Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Although extensive research has demonstrated the benefits of high-quality early childhood education, established quality frameworks often overlook the perspectives of stakeholders who are central to local improvement. Leveraging Quebec, Canada’s tradition of exemplary early childhood education (ECE), this study explored the concept of ECE quality with multiple stakeholder groups across the province, including parents, educators, administrators, and researchers. A structured group concept-mapping process identified seven components that participants saw as important for excellence in center-based early childhood education, including ideas not present in established quality frameworks. Participants viewed an exemplary ECE center as one that (1) offers children choices and stimulating learning experiences based on exploration and play, (2) adopts best practices in ECE, (3) ensures that staff have developmentally sensitive knowledge and skills, (4) provides professional support and good working conditions for staff, (5) partners with families and the community, (6) values diversity and inclusion, and (7) offers a stimulating physical and nutritional environment. These results suggest a Quebec-specific model of ECE quality spanning multiple ecological levels that reflects widely accepted scientific concepts as well as locally relevant ideas emerging from stakeholders’ perspectives. In addition to suggesting components for a Quebec-specific, stakeholder-driven model of quality, the research described in this article offers ideas and methods for similar initiatives in other contexts.

Keywords

early childhood education quality of ECE centers quality improvement stakeholder viewpoints concept mapping

Introduction

Substantial research has established that high-quality early childhood education (ECE) has positive impacts on children and families (Ulferts et al., 2019; von Suchodoletz et al., 2023). However, controversy remains about how to define, measure, and improve ECE quality (Dahlberg et al., 2013; Fenech, 2012; Hunkin, 2018). Several approaches exist, varying in their underlying philosophical perspectives (Dahlberg et al., 2013; Lemay and Lehrer, 2023; Lemay et al., 2025; Vandenbroeck et al., 2023).

One approach, sometimes referred to as a post-positivist view of quality (Lemay et al., 2017), sees quality as a quasi-universal concept that promotes optimal child outcomes through consistent application of scientifically-validated best practices (Harms et al., 2015; Pianta and Hamre, 2009; Teachstone, 2022a). Proponents of this view define quality in terms of structural and process dimensions, both of which have been linked to positive child outcomes (Slot, 2018; von Suchodoletz et al., 2023). To improve quality, this approach typically focuses on improving educator-child interactions through training, assessment, and structured feedback (Harms et al., 2015; Pianta and Hamre, 2009; Teachstone, 2022a). This approach underpins many of the monitoring systems increasingly being used to assess and improve quality in early childhood education (Buettner and Andrews, 2009; Irvine et al., 2024b; OECD, 2015, 2021).

Another approach proposes a constructivist view of sense-making embedded in local values and contexts (Hunkin, 2018; Vandenbroeck et al., 2023). This perspective challenges portrayals of ECE as an investment and children as resources to be optimized, instead seeing them as individuals with unique ways of learning and experiencing the world (Hunkin, 2018). Proponents of this view prioritize children’s agency, educators’ role as facilitators, and collective meaning-making (Dahlberg et al., 2013; Lemay et al., 2017; Ulrich Hygum and Hygum, 2023). This approach encourages stakeholders to develop their ideas about what is good for children in locally meaningful terms (Dahlberg et al., 2013; Fenech et al., 2020; Hunkin, 2018). For example, Fenech et al. (2020) found that Australian educators valued “love” as a key element of childcare excellence, a concept that may be difficult to measure but was meaningful and actionable for local actors.

A third “hybrid” approach works to combine local expertise and cultural sensitivity with widely accepted scientific knowledge (Lemay et al., 2017; Lemay and Lehrer, 2023; Pastori and Pagani, 2017; Vandenbroeck et al., 2023). This approach encourages stakeholders to consider their own experience as well as scientific knowledge as they articulate and develop their views about quality (Tonyan, 2017). For example, Pagani and colleagues used results from standardized measures of quality to stimulate discussions among Italian ECE staff about the key concepts in established quality frameworks and how their own views compared to these models (Pagani, 2021; Pastori and Pagani, 2017). This approach encourages stakeholders to consider the scientific knowledge base as well as locally relevant ideas about quality as they reflect on and improve their practice, a valuable way to promote improvements in everyday practice.

A hybrid approach to conceptualizing quality may be particularly relevant in Quebec, a Canadian province characterized by a long tradition of ECE excellence and a cultural and linguistic heritage unique in North America (Japel, 2012; Mathieu, 2021; McCluskey, 2018). Inspired by Nordic ECE models (Urban et al., 2023), Quebec’s ECE system has been shaped by pro-family government policies, widespread societal concern for equal opportunity, and a strong network of nonprofit childcare organizations that evolved into a province-wide, government-subsidized ECE system (Cleveland et al., 2021; McCluskey, 2018). The province-wide ECE network has created favorable training and working conditions and a supportive regulatory structure (Akbari et al., 2021; Mathieu, 2021). Quebec also benefits from a well-developed professional network of researchers, professional associations, specialized training programs, and continuing education. In 2022, over two-thirds (68.8%) of children under five in the province attended some form of regulated childcare, making it an important early childhood institution (Ministère de la famille, 2024). This depth of experience, policy support, and local knowledge make it an ideal context to study local views of ECE quality (Mathieu, 2021).

Quebec’s approach to ECE quality is rooted in the province’s educational program Accueillir la petite enfance [Welcoming Early Childhood] (Ministère de la famille 1997, 2019). This program promotes a holistic and integrated view of child development and explicitly values partnerships with families as a core educational principle. While it includes some participatory elements, such as its emphasis on parental engagement, decisions about the regulatory definition of quality and its dimensions, indicators, and measures have involved little stakeholder input. Early province-wide quality assessment efforts included large scale, governmental surveys that measured four dimensions drawn from the educational program: physical environment, activities, educator-child interactions, and educator-parent interactions (Drouin et al., 2004; Lapointe and Gingras, 2014). A quality assessment and improvement system was introduced in 2019, based in the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (Pianta and Hamre, 2009; Teachstone, 2022a) and semi-structured interviews and questionnaire data (Geffray, 2022; Roy-Vallieres et al., 2025). Developed with limited stakeholder involvement, this system has been criticized for prioritizing evaluation over improvement, neglecting organizational and policy-level influences on quality, and placing responsibility for change on front-line educators without providing corresponding support (Geffray, 2022; Lehrer et al., 2025).

Despite little attention to stakeholder input at the policy level, a few research studies have explored how specific stakeholder groups view quality in the province. For example, Hébert (2016) interviewed center directors about their views of educational quality, and Lehrer et al. (2015) explored parents’ perceptions of quality in center-based and home-based ECE. These studies suggest that a Quebec-specific quality framework could incorporate components, such as management leadership style and staff working conditions, that are currently overlooked. Still, the current research base is too limited to support a comprehensive model of quality adapted to the Quebec context.

To contribute to a more comprehensive, participatory, and Quebec-specific model of ECE quality, this study used Trochim’s group concept mapping method (GCM; Kane and Trochim, 2007; Trochim, 1989; Trochim and Kane, 2005). GCM offers a structured, participatory, discovery-oriented process for identifying participants’ views of key ideas in a subject area and creating a collective portrait of their understanding of the topic. Participants generate qualitative data through brainstorming and sort resulting ideas into piles based on similarity in meaning. Sorting data is statistically analyzed to produce a collective portrait of participants’ views of major concepts and their interrelationships. GCM has been used to explore quality in many fields, including health care, social services, industry, and education, often revealing locally meaningful quality components not previously articulated (Burke et al., 2005; Donnelly, 2017; Robinson et al., 2023; Rosas and Ridings, 2017; Trochim and Kane, 2005). However, GCM has not previously been applied to conceptualizing ECE quality.

