Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, known across the field as ECEC, has long been treated as a construct with two broad pillars. Structural quality covers the measurable inputs of a setting: adult–child ratios, staff qualifications, group sizes, and the organisation of space and materials. Process quality, by contrast, captures the lived experience of children within those settings—the warmth of educator–child interactions, the richness of language exposure, the responsiveness of routines, and the texture of daily learning experiences. International assessments and national inspection regimes alike lean heavily on standardised observation instruments, chief among them the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale, Third Edition (ITERS-3), for rooms serving children aged zero to three, and the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, Third Edition (ECERS-3), for children aged three to six. Both scales organise dozens of items and hundreds of indicators into six subscales, each scored on a seven-point hierarchy running from inadequate to excellent, with restrictive scoring rules that prevent high marks when foundational indicators fail.

Yet the third edition of these instruments introduced a consequential change: the Parents and Staff subscale that had existed in earlier versions was removed. Observation was narrowed to in-room practice, and reliance on interviews was eliminated, which had the side effect of systematically excluding family involvement from the quality picture. The research team, led by Andrea Otero-Mayer of the Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) in Madrid, together with Eva Expósito-Casas, Belén Gutiérrez-de-Rozas, and Ana González-Benito, saw this as a gap worth closing. Their starting point was a prior systematic review showing that family involvement is a multidimensional, context-dependent construct that has never been coherently measured within ECEC quality frameworks.

The conceptual architecture of the new instrument draws on three theoretical traditions. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory frames the relationship between home and centre as a crucial mesosystem, where communication and reciprocal relationships between caregivers and educators create developmental coherence for the child. Sociocultural perspectives, rooted in Vygotsky and Rogoff, emphasise that young children’s learning emerges through guided participation in culturally mediated activities spread across both family and educational settings—meaning that when families and educators share information and align expectations, they effectively extend the child’s zone of learning. Finally, family–school partnership models, particularly Fantuzzo and colleagues’ multidimensional framework, distinguish three empirically robust dimensions of involvement: home-based involvement, school-based involvement, and home–school conferencing. The team’s new module, the Family Involvement in Early Childhood Education Module (FIECE-M), operationalises exactly these three dimensions.

Technically, the FIECE-M was designed to function as an annex to the ITERS-3 and ECERS-3 rather than as a replacement for them. Each subdimension—ranging from support for academic learning at home and promotion of socioemotional development, through reactive and proactive participation in centre life, to communication channels, content, and advice exchanged between families and educators—is assessed with indicators scored on the same one-to-seven scale used by the parent instruments. This deliberate alignment allows scores to be interpreted side by side with environmental quality ratings. Content validation was conducted by six national and international experts who rated clarity, relevance, and pertinence on five-point scales; Content Validity Coefficients reached at least 0.80 for nearly all items, with the remainder above 0.70, and four items were revised. Reliability testing with 88 educators yielded a total internal consistency of Cronbach’s alpha of 0.82 and McDonald’s omega of 0.83, with dimension-level coefficients acceptable for an exploratory instrument.

The empirical application took place between June and October 2025 across 28 classrooms in 13 Spanish ECEC centres, spanning four autonomous communities and involving 42 educators and 302 children, fifteen of whom had identified special educational needs. Observations lasted approximately three hours each, conducted during the most active portion of the daily schedule. Methodological rigour was reinforced through observer training delivered by a principal investigator certified by the Environment Rating Scales Institute with more than 250 hours of administration experience, and inter-rater reliability was established through paired cross-observations quantified with Krippendorff’s alpha, which reached 0.937 at the total-scale level—considered a very satisfactory level of agreement. Analysis combined descriptive statistics with Student’s t-tests and one-way ANOVAs, applying Welch’s corrections where variances were unbalanced, and reporting effect sizes through Cohen’s d and eta-squared.

The headline finding is reassuring on the surface: environmental quality across the observed rooms was rated medium-to-good, with mean scores of 4.77 on the ITERS-3 and 5.16 on the ECERS-3. Programme structure emerged as the strongest subscale in both instruments, while activities and learning activities fell to roughly the minimal-quality threshold, a pattern the authors attribute to limited accessibility of materials that constrains free play and exploration. Family involvement, measured by the FIECE-M and completed by 32 educators, averaged 5.18—firmly in the “good” band. But the decomposition reveals an instructive asymmetry: home–school conferencing scored highest at 6.33, approaching excellence, while home-based involvement lagged at 4.21. The authors interpret this as evidence that communication channels between families and centres have become institutionalised and visible, whereas families’ educational support at home remains less recognised and possibly less practised.

