of High School . Washington, DC: Brookings. www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/income-inequality-social-mobility-and-the-decision-to-drop-out-of-high-school . 

King, A. 1993. “From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side.” College Teaching 41 (1): 30–35.  

Lillard, A.S. 2013. “Playful Learning and Montessori Education.” American Journal of Play 5 (2): 157–86. 

Meyer, M., J.M. Zosh, C. McLaren, M. Robb, R.M. Golinkoff, K. Hirsh-Pasek, & J. Radesky. 2021. “How Educational Are ‘Educational’ Apps for Young Children? App Store Content Analysis Using the Four Pillars of Learning Framework.” Journal of Children and Media . Published online February 23. 

Miller, E., & J. Almon. 2009. Crisis in the Kindergarten: Why Children Need to Play in School . College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood. https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504839.pdf . 

Moedt, K., & R.M. Holmes. 2020. “The Effects of Purposeful Play After Shared Storybook Readings on Kindergarten Children’s Reading Comprehension, Creativity, and Language Skills and Abilities.” Early Child Development and Care 190 (6): 839–54. 

NAEYC. 2020. “Developmentally Appropriate Practice.” Position statement. Washington, DC: NAEYC. www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/dap .  

Neuman, S.B., & K. Roskos. 1992. “Literacy Objects as Cultural Tools: Effects on Children’s Literacy Behaviors in Play.” Reading Research Quarterly 27 (3): 202–25.  

Nicolopoulou, A., K.S. Cortina, H. Ilgaz, C.B. Cates, & A.B. de Sá. 2015. “Using a Narrative- and Play-Based Activity to Promote Low-Income Preschoolers’ Oral Language, Emergent Literacy, and Social Competence.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 31 (2): 147–62. 

Pagani, L.S., C. Fitzpatrick, I. Archambault, & M. Janosz. 2010. “School Readiness and Later Achievement: A French Canadian Replication and Extension.” Developmental Psychology 46 (5): 984–94.  

Pedulla, J.J., L.M. Abrams, G.F. Madaus, M.K. Russell, M.A. Ramos, & J. Miao. 2003. “Perceived Effect of State-Mandated Testing Programs on Teaching and Learning: Findings from a National Survey of Teachers” (ED481836). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED481836 . 

Ravitch, D. 2010. “Why Public Schools Need Democratic Governance.” Phi Delta Kappan 91 (6): 24–27. 

Resnick, M. 2007. “All I Really Need to Know (About Creative Thinking) I Learned (by Studying How Children Learn) in Kindergarten.” In Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition , 1–6. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. 

Romano, E., L. Babchishin, L.S. Pagani, & D. Kohen. 2010. “School Readiness and Later Achievement: Replication and Extension Using a Nationwide Canadian Survey.” Developmental Psychology 46 (5): 995–1007.  

Salinas-González, I., M.G. Arreguín-Anderson, & I. Alanís. 2018. “Supporting Language: Culturally Rich Dramatic Play.” Teaching Young Children 11 (2): 4–6. 

Siegler, R.S., & G.B. Ramani. 2008. “Playing Linear Numerical Board Games Promotes Low-Income Children’s Numerical Development.” Developmental Science 11 (5): 655–61. 

Siegler, R.S., & G.B. Ramani. 2009. “Playing Linear Number Board Games—but Not Circular Ones—Improves Low-Income Preschoolers’ Numerical Understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology 101 (3): 545–60. 

Sim, Z., & F. Xu. 2015. “Toddlers Learn from Facilitated Play, Not Free Play.” In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society , Berkeley, CA. https://cognitivesciencesociety.org/past-conferences . 

Singer, D.G., & J.L. Singer. 1990. The House of Make-Believe: Children’s Play and the Developing Imagination . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  

Smith, K. 1993. “Becoming the ‘Guide on the Side.’” Educational Leadership 51 (2): 35–37.  

Smith P.K., & A. Pellegrini. 2008. “Learning Through Play.” In Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online], eds. R.E. Tremblay, M. Boivin, & R.D. Peters, 1–6. Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development and Strategic Knowledge Cluster on Early Child Development. https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/pdf/expert/play/according-experts/learning-through-play . 

Souto-Manning, M. 2017. “Is Play a Privilege or a Right? And What’s Our Responsibility? On the Role of Play for Equity in Early Childhood Education.” Foreword. Early Child Development and Care 187 (5–6): 785–87. www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03004430.2016.1266588 . 

Toub, T.S., B. Hassinger-Das, K.T. Nesbitt, H. Ilgaz, D.S. Weisberg, K. Hirsh-Pasek, R.M. Golinkoff, A. Nicolopoulou, & D.K. Dickinson. 2018. “The Language of Play: Developing Preschool Vocabulary Through Play Following Shared Book-Reading.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 45 (4): 1–17.  

Weisberg, D.S., K. Hirsh-Pasek, & R.M. Golinkoff. 2013. “Guided Play: Where Curricular Goals Meet a Playful Pedagogy.” Mind, Brain, and Education 7 (2): 104–12. 

Weisberg, D.S., K. Hirsh-Pasek, R.M. Golinkoff, & B.D. McCandliss. 2014. “Mise en place: Setting the Stage for Thought and Action.” Trends in Cognitive Science 18 (6): 276–78. 

Zosh, J.M., B. Hassinger-Das, T.S. Toub, K. Hirsh-Pasek, & R. Golinkoff. 2016. “Playing with Mathematics: How Play Supports Learning and the Common Core State Standards.” Journal of Mathematics Education at Teachers College 7 (1): 45–49. https://doi.org/10.7916/jmetc.v7i1.787 . 