This study aimed to contribute to a Quebec-specific model of quality by using GCM to gather diverse stakeholder views on the characteristics of exemplary childcare centers in order to create a collective portrait of their views of key quality components and their relationships.

Method

Data collection was conducted in two phases using Concept Systems Incorporated’s web-based Global Max^® platform (Concept Systems Incorporated (CSI), 2017), designed for GCM as proposed by Trochim (1989) and Kane and Trochim (2007). In phase 1898 anonymous participants participated in the online brainstorming task (January 10–March 9, 2020). Given that this phase ended before any Covid-19 closures, pandemic-related issues were not likely top-of-mind for most participants. In phase 2 a year later, after the immediate crisis period of the pandemic had ended, a subsample of 91 participants sorted and rated selected content from the previous brainstorming task.

The study was approved by UQAM’s research ethics committee (UQAM-CIEREH certificate number: 2019-1999). Participation was voluntary and uncompensated. The study posed minimal risk, as it focused on participants’ perspectives on early education and did not collect information about sensitive personal topics. Participants were informed of the purpose of the study, their right to withdraw at any time without consequence, and the potential benefits of contributing to a broader understanding of ECE quality in Quebec. Informed consent was obtained electronically prior to data collection, using a secure consent form embedded in the online platform. Data security and confidentiality were maintained through secure login and data storage procedures. Participants were invited to contact the research team with any questions or concerns at any point; no such inquiries were received. Throughout the research process, we adhered to the ethical principles of respect for persons, justice, and beneficence.

Participants and recruitment

Phase 1 participants were recruited via ECE-related email lists across Quebec. Announcements explained the study and provided a generic link to the Global MAX^® platform. A total of 898 individuals participated, and 593 volunteers indicated willingness to participate in a second phase of the study.

Given that technical constraints in the data collection software limited the Phase 2 subsample to 100 participants, efforts were made to maximize gender diversity and to achieve an equal number of parents and professionals in this subsample. Volunteers’ sociodemographic information was used to create two groups based on their primary role in relation to ECE: those who were associated with ECE because they were parents or interested citizens (subsequently referred to as “parents”) and those who had a professional role related to ECE, such as staff, administrator, researcher, student, or other professional in the early childhood field (subsequently referred to as “professionals”). To maximize gender diversity from a sample largely composed of women, we first invited all male volunteers to participate in phase 2 (n = 22; 10 parents and 12 professionals) and then randomly selected among remaining volunteers to achieve a sample of 50 parents and 50 professionals. Several invitations sent to this sample went unanswered or were refused. After a refusal or two non-responses, a replacement was randomly chosen from the same role group. We issued 263 invitations to obtain 91 participants for phase 2 (46 parents and 45 professionals). Three of these participants completed only the sorting task, eight completed only the rating task, and 80 completed both tasks.

Information on participants’ sociodemographic characteristics is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sociodemographic information.

	Phase 1, N = 898		Phase 2, N = 91
	N	%	N	%
Participant role
Parents	276	30.7	46	50.6
Parent of at least one child five years old or younger	248	27.6	45	49.5
Parent of child/ren all over five years old	20	2.2	1	1.1
Interested citizen	8	0.9	0	0
Professionals	586	65.3	45	49.5
Staff member at an ECE center	371	41.3	17	18.7
Other early childhood professional	215	23.9	28	30.1
No response	36	4.0	0	0
Sex
Woman	816	90.9	85	93.4
Man	39	4.3	6	6.6
Other	4	0.5	0	0
No response	39	4.3	0	0
Age (years)
18–29	107	11.9	6	6.6
30–39	349	38.9	51	56.0
40–49	237	26.4	21	23.1
50–59	132	14.7	7	7.7
60–69	37	4.1	6	6.6
No response	36	4.0	0	0
Occupational status
Executive, management, elected official	194	21.6	8	8.9
Professional, technical	416	46.3	59	65.6
Clerical, labor	110	12.2	8	8.9
Not working (stay-at-home parent, student, retired)	104	11.6	11	12.2
No response	74	8.2	4	4.4
First language
French	809	90.1	87	95.6
English	19	2.1	1	1.1
Other	30	3.3	3	3.3
No response	40	4.5	0	0
Immigration
Born in Canada	801	89.2	83	91.2
Born outside of Canada	60	6.7	8	8.8
No response	37	4.1	0	0
Region
Greater Montreal metropolitan area	373	41.5	44	48.4
Other areas of Quebec	483	53.8	47	51.7
No response	42	4.7	0	0

Italicized values indicate subgroup counts and percentages.

Materials and procedure

Data were collected using the Global MAX^® platform, with materials available in French and English. Phase 1 participants logged onto the platform anonymously and completed questions about their gender, language, birthplace, and number and age of children. Participants identified their primary role in relation to ECE by choosing among the following categories: parent of at least one child under six; parent of children all aged 6 years or older; interested citizen; ECE staff or management; researcher, teacher, or student in the ECE field; or other professional involved in early childhood. Those who were interested in participating in further research provided their email address.

After the sociodemographic questions, participants were presented with the brainstorming task. The word “quality” was not included to avoid directly activating preexisting models of quality. The wording of the prompt was as follows:

In this study, we are interested in center-based early learning and childcare settings. From your perspective, what describes an exemplary early childcare setting? Please add keywords or short statement that would complete either of the following sentences: ‘An exemplary early childhood education and care setting is . . . ‘or ‘An exemplary early childhood education and care setting has . . . ‘. Please keep each statement brief, just one thought. Select "add this statement" after each statement or idea,

Participants were asked to type as many statements as they wished but to keep each statement brief, just one thought. Some participants added no new ideas after reviewing the previously submitted ones, resulting in a total of 809 responses. Despite instructions for short, single-idea responses, many contained multiple ideas. Two bilingual members of the research team split the responses into over 3000 individual ideas and then combined those that were closely related. Given technical limits for the sorting task, the research team selected 125 of these ideas to represent as fully as possible the diversity of ideas from the original pool.

For phase 2, selected volunteers were emailed a personalized hyperlink to access study materials. After logging in, they were presented with the selected 125 statements in random order in the form of individual “cards” in the left panel of the interface window. Cards could be dragged into “piles” on the remaining window. Participants distributed the statement cards into piles based on their perceptions of which statements were most similar in meaning. This open-ended task allowed participants to decide how many piles to make and which statements went into each pile. The only rules were that statements were to be sorted according to similarity in meaning and that statements that were unrelated to others should be sorted into piles by themselves rather than into a miscellaneous pile (CSI, 2017). After sorting, participants provided labels that reflected their view of what united the statements in that pile. The research team examined each sort for adherence to sorting instructions, resulting in three sorts being excluded and 80 useable sorts for the analysis.

For the rating task, participants were presented with each statement in random order in questionnaire format and asked to rate the importance of each. They were reminded that even though all the characteristics might be important, they should use the full range of response choices, from 1 “relatively less important” to 5 “extremely important.”

