What does effective high-quality preschool curriculum look like?

A new vision of curriculum quality offers guidance for what a high-quality preschool curriculum looks like.

At a Glance

As preschool enrollments rise, many states are seeking to increase the use of high-quality curricula in their preK programs.
A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine identifies multiple elements of effective preschool curricula.
Decision makers should look for curricula that include a scope and sequence, play-based learning, rich and meaningful content, and materials that address the strengths and needs of students with diverse backgrounds.
Research has shown more positive effects for curricula addressing specific domains or content areas than for more comprehensive curricula.
Multiple groups are working on creating resources and tools to help leaders identify and implement effective curricula.

Preschool enrollment and funding hit all-time highs in 2023-24, with 1.75 million 3- and 4-year-olds enrolled in state programs and total state spending reaching $13.6 billion. However, program quality has not kept up. In 2023-24, only 18 state programs met at least nine of the 10 quality benchmarks set by the National Institute for Early Education Research (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2025). Other research has cited disappointing child outcomes from some state programs (Whitaker et al., 2025).

Many states have sought to increase the use of high-quality curriculum across preK programs (Yoshikawa et al., 2013). Yet, our research has indicated that preschool curriculum decision makers lack the tools to identify high-quality curricula and support effective implementation (Reid & Kagan, 2022; Reid & O’Leary, 2025). In interviews with state leaders and other early education stakeholders, and in focus groups with preschool teachers, we learned that:

The early childhood field did not have a common, research-informed definition of what constitutes a high-quality preschool curriculum that responds to the strengths and needs of all children.
Preschool leaders, directors, and teachers are looking for better tools to support curriculum selection and implementation.
Current curricular options are insufficient to meet the needs of diverse learners in diverse preschool settings.
Commonly used curricula lack evidence of efficacy.

Responding to these needs, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) convened a 13-member committee of diverse early childhood experts to reach consensus on what constitutes a high-quality preschool curriculum, based on a review of research on the science of early learning, preschool instructional quality, and curriculum use. The resulting report, A New Vision for High-Quality Preschool Curriculum, was released in 2024 and is currently being used by many states across the country (NASEM, 2024). We developed a guide to the NASEM study to help readers navigate the wealth of content in the report (O’Leary & Reid, 2025).

The new vision of preschool curriculum quality

The NASEM report envisions a high-quality preschool curriculum that would:

Incorporate perspectives, experiences, cultures, languages, strengths, and needs of a diverse range of children, families, and workforce settings
Include rich and meaningful content that centers child engagement and agency
Include well-designed learning experiences, teaching strategies, objectives and outcomes, and formative assessments, as well as differentiation that responds to children’s ability levels, cultural and linguistic backgrounds, interests, and dispositions
Have a scope and sequence that follows children’s ways of thinking and learning with research-validated learning trajectories
Be culturally and linguistically affirming and include effective supports for children with disabilities
Demonstrate effectiveness in yielding positive school and life outcomes for the children and families they are intended to reach

The report identifies multiple elements of curricular quality and offers domain- and content- focused guidance that pertains to social and emotional learning, executive functioning, language and literacy, math, and science and engineering. These elements of quality include:

Is research- and evidence-based
Emphasizes responsive, intentional teaching
Supports individualized instruction for every child
Supports family engagement
Includes ongoing assessment tools
Provides professional development
Prioritizes child engagement and agency
Includes teacher training content

What these elements look like in practice are subjects of debate in the field. The study calls for the rejection of false dichotomies, such as “play vs. academics,” and a move to both/and thinking, noting that too often in the early childhood field, we pit concepts against one another that need not be in conflict.

Elements of preschool curriculum quality

The report offers guidance and references to research on multiple elements of preschool curriculum quality that state and district leaders, program directors, and teachers can use when choosing a curriculum. We highlight several of them below.

Scope and sequence

Curricula should include activities to be carried out in an order that matches children’s developmental trajectories and progressions for each domain in the curriculum. A wealth of research, especially for literacy and mathematics, reflects what we know about the knowledge and skills that children can learn and the most effective ways to teach skills in sequence, building on prior knowledge and skills.

For example, the report indicates that small-group instruction is more effective when targeted to each child’s letter and sound knowledge and to teach easier letters (such as those in a child’s name and letters such as A, B, and X) before more difficult letters (such as Q, U, and V).

Questions decision makers could ask about scope and sequence include:

To what extent does the curriculum provide an organized framework and sequence for each domain to guide teachers’ decision making regarding the content and progression of children’s development and learning?
If teachers are intended to choose the order of curriculum activities, to what extent are teachers offered guidance on how to implement activities based on research-validated learning trajectories?

