Originally published in K-12 Dive, September 8, 2026
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.