Zosh, J.M., K. Hirsh-Pasek, E.J. Hopkins, H. Jensen, C. Liu, D. Neale, S.L. Solis, & D. Whitebread. 2018. “Accessing the Inaccessible: Redefining Play as a Spectrum.” Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01124 . 

Jennifer M. Zosh, PhD, is professor of human development and family studies at Penn State Brandywine. Most recently, her work has focused on technology and its impact on children as well as playful learning as a powerful pedagogy. She publishes journal articles, book chapters, blogs, and white papers and focuses on the dissemination of developmental research.

Caroline Gaudreau, PhD, is a research professional at the TMW Center for Early Learning + Public Health at the University of Chicago. She received her PhD from the University of Delaware, where she studied how children learn to ask questions and interact with screen media. She is passionate about disseminating research and interventions to families across the country.

Roberta Michnick Golinkoff, PhD, conducts research on language development, the benefits of play, spatial learning, and the effects of media on children. A member of the National Academy of Education, she is a cofounder of Playful Learning Landscapes, Learning Science Exchange, and the Ultimate Playbook for Reimagining Education. Her last book, Becoming Brilliant: What Science Tells Us About Raising Successful Children (American Psychological Association, 2016), reached the New York Times bestseller list.

Kathy Hirsh-Pasek, PhD, is the Lefkowitz Faculty Fellow in the Psychology and Neuroscience department at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  She is also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Her research examines the development of early language and literacy, the role of play in learning, and learning and technology. [email protected]

Vol. 77, No. 2

Print this article

Aims and scope

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

A Review on Early Intervention Systems

Kristen tollan.

1 Department of Communication and Culture, York University, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada

2 School of Early Childhood Studies, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3 Canada

Rita Jezrawi

3 Offord Centre for Child Studies, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 4L8 Canada

Kathryn Underwood

Magdalena janus, associated data.

Not applicable.

Purpose of Review

Early intervention programs have been shown to increase the overall socio-emotional and physical wellbeing of children in early childhood and educational settings. The goal of this narrative review is to explore recent literature that describes implementation of these systems and highlights innovative practices in the early childhood intervention sector.

Recent Findings

Twenty-three articles were included, and we identified three themes in this review. The literature addressed concepts of innovative techniques in relation to childhood disability interventions; policy practices that promote child, family, and practitioner wellbeing; and attention to the importance of trauma-informed care in education for children and families who face the impacts of social marginalization such as racism and colonization.

Notable shifts in the current early intervention paradigms are approaches to understanding disability informed by intersectional and critical theories, as well as systems level thinking that goes beyond focusing on individual intervention by influencing policy to advance innovative practice in the sector.

Introduction

The early years of life are crucial for setting the foundation for healthy child development. The benefits of early interventions on the health of disabled children with intellectual and developmental disabilities have been well established albeit with varying levels of evidence of effectiveness [ 1 – 5 ]. Health and education service sectors have focused efforts on early identification, screening, prevention models, and early treatment options for disabled children. However, there is little research on the social conditions and contexts within which children and families access early intervention services.

Current debates in the field include the evidence-based ability to assess effectiveness and usefulness of different types of early interventions. Existing evidence is based mostly on North American data; yet despite the Western focus, differences within countries with provincial or state-governed health and education systems are apparent and result in discrepancies in availability, access, and effectiveness of early interventions. For instance, variability in funding, delivery, and design of services is evident within and between jurisdictions; policy decisions are made for private versus public funding, direct versus indirect financial support, and whether services will be integrated and delivered in school or clinical settings [ 6 ]. Population level data are also critical in tracking the social determinants of health such as family, socioeconomic, and geographic characteristics that contribute to the success and experience in early interventions. Population-level monitoring may also inform strategies to mediate the impacts of racism, colonialism, and other inequities that influence child health. As early interventions continue to be a key preventive and mitigation strategy in early childhood special education and healthcare, it is crucial that policymakers and professionals address the causes of bias and racism within systems and further promote wellness and equity [ 7 •]. Best practices, such as collaboration and partnerships between families and professionals, as well as family-centred and strengths-based approaches in the face of the diverse and complex needs of individual families and limited resources are best candidates for optimal service delivery [ 8 ]. The purpose of this narrative review was to synthesize emerging evidence and recent research on interventions in early childhood and identify avenues for improvement in the field.

Methodology

We conducted a narrative review of English-language peer-reviewed research articles describing or evaluating education-focused early interventions for children with developmental and intellectual disabilities from 2018 to 2022.

Prior to the review, an initial scan of recent literature was conducted by one of the authors (KT), and we identified three main topic areas that were discussed frequently in the articles (social model, policy, and trauma-informed care). We then conducted the review using the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) database through three searches based on the topic areas we identified. Search terms in strings of various combinations were used and interchanged with synonymous and related terms. Sample search terms for the topic areas included the following: early childhood education, early intervention, innovation, policy, policy evaluation, public health, service delivery, early intervention policy, developmental disability, intellectual disability, special needs, child, family, and trauma. In the first search, the focus was on early childhood education for children who have dealt with traumatic experiences. The second search focused on childhood disability and interventions for young children with disabilities. Educational policy and the development of interventions systems for early childhood settings was the focus of the third search. Additional relevant articles were identified through reference list checking, personal libraries, and additional searches on Google Scholar, ProQuest, and PubMed databases. After extracting the titles and eliminating duplicates, articles were screened by title and abstract for relevance and applicability to the main research questions. We included articles that specifically focused on early childhood education settings, services, and interventions, rather than medical or paediatric settings. The articles for potential inclusion in the review were also assessed in full-text for relevance by two of the authors (KT & RJ), and the main details of each article were extracted in a spreadsheet. We did not assess the quality or conduct pooled analysis of the articles, because our interest was in the current discourses in the field of early intervention. Of the 468 unique articles located, 71 received the full text review by two authors (KT & RJ), and 23 were included in the final review.

