optimal preschool policies for low- income children greg j. duncan school of education university of...
TRANSCRIPT
Optimal Preschool Policies for Low-Income Children
Greg J. Duncan
School of Education
University of California, Irvine
What skills and behaviors should preschools be promoting?
Concrete achievement skills, mostly
How good are we at doing that?
So-so, and impacts are smaller now than 40 years ago
Outline
What policy levers are available?
Funding + regulating quality and curriculum
What’s the bottom line on them?
Center-based care helps; quality regulation doesn’t seem to work; and we’re promoting the wrong curricula in Head Start
Outline (con’t)
Are there successful models out there?
Yes, but only scaled up in one city
What skills and behaviors matter most for success in school?
Skills and Behaviors
Achievement Engagement Problem Behaviors
Description: Concrete math and reading skills
Ability to control impulses and focus on tasks
i) Ability to get along with others
ii) Sound mental health
Example test areas or question wording:
Knowing letters and numbers;
beginning word sounds, word
problems
Can’t sit still; can’t
concentrate; score from a
computer test of impulse control
i) Cheats or tells lies, bullies, is disobedient at school
ii) Is sad, moody
Duncan and Magnuson, 2011
Skill and behavior gaps between high- and low-income kindergarteners and fifth graders (SAT scale)
Series1
-10
0
+106
+53
-27 -30Kindergarten gap 5th grade gap
Math (or ~reading)
achievement
Mental health
problemsAnti-social behavior
School en-gagement
Source: Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten cohort.
Skill and behavior gaps between high- and low-income kindergarteners and fifth graders (SAT scale)
Series1
-10
0
+106
+53
-27 -30
+121
+59
-42-31
Kindergarten gap 5th grade gap
Math or reading
achievement
Mental health
problemsAnti-social behavior
School en-gagement
Source: Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Kindergarten cohort.
Which school-entry academic skills and behaviors best predict later school achievement?
Regress later achievement on:• School-entry math and reading• School-entry engagement, etc.
Controls for:• Child IQ, temperament• Maternal and family measures
Duncan et al. (2007)
Predictive importance for later school achievement (standardized coefficients)
School-entry:Grades 1 to 8 achievement:
Reading .17*
Math .34*
Engagement/attention .10*
Anti-social (- expected) .01 ns
Mental health (- expected) .01 ns
Duncan et al (2007)’s meta-analysis of six longitudinal data sets, five of which control for prior IQ
Marshmallows be damned!
Concentrate first and foremost on early math and literacy skills
Bottom line for ECE and school readiness:
How well do ECE programs promote cognitive skills?
• Evidence from strong evaluation studies published between 1960-2007
• End of treatment effect sizes (vs. longer-run studies)
1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
Average cognitive impact at end of treatmentA
ve
rag
e e
ffe
ct
siz
e i
n s
d u
nit
s
Perry Preschool
Abecedarian
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
Average cognitive impact at end of treatment
Head Start
Av
era
ge
eff
ec
t s
ize
in
sd
un
its
Perry Preschool
Y
Abecedarian
National Head Start
1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
Average cognitive impact at end of treatment
Head Start
Av
era
ge
eff
ec
t s
ize
in
sd
un
its
Perry Preschool
Y
Abecedarian
National Head Start
Boston pre-K
Counterfactual conditions now are much more enriching:
• Maternal schooling much higher• Fewer siblings• More center-based care
Why are impacts of programs from the 60s, 70s and 80s larger than now?
What About Long-Run ECE Effects?
• Short-term impacts on test scores fade over time– Meta-analysis: Decline by .025 standard
deviations each year, or entirely after 8-9 years• Yet, consistent impacts on adult educational
attainment, earnings and crime across diverse ECE programs – Example: Deming (2009) fixed-effect Head Start
study using an index of adult outcomes shows effect size .23 sd
The Mechanism Puzzle• We don’t know why there are long-run
effects on human capital when short-run achievement impacts fade
• BUT evidence suggests that there is not one explanation for all evaluation study findings– It’s not only because of “character” or behavior
• Good News, though: Equifinality--a variety of ECE programs with differing approaches have positive impacts on adult human capital through differing pathways
Policy levers
• Funding streams for programs
• Curriculum requirements
• Process quality regulation (QRIS)
ECE Funding & Enrollment
• Two largest funding streams for ECE: Head Start ($8.5 billion) and State Prekindergarten ($5.1 billion)
• In year before Kindergarten about 75% of children experience ECE in a mix of full- and part-day programs• 90% of top income quintile• 65-69% of bottom three income quintiles
• Lower enrollment among Hispanics, Immigrants, and rural populations
Cost of Expanding ECE Access• Focus on funding bottom three income
quintiles
~ 1.2 million of these children are not in ECE (or private ECE)
• Per child cost of program (mix of part and full day programs): ~$7,500
• New Cost: $9.36 billion (a little more than the current cost of Head Start)
What is minimal ECE short-run effect size needed to recoup $7,500?
• Increase of 1% percentile rank in Kindergarten achievement predicts .5% increase in adult earnings (Chetty et al., 2011)
• Our estimate of present value of lifetime earnings (PVLE) at age 5:
– Lower estimate ~$382,392
– Higher estimate ~$681,544
• Break Even if ECE program impacts are :
– Lower PVLE estimate: 4 percentile points (.10-.15 ES)
– Higher PVLE estimate: 2 percentile points (.03-.08 ES)
How to generate large cognitive impacts?
