%20(1).png)
When conversations turn to early learning quality, a familiar question often emerges: Which setting is better for young children, a school-based program or a standalone early learning center?
It's a question that shapes policy discussions, funding decisions, and family choices. Yet new research suggests it may also be the wrong question.
Drawing on 3,872 classroom observations and accreditation reviews from 460 early learning programs, Cognia examined patterns across both school-based and standalone settings. Rather than identifying a clear winner, the data reveal something more valuable: each model demonstrates distinct strengths, and each offers lessons that can help improve outcomes across the field.
The findings challenge the assumption that early learning quality can be evaluated through a simple comparison of settings. Instead, they point to two complementary approaches to serving young learners.
Different settings, different strengths
One of the clearest findings from the research is that standalone and school-based programs tend to excel in different areas.
Standalone programs showed strengths in creating environments where children have greater opportunities for choice, independence, and movement throughout the day. These settings often foster strong cultures of community, belonging, and respect that are central to the early childhood experience.
School-based programs, meanwhile, demonstrated strengths in instructional practices. Observations found more scaffolding, more open-ended questioning, and longer periods of sustained engagement between educators and children.
These differences do not necessarily reflect individual educator capabilities. Instead, they may be influenced by structural realities. School-based programs have historically benefited from broader access to resources such as credentialing pathways, coaching systems, and curriculum-aligned professional support. Standalone programs often operate within different organizational structures and priorities.
The result is not a quality gap so much as a profile of complementary strengths.
For policymakers, district leaders, and providers, this suggests that evaluating programs based on fit may be more productive than trying to rank one delivery model above another.
A meaningful difference in family connections
The research also identified the largest gap between settings in an area that often receives less attention than curriculum or instruction: family engagement during daily arrival and departure routines.
School-based programs appeared to benefit from the predictability of traditional school-day schedules. Regular arrival and dismissal times create natural opportunities for greetings, updates, and relationship-building moments between educators and families.
Standalone programs frequently offer greater scheduling flexibility, a benefit valued by many families. However, that flexibility can make consistent communication and connection points more difficult to establish.
While neither approach is inherently better, the findings highlight an opportunity for program leaders to intentionally design routines that strengthen family-school partnerships.
For standalone programs in particular, even small adjustments to staffing and scheduling during drop-off and pickup periods may help create more meaningful family interactions.
One challenge shared across every setting
Perhaps the most important finding is not where programs differ, but where they are remarkably similar.
Across both school-based and standalone environments, three instructional practices consistently emerged as areas for improvement:
- Asking open-ended questions
- Encouraging children to brainstorm and predict
- Engaging children with math and science tools during learning experiences
Neither setting outperformed the other in these measures.
That consistency matters. When a challenge appears across structurally different models, it points to a broader, field-wide opportunity rather than an issue confined to a single type of program.
The findings align with broader early childhood research showing that while educators are often highly effective at creating warm, responsive environments, opportunities remain to strengthen higher-order thinking and inquiry-based learning experiences for young children.
For leaders considering where to invest professional learning resources, inquiry-focused instructional practices may represent one of the highest-impact opportunities available.
Moving beyond the which is better debate
The research points toward a more productive conversation about quality in early learning.
Instead of asking whether school-based or standalone programs are better, education leaders can ask what each setting does particularly well, what can be learned from both models, and how systems can support continuous improvement across the entire early childhood landscape.
When viewed through that lens, the differences between settings become less about competition and more about opportunity.
