Transcript Early Years Policy: What Does Research Tell Us?

Early Years Policy:
What Does Research Tell Us?
CASE and CMPO Conference on Family
Background and Child Development, July 18, 2006
Jane Waldfogel
Columbia University & CASE
Outline
I. What do we know from research about the two major
types of early years policy – parenting programs and
early education programs?
II. What role does quality play and how can we measure it?
III. How do we know whether our policies are effective and
how can local areas and programs be held accountable?
I. What do we know from research?
We would like to know how effective early years programs
are in meeting the twin goals of policy (Childcare Bill):
o improving outcomes for all children
o narrowing gaps between disadvantaged and others
We care about a range of child outcomes including
a. health
b. cognitive development
c. social and emotional development
We also care about outcomes for parents (employment,
gender equity) but the main focus here is on children.
Two main types of policy


-
Parenting programs
parent education (e.g. teaching parents to read w/child)
parent support (e.g. home visiting for new parents)
parent management training (e.g. training for parents of
children with conduct disorders)
Early education programs
School based preschool programs
Center-based programs in the community
Other child care programs
Other program dimensions

-
Programs (whether parenting or early education) also vary by:
Goals of intervention (to improve cognitive development,
behavioral/social, educational, child maltreatment, health, crime)
Focus of intervention (child, parent, family)
Whether program is targeted, and if so, by what criteria
Age of child
Location of services
Services offered, whether services are individual/group
Intensity
Scale
Karoly et al., 2005.
What we know about parenting programs



Parenting matters a lot, particularly in early childhood.
However, the evidence is much weaker when it comes to
the effectiveness of parenting programs.
This is important, because for parenting programs to be
a good investment, we have to know that parenting
matters and that programs change parenting and
improve child outcomes.
Brooks-Gunn & Markman, 2005; Desfarges, 2003; HM Treasury, 2005;
Magnuson, 2004
Parenting programs (continued)


-
-
Parenting programs may change parents’ behavior, but evidence
that parenting programs change child outcomes is less strong.
However, a few programs are exceptional:
Parent education programs (such as Parents as Teachers and
Reach Out and Read) can raise child test scores.
Universal home visiting programs for pregnant women and new
mothers using trained nurses (Olds NFP) reduce child maltreatment
and crime, and improve test scores and behaviour.
Parent management training for parents of children with conduct
disorders (Webster-Stratton) improves children’s behaviour.
Aos et al., 2004; Karoly et al., 2005; Magnuson, 2004; Nelson et al., 2003;
Sweet & Appelbaum, 2004.
What we know from research about early
education programs


-
-
Here, the evidence base is much stronger.
Evidence from US and UK is consistent on 2 points:
school- or center-care increases children’s school
readiness
higher-quality care is more effective than lower-quality
care.
Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Smolensky & Gootman, 2003; Waldfogel, 2004,
2006.
Early education programs (continued)


High-quality preschool programs produce substantial cognitive
gains, particularly for disadvantaged (Currie, 2001; Karoly et al., 1998, 2005;
Waldfogel, 2002, 2006).
Positive results also found for Head Start (Puma et al, 2005) and Early
Head Start (Love et al, 2002) and for more typical preschool programs
(NICHD ECCRN & Duncan, 2003).


Some adverse effects of group child care on child health and
concerns about safety, particularly in low-quality care (Meyers et al.,
2004). But child care may also be protective, reducing physical
discipline and domestic violence (Love et al., 2002; Magnuson & Waldfogel,
in press; Puma et al., 2005).
Programs may also boost mothers’ education, employment, &
earnings (Brooks-Gunn et al., 2000; Karoly et al., 1998).
Early education programs: ECLS-K results