Analyses

Phase 2 sorting data was analyzed using multidimensional scaling (MDS) and cluster analysis (CSI, 2017). For the MDS analysis, each participant’s sort pile was converted to a 125 × 125 matrix, with values of 1 for statement pairs sorted into the same pile and 0 otherwise. Matrices were summed across all participants and a similarity cutoff value of three was applied as a filter; if two statements were placed together in a pile by three or fewer users, the filter replaced that cell with 0. This type of filter helps to reduce spurious relationships between statements and is appropriate when there is a high level of diversity in the sorts and a relatively large number of sorts (CSI, 2017). A review found an average of 27 sorts in GCM studies (median 20; Donnelly, 2017), supporting the appropriateness of using this filter on the relatively large N of 80 sorts analyzed in this study.

A two-dimensional scaling solution was generated from the MDS analysis of the summed matrix, producing Cartesian coordinates for each statement and a two-dimensional “point map” in which statements sorted together by more participants are closer in proximity. The quality of MDS solutions is assessed with the stress-value goodness-of-fit index; values closer to zero indicate better fit (Trochim, 1989). Rosas and Kane (2012) found that stress values across 68 GCM studies averaged 0.28, ranging between 0.17 and 0.34. The stress value in this study was 0.22 after 11 iterations, well within this range.

The MDS solution also produces a bridging score for each statement which quantifies how often a statement was grouped with nearby items. A low bridging score indicates that a statement was consistently grouped with its neighbors and can be considered representative of the meaning of that area of the map. A high score indicates that a statement was often grouped with more distant items, likely because different participants saw it as being related to different underlying themes (CSI, 2017). Statements with high bridging scores are less representative of local meaning and more likely to bridge to other concepts in the map. At the cluster level, a lower average bridging score indicates greater conceptual consistency, while a higher score suggests a mix of diverse ideas. In the results, we report bridging scores for each statement as well as the average bridging score for each cluster.

For the cluster analysis, Ward’s technique was used to create groups of statements (Trochim, 1989). The Cartesian coordinates generated by MDS were used to group the two closest points on the map into an initial cluster, subsequently represented by its centroid. The next closest pair of points or centroids was sequentially grouped together until all statements were in one cluster.

The final choice among possible solutions in cluster analysis is recognized as an important, qualitative aspect of the analysis. The research team examined solutions from 15 to 5 clusters, and a seven-cluster solution was judged to be the most coherent and interpretable. Cluster names were developed after examining the statements in each cluster and the labels that participants gave to similar piles.

Ratings data were analyzed by calculating the mean importance score for all the statements in each cluster, overall and by participant role.

Results

Figure 1 presents the final concept map. Each statement is represented by a point placed on the two-dimensional map according to its coordinates generated by the MDS solution. Each cluster is labeled, and an outline is drawn around its component points. The number of layers represents the average importance of statements in the cluster, with more layers indicating higher ratings.

Figure 1.

Final concept map with cluster titles. Points represent the placement of individual statements according to the two-dimensional MDS solution. Clusters are represented by yellow polygons; the number of layers in each cluster represents the average importance score for the statements in that cluster. Titles from each cluster were generated by the research team after examining the statements in each cluster and participants’ pile labels.

Typical of GCM maps, higher order dimensions can be detected in the organization of the clusters. Clusters from left to right suggest a dimension from external (relationships with parents and community actors) to internal (within-setting interactions between children and educators). Clusters from top to bottom suggest a dimension from staff-related issues (working conditions, knowledge, and training) to child experiences (characteristics of the environment that children encounter).

The following description starts with the most coherent cluster (the one with lowest average bridging score) and proceeds in counterclockwise order around the concept map. Tables present the component statements of each cluster, ordered from lowest to highest bridging scores so that statements most representative of the cluster meaning are listed first. Ellipses indicate where statements over 25 words were shortened to save space in presenting results.

The cluster most coherent in meaning (lowest bridging score) is located at the “southeast” region of the concept map and titled Learning through play and choice . It includes statements that describe an exemplary early childhood center as offering children choices and stimulating learning experiences based on exploration and play (Table 2). Statements here reflect active learning processes which offer children the freedom to choose, play, create their own experiences, challenge themselves, and be creative and curious. They describe a setting that offers autonomy and support for children’s interests and initiatives as well as a balance among free time, rest time, time for outdoor play, and time for reading. The setting promotes confidence and a sense of belonging, focuses on social and emotional skills as well as holistic development, and offers personalized support to each child. On average, participants rated the statements in this cluster as having an importance of 4.14 out of 5.

Table 2.

Statements in cluster 1, Learning through play and choice (mean cluster bridging score = 0.19, mean cluster importance score = 4.14).

Cluster 1. Learning through play and choice (statement bridging score in parentheses)	Mean importance
Children have the freedom to create their own experiences (0.00)	4.13
Children learn freely and independently; there is nothing too rigid (0.00)	3.91
Children are encouraged to go beyond their limits (0.01)	3.68
Children have the chance to develop their creativity, imagination and curiosity, and are allowed to learn by trial and error (0.01)	4.34
There is support for children’s interests and initiatives. Children’s interests are used to propose new activities for learning and exploration . . . (0.02)	4.31
There is support for children’s development and learning through new experiences, challenges, and opportunities to go beyond their comfort zone (0.03)	4.07
The setting promotes children’s critical thinking, rather than conformism (0.03)	4.05
The setting encourages free and spontaneous play (0.04)	4.33
There is encouragement for the development of social and emotional skills (0.04)	4.61
The setting promotes learning through play (0.05)	4.56
Children have rich interactions with other children (0.06)	4.28
There are no activities that are “school-like,” no attempt to “schoolify” early childhood (0.07)	3.41
There is support for children’s holistic development . . ., for example, a weekly activity program that targets all developmental domains (0.07)	3.77
The setting lets children be children (0.08)	4.67
Children explore and discover their environment and are offered enriching and diversified life experiences (0.11)	4.27
Children develop a sense of belonging, self-esteem, resilience, autonomy, self-regulation, empathy, and confidence (0.13)	4.66
There is a democratic approach in which the child can make choices (0.14)	4.09
Play is planned and organized, and activities are structured (0.14)	2.64
There is a well-organized routine that respects children’s needs (0.16)	4.19
Children are involved in free, active and risky play outside (0.16)	4.16
There are periods of free, unstructured time, rest time, and moments of solitude and calm (0.17)	4.36
The setting prepares children for school (0.17)	3.27
Children are encouraged to create significant attachments (0.17)	4.22
Children are seen as people in their own right, worthy of respect (0.20)	4.72
There is personalized support for the development of each child (respect for each child’s rhythm and uniqueness, support in their zone of proximal development) (0.24)	4.41
There is freedom from comparison and pressure on children (0.26)	4.51
There is encouragement for language development and the love of reading. . ., there are many books, and children are asked open-ended questions (0.38)	4.43
Children feel good at the setting and want to go to the center in the morning because it is a joyful place (0.41)	4.69
There is a focus on care for children (0.41)	3.76
There is no screen time (0.41)	3.63
The setting promotes children’s mental and physical health (0.50)	4.77
The setting has educational toys and games (0.57)	3.85
Children go outside in all weather and all seasons because the setting recognizes that the outdoors is essential for children’s development (0.59)	4.33
There are no rewards in the form of food (0.65)	3.60

Proceeding counterclockwise, the Best practices in ECE cluster at the east position describes an exemplary early childhood center as one that adopts best practices in early childhood education, including both widely recognized, and innovative ECE practices (Table 3). Statements portray an approach that emphasizes benevolence toward children in this sensitive stage of development, adherence to a child-centered educational program, openness to innovative pedagogical approaches, and child-centered practices that promote children’s autonomy and well-being. In contrast to the previous cluster which focused on child experiences, items in this cluster largely reflect a theme related to educator practices. Participants gave the statements in this cluster a mean importance rating of 3.97.