• Curriculum requirements?
• Process quality regulation (QRIS)?
Types of Curricula
• “Whole-child”
• Content-specific (e.g., math or literacy)
• “Locally-developed”
Whole-child curricula
• Head Start mandates “whole child” curricula
• Creative Curriculum is most popular
• HighScope (Perry Preschool) is 2nd most popular
• No strong evidence on effectiveness
Process Regulation Policy Lever• All but one state have Quality Rating and
Improvement Systems (QRIS)
• Star-type ratings for quality based on structural characteristics and classoom observations (ECERS, CLASS)
• Most run by state family services and not education departments
• No RCT evidence; value-added evidence suggests no substantial impacts for stars, ECRS or CLASS
New RCT Evidence on:
• Which curricula best promote school readiness?
• Do gains in QRIS-type process quality match gains in child outcomes?
The Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research (PCER)
Initiative Study
• provided random-assignment evaluations of 14 early childhood education curricula
• 12 grantees; all used common measures of child outcomes, classroom processes, and implementation quality
• 2,911 children
Math Literacy
Whole-child (Creative Curriculum and HighScope)
Locally-developed
I
II
III
IV
Curricula comparisons in PCER
Note: Comparison IV only involves the Creative Curriculum
I. Literacy vs. HighScope and Creative Curriculum
U North Florida n=250 FL Early Literacy and Learning Model Creative
Florida State n=200 FL Literacy Express HighScopeFlorida State n=200 FL DLM Early Childhood Express HighScopeBerkeley n=290 NJ Ready Set Leap HighScope
University of Virginia n=200 VA Language Focused HighScope
II. Literacy vs. Locally Developed
UT Houston n=200 TX Doors to Discovery Locally Developed
UT Houston n=200 TX Let’s Begin with the Letter People Locally Developed
Vanderbilt n=210 TN Bright Beginnings Locally Developed
III. Math vs. HighScope and Creative Curriculum
Berkeley and SUNY Buffalo n=320
CA, NY Pre-K Math Creative or
HighScope
IV. Creative Curriculum vs. Locally Developed
UNC Charlotte n=310 NC, GA Creative Curriculum Locally
Developed
Vanderbilt n=210 TN Creative Curriculum Locally Developed
Do preschool curricula affect:
• Classroom quality?
• Child school readiness?
Do preschool curricula affect:
• Classroom quality?
• Child school readiness?
Experimental curricula comparisons predicting classroom observational measures at the end of preschool
ECERS total score
TBRS Math
TBRS Literacy
Arnett total
score
I. Literacy v. HighScope and Creative Curriculum
II. Literacy v. Locally developed
III. Math v. HighScope and Creative Curriculum
IV. Creative Curriculum v. Locally developed
Each cell estimate is from a separate
regression
Experimental curricula comparisons predicting classroom observational measures at the end of preschool
ECERS total score
TBRS Math
TBRS Literacy
Arnett total
score
I. Literacy v. HighScope and Creative Curriculum
.25+ -.14 .07 .18(.15) (.16) (.16) (.16)
II. Literacy v. Locally developed .51* .46 .83* .38(.23) (.32) (.37) (.25)
III. Math v. HighScope and Creative Curriculum
.15 1.16* .34 .63(.32) (.52) (.31) (.52)
IV. Creative Curriculum v. Locally developed
.61* .51* .71** .99*(.23) (.23) (.17) (.36)
Do preschool curricula affect:
• Classroom quality?
• Child school readiness?
Experimental curricula comparisons predicting school readiness skills at the end of preschool
Literacy composite
Math composite
Academic composite
Social skills
composite
I. Literacy v. HighScope and Creative Curriculum
II. Literacy v. Locally developed
III. Math v. HighScope and Creative Curriculum
IV. Creative Curriculum v. Locally developed
Experimental curricula comparisons predicting school readiness skills at the end of preschool
Literacy composite
Math composite
Academic composite
Social skills
composite
I. Literacy v. HighScope and Creative Curriculum
.15** -.01 .06 -.13(.05) (.05) (.05) (.10)
II. Literacy v. Locally developed
.15 .14+ .15+ -.18(.09) (.07) (.08) (.19)
III. Math v. HighScope and Creative Curriculum
.05 .35** .25* .14(.10) (.11) (.11) (.17)
IV. Creative Curriculum v. Locally developed
.02 .02 .02 -.03(.08) (.08) (.08) (.23)
Can’t we do even better than this?
• What if you built the curriculum around proven approaches?
Boston pre-K as a model?
• Curriculum combined proven math & literacy and behavioral curricula
• Develop “non-cognitive” skills as a by-product of boosting academic skills
• Strong professional development, including coaching
• Big impacts, but $12K per child
Boston pre-K Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013 Child Development
39
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
.44***
.62***.59***
.50***
Eff
ect
size
Positive “Spillover” Effects on All Three Dimensions of Executive Function Skills
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
.24*** .24***.21***
.28***
.11
40
What does Boston pre-K look like?
6-minute video from restoringopportunity.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URZkGPwcsn0
• Focus most on building achievement skills
• Typical ECE programs generate fairly small impacts, although still may have Benefits > Costs
• QRIS quality systems aren’t promising
• Mandated “whole-child” curricula aren’t either
• Experiment with full-monty curricular approaches
Summary