Findings and Discussion

As indicated above, we identified three main themes in recent work related to early childhood intervention systems in the selected literature through preliminary search. The first theme addressed the outcomes of disabled children in early intervention settings, as well as the mitigation of impairment, and social approaches to understanding childhood disability. The second theme was centre-based policies and programs in early intervention. The third theme was trauma-informed practice. The research on childhood trauma was not limited to a particular type of trauma, but rather reflects the influence of social factors such as racism, economic difficulties, and colonization on the trajectory of children exposed to these issues early on in their lives. We discuss each of these themes in greater detail below.

Intersectional Approaches to Disability and Early Intervention

Early intervention systems are commonly accessed by and aim to serve disabled children and their families. Much of the research in this area focuses on mitigating sub-optimal outcomes of childhood disability and testing individual interventions in early childhood education and care. However, more recent literature on this topic recognizes disability as a complex categorization of children that includes both the impact of individual impairments and the influence of societal barriers [ 10 •]. Theoretical models of disability are rapidly changing how we think about early intervention. Disabled Children’s Childhood Studies as a field is informed by an understanding that childhood both influences later outcomes and is a time for important experiences in the present. Further, this field critiques the focus of early intervention on rehabilitation, finding additional value in the diversity of characteristics in childhood [ 10 •, 11 , 12 •].

For example, Guralnick proposes a developmental system approach to all early childhood education and care programs that values inclusive practice and individualized goals for both children and their families [ 9 •]. This is a more traditional discourse for understanding early childhood intervention; however, when Guralnick first proposed their developmental systems approach, it was quite innovative for the time. This approach presented an opportunity to link sociological perspectives to intervention policy, as well as seeing the child as a part of a broader, interactive system rather than just a need for intervention. In this approach, Guralnick identifies three key principles for inclusive early childhood systems: relationships, comprehensiveness, and continuity in interactions with families and children [ 9 •].

Critical Approaches to Understanding Childhood

Park and colleagues turn away from the medical model of understanding disability and not only use a social model of disability for their framework, but they use a “DisCrit” theory to analyse their data, recognizing that race is a critical factor in understanding disability experiences [ 13 •]. DisCrit studies combine critical disability studies and critical race theory and recognize the interconnection between ableism, racism, and other forms of discrimination, calling for a shift to affirming recognition of the place of disabled children in society, particularly disabled children of colour [ 14 , 15 ]. Using video footage of one early childhood classroom, Park and colleagues identified the “humanizing” approaches to teaching disabled students. In this classroom, educators reimagined assistance for children through giving time and space and assisting and centring the child [ 13 •]. The educators allowed students to transition from activities on their own time and in the manner they desired, which promoted independence and individuality and also advanced justice for the children of colour by allowing them to be themselves, rather than who the adults wanted them to be. The authors of this study also applied DisCrit to their analysis in early educational settings. They noted that a culture of surveillance is often experienced in special educational settings by children of colour with disabilities in which they are asked to behave in certain ways and monitored for adherence to those requests [ 13 •]. The educators in this classroom ultimately emphasized shifts from the typical special education classroom: from surveillance to responsiveness and from a deficit view of students to a humanizing one.

Boone and colleagues similarly examine systemic racism in early intervention, advocating for the implementation of equity-informed intervention systems in early childhood [ 7 •]. They believe that acknowledging social stratifications and centring children of colour is critical in advancing equity in these systems, something they term “ally-designed” in contrast to a typical “saviour-designed” approach. In line with many recent calls, the authors argue that it is the systems that need to be reformed in order to achieve a change that will result in sustainable, equitable access and quality of early intervention for all children who need it.

Love uses the framework of heterotopias, originally coined by Foucault, to describe early childhood education and care where the real and the unreal are colliding in the same space [ 16 •]. Love sees this as a divide between the physical existence of the children, teachers, and their classroom materials and the socially constructed interpretations of developmental norms, differences, and the overall understanding of the function of the classroom and the school environment. Furthermore, Love argues that early childhood administrators serve as the “architects'' of these heterotopias, as they are responsible for the implementation of inclusive practices in their centres [ 16 •]. The placement of a disabled child within a “general education” classroom does not necessarily ensure inclusive practices that support the needs of the child, in what is called the “façade of inclusion.” She argues that inclusion that is defined by placement alone promotes a binary understanding of children as disabled or not disabled, a concept predicated on “typical” development that does not address the effects of intersectionality discussed later in this paper [ 16 •]. Furthermore, Love believes that “categorizing children based on whether they have an identified disability or not obscures nuances of both children and their developmental context, which can undermine efforts to be responsive to their multiple identities and strengths” (p. 140) [ 16 •]. Love states that place-based inclusion forces the child into a box dictating that they be ready to perform in certain ways and adhere to certain practices expected of a “typically developing” child, whereas her framework of heterotopies suggests that schools must be prepared and ready to include all students, promoting the value of and response to children’s diverse needs and abilities. Ultimately, she argues that to achieve this expansive conceptualization of inclusive education, children of all backgrounds must be included, not just disabled children, but that inclusiveness must also consider socioeconomic status, race, and language.