Table 3.

Items in cluster 2, Best practices in ECE (mean cluster bridging score = 0.56, mean cluster importance score = 3.97).

Cluster 2. Best practices in ECE statements (bridging scores)	Statement importance
There is recognition of the fragility of childhood and the need to protect it (0.37)	4.24
The setting adopts disciplinary practices that are benevolent and free from “gentle violence.” (0.42)	4.5
There are multi-age groups where the educators follow the child from his entry as a baby until he leaves for school (0.54)	2.34
There is a child-cantered educational program which is determined by the team and supported by the management (0.54)	4.19
There is awareness of different educational approaches which is used to develop innovative practices adapted to the settings’ needs and ways of doing things . . . (0.54	3.47
The setting follows a recognized educational program such as Quebec’s Meeting early childhood needs (Accueillir la petite enfance) (0.55)	4.03
There is acceptance, respect, and absence of judgment toward children who are experiencing difficulties (0.58)	4.64
There are opportunities for everyone to express themselves and to give their opinions (0.59)	4.07
Management is focused on child development and on children’s well-being (0.63)	4.63
The setting is at the cutting edge of changes in education, it evolves (0.69)	3.81
There is no cell phone use in the presence of children (0.71)	3.76

The Staff knowledge of development cluster at the northeast position describes an exemplary early childhood center as ensuring that staff have developmentally sensitive knowledge and skills (Table 4). It describes staff being attentive to children, supporting play, building trustful bonds, engaging in rich interactions, and being sensitive to children’s difficulties. This cluster received the highest mean importance rating (4.56).

Table 4.

Items in cluster 3, Staff knowledge of development (mean cluster bridging score = 0.44, mean cluster importance score = 4.56).

Cluster 3. Staff knowledge of development statements (bridging scores)	Avg. stmt. importance
Educators know the stages of child development (0.35)	4.50
Educators demonstrate benevolent and human know-how as well as integrity, empathy, and sensitivity (0.35)	4.88
Educators demonstrate warmth, dynamism, humor, imagination, and passion (0.38)	4.53
Educators are attentive to children (0.39)	4.76
Educators are consistent, firm, and intervene positively with children (0.41)	4.32
Educators love children and demonstrate affection and physical proximity (0.42)	4.41
Educators are aware of children’s strengths and needs and concerned about their development (0.43)	4.60
Educators are present to accompany and support children’s play (0.50)	4.27
Educators have trustful bonds with each child. Children feel loved, respected, and safe. Relationships between educators and children are reassuring (0.50)	4.82
There is recognition that the relationship between educators and children is crucial to child development. Interactions . . . are rich and of quality (0.53)	4.67
Educators recognize, accept and support children’s feelings/emotions (0.53)	4.66
Educators are sensitive to children’s difficulties and indications of delays. There is screening to identify children with vulnerabilities (0.54)	4.27

The Working conditions and support cluster at the north position describes an exemplary early childhood center as providing professional support and good working conditions (Table 5). This includes training and professional development opportunities, compensation, adequate time for discussion, financial support, and positive management. This cluster also includes statements that suggest that these conditions create positive organizational outcomes, such as staff stability and a positive organizational climate. This cluster’s mean importance rating was 4.02.

Table 5.

Items in cluster 4, Working conditions and support (mean cluster bridging score = 0.37, mean cluster importance score = 4.02).

Cluster 4. Working conditions and support statements (bridging scores)	Stmt. importance
There is an orientation program for new educators (0.10)	3.66
There are opportunities for professional development for all staff members (0.12)	4.20
There is staff stability in terms of educators, rotation staff, and replacements (0.14)	4.34
There is a positive and harmonious organizational climate. Educators are happy and there is a united and collaborative team (0.15)	4.49
There is support and discussion among staff (0.18)	4.08
Educators are qualified, professional, competent and have a thirst for knowledge (0.19)	4.53
Staff have good working conditions (salary, work-family balance, etc.) (0.19)	4.53
Management has training in human resources (0.21)	3.28
Management is present, attentive to employees and respectful, concerned with educators’ physical and psychological health, open to suggestions from educators, recognizes and values their work (0.23)	4.58
Management has professional experience and is qualified as an early childhood educator (0.24)	3.58
Educators are motivated, engaged and involved; they take initiative (0.27)	4.43
There is a pedagogical adviser or consultant (0.28)	3.47
There is a multidisciplinary team including specialists (0.30)	3.51
Educators have and take the time to observe well, analyze, plan, and reflect (0.31)	4.39
Educators have current first aid certification (0.34)	4.48
There are sufficient resources and time for educators to care for children and have free time to reflect (0.36)	4.30
There are men on the team of educators (0.39)	2.85
There is extra support for educators working with children with special needs and financial resources to support this work (0.41)	4.42
Management is transparent, fair, honest, and free of favoritism (0.47)	4.32
There is supervision and quality control in the setting (for example, the CLASS measure is used to assess the quality of interactions) (0.67)	3.60
There is a low adult-child ratio that respects the government ratio (0.71)	4.61
There is a competent board of directors who supports the management (0.72)	3.65
There is a staff person dedicated to disinfection (0.92)	3.19
Educators respond to families’ needs and listen to them (1.00)	3.92

The Family and community relations cluster at west position describes an exemplary early childhood center as one that partners with families and the community (Table 6). This cluster includes statements relating to family support, parent involvement in activities and decision making, effective communication, accessibility for families, and partnerships with community agencies and organizations. This cluster had the lowest mean importance rating (3.50).

Table 6.

Items in cluster 5, Family and community partnerships (mean cluster bridging score = 0.43, mean cluster importance score = 3.50).

Cluster 5. Family and community partnerships statements (bridging scores)	Stmt. importance
Families feel involved and welcome in the setting, and they participate actively (0.00)	3.82
There are cooperative and collaborative partnerships with parents (0.07)	3.86
The setting organizes activities for parents (0.14)	2.20
The setting supports parenting skills and provides educational advice (0.16)	3.25
The setting takes care of families and offers support for all families (0.18)	3.49
There is support for families in difficulty. The setting directs families to external resources to ensure children’s development (0.25)	4.11
There is frequent, positive, two-way communication with families to keep them informed and involved (for example, regarding routines, activities, discipline, functioning, events, staff changes, illnesses, child development, etc.) (0.31)	4.35
Families are involved in the decision-making and orientation of the setting (0.36)	3.24
The setting is involved in the community to help early childhood, has partnerships with other ECE settings and is in tune with the current challenges of its community . . . (0.41)	3.01
The setting is rooted in its community and partners with . . . health and social services, community organizations, the municipality, schools, and professionals . . . (0.47)	3.65
There is room for parents in the space, including room to store strollers (0.48)	2.83
The setting is close to where families live (0.52)	2.67
The setting respects parents as the children’s first educators and accompanies them without positioning themselves as experts (0.59)	3.76
There is respect for family diversity (family structure, sees, parent age, religion, language, culture, country of origin, etc.) (0.61)	4.00
There is awareness of social inequalities, and the setting offers resources to reduce the impact of this gap (0.62)	3.84
The setting prioritizes spaces for at-risk clientele (0.67)	3.03
The setting is multicultural and open to the world, prioritizes social diversity and is representative of its environment (0.74)	3.69
The setting is affordable (or free) and economically accessible to all (0.79)	3.95
The settings’ opening hours meet child and family needs (0.81)	3.78

The Welcomes diversity cluster in the middle of the map describes an exemplary early childhood center as valuing diversity and inclusion, serving a diverse clientele, and including children with special needs (Table 7). Statements portray a setting that not only respects differences but also celebrates them, embodying anti-sexist and anti-racist values. This cluster’s mean importance rating was 3.89.