Play-based learning

Learning is made meaningful and engaging for children through play. The NASEM report calls for curricula that promote joyful, engaging learning experiences that respond to children’s interests. Play can take several forms, including adult-directed playful activities, guided play, and free play or child-initiated play. Research shows that instruction within play-based activities designed to foster exploration, curiosity, complex language skills, and higher-order thinking are associated with positive long-term effects on children’s learning. Intentional play experiences, especially guided play, within a curriculum have been shown to have significant positive effects on preschool learning.

Questions to ask about how a curriculum emphasizes playful learning include:

To what extent does the curriculum promote joyful, engaged learning and support teachers to implement play, exploration, and pedagogy that respond to children’s interests?
To what extent does the curriculum include a range of play experiences, with an emphasis on guided play, enabling children to be curious, pursue their questions, problem solve, and collaborate?

In-depth coverage of content and learning domains

High-quality curricula should provide rich and meaningful content that centers child engagement and agency and provides guidance for content-specific, rich, and varied learning experiences across the domains of children’s development. We’ve heard one preK program leader discuss this element by drawing a distinction between curricula that have units focused on things (like clothes or boxes) and curricula that have units focused on concepts (like light and shadow or growing and changing). Curricula focused on concepts offer opportunities for deep content exploration and complex thinking.

Questions to ask about coverage of content and learning domains include:

To what extent does the curriculum include progressive steps and individual learning experiences that support teachers’ coverage of content in depth?
To what extent are children given opportunities in the curriculum to use skills they have mastered in more complex ways?
To what extent are children given opportunities to expand their knowledge in new and more complex ways?

Cultural responsiveness

High-quality curricula provide guidance to teachers on how to adapt the curriculum to children’s cultural and linguistic backgrounds. A recent survey found that only 57% of school-based preK said their most-used instructional materials are adequate for incorporating the experiences, perspectives, cultures, or languages of the children in their classrooms (Woo et al., 2025).

The NASEM report notes that curriculum should be culturally and linguistically affirming; provide guidance for teachers on how to adapt lessons and materials to children’s diverse home cultures and languages; and include specific strategies to help teachers interact with children and their families, create culturally responsive learning experiences, and use relevant instructional resources.

Questions to consider on how a curriculum supports culturally relevant, responsive, and sustaining teaching and learning include:

To what extent does the curriculum incorporate the perspectives, experiences, cultures, languages, strengths, and needs of a diverse range of children and families?
To what extent does the curriculum build on children’s prior knowledge and competence acquired in their families and communities?
To what extent does the curriculum provide guidance for teachers on how to adapt lessons and materials to children’s diverse home cultures and languages?
To what extent is cultural responsiveness made visible in the classroom through classroom materials, processes, and products?

Multilingual learners

As the number of multilingual learners in preschool programs grows, high-quality curricula should include tailored supports that recognize their strengths and needs, and that promote their bilingualism. Noting that the most effective language model for multilingual learners is teaching English systematically while actively supporting home language development, the report calls for curriculum materials and assessments to be provided in English, Spanish, and other languages. Curriculum should also include adaptations of instructional practices to scaffold language development and comprehension, as well as materials and learning experiences that reflect and build on the cultures and languages of multilingual children and their families.

For example, high-quality curricula provide opportunities for multilingual learners to interact with their English-speaking peers during open-ended activities and same-language-speaking peers during teacher-led small-group activities. Again, many school-based preK teachers are lacking curricular support in this regard; only 47% said that their most-used instructional materials are adequate for meeting English learners’ needs (Woo et al., 2025).

Some questions that can help gauge whether a curriculum is designed to support multilingual learners include:

To what extent does the curriculum have frequent, responsive, and enriched language interactions (e.g., posing interesting questions, taking turns in extended conversations, and exposure to content-relevant vocabulary and diverse sentence structures)?
To what extent does the curriculum provide opportunities for multilingual learners to interact with English-speaking peers during open-ended activities and same-language peers during teacher-led small group activities?
To what extent does the curriculum support teachers’ understanding of the benefits of early bilingualism and the powerful advantages of speaking more than one language instead of viewing these children as deficient because of limited English skills?

Children with special needs

Another crucial element of curriculum quality is support for children with identified disabilities. Yet, in the survey of school-based preK teachers, only 50% said that their most-used instructional materials are adequate for meeting the needs of these children (Woo et al., 2025).

The report calls for curricula designed for inclusive settings, with evidence-based adaptations and accommodations embedded throughout to facilitate the active engagement and learning of children with disabilities. High-quality curricula provide scaffolded supports that increase opportunities to integrate children with disabilities in general education early childhood settings, fostering healthy peer relationships while meeting their unique developmental needs. The study is essentially calling for the strengths and needs of students with disabilities not to be an afterthought or noted in the margins. Instead, curriculum should support teachers to meet the specific needs of individual children with disabilities in ways that are integrated throughout the classroom’s activities and routines.