Early Intervention Policies and Programs

Policies and programs for disabled children are often predicated on early intervention approaches that require the support of multi-sectoral services and funding in order to conduct early identification of disorders and ease the transition between services and supports across the various sectors involved in care. The early learning and early intervention systems have a high degree of variability in the scope and range of services that are provided to families because of a lack of legislation or guidelines to ensure services are implemented, utilized, and evaluated [ 6 ]. However, jurisdictions may consider curating their early intervention services with key aspects of high-quality early intervention systems: early identification and screenings; easy transitions between early childhood clinical, educational, and therapeutic programs; and a high degree of family/educator involvement.

Early identification

The identification of a disorder through developmental screening programs is often a precursor to accessing early intervention, but socioeconomic inequalities between groups may affect the availability and utilization of diagnostic services. In the USA, Sheldrick and colleagues investigated the use of a multistage autism screening protocol in early intervention sites to mitigate the impact of socioeconomic status, racial or ethnic minority status, and non-English speaking status on autism screening [ 17 •]. The authors found that multistage screening protocols are associated with an increased diagnosis of autism particularly for Spanish-speaking families who traditionally have lower incidence rates [ 17 •]. Placing greater importance on collaborative clinician and parent-decision making in the case of multistage assessments can improve early intervention service utilization and create opportunities for families to access services requiring an official diagnosis.

Transitions

Transitions between early childhood education and care, and school-based services are prevalent in the literature. In a meta-synthesis of 196 caregiver experiences, Douglas, Meadan, and Schultheiss explored transitions from home- and childcare-based early intervention to early childhood special education programs. They identified interagency infrastructure and policies and alignment and continuity of service delivery as critical to communication between caregivers, service coordinators, and teachers in early childhood special education programs [ 17 •]. The transitions from early interventions delivered in home or childcare settings to specialized early childhood education and care programs within the preschool systems were described by Douglas and colleagues as difficult for families [ 18 •]. Similarly, families describe poor communication between educators and therapists as they transition from the early years into school and lower perceptions of quality of care [ 19 , 20 •]. Several studies identify a lack of interest or formal procedure for school-based staff to learn from early years’ programs and services in developing programs for disabled children. Further, a lack of resources allocated to transition processes has been identified, and families can face further gatekeeping from services that are only accessible for specific diagnoses [ 20 •, 21 ]. The presence of guidelines for transition teams who can regularly meet with parents and educators to provide teaching strategies, therapeutic equipment, or logistical planning improves the transition process and level of support from early years to kindergarten [ 21 ].

Several studies examined the structure of early childhood and early intervention services with the goal to enhance coordination and create access to support. Hemmeter et al. evaluated a pyramid model that provides targeted developmental support through program-wide support [ 22 •]. Despite concerns with attrition rates of children and classrooms, program-wide support such as training and coaching teachers on this model was shown to create positive classroom and individual outcomes for children, particularly for managing challenging behaviour and enhancing social skills [ 22 •]. Similar data-guided approaches incorporate external feedback using validated indicators and summaries of socio-emotional development of children to inform educators [ 23 •]. Preschool educators can then identify children at risk and modify teaching strategies to improve their self-regulation, relationships, and behaviours [ 23 •].Transition teams also need a variety of skilled specialists to coordinate interventions and liaise with families and school providers. Children accessing early intervention services are often described as having complex needs that require staff-intensive collaboration to deliver applied behaviour analysis treatment approaches. In our research, we note that it may be the service system that is complex. Hagopian and colleagues described a neurobehavioural continuum of care program to treat co-occurring conditions and behaviours through an interdisciplinary model that involves behaviour therapists and education coordinators who manage education delivery from the child’s home school [ 26 •]. The continuum of care comprised an outpatient program, an intensive outpatient program, and inpatient neurobehavioral unit, as well as follow-up, medication, and consultation services [ 26 •]. Data gathered from two decades of the program found function-based behavioural interventions reduced target problem behaviour (e.g. aggression, self-injury), and caregivers were well trained to deliver this outpatient treatment in most cases [ 26 •]. However, effectiveness of behavioural intervention programs can be controversial as there are concerns about the quality of research on which they are based [ 27 •]. An important example of a shift in addressing such issues in behavioural interventions, also reflected in the literature, is the inclusion of autistic people on research teams, and the recognition of concerns raised by autistic people themselves about the ethics of behavioural intervention [ 28 •].

Future Directions

Service agencies, providers, and policymakers had to pivot their regular services during the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. Telehealth emerged as a response to early intervention service disruptions during the pandemic and could be a valuable addition to regular programming for some families, with the proper training and technological resources. Telehealth is also a critical mechanism for access to early intervention and other health services in rural and remote communities as well as in the face of staffing shortages or disruptions [ 24 ]. Barring caregiver resistance or limitations with technology, telehealth offers a high degree of caregiver participation which may result in greater feelings of caregiver empowerment and confidence with implementing strategies posed by early intervention providers [ 25 •]. However, it is not clear how effective telehealth is for direct engagement with children as most providers report working primarily with caregivers to coach them on interventional strategies [ 25 •]. Further, there is a need for more research on the equity implications and relational limitations of these services.