Table 7.

Items in cluster 6, Welcomes diversity (mean cluster bridging score = 0.79, mean cluster importance score = 3.89).

Cluster 6. Welcomes diversity statements (bridging scores)	Stmt. importance
Children with special needs are welcomed with benevolence, there are integration and support practices (0.64)	4.54
The setting takes an antisexist and anti-racist approach and has books and toys that avoid stereotypes (0.66)	4.06
The setting accepts, values, and celebrates differences. It promotes respect for differences in children (0.71)	4.36
The setting has a mission and clear values (0.72)	3.64
The setting is apolitical and secular (non-religious) (0.77)	3.57
The setting has clear policies (integration policy, food policy, etc.) (0.79)	3.73
There is a welcoming attitude and respect for children and families, without judgment and with respect for their values and confidentiality (0.83)	4.49
There is adequate funding to offer a variety of activities and projects, so that choices are not made based on cost, but on need (0.84)	3.90
The staff respects parents’ rhythm of acceptance if the child has a developmental difficulty (0.89)	3.77
The setting encourages ecological awareness (for ex., recycling, composting, reuse, ecological cleaning products, local and seasonal food. . .) (0.90)	3.33
The setting is an extension of the family environment (0.90)	3.40

The Facilities and nutrition cluster at the southwest position describes an exemplary early childhood as offering a stimulating physical and nutritional environment (Table 8). This includes a clean, peaceful, low-noise, and comfortable facility that allows children access to the outdoors and a variety of materials for play and learning. It also includes healthy and diverse food choices and freely available water to drink. This cluster’s mean importance rating was 3.94.

Table 8.

Items in cluster 7, Facilities and nutrition (mean cluster bridging score = 0.63, mean cluster importance score = 3.94).

Cluster 7. Facilities and nutrition statements (bridging scores)	Stmt. importance
The space is well ventilated, bright, spacious, well laid out, and appropriate to children’s needs (0.50)	4.44
There is healthy, nutritious, varied, balanced, quality, minimally processed food which is prepared on site using local products (0.50)	4.22
There is space for physical activities inside, such as a multi-purpose room or gym (0.51)	3.42
Children learn healthy habits and the importance of healthy eating. There are no sugary drinks or foods (0.51)	3.99
There are heated floors for infants and toddlers (0.52)	2.42
There is a peaceful environment (measures to reduce noise, not visually overloaded) (0.54)	3.66
There are meals and snacks that expose children to various culinary traditions and foods in the context of a friendly and relaxed meal (0.57)	3.60
There is a clean environment that promotes good hygiene habits (0.58)	4.60
Meals are adapted to children’s needs. There is respect for children’s hunger and fullness signals. Children always have access to water (0.60)	4.51
There is a well laid out outdoor area that is stimulating for younger and older children. It allows exploration, play, nature discovery, gardening, etc (0.60)	4.35
The setting follows government food guidelines, such as Canada’s food guide, Quebec’s Gazelle and Potiron, etc (0.74)	4.09
The setting offers quality layout, organization, equipment, and a wide range of material in sufficient quantity is offered (0.74)	3.99
The setting meets safety standards both inside and outdoors (0.93)	4.48
There are visits to nearby public spaces, for example, picnics, trips to the forest, the library, swimming, etc (0.98)	3.36

Figure 2 compares the mean importance ratings for each cluster by participant role. Both parents and professionals gave relatively high importance ratings for all clusters: no cluster received a mean importance rating lower than 3, the midpoint between “relatively less important” to “extremely important.” The rank order for both groups was roughly the same, suggesting that parents and professionals held similar views about the relative importance of the different components associated with an exemplary childcare center.

Figure 2.

Importance ratings by cluster for parents and professionals. Note that the y-axis in this graph is not the full response scale; it is bounded by lowest and highest mean scores for each group across the seven clusters.

Discussion

This study used Trochim’s (1989) group concept mapping method to create a structured and visual representation of diverse aspects of quality that Quebec stakeholders include in their understanding of center-based ECE. The study allowed stakeholders with diverse scientific, professional, and experiential expertise to participate in identifying, organizing, and prioritizing characteristics that they associated with exemplary center-based care, reflecting a hybrid approach to conceptualizing quality in a locally relevant manner (Lemay et al., 2017; Pastori and Pagani, 2017; Vandenbroeck et al., 2023).

Participants in this study described an exemplary childcare center in terms of seven clusters of ideas. In this view, an exemplary high-quality ECE center (1) offers children choices and stimulating learning experiences based on exploration and play, (2) adopts best practices in early childhood education, (3) ensures that staff have developmentally sensitive knowledge and skills, (4) provides professional support and good working conditions for staff, (5) partners with families and the community, (6) values diversity and inclusion, and (7) offers a stimulating physical and nutritional environment. All clusters were rated as important by both parents and professionals, with staff knowledge of development being rated most important, and family and community partnerships rated as slightly less important relative to other components.

These results align with and yet extend established quality frameworks underlying the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS Pre-K; Pianta and Hamre, 2009; Teachstone, 2022a) and the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R; Harms et al., 2015). Drawing on ecological and settings theory (Blanchet-Cohen and Brunson, 2014; Bronfenbrenner, 1979), we compare our results to these established frameworks across four levels of analysis.

The first level of analysis involves interactions and activities occurring within ECE classroom settings . Established quality frameworks give significant attention to classroom-level aspects of process quality. The CLASS Pre-K (Pianta and Hamre, 2009; Teachstone, 2022a) focuses largely on staff-child interactions at this level, theorized as being the most significant influence on child development. The ECERS-R (Harms et al., 2015) also addresses many aspects of classroom life, including staff-child interactions, diverse activities, and language-promoting practices. Three clusters in our concept map reflect similar ideas (Learning through play and choice, Best practices in ECEC, and Staff knowledge of development).

There is, however, an interesting difference in perspective that emerges here. The CLASS Pre-K and ECERS-R adopt a teacher-centered viewpoint, evaluating whether educators encourage communication and language learning (ECERS-R) or promote participation and higher-order learning (CLASS Pre-K). Two of our clusters similarly emphasize educators’ roles in creating classroom experiences (Best practices in ECEC and Staff knowledge of development). However, our concept map also adds a child-centered perspective. Notably, the largest and most coherent cluster in our results highlights children’s experiences of choice, play, exploration, creativity, and autonomy (the Learning through play and choice cluster). This suggests that Quebec stakeholders value children’s experiences as well as educators’ roles. Future research could focus on finding more direct ways for children to contribute their perspectives on quality (Macha et al., 2024).

