Early Learning Centers (Dorakids, Mebae, Copel): Is There Any Point in Sending Your Child?

Why this topic is on your mind

Many of you have probably been given information about an early learning center in a corner of a shopping mall or at a shop near a station.

• There are courses you can join from age 0, and you are told “it’s better to start early”
• Some families among your parent friends send their children, and the children seem to enjoy it
• You want to give your child “systematic stimulation” at home too, different from daycare or kindergarten
• Trial lessons are free or low-cost, so the hurdle is low

Around age 3 is just the time when it is easy to feel “maybe it’s time to start something”. On the other hand, monthly fees are by no means cheap, and it is not unusual for the yearly total to easily exceed ¥100,000. “If it works, I’d love to send my child, but I’m afraid of deciding on atmosphere alone”: many of you have probably arrived at this article with feelings like that.

Here, without excessive recommendation or criticism, we set out the positioning of the main early learning center brands, findings from preschool research abroad, how much is “not known” in research on Japanese early learning centers, and checkpoints for deciding as a family.

Positioning of the main early learning center brands

First, here is a rough map of the comprehensive early learning centers often seen in Japan. Center names are in no particular order.

1. Dorakids

   Shogakukan's comprehensive early learning (ages 1-6)

   Run by Shogakukan-Shueisha Productions. For ages 1-6, mainly located in shopping malls. Once a week for 60-90 minutes; monthly fees roughly ¥8,000 to the ¥10,000 range. A style of 'learning while playing together with everyone'.

2. Mebae Kyoshitsu

   Small groups focused on thinking skills (ages 1-6)

   Centers throughout Japan. Small classes, with a curriculum that emphasizes the ability to think and the ability to talk. Monthly fees about ¥7,000-9,000 + materials fees.

3. Copel

   Yoji Copel / Copel Plus (age 0 to elementary school)

   A comprehensive center in the lineage of right-brain education. A high-density curriculum including flash cards and recitation. Monthly fees around ¥15,000, relatively high. Copel Plus, specializing in developmental support, is a separate business.

4. TOE Baby Park

   Centered on parent-and-child lessons from age 0

   Focused mainly on ages 0-3, with parenting coaching for mothers built in. Monthly fees around ¥15,000 + materials fees.

5. Baby Kumon

   Home-centered, with a visit to the center once a month (ages 0-2)

   The Kumon Institute of Education's program for ages 0-2. Designed so that materials are used at home, with a meeting with the teacher once a month. Monthly fees roughly ¥2,200-2,400, overwhelmingly cheap.

6. Little Club, Kodansha Kodomo Kyoshitsu, etc.

   Comprehensive early learning by publishers

   Materials that make use of publishers' content assets. Availability varies by area. Monthly fees about ¥7,000-10,000.

A feature is that “curriculum density”, “degree of parental involvement”, and “fees” differ greatly between brands. Even under the same label of “early learning center”, Baby Kumon at ¥2,400 a month and Copel at ¥15,000 a month differ by more than ¥150,000 a year in spending. Which to choose is an area where the household budget and ease of access, not just “effects”, are big deciding factors.

What does research on preschool programs abroad say?

While research on “early learning centers themselves” is scarce, abroad there are well-designed long-term studies of systematic preschool programs. The two most often cited are the following.

Heckman et al. of the University of Chicago (2010)

A study in which the Nobel laureate in economics Heckman and colleagues reanalyzed long-term follow-up data from the HighScope Perry Preschool Program, carried out in Michigan in the US in the 1960s (providing high-quality preschool education on weekday mornings, five times a week, for two years to low-income African American children aged 3 to 4)

reported that the participant group did better than the control group, including on socioeconomic outcomes up to age 40 (education, employment, crime rates, health), and that the social return on investment (ROI) was also high.

Reynolds et al. of the University of Minnesota (2011)

A large-scale quasi-experimental study following participants up to age 28 in the Chicago Child-Parent Center (CPC) program, run by Chicago Public Schools in the US since the 1980s (providing a combination of preschool education, support in the lower grades of elementary school, and parent participation to children aged 3 to 9 in low-income areas)

showed that the participant group had significantly higher rates of high school graduation, college enrollment, and employment, and lower drug use and arrest records, than the non-participant group.

These are representative studies showing that “systematic educational programs in early childhood have long-term effects”. However, there are some important reservations when reading the effects of Japanese early learning centers from them.

In education research, there is another suggestive study.

Stipek et al. of Stanford University (1995)

An intervention study of children aged 4 to 6 comparing “didactic” preschools emphasizing acquisition of knowledge and skills with “child-centered” play-based preschools, measuring both academic achievement and motivation

showed a tendency that in didactic programs, academic achievement (especially knowledge of letters and numbers) rises in the short term, while children’s “motivation to learn, confidence, and curiosity” decline. It is a study that pointed out a trade-off that is uncomfortable for today’s parents: “cramming early makes them grow, but chips away at the desire to learn”.