Context mattered as much as the averages. Classrooms in small centres outperformed those in large centres on personal care routines, with a large effect size, consistent with the argument that smaller institutional scale affords organisational flexibility and individualised attention. Educational stage produced significant differences in space and furnishings, personal care routines, and interaction, all favouring the three-to-six-year-old rooms over infant–toddler settings. Family involvement also varied systematically: educators in larger centres reported significantly lower home-based involvement than those in medium-sized centres, and home-based involvement was markedly higher in early childhood rooms than in infant–toddler rooms, with a very large effect. The authors suggest this reflects a cultural framing in which the zero-to-three stage is perceived as care-oriented, muting expectations of educational partnership, while the three-to-six stage is viewed as academically preparatory and thus invites co-responsible family collaboration. Mixed-age rooms stood out as consistently weaker, showing the lowest environmental scores in space and furnishings and the lowest family involvement, likely because heterogeneous age groups impose heavier organisational and communicative demands.

Why should the wider scientific and policy community care about a measurement instrument? Because, the authors argue, family involvement is not merely an ancillary courtesy but a relational mechanism through which process quality is enacted. Meta-analytic evidence cited in the study links parental involvement to academic achievement, socioemotional development, and the partial buffering of socio-economic disadvantage, and flagship programmes such as Head Start in the United States and Sure Start in the United Kingdom built their foundations on systematic family collaboration. Within Spain, the legal framework reinforces the point: Organic Law 3/2020 (LOMLOE) identifies family participation as a central element of educational equity, and Royal Decree 95/2022 mandates close coordination between homes and ECEC centres. A quality assessment system that cannot see this dimension is, in effect, blind to a lever of proven developmental significance.

The study is candid about its limits. The sample was drawn through convenience sampling and restricted to Spanish, publicly funded centres, limiting generalisability, and some subgroup comparisons rest on small and uneven cell sizes. Family involvement was measured through educators’ perceptions, a design choice that could introduce subjective interpretation, although the authors note that educators reporting on third parties have little incentive toward social desirability. The FIECE-M’s psychometric credentials, while adequate for an exploratory tool, require validation in larger and more diverse samples, and the authors propose triangulating future data by administering the questionnaire to families themselves. Longitudinal and mixed-methods designs are flagged as the natural next steps.

Even so, the implications reach beyond psychometrics. The findings argue for educator training in bidirectional communication and family engagement strategies, since evidence shows trained educators achieve higher parental involvement and better child outcomes. They support adapting involvement strategies to institutional characteristics—recognising that a ten-room centre may need different engagement mechanisms than a three-room one. And at the policy level, they make the case for embedding family involvement indicators into quality assessment systems, so that the relational fabric connecting homes, centres, and children is counted as an essential, measurable component of what makes early education truly good. In a field where process quality is increasingly understood as the strongest predictor of child outcomes, giving families a formal seat in the measurement framework may prove to be one of the most consequential upgrades early childhood science has delivered in years.

Early childhood care is a multifaceted domain encompassing formal and informal settings, including center-based childcare, family-based care, and parental involvement. The research team analyzed two waves of NSECE data collected in 2012 and 2019 to dissect patterns in usage, accessibility, and structural features of various early care arrangements. This longitudinal cross-sectional approach allowed them to move beyond snapshots, instead unveiling trajectories and trends that help decode how families juggle childcare amid fluctuating economic conditions and evolving labor market demands.

One of the most striking revelations from this study is the nuanced changes in the prevalence of different care modalities. Between 2012 and 2019, the landscape of early care attendance exhibited shifts influenced simultaneously by policy adjustments, demographic trends, and socio-economic factors. For instance, there was a detectable rise in the utilization of center-based care, signaling a potential response to increased demand for regulated, high-quality early education environments. Contrastingly, reliance on informal arrangements—such as kin care or unregulated, in-home settings—showed subtle declines, hinting at changing parental preferences or altered availability.

The researchers’ methodology involved meticulous cross-sectional comparisons that highlight not only overall usage rates but also characteristics such as caregiver qualifications, hours of care, and parental satisfaction. By comparing cohorts at two distinct points in time, patterns emerged illustrating improvements in certain quality indicators within center-based programs, including enhanced professional training among caregivers and expanded access to early learning curricula. These advancements suggest that investments and reforms aimed at boosting early education quality might be yielding measurable benefits.

Importantly, regional disparities persisted over time, underscoring the uneven distribution of quality care opportunities nationwide. The study revealed that families in urban areas have increasingly accessed diverse care options, whereas rural communities frequently face persistent barriers, including fewer licensed providers and longer commute times. This geographic unevenness raises critical questions about equity and access, especially as early care is widely recognized as foundational to closing achievement gaps among children from varying socio-economic backgrounds.