A second level of analysis relates to the physical and temporal structure of the classroom setting and the center to which it belongs. While the CLASS Pre-K does not specifically evaluate the physical environment, it does assess well-structured routines and organization, and Teachstone (2022b) recently released a complementary assessment tool focused on the classroom physical environment. The ECERS-R assesses both the classroom’s physical environment and its temporal organization across several dimensions (Space and furnishings, Program Structure, and Personal Care Routines). Our results include temporal and physical elements of the classroom and the center—including noise, light, cleanliness, thermal comfort, and access to nature—along with the novel addition of healthy meals, fresh fruits and vegetables, and freely available drinking water (see the Best practices in early education and Facilities and nutrition clusters). These factors are contextually relevant, as subsidized centers in Quebec are mandated to provide meals and snacks. They also align with recent movements in Quebec promoting healthy eating and physical activity (Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance, 2023; Ministère de la famille, 2014). They may reflect distinctive elements of the Quebec context, or they may reflect a more general growing interest in healthy eating, outdoor learning, and environmental quality, as well as the growing interest in forest childcare (Garden and Downes, 2023; Traynor et al., 2022).

A third level of analysis addresses organization-level management issues such as staff qualifications, professional support, and working conditions. The CLASS Pre-K does not directly measure staff characteristics or working conditions, considered to be elements of structural quality outside its focus. The ECERS-R does assess Staff qualifications. However, our results highlight a broader range of factors than those typically included even in assessments of structural quality. These include adequate compensation, ongoing professional support, sufficient time for reflection, and a positive organizational climate, as well as indicators, such as low staff turnover, that these policies are promoting staff well-being (see the Working conditions and support cluster). This suggests that Quebec stakeholders view an exemplary ECE setting as prioritizing both child- and family-centered services and a supportive environment for educators to thrive, an emphasis echoed in recent work on educator professionalism (Urban et al., 2023) and pedagogical orientation quality (Bigras et al., 2023). An exclusive classroom focus may overlook the critical role of staff well-being and professional development in ensuring high-quality care. This finding supports emerging research on staff working conditions and well-being as an essential aspect of quality (Corral-Granados et al., 2024; Cumming et al., 2021; Irvine et al., 2024a).

A fourth level of analysis addresses relationships with partners outside the ECE center , including parents and community organizations, as well as diversity and inclusion more generally. Relationships with families are not assessed in the CLASS measures but are briefly addressed in the ECERS-R (Provisions for Parents subdimension). Community and inter-organizational relationships are not addressed in either. Our results are novel in highlighting these external relationships (see the Family and community partnerships cluster). This may reflect a community-oriented approach that is particularly well-developed in the Quebec context, where it is not unusual to find centers hosting community events for families, where parents are allowed to spend time in the centers at drop-off and pick-up, where children with special needs are welcomed and nurtured, and where community partners offer complementary support to families (Lehrer et al., 2022).

In addition, diversity is literally at the center of our results. While the CLASS Pre-K has consistently reflected inclusive values and its latest version has been further revised to enhance inclusiveness (Teachstone, 2022a), it does not include a specific dimension in this area. Similarly, diversity is not explicitly addressed in the original ECERS-R, although recent related work has proposed a Diversity subscale (Sylva et al., 2003). The view of ECE as an important community institution that makes its services accessible to a broad range of families likely reflects the Nordic roots of Quebec ECE services, its origins in a widely-shared social commitment to equal opportunity, and the fact that the system reaches a large majority of Quebec families in all their diversity (Akbari et al., 2021).

While some aspects of this concept map may be specific to Quebec, many align with broader trends. A growing theme in the literature is the adoption of a multi-level approach that extends beyond traditional process quality indicators. For example, Sollars (2022) used multiple ecological levels to interpret participants’ views on quality in the Maltese ECE system, and the European Core study on educator competency emphasized multiple levels of competency, including work within ECE institutions, collaboration with community partnerships, and engagement at the policy level (Urban et al., 2011). Increasing attention is also being paid, both the literature and in broader society, to elements such as healthy eating, outdoor play, and diversity (Sylva et al., 2003; Teachstone, 2022a, 2022b). Our findings further align with a growing trend for quality rating and improvement frameworks to include broader factors such as professional development, working conditions, governance, pedagogical leadership, equity, or family participation (OECD, 2021). Several of our clusters reflect these broader concerns. Finally, a distinctive aspect of our findings is the emergence of a child-centered perspective that positions children’s experiences and views of ECE settings as relevant to defining quality. In these multiple ways, the model arising from this study suggests important aspects to consider in a systemic, inclusive, and locally grounded model of quality for Quebec.

Limitations and future research

While this study provides important insights, several limitations should be considered.

This research focused on center-based ECE services in Quebec, omitting home-based services. Recruitment procedures reached adults who were already in contact with Quebec ECE communication channels and who were comfortable completing the process online in French or in English. In this sense, the study used a purposive sampling strategy (Donnelly, 2017) aimed at obtaining a theoretically relevant and relatively diverse sample of participants, without intending or claiming to seek a statistically representative sample of all stakeholder groups. The diversity represented in this study can be seen to go beyond that of studies where the content of data collection tools is pre-determined by researchers. In this study, a broad sample of participants from different stakeholder groups contributed to both the content of the map (through brainstorming) and its structure (through the sorting and rating tasks).

Other limitations arose from choices in how GCM was implemented in this study. The wording of the brainstorming and rating prompts necessarily influenced results. Online brainstorming allowed for broader participation and diverse, but also less coherent, ideas. Technical constraints on the number of statements meant that some potentially relevant ideas were potentially excluded. Previous research has shown that different GCM algorithms can yield somewhat variable results (Péladeau et al., 2017). In addition, results were produced as a single collective concept map combining all participants’ data, rather than separate maps for each stakeholder group. While this synthesis loses the nuance of group-specific perspectives, it reflects a hybrid approach that integrates scientific, professional, and experiential expertise.

Consistent with the discovery-oriented, model-building nature of the inquiry, the final clusters in this study should be viewed as reflecting broad themes rather than precise constructs. Additional methods, such as Delphi studies, could enrich these results as well as include additional stakeholder groups, including children. Future confirmatory research could test different model components to determine their usefulness in predicting important outcomes. Intervention research could test whether locally meaningful concepts provide useful levers for improving policy and practice.

Implications and conclusion

These results deepen the understanding of quality in Quebec’s ECE system by identifying components to include in a locally relevant model of quality. They point to the need for a Quebec-based framework that adopts a multi-level structure and includes a broader range of quality dimensions. Such a model would align with established frameworks by emphasizing stimulating learning experiences for children and staff knowledge and skills, but would also expand to include children’s perspectives, healthy food and physical environments, staff well-being, diversity and inclusion, and family and community partnerships.

Although these findings are preliminary and have not yet been incorporated into a validated model or applied in practical quality improvement efforts, they do suggest some actionable directions for change. One approach could involve professional development programs that engage staff in reflecting on a Quebec-specific hybrid model of ECE quality in relation to their practice (Lemay et al., 2017; Pastori and Pagani, 2017; Vandenbroeck et al., 2023). Practical center-level changes could include increasing the availability of healthy, freshly prepared food; providing better support for educator well-being; and strengthening capacity for family and community connections. At the government level, policies could promote funding, support, and accountability for these local changes, as well as supporting educators’ working conditions and professional reputation.

These findings also suggest directions for future research. Additional studies should develop and validate a stakeholder-driven, multi-level model of ECE quality specific to Quebec, along with assessment tools and improvement processes that support participatory quality improvement efforts (Lehrer et al., 2025). The hybrid approach used in this study may also suggest methods for similar initiatives in other contexts aimed at strengthening culturally relevant theories of ECE quality and locally-grounded efforts to improve it.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge Nathalie Bigras for her leadership in funding acquisition, resources, and supervision for this project and for the research team. Her support was instrumental to this research.

