2 different early learning settings: What they reveal about learning quality

两类早期学习场景：其对学习质量的启示

When conversations turn to early learning quality, a familiar question often emerges: Which setting is better for young children, a school-based program or a standalone early learning center?

当人们探讨早期学习质量时，总会浮现一个老生常谈的疑问：对于低龄儿童而言，校内早教项目与独立运营的早教中心，哪一种场景更优？

It's a question that shapes policy discussions, funding decisions, and family choices. Yet new research suggests it may also be the wrong question.

该问题左右着政策研讨、经费规划以及家庭的择校抉择。但最新研究显示，这个问题本身或许就存在偏差。

Drawing on 3,872 classroom observations and accreditation reviews from 460 early learning programs, Cognia examined patterns across both school-based and standalone settings. Rather than identifying a clear winner, the data reveal something more valuable: each model demonstrates distinct strengths, and each offers lessons that can help improve outcomes across the field.

科尼亚（Cognia）依托460项早教项目中的3872项课堂观测记录与资质评审材料，分析了校内项目与独立早教场景中的各类特征规律。研究数据并未判定孰优孰劣，反而呈现出更具参考意义的结论：两种模式各有其独特优势，均能提炼经验，推动整个早教领域提升育人成效。

The findings challenge the assumption that early learning quality can be evaluated through a simple comparison of settings. Instead, they point to two complementary approaches to serving young learners.

这些发现挑战了可以通过简单的设置比较来评估早期学习质量的假设。相反，他们指出了为年轻学习者服务的两种互补方法。

Different settings, different strengths

场景有别，优势各异

One of the clearest findings from the research is that standalone and school-based programs tend to excel in different areas.

本研究一项核心结论表明，独立早教项目与校内依托式项目，各自擅长的发展领域有所区分。

Standalone programs showed strengths in creating environments where children have greater opportunities for choice, independence, and movement throughout the day. These settings often foster strong cultures of community, belonging, and respect that are central to the early childhood experience.

独立运营的早教项目善于打造适宜环境，让幼儿在一日活动中拥有更多自主选择、独立探索与自由活动的机会。这类场景能够培育浓厚的社群氛围，塑造归属感与相互尊重的文化，而这些恰恰是幼儿早期成长体验的核心要素。

School-based programs, meanwhile, demonstrated strengths in instructional practices. Observations found more scaffolding, more open-ended questioning, and longer periods of sustained engagement between educators and children.

与此同时，校内依托式早教项目的优势体现在教学实施层面。课堂观测显示，这类场景存在更多支架式教学、开放式提问，师幼之间能够形成更长时间的持续性互动。

These differences do not necessarily reflect individual educator capabilities. Instead, they may be influenced by structural realities. School-based programs have historically benefited from broader access to resources such as credentialing pathways, coaching systems, and curriculum-aligned professional support. Standalone programs often operate within different organizational structures and priorities.

上述差异未必代表幼教从业者个人能力高低，反而可能源于客观的结构性条件。长期以来，校内早教项目能够获取更为丰富的配套资源，包括资质认证通道、教研督导体系以及配套课程的专业帮扶。独立运营的早教项目，则依托不一样的组织架构与发展目标开展运营。

The result is not a quality gap so much as a profile of complementary strengths.

结果与其说是质量差距，不如说是优势互补。

For policymakers, district leaders, and providers, this suggests that evaluating programs based on fit may be more productive than trying to rank one delivery model above another.

对于政策制定者，地区领导者和提供者而言，这表明基于fit的评估计划可能比试图将一种交付模式排在另一种交付模式之上更有效率。

A meaningful difference in family connections

家庭关系中有意义的差异

The research also identified the largest gap between settings in an area that often receives less attention than curriculum or instruction: family engagement during daily arrival and departure routines.

该研究还确定了一个地区的设置之间的最大差距，该地区通常比课程或教学受到的关注更少: 家庭在日常到达和离开过程中的参与。

School-based programs appeared to benefit from the predictability of traditional school-day schedules. Regular arrival and dismissal times create natural opportunities for greetings, updates, and relationship-building moments between educators and families.

以学校为基础的课程似乎受益于传统上课时间安排的可预测性。定期到达和解雇时间为教育工作者和家庭之间的问候，更新和建立关系的时刻创造了自然的机会。

Standalone programs frequently offer greater scheduling flexibility, a benefit valued by many families. However, that flexibility can make consistent communication and connection points more difficult to establish.

独立程序经常提供更大的调度灵活性，这是许多家庭重视的好处。但是，这种灵活性可能使建立一致的通信和连接点更加困难。

While neither approach is inherently better, the findings highlight an opportunity for program leaders to intentionally design routines that strengthen family-school partnerships.

虽然这两种方法本质上都不是更好的，但研究结果强调了项目负责人有意设计加强家庭与学校伙伴关系的例行程序的机会。

For standalone programs in particular, even small adjustments to staffing and scheduling during drop-off and pickup periods may help create more meaningful family interactions.

特别是对于独立程序，即使在下车和接送期间对人员配备和日程安排进行很小的调整，也可能有助于创建更有意义的家庭互动。

One challenge shared across every setting

在每个设置中共享一个挑战

Perhaps the most important finding is not where programs differ, but where they are remarkably similar.

也许最重要的发现不是程序不同的地方，而是它们非常相似的地方。

Across both school-based and standalone environments, three instructional practices consistently emerged as areas for improvement:

在基于学校和独立的环境中，三种教学实践一直是需要改进的领域:

Asking open-ended questions

提出开放式问题

Encouraging children to brainstorm and predict

鼓励孩子进行头脑风暴和预测

Engaging children with math and science tools during learning experiences

在学习过程中让孩子参与数学和科学工具

Neither setting outperformed the other in these measures.

在这些措施中，两个设置都没有超过另一个设置。

That consistency matters. When a challenge appears across structurally different models, it points to a broader, field-wide opportunity rather than an issue confined to a single type of program.

一致性至关重要。当一个挑战出现在结构上不同的模型时，它指向一个更广泛的、全领域的机会，而不是一个局限于单一类型的项目的问题。

The findings align with broader early childhood research showing that while educators are often highly effective at creating warm, responsive environments, opportunities remain to strengthen higher-order thinking and inquiry-based learning experiences for young children.

研究结果与更广泛的幼儿研究相一致，表明尽管教育者通常在创造温暖，反应灵敏的环境方面非常有效，但仍有机会加强幼儿的高阶思维和基于探究的学习体验。

For leaders considering where to invest professional learning resources, inquiry-focused instructional practices may represent one of the highest-impact opportunities available.

对于考虑在哪里投资专业学习资源的领导者来说，以探究为中心的教学实践可能是影响最大的机会之一。

Moving beyond the which is better debate

超越哪个是更好的辩论

The research points toward a more productive conversation about quality in early learning.

该研究指出了关于早期学习质量的更有成效的对话。

Instead of asking whether school-based or standalone programs are better, education leaders can ask what each setting does particularly well, what can be learned from both models, and how systems can support continuous improvement across the entire early childhood landscape.

教育领导者可以询问每个环境做得特别好，从这两种模式中可以学到什么，以及系统如何支持整个幼儿环境的持续改进，而不是询问校本课程或独立课程是否更好。

When viewed through that lens, the differences between settings become less about competition and more about opportunity.

从这个角度来看，设置之间的差异不再是竞争，而更多的是机会。