Transcript PPT 2- Early Childhood
Early Childhood Education
Getting it Right from the Beginning
2012 Community Indicators Symposium Human Capital Development and Education:
Early Childhood, K-12, Workforce Preparedness
February 10, 2012
Early Childhood Education (ECE)
Overview of Presentation
Why is this Important? What makes up the ECE System?
Early Childhood Education (ECE) How do you measure Quality and Impact?
ECE Community Indicators and Policy Recommendations
Why is this Important?
Why is this Important?
Number of Children in Region Growing Rapidly
Brazoria Harris 600 000 500 000 400 000 300 000 200 000 100 000 0 383,397 Chambers Liberty Fort Bend Montgomery Galveston Waller 553,414 Source: Annie E. Casey Kids Count Data Book, http://datacenter.kidscount.org/
Why is this Important?
Increase in Women in Workforce
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 72% 67% 63% 62% 61% 60% 59% 57% 56% 55% 54% 52% 51% 30% 20% 10%
28% 33% 37% 38% 39% 40% 41% 43% 44% 45% 46% 48% 49%
0% 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Women Men
Why is this Important?
Over Half of Young Children in Care of
Other Adults while Parents Working
Children at Home 43%
237,968 young children Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005-2009 average
Children in Care of Others (Working Parents) 57%
315,446 young children
Why is this Important?
Science, Research, ROI
Infant Brain Development Longitudinal Research on Impact of High Quality ECE ROI on Children, Families ROI on Community
Science and Research
Nature and Nurture: Synapse formation in the first three years
Source: Core Concepts in the Science of Early Childhood Development, Center for the Developing Child, Harvard University, C.A. Nelson (2000)
Science and Research
Nature and Nurture: Disparities in vocabulary begin at 18 months, significant by 36 months
1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 16 20 24 Child’s Age (Months) Source: Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children. 28
College Educated Working Class Parents Low Income Parents
32 36
Longitudinal Research
Abecedarian Project provided high quality child care in early years, tracked children through adulthood
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 66% 34% 67% 51% 36% 13% Never Repeated Grade High School Graduation by age 19 Students in High Quality ECE College Attendance Control Group
Return on Investment
Lifetime Effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40 Showed 16 to 1 ROI
IQ of 90+ at 5 years 28% 67% Graduated HS 60% 77% Earned $20K/yr. at 40 40% 60% 55% Arrested 5+ times by 40 36% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Control Group Program Group Source: HighScope Perry Preschool Study: Lifetime Effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40 (2005)
Return on Investment
60-80% of long-term benefits of quality early education go to society
Benefits to Individual Increased earnings
40% 20% Abecedarian Study 60%
Benefits to Society
Crime-cost Savings
Reduced Special Education and Welfare Increased Income Taxes
80% Perry Preschool Study
Return on Investment
Higher ROI for Early Investments
Source: James J. Heckman, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate in Economics, University of Chicago, 2008
Return on Investment
Higher ROI for Early Investments
“The fiscally responsible thing to do is to invest more resources in early childhood education. It is something for which we must find the dollars because it saves money as early as kindergarten and builds equity throughout the life of the child. Early childhood education creates a taxpayer who reduces his or her own tax burden through greater productivity, healthier living and stronger contributions to society.”
Source: James J. Heckman, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate in Economics, University of Chicago, 2008
Return on Investment
Public Expenditures Compared to Brain Development
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Age
% of Total Brain Growth % of Public Expenditure Source: R. Haveman and B. Wolfe, “The Determinants of Children’s Attainments: A review of Methods and Findings,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 33, December 1995, pp. 1829-1878. Updated in 2005.
What makes up the Early Childhood Education System?
The ECE System: 5 Components
Home Care, Informal Care, Child Care, Pre-K and Head Start
Cared for by 21.6% Early Childhood Education System 35.0% Prekindergarten 9.8% Child Care (center/ home-based) 23,6% Cared for by Parents* 43,4% Pre-kindergarten 9,8% Head Start 1,6%
* This could also be another family member or other person who has custody and primary responsibility for a child.
Unregulated Care
Parents, Relatives, Neighbors, Friends – 65%
Regulated ECE
35%of all Children, 0-5, in Texas Gulf Coast participate in regulated ECE System
Systems within ECE
Child Care (center/ home-based) Pre kindergarten Head Start Total in Region
# of Children*
132,143 54,037 8,822 195,002 Within Regulated System. . .
Head Start 4,6% Pre-K 28.0% Child Care 67.4%*
*The number of children in child care in our region is based on an estimate using national Census Bureau surveys as the state does not track this number.