ORCID iDs

Liesette Brunson

Joanne Lehrer

Ethical considerations

The Institutional Review Board for the Université du Québec à Montréal approved this research on May 7, 2018 (UQAM-CIEREH certificate number: 2019-1999).

Consent to participate

Participants were provided with an online informed consent form, which they were required to review and electronically accept prior to their participation in each phase of the study.

Author contributions

Author 1 – Liesette Brunson: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Author 2 – Joanne Lehrer: conceptualization, writing- original draft; writing – review and editing. Author 3 – Alexandra Paquette: conceptualization, data curation, investigation, project administration, writing – original draft; writing – review and editing. Author 4 – Lise Lemay: conceptualization, resources, writing – review and editing.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Société et culture, grant number 297601.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Akbari

McCuaig

(2014) Early Childhood Education Report 2014. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Available at : https://ecereport.ca/media/uploads/pdfs/early-childhood-education-report2014-eng.pdf (accessed 14 April 2023).

Akbari

McCuaig

Foster

(2021) The Early Childhood Education Report 2020: Quebec. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Available at: https://ecereport.ca/media/uploads/2021-profiles-en/quebec_profile_en_2020.pdf (accessed 29 October 2024).

Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance (2023) Papille: Guide sur l’alimentation du poupon à l’intention des services de garde éducatifs à l’enfance du Québec. Association québécoise des centres de la petite enfance. Available at: https://quebec.educationnutrition.ca/fr/ressources-educatives/produits/papille/ (accessed 23 July 2024).

Bigras

Fortin

Robert-Mazaye

, et al. (2023) Bien-être au travail des professionnel.les de CPE du Québec [Well-being at work of childcare professionals in Quebec]. Le Furet Petite Enfance et Diversité 108: 20–22.

Blanchet-Cohen

Brunson

(2014) Creating settings for youth empowerment and leadership: An ecological perspective. Child & Youth Services 35(3): 216–236.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press.

Buettner

Andrews

(2009) United States child care policy and systems of care: The emerging role of quality rating and improvement systems. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy 3: 43–50.

Burke

O’Campo

Peak

, et al. (2005) An introduction to concept mapping as a participatory public health research method. Qualitative Health Research 15(10): 1392–1410.

Cleveland

Mathieu

Japel

(2021) What is “the Quebec model” of early learning and child care? Policy Options, 18 February. Available at: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/february-2021/what-isthe-quebec-model-of-early-learning-and-child-care (accessed 17 April 2023).

10.

Concept Systems Incorporated (CSI) (2017) The Concept System ® Global Max ™ Software Guide. Concept Systems Incorporated. Available at: http://www.conceptsystems.com/content/uploads/2015/09/CS-Global-Max-Software-Guide.pdf (accessed 20 February 2025).

11.

Corral-Granados

Rogers

Kruse

(2024) The forgotten ECEC staff working with birth-to-3-year-olds: The imbalances between the workforce policies and ECEC staff employment conditions in Spain. Management in Education 38(3): 125–137.

12.

Cumming

Wong

Logan

(2021) Early childhood educators’ well-being, work environments and ‘quality’: Possibilities for changing policy and practice. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 46(1): 50–65.

13.

Dahlberg

Moss

Pence

(2013) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Languages of Evaluation. Routledge.

14.

Donnelly

(2017) A systematic review of concept mapping dissertations. Evaluation and Program Planning 60: 186–193.

15.

Drouin

Bigras

Fournier

, et al. (2004) Grandir en qualité 2003. Enquête sur la qualité des services de garde éducatifs [Growing in Quality 2003: Survey on the quality of educational childcare services]. Institut de la statistique du Québec. Available at: https://statistique.quebec.ca/fr/fichier/enquete-quebecoise-sur-la-qualite-des-services-de-garde-educatifs-rapport-de-lenquete.pdf (accessed 8 January 2015).

16.

Fenech

(2012) Discerning childcare quality: Parents as potential informants of policy beyond regulation. Critical Studies in Education 53(3): 327–345.

17.

Fenech

Harrison

Press

, et al. (2020) Using metaphor to illuminate quality in early childhood education. Australian Journal of Early Childhood 45(2): 197–210.

18.

Garden

Downes

(2023) A systematic review of forest schools literature in England. Education 3-13 51(2): 320–336.

19.

Geffray

(2022) L’influence de la rétroaction présente dans les rapports des systèmes d’évaluation et d’amélioration de la qualité sur les besoins psychologiques de base des gestionnaires de services de garde éducatifs à l’enfance de Montréal et Toronto [The influence of feedback in quality assessment and improvement system reports on the basic psychological needs of early childhood education managers in Montréal and Toronto]. Master’s Thesis. Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal. Available at: https://archipel.uqam.ca/16904/ (accessed 29 octobre 2023).

20.

Harms

Clifford

Cryer

(2015) Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale, 3rd edn. Teachers College Press.

21.

Hébert

(2016) Les représentations sociales de directrices générales en regard de la qualité et du leadership en CPE [General directors’ social representations of quality and leadership in day-care centres]. Master Thesis, Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada. Available at: https://archipel.uqam.ca/8984/ (accessed 4 April 2023).

22.

Hunkin

(2018) Whose quality? The (mis)uses of quality reform in early childhood and education policy. Journal of Education Policy 33(4): 443–456.

23.

Irvine

Lunn

Sumsion

, et al. (2024a) Professionalisation and professionalism: Quality improvement in early childhood education and care. Early Childhood Education Journal 52(8): 1911–1922.

24.

Irvine

Barblett

Waniganayake

, et al. (2024b) The quest for continuous quality improvement in Australian long day care services: Getting the most out of the assessment and rating process. Frontiers in Education 9: 1207059.

25.

Japel

(2012) The Québec child care system: Lessons from research. In: Howe

Prochner

(eds) Recent Perspectives on Early Childhood Education and Care in Canada. University of Toronto Press, pp.285–307.

26.

Kane

Trochim

(2007) Concept Mapping for Planning and Evaluation. Sage.

27.

Lapointe

Gingras

(2014) Enquête québécoise sur la qualité des services de garde éducatifs – Grandir en qualité 2014. Tome 1 : Méthodologie et description de l’enquête [Québec survey on the quality of educational childcare services – Growing in quality 2014. Volume 1: Methodology and survey description]. Institut de la statistique du Québec. Available at: https://www.aqcpe.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/grandir-en-qualite-2014-tome-1-methodologie.pdf (accessed 20 February 2023).

28.

Lehrer

Bigras

Laurin

(2022) Mothers, educators, and teachers contesting and transforming the metanarrative of pedagogicalisation in childcare and preschool. In: Lehrer

Hadley

Van Laere

(eds) Relationships With Families in Early Childhood Education and Care. Routledge, pp.29–37.

29.

Lehrer

Gagnon

Robitaille

, et al. (2025) Pour une politique féministe du care comme ancrage des discussions sur la qualité éducative à la petite enfance [In favour of a feminist politics of care to anchor discussions on educational quality in early childhood]. In: Bigras

Emay

(eds) Construire Le Sens de La Qualité Éducative en Petite Enfance [Meaning Making in Early Childhood: Educational Quality]. PUQ, pp.329–359.

30.

Lehrer

Lemay

Bigras

(2015) Parental perceptions of child care quality in centre-based and home-based settings: Associations with external quality ratings. International Journal of Early Childhood 47(3): 481–497.