Some questions that can help assess the extent to which a curriculum is effectively designed for children with identified disabilities include:

To what extent does the curriculum embed evidence-based adaptations, accommodations, modifications, and supports to facilitate active engagement and learning for children with identified disabilities or developmental delays?
To what extent does the curriculum provide scaffolded supports that increase opportunities for integrating children with disabilities in general education while effectively meeting their unique developmental needs and fostering healthy peer relationships?

The mixed evidence of effectiveness

The study’s call for evidence-based curricula is a particular sticking point for many in the field. Evidence-based or “evidence-validated” means that rigorous evaluation in one or more well-designed research studies has found evidence that the curriculum supports positive child outcomes. The research should also show positive effects for diverse subgroups of children. However, few curricular options fulfill this ideal.

The research so far has found that commonly used comprehensive curricula (or “global” or “whole-child” curricula), which address all or most developmental domains, generally do not have strong evidence of efficacy when compared to teacher- or locally developed curriculum (see, for example, Jenkins et al., 2018; Jenkins et al., 2019). The Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research initiative (PCER) compared commonly used comprehensive curricula to alternatives, such as literacy- or math-focused curriculum and locally developed curriculum and found no effects on children’s skills for the comprehensive curricula (Jenkins et al., 2018).

In contrast, curricula that focus on a particular content area or developmental domain have generally been found to be more effective at improving children’s outcomes within their focused scope. For example, literacy- and mathematics-focused curricula have stronger evidence of improving child outcomes than commonly used comprehensive curricula (Jenkins et al., 2018). Studies have found that math-specific curricula lead to improved math learning (Clements & Sarama, 2007; Jenkins et al., 2018). The evidence is also clear that domain-specific curricula following a scope and sequence have been more successful than comprehensive or locally developed curricula (Clements et al., 2011). Studies further suggest that some domain-specific curricula have greater effects for marginalized groups of children than for non-marginalized groups (Clements et al., 2011; Dumas et al., 2019; Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013).

In sum, domain-specific curricula generally have substantial evidence of efficacy, while commonly used comprehensive curricula generally do not. This imbalance in the efficacy evidence poses a challenge to curriculum decision makers.

Comprehensive and domain-specific curricula

Beyond their uneven evidence of efficacy, comprehensive and domain-specific curricula each have distinct advantages and disadvantages. In comprehensive curricula, all instructional content is theoretically coherent and aligned within one set of curriculum materials, without requiring educators to determine the pacing and integration of multiple curricula. Moreover, most states promote or require the use of comprehensive curricula; Head Start also requires them. However, a disadvantage is that some (though not all) comprehensive curricula do not have a clear scope and sequence.

In domain-specific curricula, instructional materials provide more content depth and focus to support children’s learning. Moreover, the domain-specific curricula with the strongest track record have a scope and sequence intended to align with children’s development (Sarama et al., 2017; Weiland, 2018; Yoshikawa et al., 2013). However, because domain-specific curricula cover a single or limited number of domains, multiple curricula are needed. Finally, domain-specific curricula are not often promoted or formally reviewed by states, despite being commonly used (Woo et al., 2025).

Implementing multiple curricula can be challenging (Reid & O’Leary, 2025). Yet some districts have found ways to combine domain-specific curricula. For example, Boston’s public preK program combined a language and literacy curriculum with a math curriculum and supported implementation with at least biweekly coaching, rendering positive child outcomes (Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013). A study of rural Head Start centers that used a combination of social-emotional and literacy curricula found positive effects on vocabulary, emergent literacy, emotional understanding, social problem solving, social behavior, and learning engagement (Bierman et al., 2008).

What decision makers can do

With these considerations, what can those who make preschool curriculum decisions do to more closely align with the NASEM study’s recommendations? Depending on their policy context, states and districts can take one or more of several approaches, which are not mutually exclusive:

Adopt evidence-based or promising research-based comprehensive curriculum
Supplement a comprehensive curriculum with one or more domain-specific curriculum/curricula
Integrate multiple domain-specific curricula coherently

In addition, some states are developing their own high-quality curricula. Others could consider partnering with curriculum developers/suppliers to improve the quality of their products.

To implement these approaches, state and district leaders generally have an array of policy tools, which also vary by their particular contexts:

Revising their preschool curriculum policy and guidance
Developing or updating preschool curriculum review processes
Assessing quality rating and improvement system curriculum requirements
Providing incentives for using high-quality curriculum, such as offering a curriculum at low or no cost to programs, and providing sustained support for effective implementation

Each of these policy tools can foster informed decisions at the district, program, and classroom level. In focus groups with preK teachers in three states, we found that many teachers are open to the idea of changing to a higher-quality curriculum, but they would want to understand the rationale for the change and how it would benefit their children and to receive sufficient training to implement the curriculum effectively (Reid & O’Leary, 2025). This type of support for teachers is thus critical.