Marshall (2017)

A review paper comparing alternative models of early childhood education such as Montessori, Steiner, and Reggio Emilia

concludes that each educational model has its own philosophy and some findings, but evidence that “one model is clearly superior to others” is limited. The shared understanding of research in the field is that in early childhood education, “whether it matches the family’s values”, “the quality of teachers”, and “fit with the child” are more likely to affect results than the type of method.

How much is “not known” in research on Japanese early learning centers

This is the honest part of this article.

The Benesse Educational Research and Development Institute (2022)“Report of the 6th Survey on the Lives of Young Children” (published 2022, covering about 3,000 mothers of children aged 0 to 6 in the Tokyo area) continuously surveys the actual use of early learning centers and extracurricular activities. It provides data on the actual situation of what Japanese families spend money and time on, but it is not a comparative study of “how later development differed between children who did and did not attend early learning centers”.

In other words, the current situation is:

• Research on high-density preschools abroad: long-term effects (but a different target population)
• Comparative research on preschool teaching styles: cramming raises short-term achievement ↑ but motivation ↓
• Research on Japan’s private early learning centers themselves: almost none

So in principle, no one should be able to say in the name of research that “if your child attends a Japanese early learning center, these effects will definitely appear”. This is not a criticism but a fact we want to share honestly as a research gap across the whole field.

“Ways of using it that have meaning” and “ways of using it with little effect”

With the research gap in mind, here is “if you do send your child, how to use it so that it has meaning”.

The reality of monthly fees and household budget sense

Monthly fees for early learning centers vary quite a lot by brand and area. The rough going rates are as follows.

• Home-centered types such as Baby Kumon: in the ¥2,000 range per month
• Standard comprehensive early learning such as Dorakids, Mebae Kyoshitsu, and Kodansha Kodomo Kyoshitsu: ¥7,000 to the ¥10,000 range per month
• High-density programs such as Copel and TOE Baby Park: around ¥15,000 per month

In addition, there are often an enrollment fee (¥10,000-15,000), materials fees (¥10,000-30,000 a year), and facility maintenance fees, so actual spending is usually 20-30% more than the headline monthly fee. As annual spending, it is realistic to expect ranges such as around ¥60,000 for inexpensive courses, ¥120,000-150,000 for standard courses, and over ¥200,000 for high-density courses.

If you spend this much before school age, options such as “filling out the family bookshelf with the same budget”, “putting it toward a picture book subscription or educational toys”, or “using it for family outings and experiences” are, in research terms, fully equal investments. “Going to a center” is not the only right answer.

Checkpoints for choosing a center

For families thinking “even so, let’s try a trial first”, here are points worth checking when visiting or attending a trial.

• Flexibility of make-up classes: whether you can do a make-up when your child misses because of illness or family plans, and how many times and by when. Young children get sick easily, and centers that are strict here effectively offer worse value.
• Separated from parents or with parent participation: many brands have parent participation for ages 0-2 and separation from parents from age 3, but check whether it suits your child’s stage of separation anxiety.
• Materials quotas and extra sales: some centers keep recommending expensive sets of materials after you join. It is reassuring to ask clearly “how much does it cost per year apart from the monthly fee?”
• How often teachers change: at centers where the teacher in charge changes frequently, it is hard for the relationship to build up for the child.
• Whether they explain in terms of “how your child is doing” rather than “effects”: rather than centers that emphasize effects with “coming here will make your child smart”, teachers who talk concretely about “the moments when your child looked happy today” are often more trustworthy over time.
• How easy it is to take a break or quit: under the terms, how many months in advance you must give notice to quit. It is reassuring to check reviews for how strongly they try to keep you.

The parts you can substitute at home

Much of what happens at early learning centers is of a kind that can also be provided at home in a different form. “Not attending a center = not enough stimulation” is not the case at all.

• Stimulation through words and stories: reading picture books aloud, trips to the library, conversation before bed. Ten minutes of reading aloud every day adds up to far more cumulative time than a weekly lesson.
• Stimulation for hands and space: blocks, LaQ, magnetic tiles, simple puzzles. The experience of moving concrete objects with one’s own hands cannot be replaced by flash cards.
• Physical movement: outdoor play in the park, walking on slopes and steps, ball games. Basic movement experience builds the “container for concentration” for later learning.
• Rules and social skills: simple board games, card games, family chore rotas. Experiences of “waiting your turn” and “accepting losing” can be built up at home too.
• Interaction with third parties: children who attend daycare or kindergarten already have daily interaction with third parties, children of the same age and teachers. The need to “secure additional” social experience outside the home “at a center” is not necessarily large.

Dialogue: for mothers who are unsure

Dialogue: for mothers already sending their child

Summing up

Since this has been long, here is a tight summary at the end.