For policymakers and families alike, there may be some challenges in choosing which interventions to fund or purchase that would provide the most return on investment in terms of improved developmental outcomes. One future direction for policies could incorporate a host of early interventions into one overarching program. The cumulative effects of participating in more than one type of early intervention was studied by Molloy and colleagues [ 29 •]. Data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children were used to compare the combined effects of five early interventions—antenatal care, home visiting, preschool, parenting programs, and early years of school. The increase in total service use and participation from birth to 5 years old was associated with better reading scores at 8 and 9 years old [ 29 •]. In contrast, a cumulative risk score from 0 to 5 years old accounted for exposure to risk indicators across all five services; results showed that these indicators were associated with lower reading skills and included inadequate/lack of service use, inadequate resources within programs, and differences in parenting behaviours and communication styles [ 29 •].

Mental Health and Trauma-Informed Care in Early Intervention

Many researchers address the reality that children who experience trauma at an early age are more likely to have access to educational settings than dedicated mental health supports, and as such, it is important to have resources to deal with trauma in educational environments. Recent literature indicates that nearly 1 in 4 preschool children have been exposed to a traumatic event at least once, yet only 2.5% of these children have access to professional mental health care [ 30 , 31 •]. Schools and educational settings are becoming the first point of intervention for trauma-exposed children, while research shows that teachers need further training on dealing with trauma and children who have experienced trauma in these settings.

Educational Settings as Points of Intervention

Bartlett and Smith state that the needs of trauma-exposed preschoolers are often overlooked due to misconceptions about their memory and the belief that they will recover from trauma easily [ 31 •]. While the literature demonstrates a solid understanding that most children do not have sufficient access to mental health support, there is also notable progress towards early childhood education and care programs becoming the first point of intervention. Loomis explored the recent literature as evidence for the importance of implementing early childhood trauma interventions in education and care settings [ 30 ]. Loomis suggests creating consistent trauma-informed environments across early childhood education and care organizations and services, as well as ongoing workplace development and support for staff, psychoeducational support between educators and families, and support for teachers’ mental health.

Training Teachers to Deal with Trauma

Limited research presently exists on the impact of training about trauma for teachers and education staff and whether this contributes to overall well-being within early childhood settings. Loomis and Felt identify the foundations of successful trauma-informed practices, noting the relationship between trauma-informed training content, trauma-informed attitudes, and overall stress in their sample of 111 preschool staff [ 32 •]. They found that those educators who received further training on trauma-informed skills and also had opportunities for self-reflection had stronger, more effective, trauma-informed attitudes than those with only knowledge-based training and no reflection. Similarly, Bartlett and Smith identified a need for further education around trauma-informed practices in early childhood education, stating that it is essential to understand the current landscape of trauma interventions in early childhood education, alongside the impacts of trauma and support needed for children exposed to such events [ 31 •]. They posit that trauma-exposed children often exhibit behaviours that can create greater stress for educators and suggest that educators play a critical role in helping children heal from trauma by ensuring that they have a routine, safe, respectful, and welcoming school environment [ 31 •]. However, they also note that few trauma-informed education-based interventions have been thoroughly studied. There are many current literature reviews on the influence and importance of trauma-informed practices, but our search found few recent articles that investigated these approaches further.

Every child’s experience must include access to diverse learning opportunities, meaningful interactions with peers, and development of a sense of belonging; and yet for many, it also needs to include individualized supports. To ensure optimal experiences for all children, administrators should be aware of both historical and contemporary inequities in education and support the ongoing reflection on and promotion of equitable practices that include and accommodate diverse experiences of children and their families in early childhood environments [ 13 •, 16 •]. Some of the articles included in this review reflect a shift to encompassing the influence of socially stratifying factors and marginalization as part of the experiences addressed by trauma-informed educational practices. By acknowledging that disability is a major factor in shaping people’s experiences and worldviews that can further marginalize those with different abilities, such practices are aligned with the modern social models of disability described in our review. While we admit the limitation of the existing research evidence, we also are optimistic that the near future will bring more actionable evidence that could be used to provide effective, equitable, and successful early intervention experiences for children and their families.

Author Contribution

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. All authors contributed comments and edits to the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Data Availability

Code availability, declarations.

The authors declare no competing interests.

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Kristen Tollan, Email: ac.ukroy@nallotk .

Rita Jezrawi, Email: ac.retsamcm@riwarzej .

Kathryn Underwood, Email: ac.nosreyr@doowrednuk .

Magdalena Janus, Email: ac.retsamcm@msunaj .

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

• EMU Library
• Research Guides

Early Childhood Education

• Scholarly Journals
• Search Tutorial
• Tips for Finding Full Text
• More How-To Find Articles
• Is it a Scholarly Article?
• Course Ebooks
• Curriculum/Activity Books
• Find Videos
• Early Education Jobs
• Organizations
• Presentation Help
• Citation Tutorials
• Research Help

Find Journals by Title

Find Journals & Other Periodicals by Title

Search here for journal, magazine or newspaper titles. If you're looking for articles on a topic, use the  databases .

Examples: Newsweek , Journal of Educational Psychology .

Selected Journals for Early Childhood Education

These links take you to a source with recent issues of the journal. Additional issues may be available via other sources. Use  Find Journals by Title  (above) to find alternate sources for a title.

