Meta-thematic analysis of quality in early childhood education and care

The study examines how quality in early childhood education and care (ECEC) is defined and measured, acknowledging broad benefits of ECEC for children’s cognitive, social-emotional, and physical development, as well as societal gains such as increased female labor participation and reduced crime. Despite international interest and initiatives (e.g., UN SDGs), there is no consensus on what constitutes quality in ECEC or which elements most affect children’s learning and development. The authors argue that quality is value-laden and context-dependent, shaped by cultural values, system structures, and stakeholder expectations. Purpose: to synthesize qualitative studies of stakeholder perspectives on ECEC quality to identify key quality elements and how contextual factors influence perceptions of quality. Research questions: (1) Which quality characteristics are most commonly emphasized by various stakeholder perspectives? (2) What contextual factors influence the perception of quality in ECEC? The study’s importance lies in informing system-level feedback metrics, enabling comparable criteria for national and international assessments, and focusing policy and practice on quality components with the greatest impact.

The paper reviews multiple theoretical and evaluative frameworks for defining and assessing ECEC quality. Structural and process approaches are most common: structural factors (e.g., physical environment, teacher-child ratios, safety, staff qualifications, curriculum) are easier to measure, while process factors (e.g., interactions, pedagogy, children’s experiences) are harder and more subjective, with variable associations to structure. Broader models draw on ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner), learning and attachment theories, sociocultural and systems approaches, including system-level elements such as funding, governance, and regulatory standards. The review emphasizes context: cultural values, child-rearing norms, policy objectives, and stakeholder priorities shape the meaning of quality, making a single universal model inadequate. Cross-national differences in stakeholder emphases and potential cultural bias in quality tools are noted. The MELQO initiative is highlighted as a global effort to measure early learning quality and outcomes (child development and learning; early learning environment), though further validation is needed across contexts.

Design: Meta-thematic analysis of qualitative research, reinterpreting findings and participant quotations to develop new codes, themes, and higher-order syntheses. Search and selection: Databases searched (Web of Science, ERIC, Scopus, EBSCO) using keywords such as “quality in early childhood education,” “quality in early childhood education and care,” “structural quality,” and “process quality.” Initial yield: 332 studies. Inclusion criteria: focus on ECEC quality; English or Turkish; peer-reviewed; qualitative or mixed methods; findings supported by raw data (participant quotes). Dual independent screening with documentation of exclusions; disagreements resolved by consensus. Final sample: 14 studies from 11 countries. Study characteristics: Publications between 2014–2022; settings include Malta (2), Australia (2), USA (2), Turkey (2), Finland (2), Japan (1), Bangladesh (1), Tanzania (1), Lesotho (1), Ghana (1), Spain (1). Approaches to quality: structure/process (6), ecological (3), sociocultural (4), process (1). Methods: qualitative (13) and mixed (1); designs include case studies (7), phenomenological (4), comparative (1), interpretive (2). Participants: teachers, parents, administrators, center owners, caregivers, supervisors, government stakeholders, and children. Data analysis: Inductive content analysis with iterative coding (three rounds) conducted independently by two researchers; development of codes, themes, and second-level syntheses; discrepancies resolved in team meetings. Trustworthiness: detailed documentation of selection/coding processes; researcher triangulation; interpretive validity supported by literature; plausibility supported with direct quotations.

• Scope: 14 studies across 11 countries; qualitative (13) and mixed (1); multiple stakeholder groups.
• Identified 16 quality indicators/themes for ECEC:
  1. Professional competence of teachers (f=12): pedagogical skills, communication, qualifications, planning, SEL support, behavior management, effective use of time/space, material development, family relations.
  2. Interaction with children (f=9): valuing, respecting, encouraging children; individualized attention; appropriate language; supportive interactions by all staff.
  3. Physical conditions and opportunities (f=9): bright, safe, well-equipped, child-friendly, accessible, diverse activity areas and materials.
  4. In-school relationships and shared values (f=8): supportive, respectful culture; teamwork; belonging; positive parent–staff relations.
  5. In-school policies and procedures (f=8): safety, hygiene, entry/exit rules, communication protocols, staffing aligned with philosophy, clear guidelines.
  6. Family support and communication (f=7): trust-based communication, family participation, shared expectations, parent education/awareness.
  7. Educational outcomes (f=7): social-emotional, cognitive, language, physical, character, independence, school readiness, positive attitudes.
  8. Professional development of teachers (f=6): continuous learning, mentoring, networking, applied PD.
  9. Teaching–learning process (f=6): play-based, hands-on, multi-sensory, experiential, creative, flexible, aligned to interests/levels, feedback.
  10. Curriculum (f=6): flexible, play-based, mix of structured/unstructured, individualized, holistic goals.
  11. Qualifications of school administrators (f=5): supportive, ethical, visionary leadership, facilitation, empathy.
  12. Personal characteristics of teachers (f=4): warmth, patience, caring, sensitivity, responsibility, commitment.
  13. Personnel (f=3): adequate ratios; assistants; specialists (e.g., speech therapists).
  14. Classroom atmosphere (f=3): positive climate, child participation, respectful rules, supportive peer relations.
  15. Philosophy of education (f=2): children’s rights, agency, best interests, happiness.
  16. Central policies and practices (f=2): adequate teacher pay, PD, public awareness, national curriculum, data/feedback systems.
• Second-level syntheses (cross-cutting): • Teacher qualifications (professional competence + personal traits + PD) predict process quality and children’s wellbeing/learning. • Child-centredness pervades multiple components (interactions, environment, policies, pedagogy, curriculum, classroom climate), though emphases vary by context. • Culture and atmosphere of ECEC centers underpin positive interactions and family partnership, fostering safety and belonging. • Holistic development as key outcome focus (social-emotional, cognitive, physical, language, character), with programming tailored to individual interests/needs. • Leadership (visionary, supportive) as enabling condition influencing other quality elements.
• Contextual factors shaping perceptions of quality: • Cultural values and beliefs: collectivist vs. individualist emphases (e.g., safety/protection vs. autonomy/choice) shape definitions of quality. • Degree of centralization: centralized systems linked to standardization, academic performance focus, teacher-centred practices; decentralized contexts allow flexible, child-responsive curricula. • Stakeholder expectations: differing priorities among parents, teachers, leaders, and government actors influence quality criteria (e.g., salaries, feedback, cultural respect, engaging activities).

The synthesis directly addresses the research questions by identifying 16 widely referenced quality elements and integrating them into five higher-order syntheses that clarify how quality is enacted across settings. Findings emphasize that child-centredness and teacher qualifications are foundational, influencing interactions, pedagogy, and classroom climate, which in turn relate to children’s wellbeing and learning outcomes. Leadership and a supportive center culture act as enabling conditions that align policies, practices, and relationships to sustain quality. The analysis underscores that quality is multidimensional and context-dependent: cultural values, system structures (centralization), and stakeholder priorities shape which elements are emphasized and how they are implemented. This has significant implications for policy and practice: measurement tools and standards must account for contextual variation, and system-level levers (e.g., workforce development, governance, data/feedback, resourcing) should be aligned to support process quality and holistic outcomes. The study highlights the need to balance comparability (for monitoring and policy) with cultural responsiveness and rights-based, child-centred practices.

This meta-thematic analysis consolidates stakeholder-informed evidence from 14 studies across 11 countries and offers a comprehensive framework of 16 ECEC quality indicators spanning workforce, interactions, environment, curriculum/pedagogy, leadership/culture, family engagement, outcomes, and system policies. It further integrates these into five cross-cutting syntheses—child-centredness, teacher qualifications, culture and atmosphere of the ECEC center, holistic development, and leadership—clarifying interdependencies among quality elements. The findings align with established standards and frameworks (e.g., NAEYC standards, MELQO, policy analyses) and affirm that contextual factors—cultural values, system centralization, stakeholder expectations—shape perceptions and enactment of quality. Future research could broaden linguistic and geographic coverage, deepen inclusion of underrepresented stakeholders (e.g., ECEC leaders), and examine how system-level policies and professional learning translate into sustained process quality and holistic child outcomes across diverse contexts.

The analysis included only studies published in English or Turkish, potentially limiting cultural and contextual diversity. There is a shortage of qualitative or mixed-methods studies focusing on some stakeholder groups (e.g., ECEC leaders), which constrained inclusion and may limit generalizability of leadership-related insights.