• Research on high-density preschools abroad (Perry Preschool, Chicago CPC) shows long-term effects, but the targets were environmentally disadvantaged groups, and the intensity of intervention is completely different from Japanese early learning centers
• Comparisons of preschool teaching styles suggest a trade-off: cramming raises short-term achievement ↑ but lowers motivation to learn ↓
• There is almost no independent research on Japan’s private early learning centers themselves. Companies’ published data have not excluded selection bias
• If you do send your child, positioning it as “fun time for parent and child” and “a place to share the isolation of child-rearing” makes it easier to feel satisfied
• Typical monthly fees for standard courses are ¥7,000-15,000, and annual spending can reach ¥120,000 to over ¥200,000. Putting the same budget toward picture books, experiences, and family time is an equal option
• When choosing a center, always check the flexibility of make-ups, whether there are extra sales, the stability of teachers, and how easy it is to take a break
• The parts you can substitute at home are large. If your child attends daycare, they are already getting plenty of social experience

As written in the article on the pitfalls of early education, choices in early childhood are not something where “if you don’t do it, you can never make up for it”. A good option if it fits your family, not essential: I think the closest to reality is to think of early learning centers as a service with exactly that position.

Research details

Primary sources

StrongHeckman, Moon, Pinto, Savelyev, & Yavitz2010Journal of Public Economics, 94(1-2), 114-128

Study design: A reanalysis by the Nobel laureate in economics Heckman and colleagues of randomized experimental data (random assignment) from the HighScope Perry Preschool Program in the 1960s.

Participants: 123 low-income African American children aged 3 to 4 in Ypsilanti, Michigan, US (58 in the intervention group, 65 in the control group). The intervention group received high-quality preschool on weekday mornings, five days a week, plus a weekly home visit, for two years.

Main results: In follow-up to age 40, the intervention group did better than the control group in education, employment, and income, with lower crime rates and welfare receipt. The economic social return on investment (ROI) was calculated at 7-10% a year.

Limitations: A small sample, and a study in a specific low-income area of the US in the 1960s. The intensity of 20 or more hours a week for two years is a completely different intervention condition from Japan’s private early learning centers at once a week for 60-90 minutes. The target was also “environmentally disadvantaged children”, and the same effects will not necessarily appear in children from already favored families.

StrongReynolds, Temple, Ou, Arteaga, & White2011Science, 333(6040), 360-364

Study design: A large-scale quasi-experimental study following participants up to age 28 in the Chicago Child-Parent Center program, run since the 1980s.

Participants: About 1,500 children aged 3 to 9 living in low-income areas of Chicago (989 in the intervention group, 550 in the comparison group). The intervention combined preschool education + support in the lower grades of elementary school + parent participation.

Main results: The intervention group had significantly higher rates of high school graduation, college enrollment, and employment than the comparison group, and fewer drug-related problems and arrest records. A dose-response relationship, in which longer participation in the program brought larger effects, was also confirmed.

Limitations: Not a randomized experiment but a quasi-experimental design based on the area of desired enrollment, so the influence of unobservable family factors cannot be fully excluded. The target was low-income groups in the US, so generalizing to private early learning centers that Japanese middle-class families join voluntarily must be done carefully.

MixedStipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn1995Child Development, 66(1), 209-223

Study design: An observational + intervention study comparing didactic and child-centered preschools.

Participants: About 227 children aged 4 to 6 in the US. Teaching styles were classified across several preschools and kindergartens, and both achievement tests and motivation tests were given.

Main results: In didactic programs, scores were high on short-term achievement indicators such as knowledge of letters and numbers, while indicators of motivation to learn, confidence, and curiosity tended to decline. Even after controlling for family background, an association in which teaching style affects motivation was shown.

Limitations: It has a strong observational aspect, and which style of class a child attends depends on the family’s choice, so the influence of unobservable family factors remains. Data from the US in the 1990s may not apply directly to the Japanese context.

MixedMarshall2017International Journal of Early Years Education, 25(4), 354-366

Study design: A literature review comparing alternative models of early childhood education: Montessori, Steiner, and Reggio Emilia.

Scope: Sets out the philosophical background, curriculum structure, and findings of existing research for each educational model.

Main results: Each model has its own philosophy and some reports of effects, but evidence that “one particular model is clearly superior to others” is limited. Alignment with the family’s values, the quality of teachers, and fit with the child are more likely to affect results.

Limitations: The reviewed studies vary greatly in design, and even with the same model, the quality of implementation differs from classroom to classroom. The author points out the limits of comparability.

MixedBenesse Educational Research and Development Institute2022第6回 幼児の生活アンケート レポート [Report of the 6th Survey on the Lives of Young Children]

Study design: A repeated cross-sectional survey of mothers of children aged 0 to 6 in the Tokyo area (Tokyo, Kanagawa, Chiba, Saitama) (1st round 1995, 6th round 2022).

Participants: About 3,000 mothers of children aged 0 to 6. Asked about the actual use of early learning centers and extracurricular activities, child-rearing at home, ICT use, and so on.

Main results: Continuously provides data on the actual situation of the rates and types of extracurricular activities in early childhood in Japan and how time is spent at home. Can be referred to as a social benchmark for rates of using early learning centers and typical monthly fees.

Limitations: A survey of the actual situation, not research evaluating the effects of activities. “Developmental differences between children who did and did not attend” cannot be revealed by this survey. The target is limited to the Tokyo area and may differ from the situation in other regions.