Transcript In the Ocean

Jane Waldfogel
Columbia University &
CASE, London School of Economics
UCLS & IFAU Conference, Stockholm, October 25, 2012
There are several ways that policies influencing the care and
education children receive in early childhood might affect their
short- and long-term outcomes.
 Policies might have direct effects on children’s human capital,
e.g. by altering children’s exposure to educational experiences.
 Policies might have indirect effects, e.g. by altering parental
employment or family income.
 As James Heckman and others have emphasized, returns might
be higher to investments made early in life, because early
childhood might be a sensitive period and because early
investments might raise the productivity of future investments.

A growing number of studies have examined the long-term
effects of large-scale/universal early childhood policies.
 Reviewing the evidence (in “Long-Term Effects of Early
Childhood Care and Education”, published in Nordic
Economic Policy Review, 2012), Christopher Ruhm and I find:
- Only limited evidence that expansions of parental leave have
led to long-term improvements in educational or labor
market outcomes for children.
- Much more consistent evidence that expansions of early
childhood education yield benefits at school entry, in
adolescence, and in adulthood, with particularly favorable
results for disadvantaged children.

Obtaining data that are appropriate, sufficiently detailed,
and with large enough Ns
- An important advance here is the use of registry and
administrative data
 Using methods appropriate for causal inference in the face of
issues such as omitted variable bias and endogenous policy
enactment:
- difference in difference (DD)
- instrumental variables (IV)
- regression discontinuity (RD)

The answer will depend on:
- Whether and how the reforms affect maternal time at home,
as well as mediating factors like family income
- Who is covered and influenced by the reform
- When in childhood the reforms occur
- What the counter-factual is


So, the effects of maternity leave reforms might not be
consistent across countries or situations.




DK: Rasmussen (2010) examines a reform that extended leave
from 14 to 20 weeks in 1984; leave use increased but no effect
on high school enrollment or GPA.
GE: Dustmann & Schonberg (2008) analyse the effects of 3
reforms, extending paid leave from 2 to 6 months (1979) and
from 6 to 10 months (1986), and unpaid leave from 18 to 36
months (1992); no effect on school or labor market outcomes
SW: Liu & Skans (2010) study a reform extending leave from 12
to 15 months in 1988; no effect on grades or test scores except
for children of well-educated mothers.
NO: Carneiro, Loken, & Salvanes (2010) find positive effects ...




NO: Carneiro, Loken, & Salvanes (2010) study a 1977 reform that
increased paid leave from 0 to 4 months and unpaid leave from
3 to 12 months. The reform decreased high school dropout
rates (largest effects for children of the least educated mothers
and those who would have taken the least leave pre-reform),
and raised IQ and height (for men). Why?
Analysis focuses on eligible women, rather than all new
mothers
Policy extended leave in the first year of life and without
reducing family income (unlike some other reforms)
Counter-factual was informal child care rather than high-quality
child care as in many European countries in later years


CN: Baker & Milligan (2008, 2010, 2011) examine an extension
of paid maternity leave from 6 to 12 months in 2000. They find
increased time at home (3 mos) and breast-feeding (1 mo) but
no effect on child health or development at 24 mos or age 45. Haeck (2011) also the reform and finds effects vary
depending on the method used.
US: Washbrook, Ruhm, Waldfogel, & Han (2011) find state
maternity leave extensions increase mothers’ employment,
leave-taking, and use of child care in year post-birth, but find
no effect on child health or development at age 4.



We look at large-scale/universal policies (not model
programs like Perry or compensatory ones like Head Start).
What we expect will depend on:
Whether and how policies affect care arrangements, as well
as mediating factors like parental employment and income
Who is covered and influenced by the policy
When in childhood the policy occurs
What the counter-factual is
So, the effects of early childhood care and education policies
may not be consistent across countries or situations.