Preschool raises school readiness and lowers retention. Children
who attended pre-K score better in reading (effect size .19 at entry,
but .04 in spring of 1st grade) and are 25% less likely to be retained.
Effects are larger, and longer-lasting, for children in low-instruction
schools (effect size for reading .46 at entry and .25 in 1st grade) and
disadvantaged children (e.g. children whose families received
welfare; effect sizes .28 and .21). Larger effects also found for
children with less-educated parents or language other than English.
But, longer hours in preschool also associated with more behaviour
problems, except for children attending pre-K and K in same school.
Magnuson, Meyers, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2004; Magnuson, Ruhm, &
Waldfogel, in press.
Early education programs: EPPE results




Children who attend preschool enter school at a cognitive
advantage (effect sizes .30 to .45) (Charts E.3-E5).
The longer children had been in pre-school, the greater the
advantage – effect sizes for pre-reading, early number, and
language range from .38 to .63 for those attending 2-3 or >3 years
(Chart 4.1). Children who began pre-school at 2 were ahead of
children who began at 3, and maintained that gain at school entry.
This was not true for the few children who began before 2.
Children who attend pre-school also enter school with better social
and behavioural development, except on dimension of antisocial or
worried (effect size .10). Children who began pre-school earliest (at
2 or below) were the most antisocial or worried.
Children at risk of SEN, children for whom English is an additional
language, and children from some ethnic minority groups gained the
most from attending preschool.
Sammons, Sylva, Melhuish, Siraj-Blatchford, Taggart, & Elliot, 2002, 2003.
EPPE results (continued)



The impact of child, family, and home environment
factors is weaker at school entry than at 3 for some
cognitive outcomes (pre-reading, early numbers) (Table
2.2), although not for social and behavioural outcomes.
There may be composition effects – e.g. children made
more progress in pre-reading if attending centres with
more children from highly educated families.
Children also made more progress in higher-quality
centers, but quality and effectiveness of care is uneven.
II. The role of quality



There is no doubt that quality matters.
Quebec’s $5/day child care policy increased enrollment
in mainly low-quality settings, with adverse effects for
children (Baker, Gruber, & Milligan, 2005; Waldfogel, 2005).
This contrasts with evidence from Argentina’s
kindergarten expansion (Berlinski, Galiani, & Gertler, 2006) and
pre K in US, where schools set high quality standards
and children gain in school readiness (Barnett et al., 2005;
Gormley & Gayer, 2005; Gormley et al., 2005; Magnuson et al., in press).
But how to define and measure quality?

-
In parenting programs, two key aspects are:
Trained staff who follow a specific curriculum (e.g. Olds)
Services delivered with sufficient intensity.
Karoly et al., 2005; Nelson et al., 2003; Olds et al., 2002 and 2004.
Quality in early education programs

Two key aspects (Currie & Neidell, in press; Karoly et al., 2005; Ruopp et al.,
1979; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Smolensky & Gootman, 2003)

-
-
-
are:
teacher education
child/teacher ratio
Other factors that matter:
Intensity of service (Hill et al., 2003; Karoly et al.,2005).
Beginning early; well-educated, trained, and
compensated teachers; small class sizes and high
teacher-child ratios; intensity; and a clear focus on
children’s learning (Galinsky, 2006).
Follow-on programming (this matters more when early
intervention is less intensive; CPC vs. Abecedarian).
III. Accountability: how do we know whether
programs are effective and how can we hold
local areas and programs accountable?
Distinction between process and outcomes:
- Process has to do with what type of program is being
delivered, with what intensity, to which children, etc.
- Outcomes have to do with gains for children, ideally in
comparison to a control group
 In the US, interest in using outcomes data to track
effectiveness and hold local areas and programs
accountable (e.g. Robin Hood, Pew)
- Parallel with what is happening in education system.

