Investing in Effective Early Education: Getting New York Back on a Path to Success. Steve Barnett, PhD

Transcription

1 Investing in Effective Early Education: Getting New York Back on a Path to Success Steve Barnett, PhD

2 Why invest in ECE? First 5 years lay foundations for later success: Language and academic abilities Social development and character The window for change does not close after age 5, but catch up is costly Preschool interventions can enhance long-term learning and yield high economic returns

3 Potential Gains from ECE Investments Educational Success and Economic Productivity Achievement test scores Special education and grade repetition High school graduation Behavior problems, delinquency, and crime Employment, earnings, and welfare dependency Smoking, drug use, depression Decreased Costs to Government Schooling costs Social services costs Crime costs Health care costs (teen pregnancy and smoking)

4 ECE Programs 0-5 in the US: Impacts in 123 studies since 1960 All Designs HQ Designs HQ Programs Effects (1sd)= percetn of ach. gap Treatment End Ages 5-10 Age >10 Age at Follow-Up

5 Key Lessons Preschool produces lasting gains Immediate must be large to produce meaningful lasting gains Some programs are much more effective than others Educational quality is key to success

6 What works? Intentional teaching Balanced curriculum Cognitive and Socio-Emotional Individualization Small-group and one-on-one Well-educated, adequately paid staff Strong supervision and monitoring

7 New York Pre-K Enrollment Trends

8 New York Pre-K State Per Pupil Spending Trend

9 How Does New York Compare? Despite Universal Pre-K New York has fallen to 9 th for enrollment at age 4 (24 th at age 3) NY has fallen to 24 th for state funding per child Inadequate compensation for teachers is a problem State pays for only 2 ½ hours State capacity for oversight and support is lacking Across the Hudson River in NJ is court-ordered model program.

10 NJ s Urban Pre-K Transformation Serves all 3 and 4 yr. olds in 31 high-poverty cities Certified Teachers paid public school salaries whether public or private 6 hour educational day plus wrap-around full day/year Maximum class size of 15 students State funding per child is $12,730 for the school day Evidence-based curricula Most served by private providers under contract State Dept. of Ed. continuous improvement system

11 NJ Raised Quality in Public and Private Centers 60 Percentage of Classrooms ECERS-R Score (1=minimal, 3=poor 5= good 7=excellent) 00 Total (N = 232) 08 Total (N = 407)

12 Results of Increased Quality in NJ Pre-K Gains in language, literacy, math 2 years have twice the effect of 1 2 years closed 40% of the readiness gap Effects sustained through 2 nd grade Grade repetition cut in half at 2nd grade

13 Newest Results from State Pre-K Tennessee and Rhode Island: Positive gains in randomized trials the gold standard method Rhode Island: Larger gains for poor, but all gain Boston Pre-K strong effects on language, literacy, math, and executive function Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Michigan: all finding long-term effects Chicago full-day larger effects on language and math

14 Conclusions Quality pre-k is proving a good public investment around the nation Many states have passed NY as UPK has languished Enrollment growth has stalled Funding in real dollars has declined State capacity to support and oversee has declined Quality is a key to high returns Quality requires adequate funding and sustained efforts at continuous improvement by state and districts

15 References 1. Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333, Burger, K. (2010). How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), Frede, E. C., & Barnett, W. S. (2011). New Jersey s Abbott pre-k program: A model for the nation. In E. Zigler, W. Gilliam, & W. S. Barnett (Eds.), The pre-k debates: current controversies and issues (pp ). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing. 5. Gormley, W., Phillips, D., Newmark, K., Welti, K., & Adelstein, S. (2012). Social-emotional effects of early childhood education programs in Tulsa. Child Development, 82, Havnes, T. & Mogstad, M. (2011). No Child Left Behind: Subsidized Child Care and Children's Long-Run Outcomes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2): Hill, C., Gormley, W., & Adelstein, S. (2012). Do the short-term effects of a strong preschool program persist? Working Paper No. 18. