early childhood education: what works and what doesn’t

27
Early Childhood Education: What Works and What Doesn’t Greg J. Duncan University of California, Irvine March 7, 2018

Upload: others

Post on 30-Dec-2021

3 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Early Childhood Education: What Works and What

Doesn’t

Greg J. DuncanUniversity of California, Irvine

March 7, 2018

Policy levers for Early Childhood Education (ECE)

• Fund slots

• Process quality regulation (e.g., QRIS)

• Curriculum requirements

• Aligning ECE and K-12

Lay of the land for ECE in California

• Major programs and funding streams

• Quality standards

Head Start

CA Preschool

Transitional Kindergarten

Prop 98

General Fund

Are we at capacity?

Age Percent of CA eligible population enrolled in

subsidized ECE

0-3 14%3 year olds 38%4 year olds 69%

• Policy option: fund more slots –what does the evidence say?

A number of recent ECE evaluations suggest that funding the right kinds of

slots could increase school readiness

Evidence on funding more slots:

Other policy levers for promoting school readiness

• Process quality regulation (e.g., QRIS)

• Curriculum requirements and coaching

Other policy levers for promoting school readiness

• Process quality regulation (e.g., QRIS)

• Curriculum requirements and coaching

• Policy option: improve quality with more regulation or better curricula – what does the evidence say?

Process Regulation Policy Lever

• Star-type ratings for quality based on structural characteristics and classroom observations (ECRS, CLASS)

• No strong evidence that process quality improves school readiness substantially

Curriculum Policy Lever

Types of curricula

• Whole-child (used in 75% of Head Start and 40% of pre-K classrooms; called “Constructivist” by some)

• Content-specific (e.g., math or literacy) (used in ~20% of Head Start and pre-K classrooms; not “Direct Instruction”)

• Locally-developed

Curriculum Policy Lever

Types of curricula

• Whole-child (used in 75% of Head Start and 40% of pre-K classrooms; called “Constructivist” by some)

• Content-specific (e.g., math or literacy) (used in ~20% of Head Start and pre-K classrooms; not “Direct Instruction”)

• Locally-developed

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50Di

ffere

nce

in S

tand

ard

Devi

atio

n U

nits

Impacts of Various Curricula on Academic Outcomes

Whole child

curricula vs. locally developed

Source: Nguyen’s (2016)

Math vs.

whole-child

Literacy vs.

whole child

Math + literacy

vs. whole-child

ns

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50Di

ffere

nce

in S

tand

ard

Devi

atio

n U

nits

Impacts of Various Curricula on Academic Outcomes

Whole child

curricula vs. locally developed

Source: Nguyen’s (2016)

Math vs.

whole-child

Literacy vs.

whole child

Math + literacy

vs. whole-child

ns

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50Di

ffere

nce

in S

tand

ard

Devi

atio

n U

nits

Impacts of Various Curricula on Academic Outcomes

Whole child

curricula vs. locally developed

Source: Nguyen’s (2016)

Math vs.

whole-child

Literacy vs.

whole child

Math + literacy

vs. whole-child

Curriculum Policy Lever

• Mandated (whole-child) curricula do not appear to work

• Stronger evidence that academically-focused curricula do promote school readiness

Best bets for policies that promote school readiness

For short-run impacts, worry about curriculum and less about classroom structure

Go for a play-based academically-oriented curriculum that also develops socioemotional skills – Boston PreK as a model?

Short- vs. Long-run Effectiveness:

Can today’s programs produce long-run

gains???

Probably not without close coordination with K-

12 schooling

.63 sd

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

4 5 6 7 8 9 10Age

Building Blocks Math Impacts

Solid marker p<.05

.63 sd

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

4 5 6 7 8 9 10Age

Building Blocks Math Impacts

Solid marker p<.05

Fade out in cognitive impacts in 67 ECE studies

0.23

0.10 0.090.05 0.06

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0 0-1 1-2 2-4 4+

Effe

ct si

ze in

sdun

its

Years since end of treatment

Solid marker denotes p<.05. Source: Li et al. (2017)

End of program

Huge disappointment

Why the fadeout/catch-up?

• Need to teach basic skills AND provide early-grade “charging stations” for pre-K skills

• Need curriculum alignment and coaching how to teach children with different math skills

• Academic skills taught in pre-K are quickly learned in K

Non-solutions:

• Turn preschool into a stressful, worksheet-laden, regimented mimi-elementary school

Possible ways of sustaining ECE impacts:

• Train preschool and early-grade teachers to teach numeracy and literacy

• Use proven play-based pre-K curricula

• Integrate and (co-locate?) preschool and K-3 instruction

• Focus on Common Core-type learning goals and use preschool to prepare children for them

• Deborah Stipek, SRCD Social Policy Brief, 2017

Greg J. Duncan

[email protected]

School of EducationUniversity of California, Irvine