• Child Development "As the flagship journal of the Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), Child Development has published articles, essays, reviews, and tutorials on various topics in the field of child development since 1930." Uses blind peer review.
• Child Development Perspectives CDP "publishes brief articles on developmental science that are written in accessible language for a wide audience. CDP emphasizes brief, well synthesized reviews of research, but occasionally publishes essays on policy, statistics and methods, and other topics in developmental science."
• Childhood Education The official journal of the Association for Childhood Education International "focuses on the learning and well-being of children around the world."
• Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood "CIEC aims to present opportunities for scholars to highlight the ways in which the boundaries of early childhood studies and practice are expanding, and for readers to participate in the discussion of emerging issues, contradictions and possibilities." Peer reviewed.
• Early Child Development and Care "The Journal provides English translations of work in this field that has been published in other languages, and original English papers on all aspects of early child development and care: descriptive and evaluative articles on social, educational and preventive medical programs for young children, experimental and observational studies, critical reviews and summary articles." Peer reviewed.
• Early Childhood Education Journal "Provides a practical and lively forum for early childhood teachers, program administrators, day care workers, and other professionals concerned with the education of young children." Peer reviewed.
• Early Childhood Research Quarterly " ECRQ publishes predominantly empirical research (quantitative or qualitative methods) on issues of interest to early childhood development, theory, and educational practice (Birth through 8 years of age)."
• Early Years: An International Research Journal The official journal of TACTYC (Association for the Professional Development of Early Years Educators) "publishes research papers and scholarly critiques on all issues associated with early childhood education and care" with a special focus on the "professional development of early years practitioners."
• Education 3-13 : International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education The official publication of the Association for the Study of Primary Education (ASPE) is a peer reviewed UK-based journal focusing on primary education.
• Elementary School Journal "ESJ publishes peer-reviewed articles that pertain to both education theory and research and their implications for teaching practice. In addition, ESJ presents articles that relate the latest research in child development, cognitive psychology, and sociology to school learning and teaching."
• European Early Childhood Education Research Journal The Journal of the European Early Childhood Education Research Association provides "a forum for the publication of original research in early childhood education in Europe."
• International Journal of Early Childhood The official journal of OMEP, l'Organisation Mondiale pour l'Education Prescolaire publishes peer reviewed research "on children, childhood and early childhood education across various social and cultural contexts."
• International Journal of Early Years Education A peer reviewed "forum for researchers and practitioners to debate the theories, research, policy and practice which sustain effective early years education world-wide."
• Journal of Children and Media Publishes peer reviewed research on "children as consumers of media, representations of children in the media, and media organizations and productions for children as well as by them."
• Journal of Early Childhood Literacy Publishes peer reviewed research on "issues related to the nature, function and use of literacy in early childhood."
• Journal of Early Childhood Research This peer reviewed journal "publishes papers in the fields of health, law, social work, therapy, education, sociology, history, and the arts, and welcomes papers from non-traditional as well as established territories of early childhood education."
• Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education Official Journal of the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators
• Journal of Early Intervention Offers blind peer reviewed articles "related to research and practice in early intervention for infants and young children with special needs and their families. . . .Key features include research reports, scholarly reviews, policy analyses, research methods, and "Innovative Practices".
• Journal of Research in Childhood Education JRCE is "a publication of the Association for Childhood Education International, features articles that advance knowledge and theory of the education of children, infancy through early adolescence."
• Merrill-Palmer Quarterly Publishes "empirical and theoretical papers on child development and family-child relationships."
• Topics in Early Childhood Special Education "The practical nature of this journal helps professionals improve service delivery systems for preschool children with special needs. Each issue features reports of original research, literature reviews, conceptual statements, position papers, and program descriptions."
• Voices of Practitioners: Teacher Research in Early Childhood Education Peer reviewed research authored by early childhood teachers.
• YC - Young Children "An award-winning, peer-reviewed journal that combines research and practice, Young Children supports educational excellence and focuses on meeting the needs of all children, birth through third grade." Published by the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Selected Education Journals