DK: Bingley & Westergaard-Nielsen (2011) analyze preschool
expansions of late 1970s/early 1980s. Preschool density is
positively associated with completed schooling (especially
for disadvantaged children) and earnings at age 22-30.
FR: Dumas & Lefranc (2011) study preschool expansions of
1960s/1970s and find positive impacts on grade repetition,
test scores, high school graduation, and adult wages,
especially for non-advantaged children.
NO: Havnes & Mogstad (2011) find that post-1975 preschool
expansions raised years of schooling, college attendance,
labor force participation, reduced dropout and welfare
receipt, especially for children of low-educated mothers.
Many studies here, generally finding:
Preschool or kindergarten improves outcomes for schoolage children or adolescents in several countries (Germany,
India, Norway, Sweden, Uruguay, US) although not CN
- Effects are largest for (or restricted to) children of
immigrants (Germany, Norway, Sweden, US) or children of
low-educated or low-SES mothers (Norway, Uruguay, US)

-



CN: DeCicca & Smith (2011) find that entering kindergarten
earlier increases grade repetition and decreases 10th grade
math and reading scores.
GE: Spiess, Büchel, & (2003) find that attending kindergarten
has no effect for German citizens but is associated with
higher academic track placement for immigrants.
IN: Hazarikaand & Viren (2010) find that attending preschool
leads to higher school enrollment and faster grade
progression.

NO: Black, Devereux, Loken, & Salvanes (2010) find that
preschool attendance at age 3-5 has a positive effect on
children’s future national exam grades, with the largest
impacts for children from low-income families. Drange &
Kjetil (2010) find that free preschool for 5-year olds in two
districts in Oslo raises school achievement of children of
immigrants (girls only). Drange, Havnes, & Sandsør (2011)
find no effect of preschool attendance on average academic
performance but compulsory preschool raises test scores of
children with immigrant backgrounds.
SW: Fredriksson, Hall, Johansson, & Johansson (2010) find
that preschool attendance raised language scores for
immigrants, but had no effects on another test or academic
secondary school completion
 UR: Berlinski, Galiani, & Manacorda (2008) find that
preschool expansions raised school enrollment and grade
completion.
 US: Dhuey (2011) finds that kindergarten expansions
reduced grade retention among Hispanic children, nonEnglish speakers, children of immigrants, and children from
low SES households (but not Black children).



ARG: Berlinksi, Galiani, & Gertler (2009) analyze a 1993-99
preschool expansion and find that it increased language and
math test scores, and improved attention, effort, class
participation, and discipline in 3rd grade, especially for
children in areas with high poverty rates.
CN: Baker, Gruber & Milligan (2008) find adverse effects of
Quebec’s universal $5-a-day child care subsidy program on
outcomes for children under age 5; see also Lefebvre,
Merrigan, & Roy-Desrosiers (2011).
DK: Esping-Andersen et al. (2011) find that attending
preschool is associated with higher test scores at age 11,
particularly for low-income children; Datta Gupta &
Simonsen (2010a, b) find no effects of preschool on
behavior.
 FR: Caille (2001) finds that children starting preschool at 2
are less likely to be retained than those beginning at 3,
especially for children of immigrants; however, Goux &
Maurin (2008) find no effects of earlier entry into preschool.
 GE: Felfe & Lalive (2011) find that center-based care
provided to 0-3 year olds positively affects social
development, language skills and school grades at ages 210, especially for children from low-SES families.


US: Several studies of pre-K programs find positive effects,
at least in short-term, and particularly for disadvantaged
children (Barnett et al., 2010; Figlio & Roth, 2009;
Fitzpatrick, 2008a; Gormley et al., 2005, 2008; Magnuson,
Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2007a, b; Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2010;
Wong et al., 2008)

US: Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel (2007a, b) find that
children who attended preK enter school with better
reading and math skills (particularly for disadvantaged)
some of which persist to 5th grade but also more behavior
problems which persist to 1st grade (although not if they
attended preK at their current school). Figlio & Roth (2009)
find that attending preK reduces behavior problems,
suspensions, and retention in first few years of school,
especially for disadvantaged. Fitzgerald (2008a) finds that
Georgia’s universal preK program raises 4th grade reading
and math scores and reduces grade retention for
disadvantaged children.