Regulated ECE
Three systems
Child Care • Most children • Lowest standards • Highest cost to families • Limited subsidies • Serves all ages, birth to after school care Head Start • Fewest children • High standards • No charge to families • Serves 3-4 year olds Pre-K • All eligible children served • Teachers highly educated, no standard for ratios • No charge to eligible children • Serves mainly 4 year olds, some 3s
Regulated ECE System
Head Start – Funded by Federal Government
3-4 year olds* Purpose: Reduce impact of poverty on children Most comprehensive * Very small amount of funding for “Early Head Start” to serve infants, toddlers
Regulated ECE System
Head Start – Children Eligible, Children Served
700 000 600 000 500 000 400 000 300 000 200 000 100 000 0 660 912 97 894 601 319 67 591 293 539 48 013 303 161 California Texas Eligible New York Served Source: Head Start Program Fact Sheet, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009 Data; Annie E. Casey Kids Count, 2009 Data Florida 35 390
1 of 9 eligible children served Access based on first come, first served Different than Social Security, Medicare High level of accountability
The Regulated ECE System
Public Prekindergarten – Local ISD, State, Federal
Primarily 4 year olds* Purpose: Academic preparation for school Part of public school system, degreed teachers * 3 year olds served if spaces available, or if eligible for Preschool Program for Children with Disabilities (PPCD)
Regulated ECE System
Child Care System – Primarily funded by tuition, limited federal subsidies
Infants through school-age care (after-school) Purpose: Care and education of children who have working parents Range of quality – custodial care to very high quality early education
Regulated ECE System
Child Care System – Cost of Care in Texas
$10 000
Average annual cost of child care centers rival cost of Texas Public University
$8 000 $6 000 $6 450 $5 350 $7 850 $6 600 $7 743 $4 000 $2 000 $0 Home-based Child Care Infant Center-based Child Care Preschool College Annual Tuition Public University Source: “Child Care in America: Fact 2011, National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, 2011
How do you Measure Quality and Impact in ECE?
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECE
Two Approaches
Process Environment Use of Curriculum Professional Development Assessment of Child Development Structural Director, Teacher Education Teacher to Child Ratios, Group Sizes Adherence to State Regulations National Accreditation •
Process Indicators are more thorough, require observation of program to track progress
•
Structural indicators represent standards of systems that can either be verified through observation or through self-report
•
Certain structural indicators positively correlate to child well-being, school outcomes
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECE
State Strategy for Measuring Quality
Nearly one-half of states and District of Columbia have a Quality Rating and Information System (QRIS) that provides parents and state officials with process indicators on ECE system Texas in the process of developing framework for QRIS
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECE
Example: Process Indicator, College Bound from Birth
Assessment of Quality of Classroom Environment % of Classrooms in Low, Minimal, Good/Excellent Categories Over Time
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30%
46%
20%
31% 23%
10%
23% 0%
0%
Inadequate Minimal Good+ Inadequate Minimal Baseline- 2008 2011 77% Good+
Early Childhood Education
Example: Structural Indicator, Teacher Education
45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 35% 10% 5% 0% Programs with Teachers at "Excellent" Rating Source: Collaborative for Children, QualiFind Database, 2011
Child Care Programs in Texas Gulf Coast
25% Programs with Teachers at "Good" Rating 40% Programs with Teachers at "Minimal" Rating
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECE
Step Toward QRIS
• Research-based • Oregon Model • “Consumer Report” layout Established Indicators Collect data • Self-Report • State and National data • Excellent • Good • Minimum Standards Rate programs Update • • • On-line updating Confirm Validate sample Source: Collaborative for Children, QualiFind Database, 2011
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECE
QualiFind Indicators
Education or Specialized Training of Staff Teacher : Child ratio, Group Sizes QualiFind Licensing Compli ance Accredita tion Status Staff Tenure Family Involve ment
Early Childhood Education Indicators
Early Childhood Education
Community Indicators: Teacher Education
N = 1,441 programs 130,132 children 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 504 35% “Excellent”
360 576
Child Care Source: Collaborative for Children, QualiFind Database, 2011 Minimal N = 95 programs 8,986 children 93 98% “Excellent”
1
1 Head Start Good Excellent N = 294 programs 54,347 children 294 100% “Excellent” PreK
Early Childhood Education
Trend Line – Teacher Education Teachers Rated “Excellent” Slowly Growing
1 000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 564 programs 31%
January 2010 – June 2011 represents time that Federal Stimulus Funding Invested in Gulf Coast Region with focus on improving teacher education and training
891 programs 49% Child Care PreK Source: Collaborative for Children’s QualiFind Early Childhood Education Database, 2011
Early Childhood Education
Community Indicators: Teacher Education
Standards Matter
Head Start, Pre-K High Child Care Low
Access to Resources Matters
Stimulus Quality Imp.
Indicator Moving in Right Direction
Child Care Market Forces?
Early Childhood Education
Community Indicators: Teacher to Child Ratios
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% N=1,652 12% 53% 35% N=105 67% 29% Child Care Minimal Source: Collaborative for Children’s QualiFind Early Childhood Education Database, 2011 4% Head Start Good Excellent N=434 20% 39% 41% PreK
Early Childhood Education
Community Indicators: Teacher to Child Ratios
500 400 300 200 100 0
Programs with “Excellent” Teacher-to-Child Ratios Slightly Increasing, then Worsening
410 Programs 354 Programs 355 Programs Child Care PreK Source: Collaborative for Children’s QualiFind Early Childhood Education Database, 2011
Early Childhood Education
Community Indicators: Teacher to Child Ratios
Standards Matter
Head Start High Child Care, Pre-K Low
Resources Matter
Pre-K cut in funding Child Care – fewer resources w/recession
Indicator Moving in Wrong Direction
Economic pressure toward min. standards Cuts to ISD budgets – more children/class
Public Policy Recommendations
Public Policy Recommendations
Quality Rating System • Includes all systems of ECE • Incorporates observations of programs Expand Access to High Quality ECE Programs • Many parents have no choice but to choose low quality programs because it is all that they can afford.