• AERA Open "A peer-reviewed, open access journal published by the American Educational Research Association (AERA)."
• Afterschool Matters An open access peer-reviewed journal from the National Institute on Out-of-School Time.
• American Educational Research Journal AERJ "publishes original empirical and theoretical studies and analyses in education that constitute significant contributions to the understanding and/or improvement of educational processes and outcomes." A blind peer reviewed journal from the American Educational Research Association.
• American Journal of Education Sponsored by the Pennsylvania State College of Education, this peer reviewed journal publishes articles "that present research, theoretical statements, philosophical arguments, critical syntheses of a field of educational inquiry, and integrations of educational scholarship, policy, and practice."
• Australian Journal of Teacher Education This open access peer- reviewed journal publishes research related to teacher education.
• Cognition and Instruction This peer reviewed journal publishes articles on the "rigorous study of foundational issues concerning the mental, socio-cultural, and mediational processes and conditions of learning and intellectual competence." Articles are sometimes blind reviewed.
• Comparative and International Education This open access peer-reviewed journal "is published twice a year and is devoted to publishing articles dealing with education in a comparative and international perspective."
• Computers and Education Publishes peer reviewed articles on the use of computing technology in education.
• Contemporary Educational Psychology "publishes articles that involve the application of psychological theory and science to the educational process."
• Current Issues in Emerging eLearning (CIEE) "an open access, peer-reviewed, online journal of research and critical thought on eLearning practice and emerging pedagogical methods."
• Democracy and Education Open access peer-reviewed journal "seeks to support and sustain conversations that take as their focus the conceptual foundations, social policies, institutional structures, and teaching/learning practices associated with democratic education."
• Developmental Review This peer reviewed journal "emphasizes human developmental processes and gives particular attention to issues relevant to child developmental psychology."
• Education 3-13: International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education This official publication of the Association for the Study of Primary Education (ASPE) publishes peer reviewed articles related to the education of children between the ages of 3-13.
• Educational Administration Quarterly This peer reviewed journal from the University Council for Educational Administration (UCEA) offers conceptual and theoretical articles, research analyses, and reviews of books in educational administration."
• Educational and Psychological Measurement "scholarly work from all academic disciplines interested in the study of measurement theory, problems, and issues."
• Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis EEPA "publishes scholarly articles of theoretical, methodological, or policy interest to those engaged in educational policy analysis, evaluation, and decision making." Blind peer reviewed journal from the American Educational Research Association.
• Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice Sponsored by the National Council on Measurement in Education, this journal promotes "a better understanding of and reasoned debate on assessment, evaluation, testing, and related issues."
• Educational Policy "focuses on the practical consequences of educational policy decisions and alternatives"
• Educational Researcher "Educational Researcher publishes scholarly articles that are of general significance to the education research community and that come from a wide range of areas of education research and related disciplines." A peer reviewed journal from the American Educational Research Association.
• Educational Research Quarterly ERQ "publishes evaluative, integrative, theoretical and methodological manuscripts reporting the results of research; current issues in education; synthetic review articles which result in new syntheses or research directions; book reviews; theoretical, empirical or applied research in psychometrics, edumetrics, evaluation, research methodology or statistics" and more. Uses blind peer review.
• Educational Research Review Publishes review articles "in education and instruction at any level," including research reviews, theoretical reviews, methodological reviews, thematic reviews, theory papers, and research critiques. From the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI).
• Educational Studies "publishes fully refereed papers which cover applied and theoretical approaches to the study of education"
• Education and Culture This peer reviewed journal from Purdue University Press "takes an integrated view of philosophical, historical, and sociological issues in education" with a special focus on Dewey.
• FIRE: Forum of International Research in Education This open access, peer reviewed journal promotes "interdisciplinary scholarship on the use of internationally comparative data for evidence-based and innovative change in educational systems, schools, and classrooms worldwide."
• Frontline Learning Research An official journal of EARLI, European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction. Open Access.
• Future of Children Articles on policy topics relevant to children and youth. An open access journal from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings Institution.
• Harvard Educational Review "a scholarly journal of opinion and research in education. It provides an interdisciplinary forum for discussion and debate about the field's most vital issues."
• High School Journal "The High School Journal publishes research, scholarship, essays, and reviews that critically examine the broad and complex field of secondary education."
• IDEA Papers A national forum for the publication of peer-reviewed articles pertaining to the general areas of teaching and learning, faculty evaluation, curriculum design, assessment, and administration in higher education.
• Impact: A Journal of Community and Cultural Inquiry in Education A peer-reviewed, open-access journal devoted to the examination and analysis of education in a variety of local, regional, national, and transnational contexts.
• Instructional Science "Instructional Science promotes a deeper understanding of the nature, theory, and practice of the instructional process and resultant learning. Published papers represent a variety of perspectives from the learning sciences and cover learning by people of all ages, in all areas of the curriculum, and in informal and formal learning contexts." Peer reviewed.
• Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning - IJPBL This open access, peer reviewed journal "publishes relevant, interesting, and challenging articles of research, analysis, or promising practice related to all aspects of implementing problem-based learning (PBL) in K–12 and post-secondary classrooms."
• International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning An Official Publication of the International Society of the Learning Sciences
• International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation - IJELP An open access journal from the National Council of Professors of Educational Administration. Articles undergo a double-blind peer review process.
• Internet and Higher Education Publishes peer reviewed articles "devoted to addressing contemporary issues and future developments related to online learning, teaching, and administration on the Internet in post-secondary settings."
• Journal for Research in Mathematics Education An official journal of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), JRME publishes peer reviewed research articles and literature reviews, as well as commentaries and book reviews. Concerned with mathematics education at both the K-12 and college level.
• Journal of Applied Research on Children - JARC Published by the CHILDREN AT RISK Institute, this open access. peer reviewed journal publishes "interdisciplinary research that is linked to practical, evidenced-based policy solutions for children’s issues."
• Journal of Computer Assisted Learning JCAL "is an international peer-reviewed journal which covers the whole range of uses of information and communication technology to support learning and knowledge exchange."
• Journal of Education A scholarly peer-reviewed journal focusing on K-12 education. This long-standing journal is sponsored by the Boston University School of Education.
• Journal of Educational Psychology This blind peer reviewed journal from the American Psychological Association publishes "original, primary psychological research pertaining to education across all ages and educational levels," as well as "exceptionally important theoretical and review articles that are pertinent to educational psychology."
• Journal of Educational Research "publishes manuscripts that describe or synthesize research of direct relevance to educational practice in elementary and secondary schools, pre-K–12."
• Journal of Interactive Media in Education - JIME This long-standing peer reviewed open access journal publishes research on the theories, practices and experiences in the field of educational technology.
• Journal of Research in Science Teaching - JRST This blind peer reviewed journal is the official journal of NARST: A Worldwide Organization for Improving Science Teaching and Learning Through Research, which "publishes reports for science education researchers and practitioners on issues of science teaching and learning and science education policy."
• Journal of Teacher Education The flagship journal of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE) publishes peer reviewed articles on teacher education and continued support for teachers.
• Journal of the Learning Sciences "JLS provides a multidisciplinary forum for research on education and learning as theoretical and design sciences." This official journal of the International Society of the Learning Sciences uses a double blind review process.
• Journal of Vocational Behavior "The Journal of Vocational Behavior publishes empirical and theoretical articles that expand knowledge of vocational behavior and career development across the life span. " Peer reviewed.
• Learning and Instruction This peer reviewed journal from the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) publishes "advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching."
• Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning - National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA) Publishes "papers on all aspects of mentoring, tutoring and partnership in education, other academic disciplines and the professions."
• Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning MJCSL is an open-access journal focusing on research, theory, pedagogy, and other matters related to academic service-learning, campus-community partnerships, and engaged/public scholarship in higher education. Published by the University of Michigan. All articles are free online --don't worry about the "Buy a copy" messages.
• Michigan Reading Journal Open access journal from the Michigan Reading Association.
• NACADA Journal - National Academic Advising Association "The NACADA Journal is the biannual refereed journal of the National Academic Advising Association. It exists to advance scholarly discourse about the research, theory and practice of academic advising in higher education."
• Numeracy Published by the National Numeracy Network, this open access and peer reviewed journal "supports education at all levels that integrates quantitative skills across disciplines."
• Policy and Society A highly ranked open access journal that publishes peer-reviewed research on critical issues in policy theory and practice at the local, national and international levels. Includes articles on Education policy.
• Reading Research Quarterly RRQ publishes peer reviewed scholarship on literacy, including original research, theoretical and methodological essays, review articles, scholarly analysis of trends and issues, as well as reports and viewpoints. Published by the International Literacy Association.
• Review of Educational Research RER "publishes critical, integrative reviews of research literature bearing on education." A blind peer reviewed journal from the American Educational Research Association.
• Review of Higher Education Published by the Association for the Study of Higher Education this journal provides peer-reviewed research studies, scholarly essays, and theoretically-driven reviews on higher education issues.
• Review of Research in Education RRE "provides an annual overview and descriptive analysis of selected topics of relevant research literature through critical and synthesizing essays."
• Science Education "Science Education publishes original articles on the latest issues and trends occurring internationally in science curriculum, instruction, learning, policy and preparation of science teachers with the aim to advance our knowledge of science education theory and practice."
• Scientific Studies of Reading The official Journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading "publishes original empirical investigations dealing with all aspects of reading and its related areas, and occasionally, scholarly reviews of the literature and papers focused on theory development. " Uses blind peer review.
• Sociology of Education "SOE publishes research that examines how social institutions and individuals' experiences within these institutions affect educational processes and social development." A blind peer reviewed journal from the American Sociological Association.
• Studies in Science Education This blind peer reviewed journal publishes review articles that offer "analytical syntheses of research into key topics and issues in science education."
• Teachers College Record "The Teachers College Record is a journal of research, analysis, and commentary in the field of education. It has been published continuously since 1900 by Teachers College, Columbia University."
• Theory into Practice "TIP publishes articles covering all levels and areas of education, including learning and teaching; assessment; educational psychology; teacher education and professional development; classroom management; counseling; administration and supervision; curriculum; policy; and technology." Peer reviewed.
• << Previous: Is it a Scholarly Article?
• Next: Finding Books >>

