Early%20Years%20Policy:%20What%20Does%20Research%20Tell%20Us?

1
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

2
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?

3
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.

4
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

5
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.

6
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

7
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 childrens behaviour.
• Aos et al., 2004 Karoly et al., 2005 Magnuson,
  2004 Nelson et al., 2003 Sweet Appelbaum,
  2004.

8
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 childrens
  school readiness
• higher-quality care is more effective than
  lower-quality care.
• Shonkoff Phillips, 2000 Smolensky Gootman,
  2003 Waldfogel, 2004, 2006.

9
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).

10
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.

11
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 gt3
  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.

12
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.

13
II. The role of quality

• There is no doubt that quality matters.
• Quebecs 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 Argentinas
  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).

14
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.

15
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 childrens learning (Galinsky, 2006).
• Follow-on programming (this matters more when
  early intervention is less intensive CPC vs.
  Abecedarian).

16
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.

17
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.

18
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 Childrens 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 Pre-Primary
  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 Doesnt?
  Economics of Education Review.

19
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
  Tulsas 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 Dont
  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.

20
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/pr
  e0060031.html
• NICHD Early Child Care Research Network and Greg
  Duncan (2003). Modeling the Impacts of Child
  Care Quality on Childrens Preschool Cognitive
  Development. Child Development 74 1454-1475.

21
Reference (continued)

• Olds, David, JoAnn Robinson, Ruth OBrien, 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
  Childrens 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
  Childrens Social/Behavioral Development over the
  Pre-School Period. Technical Paper 8b, The EPPE
  Project. London Institute of Education,
  University of London.

22
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, Womens
  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.