Strengthen standards for child care • Standards are outdated, reflect “custodial” care rather than high quality early education Source: Center for Houston’s Future Early Childhood Education Advisory Committee
Public Policy Recommendations
Improve Teacher/Child Ratios Replace $200M cut from Pre-K in 2011 • Standards are outdated, reflect “custodial” care rather than high quality early childhood education • Funding cuts have impacted the quality of Pre K programs, more children in classrooms, fewer teachers’ aides Fund federal programs so all eligible served • Expand funding so all children who are eligible for Head Start and child care subsidies are served Source: Center for Houston’s Future Early Childhood Education Advisory Committee
Extra Slides
Regulated ECE System
Head Start Issues
Long way from serving all eligible children – grant vs. eligibility based Significant strides have been made in improving teacher standards Opportunity for Improvement: Offer extended day options for working parents
Regulated ECE System
Public Prekindergarten Issues
Only one of three ECE systems that has goal of serving all eligible children State cut funding for Pre-K by $200M in 2011 session Pre-K only grade that districts have had to apply for portion of funding, not enough for all districts Opportunity for Improvement: Teacher to Child Ratios, extended day options for working parents
Research on Impact of Pre-K
Impact of Oklahoma’s Universally Available, High Quality Prekindergarten Program on School Readiness
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 53% 21% 79% 54%
Evaluation shows significant gains by all sub-groups for children participating in program compared to non-participants.
49% 35% Black Hispanic Letter Word Identification Native American Applied Problems Source: Gormley, W.T., et.al (2004). The Effects of Oklahoma’s Universal Pre-K Program on School Readiness. Washington, DC: Center for Research on Children in the United States, Georgetown University. 52% White 6%
Regulated ECE System
Evaluation of HISD Pre-K Program, 2011
16,644 Kindergarten Students in HISD in 2010-2011 Only 13% (2,137) Not Eligible for Pre-Kindergarten
Attended Pre-K, 11,318 Did Not Attend, 5,326
Not Eligible; 2 137 Eligible; 3 189 Source: HISD Research Department, 2011
Regulated ECE System
Evaluation of HISD Pre-K Program, 2011
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 54 Results of Stanford in Kindergarten Assessment in English 61 45 51 43 60 Reading HISD PreK Non-Econ. Disadv. - No PreK Math Econ. Disadv - No PreK
Standardized Scores: Below 34: Below Average 35 – 65: Average Above 65: Above Average
Regulated ECE System
Evaluation of HISD Pre-K Program, 2011
80 60 40 20 0 65 Results of Aprenda in Kindergarten Assessment in Spanish 53 53 72 61 62 Reading HISD PreK Non-Econ. Disadv. - No PreK Math Econ. Disadv - No PreK
Standardized Scores: Below 34: Below Average 35 – 65: Average Above 65: Above Average
Regulated ECE System
Child Care represents huge family expense
Child Care is 32% of monthly salary 2008 Federal Poverty Guideline for 3-person family: $17,600/yr Minimum wage was $6.55/hr in 2008, $13,624/yr
“No frills” Monthly Budget – Family of 3 (1 adult, 2 children)
Housing Food
Child Care (High quality)
Medical Insurance and out-of-pocket Transportation Other necessities (clothes, furniture, household items) Payroll & Income Tax Payments/Credits
Total (monthly) Hourly Wage Needed Annual Income Needed Income as % of Poverty Level (2008)
Source: Center for Public Policy Priorities, National Center for Children in Poverty, 2009
Amount
$768 $356
$918
$212 $285 $288 -$33
$2,903 $17 $34,836 198%
Regulated ECE System
Child Care System – Subsidy for Low Income Families
Approximately 1 of 6 eligible families served due to limited resources from child care block grant
Impact of Subsidy on Net Family Resources: Houston
$15 000 $10 000
Loss of subsidy
$5 000 $0 ($5 000) ($10 000)
Impacts ability to hold job
($15 000) No subsidy Source: Family Resource Simulator, Houston, Texas, 2008, National Center for Children in Poverty; www.nccp.org
Subsidy Breakeven
Regulated ECE System
Child Care Issues
Standards reflect “custodial care” mentality, rather than high quality early education Tuition-based funding system means families make choices on care based on what they can afford Like Head Start, limited funding for child care subsidies serve few (1 of 6 eligible) Opportunity for Improvement: Standards for Teacher training, Teacher to Child Ratios,
Demographics – Harris County
Difference in Demographics Depending on Age
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 69% 18% 11% 2% 42% 25% 27% Ages 65-95 Anglo Black Ages 30-46 Hispanic Source: Center for Public Policy Priorities, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census 6% 22% 18% Asian/Other 54% Ages 0-5 6%