Conclusions






Early years policies must address the twin challenge of
improving outcomes for all children, and helping to close
gaps between disadvantaged children and others.
We know from research that early education programs
are effective at meeting these twin goals.
The evidence on parenting programs is weaker.
But, for both types of programs, quality matters.
So the challenge is how to deliver quality, and how to
assess effectiveness on an ongoing basis, so that local
areas and programs can be held accountable.
This may require tracking outcomes, as well as process.
References








Aos, Steve, Roxanne Lieb, Jim Mayfield, Marna Miller, & Annie Pennucci (2004).
Benefits and Costs of Prevention and Early Intervention Programs for Youth.
Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Available from
www.wsipp.wa.gov.
Baker, Michael, Jonathan Gruber, & K. Milligan (2005). “Universal Childcare, Maternal
Labor Supply, and Family Well-Being.” Available from the National Bureau of
Economic Research (NBER) at www.nber.org.
Barnett, W. Steven, Cynthia Lamy, & Kwanghee Jung (2005). “The Effects of State
Prekindergarten Programs on Young Children’s School Readiness in Five States.”
Available from the National Institute for Early Education Research at www.nieer.org.
Berlinski, Samuel, Sebastian Galiani, & Paul Gertler (2006). “The Effect of PrePrimary Education on Primary School Performance. IFS WP06/04.
Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Lisa Berlin, & Alison Fuligni (2000). “Early Childhood
Intervention Programs: What About the Family? “ In Jack Shonkoff & Samuel Meisels
(eds) Handbook of Early Childhood Intervention. 2nd edition. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne & Lisa Markman (2005). “The Contribution of Parenting to
Ethnic and Racial Gaps in School Readiness.” Future of Children 15(1): 139-168.
Currie, Janet (2001). “Early Childhood Intervention Programs: What Do We Know?”
Journal of Economic Perspectives 15: 213-238.
Currie, Janet & Matthew Neidell (in press). “Getting Inside the ‘Black Box’ of Head
Start Quality: What Matters and What Doesn’t?” Economics of Education Review.
References (continued)









Desfarges, Charles with Alberto Abouchaar (2003). The Impact of Parental
Involvement, Parental Support, and Family Education on Pupil Achievements and
Adjustment: A Literature Review. Research Report No. 433. London: DfES.
Galinsky, Ellen (2006). “The Economic Benefits of High-Quality Early Childhood
Programs: What Makes the Difference?”. New York: Families and Work Institute.
Gormley, William & Ted Gayer (2005). “Promoting School Readiness in Oklahoma: An
Evaluation of Tulsa’s Pre-K Program.” Journal of Human Resources 40: 533-558.
Gormley, William, Ted Gayer, Deborah Phillips, & Brittany Dawson (2005). “The
Effects of Universal Pre-K on Cognitive Development.” Developmental Psychology
41(6): 872-884.
Hill, Jennifer, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, & Jane Waldfogel (2003). “Sustained Effects of
High Participation in an Early Intervention for Low-Birth-Weight Premature Infants.”
Developmental Psychology 39(4): 730-744.
HM Treasury (2005). Support for Parents: The Best Start for Children. London: HM
Treasury.
Karoly, Lynn, Peter Greenwood, Susan Everingham, Jill Hoube, Rebecca Kilburn,
Peter Rydell, Matthew Sanders, and James Chiesa (1998). Investing in Our Children:
What We Know and Don’t Know about the Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood
Interventions. Santa Monica: RAND.
Karoly, Lynn, M. Rebecca Kilburn, & Jill S. Cannon (2005). Early Childhood
Interventions: Proven Results, Future Promise. Santa Monica: RAND.
Love, J.M., E. Eliason-Kisker, C. M. Ross, P.Z. Schochet, J. Brooks-Gunn, & D.
Paulsell (2002). Making a Difference in the Lives of Infants and Toddlers and Their
Families: The Impacts of Early Head Start. Washington, DC: U.S. DHHS, ACF.
References (continued)







