A detailed discussion of the kinds of facilities, spatial arrangements, materials, and curricula that might be chosen for a parental education program or a center-based program is beyond the scope of this guide. Clearly, these will all differ a great deal among programs, depending on whether the focus is on the prenatal, infant, toddler, or preschool period. This section discusses basic standards for physical facilities and content and methodology. Criteria for selecting caregivers or teachers and the training of caregivers are discussed above.

In addition, the discussion of quality in tab 4 provides some general standards to keep in mind in designing a center-based ECCD service. It emphasizes the importance of involving parents and other stakeholders in defining goals and standards. And it makes an argument for the relative and changing nature of quality, and thus of standards. One conclusion is that we should avoid allowing the excellent to be the enemy of the good by setting initial standards so high that they exclude many good child care arrangements.

The physical facilities
Most physical standards for nursery or preschool settings come from the United States or Europe. Allowance needs to be made in applying these standards in Latin America and the Caribbean, where conditions are different. Rather than set standards in terms of square meters or other specifics, commonsense criteria can be used. Both common sense and experience suggest that at any stage of a child's development, an environment should be as clean, safe, and attractive as possible. It should include sanitary facilities. It should provide children with stimulation. It should include an area for children to rest as well as an area to play. And if meals are to be served, the facilities for preparing the meal should be clean. Studies of the effectiveness of ECCD programs suggest that the physical facilities are far less important than the choice of caregiver or teacher and the content and form of activities.

Content and methodology
A wide range of curricula have been tested and validated in different settings. There is much debate over which curriculum is best, but science and experience seem to confirm that children learn best when they are actively involved in constructing their own knowledge. This active role for children is embodied in the Montessori and High/Scope curricula, for example. Curricula and methods that stress a passive role for young children and a dominating role for teachers should be avoided.

Curricula should be integral, with attention to physical, social, and emotional development as well as intellectual. And curricula should be pertinent, or relevant, in two senses. First, the curriculum should be appropriate to the developmental stage of the child. (Moving a first-grade curriculum down into a preschool, for example, would not be correct because the developmental levels are different.) Second, a curriculum should contain elements of the local culture and should support children's connections to the immediate community. But at the same time the increasingly interdependent world requires curricula that expand views and can help a child function effectively in a broader community.