Get Research Help

Use 24/7 live chat below or:

Academic Projects Center in-person help, Mon-Thur, 10am - 5pm

Email or phone replies

Appointments with librarians

 Access  Library and Research Help tutorials

Education Librarian

• Last Updated: Apr 16, 2024 8:18 AM
• URL: https://guides.emich.edu/early

Early childhood education : Journals

• Childhood education "The purpose of Childhood Education, an official journal of the Association for Childhood Education International, is to capture and disseminate information about exciting and innovative models, programs, funding approaches, practices, policies, research, and other areas that are being explored and implemented to improve the education of children around the world."
• Contemporary issues in early childhood "Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood is a peer-reviewed international research journal. The journal provides a forum for researchers and professionals who are exploring new and alternative perspectives in their work with young children (from birth to eight years of age) and their families. CIEC aims to present opportunities for scholars to highlight the ways in which the boundaries of early childhood studies and practice are expanding, and for readers to participate in the discussion of emerging issues, contradictions and possibilities."
• Early childhood education journal "The Early Childhood Education Journal analyzes issues, trends, policies, and practices for early childhood education from birth through age eight. In addition, the journal offers well documented points of view and practical recommendations."
• Early childhood research quarterly "Early Childhood Research Quarterly (ECRQ) publishes research on early childhood education and development from birth through 8 years of age. ECRQ publishes predominantly empirical research (quantitative or qualitative methods) on issues of interest to early childhood development, theory, and educational practice."
• Early education and development "Early Education and Development (EE&D) is a multi-disciplinary professional journal that publishes primarily empirical research on the links between early childhood education and children's development from birth to age 8. It is international in scope and designed to emphasize the implications of research and solid scientific information for practice and policy. EE&D is designed for researchers and practitioners involved in preschool and education services for children and their families."
• Journal of early childhood teacher education "The Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education is the official journal of the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators. Its purpose is to provide a forum for consideration of issues and for exchange of information and ideas about research and practice in early childhood teacher education."
• Journal of research in childhood education : JRCE "The Journal of Research in Childhood Education, a publication of the Association for Childhood Education International, features articles that advance knowledge and theory of the education of children, infancy through early adolescence."
• YC young children "Young Children is a peer-reviewed professional journal published by the National Association for the Education of Young Children."
• << Previous: Recent print books
• Next: Databases >>
• Background information
• Recent e-books
• Recent print books
• Connect to Stanford e-resources
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 8:38 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.stanford.edu/early_childhood_ed