Magnuson, Katherine (2004). “Parenting Interventions: How to Spend the Marginal
Dollar?” Presentation to IPPR and HM Treasury Conference, March, 2004.
Magnuson, Katherine, Marcia Meyers, Christopher Ruhm, & Jane Waldfogel (2004).
“Inequality in Preschool Education and School Readiness.” American Educational
Research Journal 41(1): 115-157.
Magnuson, Katherine, Christopher Ruhm, & Jane Waldfogel (in press). “Does
Prekindergarten Improve School Preparation and Performance?” Economics of
Education Review.
Magnuson, Katherine & Jane Waldfogel (in press). “Pre-School Enrollment and
Parents’ Use of Physical Discipline.” Infant and Child Development.
Meyers, Marcia, Dan Rosenbaum, Christopher Ruhm, & Jane Waldfogel (2004).
“Inequality in Early Childhood Education and Care: What do We Know?” In Kathy
Neckerman (ed). Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Nelson, Geoffrey, Anne Westhues, & Jennifer MacLeod (2003). “A Meta-Analysis of
Longitudinal Research on Preschool Prevention Programs for Children.” Prevention &
Treatment 6. Available from
http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume6/pre0060031.html
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network and Greg Duncan (2003). “Modeling the
Impacts of Child Care Quality on Children’s Preschool Cognitive Development.” Child
Development 74: 1454-1475.
Reference (continued)






Olds, David, JoAnn Robinson, Ruth O’Brien, Dennis Luckey, Lisa Pettit, Charles
Henderson, Rosanna Ng, Karen Sheff, John Korfmacher, Susan Hiatt, & Ayelet Tahmi
(2002). “Home Visiting by Paraprofessionals and by Nurses: A Randomized,
Controlled Trial.” Pediatrics 110(3): 486-496.
Olds, David, JoAnn Robinson, Lisa Pettit, Dennis Luckey, John Holmberg, Rosanna
Ng, Kathy Isacks, Karen Sheff, & Charles Henderson (2004). “Effects of Home Visits
by Paraprofessionals and by Nurses: Age 4 Follow-Up Results of a Randomized
Trial.” Pediatrics 114(6): 1560-1568.
Puma, M., S. Bell, R. Cook, C. Heid, & M. Lopez (2005). “Head Start Impact Study:
First Year Findings.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Ruopp, Richard, Jeffrey Travers, Frederic Glantz, & C. Coelen (1979). Children at the
Center: Final Report of the National Day Care Study. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Assoc.
Sammons, Pam, Kathy Sylva, Edward Melhuish, Iram Siraj-Blatchford, Brenda
Taggart, & Karen Elliot (2002). “Measuring the Impact of Pre-School on Children’s
Cognitive Progress over the Pre-School Period.” Technical Paper 8a, The Effective
Provision of Pre-School Provision (EPPE) Project. London: Institute of Education,
University of London.
Sammons, Pam, Kathy Sylva, Edward Melhuish, Iram Siraj-Blatchford, Brenda
Taggart, & Karen Elliot (2003). “Measuring the Impact of Pre-School on Children’s
Social/Behavioral Development over the Pre-School Period.” Technical Paper 8b, The
EPPE Project. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
References (continued)







Shonkoff, Jack P. & Deborah A. Phillips (eds) (2000). From Neurons to
Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Smolensky, Eugene & Jennifer Gootman (eds) (2003). Working Families and Growing
Kids: Caring for Children and Adolescents. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Sweet, Monica & Mark Appelbaum (2004). “Is Home Visiting an Effective Strategy? A
Meta-Analytic Review of Home Visiting Programs for Families with Young Children.”
Child Development 75(5): 1435-1456.
Waldfogel, Jane (2002). “Child Care, Women’s Employment, and Child Outcomes.”
Journal of Population Economics 15: 527-548.
Waldfogel, Jane (2004). “Social Mobility, Life Chances, and the Early Years.”
CASEpaper 88. Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of
Economics.
Waldfogel, Jane (2005). “Family Work Arrangement and Child Outcomes.” Paper
presented at Expert Roundtable on Child Development, Ottawa, Canada, December
8-9, 2005.
Waldfogel, Jane (2006). What Children Need. Cambridge & London: Harvard
University Press.