US: There have now been several RD studies of universal
prekindergarten (preK) programs. Gormley and co-authors
(2005, 2008) find that Oklahoma’s universal preK program
had positive effects on literacy, math, and socioemotional
development, especially for the disadvantaged. Wong et al.
(2008) find generally positive effects on language, literacy,
and math in their 5-state study. Weiland & Yoshikawa (2012)
find positive effects of Boston’s preK program. Barnett et al.
(2010) review other state studies and report generally
positive effects of preK on children’s school readiness.
Benefits may be hard to measure or confined to specific
sub-groups. Carneiro et al. (2010) found no effects when the
analysis included parents likely to be ineligible, but did find
beneficial effects when estimates focused on women likely
to be influenced by the reforms
 Leaves may have been sufficiently long, before reforms,
to yield most possible benefits to children. Strongest
evidence of long-term gains is in Carneiro et al.’s (2010) study
of Norwegian expansion of paid leave from 0 to 4 months.
 Both points are relevant when considering policy changes
in the US, where rights to paid leave are almost completely
absent, and leave that is available is short.

Preschool expansions are found to yield short-, medium-,
and long-term benefits in virtually all studies.
 Gains tend to be largest for (or are restricted to)
disadvantaged or immigrants.
 Results in some U.S. studies differ, perhaps because high
quality subsidized child care had already been available to
low-income children through Head Start. Mixed or negative
results in Canada probably occurred because child care
subsidies increased the use of low-quality informal care.
 So, quality matters – obtaining favorable consequences
requires an institutional structure where high quality nonparental care is available and affordable.


-

-
More long-term studies:
many interesting policy innovations have not been in place
for a sufficient period of time to observe effects with
confidence
longer elapsed time periods would also permit the study of
potential mediating and moderating factors.
Research on a broader set of outcomes:
for example, health, family functioning, criminality, social
cohesion, or happiness.
What is the goal of early childhood education -- to promote
female employment, gender equity, social cohesion or inclusion,
child development, social mobility?
 For many countries, the current focus is to:
- Improve child development and
- Promote social mobility, by reducing disparities.
 Given this focus, quality of provision and measures to reduce
disparities become central concerns.
 Ludovica Gambaro, Kitty Stewart, and I are examining this across
countries in a current project (funded by Nuffield Foundation).


-

Many countries are grappling with questions such as:
What does quality mean in early childhood education?
How can it be measured?
What kind of settings/providers can deliver it?
What kind of staff are required? What training/qualifications
do they need?
What staff/child ratios are appropriate? What group sizes?
These questions tend to be particularly challenging with
regard to children age 0-2, for whom early childhood
education is less developed.

-
Countries are grappling with questions here as well:
Are there barriers to participation by low-income families?
What about immigrant families?
If barriers do exist, how can they be addressed? Should
incentives should be put in place to increase participation?
The focus on disparities also raises questions about resource
allocations:
- When resources are limited, should early childhood services
be offered first (or only) to disadvantaged children?
- Or are there larger benefits to universalism?

We have learned a lot from the new wave of studies about
the long-term benefits of both parental leave and early
childhood education.
 But challenges, and unanswered questions, still remain.
 From a policy perspective, the greatest challenge in most
countries remains how to ensure that disadvantaged
children fully participate in and benefit from early childhood
education.
 There also remain some questions about what quality
provision looks like, particularly for younger children.
 And, we still have more to learn about the effects of early
childhood education and care on a broader set of outcomes.


Christopher Ruhm and Jane Waldfogel (2012). “Long-Term
Effects of Early Childhood Care and Education.” Nordic
Economic Policy Review.

Ludovica Gambaro, Kitty Stewart, and Jane Waldfogel (in
progress). Equal Access to Early Childhood Education and
Care.