Economic factors also played a crucial role in shaping early care arrangements. The period analyzed spanned significant economic fluctuations in the US, including a labor market in recovery after a recessionary period and shifts in family employment patterns. Arteaga and colleagues found correlations between parental work schedules, income levels, and care choices. For example, families with irregular or nonstandard work hours often resorted more heavily to informal care arrangements that offer flexible timing, whereas traditional office-hour workers gravitated towards centers offering structured programming.

The implications of these findings extend well beyond statistics. Early care and education impact not only children’s cognitive and social-emotional development but also family economic stability and workforce participation, especially for women. The study underscores that as childcare arrangements evolve, so too do opportunities for parents to engage fully with employment markets. Yet, any gains in access or quality remain unevenly distributed across populations, suggesting the need for more nuanced policy interventions that address affordability, availability, and quality simultaneously.

Another key focus of the research was the changing demographic profile of families using various types of care. The data illuminated shifts in family composition, including increased diversity and varying household structures, which influenced care preferences and needs. These demographic changes intersect with cultural values and expectations around caregiving, shedding light on how communities interpret early education’s role within broader family goals.

In addition, technological advancements and policy reforms during the period under investigation have subtly influenced care arrangements. The proliferation of digital platforms for care searching and enrollment, alongside increased public funding streams for certain programs, contributed to evolving landscapes in service use. Arteaga, Lee, and Temple discuss how these external factors interplay with parental decision-making processes, making childcare choices more informed yet complicated.

The research also explores potential consequences of these changes for child outcomes. While the study does not directly assess developmental trajectories, it situates early care arrangement evolution within a framework informed by past literature linking care quality and stability to positive child outcomes. The gradual improvements in caregiver qualifications and quality indicators within center-based care settings augur well for the developmental support children receive, but persistent gaps pinpoint areas needing further attention.

Moreover, the repeated cross-sectional design employed in this study offers a powerful tool for ongoing monitoring of early care environments. By systematically capturing data at multiple time points, policymakers, practitioners, and researchers can identify emergent trends and quickly respond to shifting needs. The authors advocate for continued investment in such large-scale surveys, emphasizing that real-time data is essential for adaptive policy making and resource allocation.

Importantly, the study situates its findings within the broader context of U.S. social policy debates around childcare. Contemporary discussions emphasize the role of early education in fostering equitable access to lifelong learning and economic opportunity. Arteaga and colleagues contribute to this discourse by providing empirical evidence that illuminates both progress and persistent challenges, advocating for multifaceted approaches that integrate quality improvement, affordability measures, and tailored support for diverse family circumstances.

This research also underscores the importance of integrating family voices into the early care policy ecosystem. By examining parental preferences and satisfaction alongside statistical trends, the study highlights the human dimension of care arrangements — revealing how families navigate constraints and aspirations when making decisions. This perspective enriches understanding beyond raw data, affirming the need for family-centered approaches in program design and evaluation.

Furthermore, the study’s temporal comparison offers a baseline against which future progress can be measured. As new policy initiatives and social changes unfold post-2019, this research provides a critical reference point to evaluate whether efforts to improve access, equity, and quality in early care bear fruit. Analysts and advocates can leverage these findings to call for sustained or enhanced commitments to early education infrastructure.

The research methodology itself exemplifies rigorous data science in the social sciences, showcasing how repeated cross-sectional analyses can illuminate complex social phenomena over time without requiring longitudinal tracking of the same individuals. This approach balances feasibility with robustness, enabling high-impact research that informs large-scale decision-making amid shifting societal conditions.

In sum, Arteaga, Lee, and Temple’s comprehensive examination of early care and education arrangements from 2012 to 2019 paints a detailed picture of a sector in flux—progressing in quality, adapting to family needs, yet still challenged by disparities. Their work signifies a vital advance in clarifying the evolving childcare ecosystem, providing both a snapshot of recent history and a lens to anticipate future developments in early childhood policy and practice.

Subject of Research: Changes in early care and education arrangements in the United States from 2012 to 2019, analyzed through repeated cross-sectional data.

Article Title: Using repeated cross-sectional data to examine changes in early care and education arrangements over time: results from the US National Survey on Early Care and Education 2012 and 2019.

Article References:
Arteaga, I., Lee, S. & Temple, J.A. Using repeated cross-sectional data to examine changes in early care and education arrangements over time: results from the US National Survey on Early Care and Education 2012 and 2019. ICEP 19, 11 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-025-00150-5

Image Credits: AI Generated