Supporting the use of high-quality preschool curriculum

Several initiatives are underway to help translate the NASEM vision into practice:

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) has convened a cohort of states that are developing strategic plans to improve the selection and implementation of high-quality preK curriculum and develop a “preschool policy road map.”
EdReports is developing reviews of preK curricula to provide objective guidance on the quality of curriculum products. The first reviews are planned to be released later this year.
The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) has developed resources to inform state preschool curriculum policies.
The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) has integrated the findings into its program standards, guidance, and accreditation process.
The National Head Start Association (NHSA) is developing a data system to help Head Start programs access useful information that can inform data-driven decisions to improve early childhood practice and outcomes.

The NASEM study is a forward-looking vision, articulating aspirations for high-quality curricula that will foster rich and joyful learning opportunities for all children. To enhance the research base that supports this vision, an expert advisory group has been convened to develop a research agenda to augment the NASEM study and build on its recommendations. The group’s report will offer concrete guidance regarding an empirical research agenda that will advance the design, implementation, and evaluation of contemporary preschool curricula. Together, these multidimensional efforts will support the field in its efforts to expand children’s access to high-quality public preschool programs.

Note: This work was supported by the Gates Foundation.

References

Bierman, K.L., Domitrovich, C.E., Nix, R. L., Gest, S.D., Welsh, J.A., Greenberg, M.T., Blair, C., Nelson, K.E., & Gill, S. (2008). Promoting academic and social‐emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI program. Child Development, 79, 1802-1817.

Clements, D.H. & Sarama, J. (2007). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summative research on the Building Blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38 (2), 136-163.

Clements, D.H., Sarama, J., Spitler, M.E., Lange, A.A., & Wolfe, C.B. (2011). Mathematics learned by young children in an intervention based on learning trajectories: A large-scale cluster randomized trial. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 42 (2), 127-166.

Dumas, D., McNeish, D., Sarama, J., & Clements, D. (2019). Preschool mathematics intervention can significantly improve student learning trajectories through elementary school. AERA Open, 5 (4), 1-15.

Friedman-Krauss, A.H., Barnett, W.S., Hodges, K.S., Garver, K.A., Duer, J.K., Weisenfeld, G.G., & Siegel, J. (2025). The state of preschool 2024: State preschool yearbook. National Institute for Early Education Research.

Jenkins, J.M., Duncan, G.J., Auger, A., Bitler, M., Domina, T., & Burchinal, M. (2018). Boosting school readiness: Should preschool teachers target skills or the whole child? Economics of Education Review, 65, 107-125.

Jenkins, J.M., Whitaker, A.A., Nguyen, T., & Yu, W. (2019). Distinctions without a difference? Preschool curricula and children’s development. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12 (3), 514-549.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024). A new vision for high-quality preschool curriculum. National Academies Press.

O’Leary, E. & Reid, J.L. (2025). A guide to selecting high-quality preschool curriculum. EdSolutions.

Reid, J.L. & Kagan, S.L. (2022). Reaching for consensus about preschool curricula. Kappan, 104 (2), 50-55.

Reid, J. & O’Leary, E. (2025). Teacher perspectives on curriculum selection, quality, and use in public preschool classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 1-18.

Sarama, J., Brenneman, K., Clements, D.H., Duke, N.K., & Hemmeter, M.L. (2017). Interdisciplinary teaching across multiple domains: The C4L (Connect4Learning) curriculum. In Implementing a standards-based curriculum in the early childhood classroom (pp. 1-53). Routledge.

Weiland, C. (2018). Pivoting to the “how”: Moving preschool policy, practice, and research forward. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 45, 188-192.

Weiland, C. & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children’s mathematics, language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development, 84, 2112–2130.

Whitaker, A.A., Burchinal, M., Jenkins, J.M., Bailey, D.H., Watts, T.W., Duncan, G.J., Hart, E.R., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2025). Why are preschool programs becoming less effective? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 45 (1), 1-11.

Woo, A., Doss, C.J., Shapiro, A., & Steiner, E.D. (2025). How public school-based pre-k teachers use and combine instructional materials. RAND.

Yoshikawa, H., Weiland, C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Burchinal, M.R., Espinosa, L.M., Gormley, W.T., Ludwig, J., Magnuson, K.A., Phillips, D.A., & Zaslow, M.J. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool education. Foundation for Child Development & Society for Research in Child Development.

This article appears in the Spring 2026 issue of Kappan, Vol. 107, No. 5-6, pp. 38-43.