31.

Lemay

Bigras

Lehrer

, et al. (2025) La qualité éducative : l’histoire plutôt simple d’un concept assez complexe [Educational quality: A simple history of a complex concept]. In: Bigras

Emay

(eds) Construire Le Sens de La Qualité Éducative En Petite Enfance [Meaning Making in Early Childhood: Educational Quality]. PUQ, pp.19–36.

32.

Lemay

Lehrer

(2023) Qu’en est-il de la qualité ? Une évolution du concept sous trois angles complémentaires. [What about quality? An evolution of the concept from three complementary perspectives]. Forme Presco. Available at: https://formepresco.uqar.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Lemay-et-Lehrer-2023.pdf (accessed 29 octobre 2024).

33.

Lemay

Lehrer

Naud

(2017) Le CLASS pour mesurer la qualité des interactions en contextes culturels variés [CLASS to measure the quality of interactions in a variety of cultural contexts]. Les dossiers des sciences de l’éducation 37: 15–34.

34.

Macha

Urban

Lonnemann

, et al. (2024) Children’s perspectives on quality in ECEC as a specific form of participation. International Journal of Early Years Education 32(1): 246–260.

35.

Mathieu

(2021) Four lessons from Quebec’s early child care model. Policy Options, 4 May. Available at: https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/april-2021/four-lessons-from-quebecs-early-child-care-model/ (accessed 17 April 2023).

36.

McCluskey

(2018) The global legacy of Quebec’s subsidized child daycare. City Lab, 31 December. Available at: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/12/affordable-daycare-subsidized-child-care-working-mom-quebec/579193/ (accessed 23 July 2024).

37.

Ministère de la famille (1997) Programme éducatif des centres de la petite enfance [Educational program for early childhood centres]. Gouvernement du Québec.

38.

Ministère de la famille (2014) Gazelle et Potiron - Cadre de référence pour créer des environnements favorables à la saine alimentation, au jeu actif et au développement moteur en services de garde éducatifs a l’enfance [Gazelle and Pumpkin : Framework for creating environments conducive to healthy eating, active play and motor development in educational childcare centers]. Gouvernement du Québec. Available at: https://www.mfa.gouv.qc.ca/fr/publication/documents/guide_gazelle_potiron.pdf (accessed 13 July 2024).

39.

Ministère de la famille (2019) Accueillir la petite enfance - Programme éducatif pour les services de garde éducatifs à l’enfance [Welcoming Early Childhood. The Early Childhood Education Program]. Gouvernement du Québec. Available at: https://www.mfa.gouv.qc.ca/fr/publication/documents/programme_educatif.pdf (accessed 20 July 2024).

40.

Ministère de la famille (2024) Portrait du réseau des services de garde éducatifs à l’enfance [Portrait of the educational childcare network]. Gouvernement du Québec. Available at: https://cdn-contenu.quebec.ca/cdn-contenu/adm/min/famille/publications-adm/Service_de_garde/napperon-explicatif-SGEE.pdf (accessed 20 July 2024).

41.

OECD (2015) Starting strong IV: Monitoring quality in early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264233515-en.

42.

OECD (2021) Starting strong VI: Supporting meaningful interactions in early childhood education and care. OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/f47a06ae-en.

43.

Pagani

(2021) Behind the numbers. A mixed-methods study of the CLASS tool application in Italy. Italian Journal of Educational Research 26: 46–56.

44.

Pastori

Pagani

(2017) Is validation always valid? Cross-cultural complexities of standard-based instruments migrating out of their context. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 25(5): 682–697.

45.

Péladeau

Dagenais

Ridde

(2017) Concept mapping internal validity: A case of misconceived mapping? Evaluation and Program Planning 62: 56–63.

46.

Pianta

Hamre

(2009) Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher 38(2): 109–119.

47.

Robinson

Butler

Hackett

(2023) Identifying and prioritising the key components of a Quality Improvement Network for allied health professionals and psychological therapists: A group concept mapping project. BMJ Open Quality 12(1): e002039.

48.

Rosas

Kane

(2012) Quality and rigor of the concept mapping methodology: A pooled study analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning 35(2): 236–245.

49.

Rosas

Ridings

(2017) The use of concept mapping in measurement development and evaluation: Application and future directions. Evaluation and Program Planning 60: 265–276.

50.

Roy-Vallieres

Lemire

Lemay

(2025) Soutenir la qualité éducative par la rétroaction: les systèmes d'évaluation et d'amélioration de la qualité [Supporting educational quality through feedback: Quality rating and improvement systems]. In: Symposium “Building the meaning of quality in early childhood education,” 92nd ACFAS congress. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18302.09283.

51.

Slot

(2018) Structural characteristics and process quality in early childhood education and care: A literature review. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 176, OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/edaf3793-en.

52.

Sollars

(2022) Reflecting on ‘quality’ in early childhood education: Practitioners’ perspectives and voices. Early Years 42(4–5): 613–630.

53.

Sylva

Siraj-Blatchford

Taggart

(2003) Assessing Quality in the Early Years: Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale: Extension (ECERS-E), Four Curricular Subscales. Trentham Books.

54.

Teachstone (2022a) CLASS 2nd Edition Pre-K–3rd Reference Manual. Teachstone.

55.

Teachstone (2022b) CLASS Environment Manual, Infant-Todler. Teachstone.

56.

Tonyan

(2017) Opportunities to practice what is locally valued: An ecocultural perspective on quality in family child care homes. Early Education and Development 28(6): 727–744.

57.

Traynor

Martin

Johnstone

, et al. (2022) A low-cost method for understanding how nature-based early learning and childcare impacts children’s health and wellbeing. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 889828.

58.

Trochim

Kane

(2005) Concept mapping: An introduction to structured conceptualization in health care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 17(3): 187–191.

59.

Trochim

(1989) An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning 12(1): 1–16.

60.

Ulferts

Wolf

Anders

(2019) Impact of process quality in early childhood education and care on academic outcomes: Longitudinal meta-analysis. Child Development 90(5): 1474–1489.

61.

Ulrich Hygum

Hygum

(2023) Mind the crèche! Controversial perspectives on the educational quality of Romanian crèches. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 31(5): 739–751.

62.

Urban

Reikerås

Eidsvåg

, et al. (2023) Nordic approaches to evaluation and assessment in early childhood education and care. Global Studies of Childhood 13(3): 200–216.

63.

Urban

Vandenbroek

Lazzari

, et al. (2011) Competence Requirements in Early Childhood Education and Care (CoRe). University of East London and University of Ghent. Available at: https://repository.uel.ac.uk/download/9042a29ce025180654ef27de2018c65574380e0cd1e49d5621610773f347b182/2908979/CoRe-Research-Documents-2011.pdf (accessed 23 July 2024).

64.

Vandenbroeck

Lehrer

Mitchell

(2023) The Decommodification of Early Childhood Education and Care: Resisting Neoliberalism. Routledge.

65.

von Suchodoletz

Lee

Henry

, et al. (2023) Early childhood education and care quality and associations with child outcomes: A meta-analysis. PLoS One 18(5): e0285985.

Toward a hybrid model of quality for Quebec early childhood education: A structured group approach with diverse stakeholders

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Participants and recruitment

Materials and procedure

Analyses

Results

Discussion

Limitations and future research

Implications and conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

Ethical considerations

Consent to participate

Author contributions

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Data availability statement

References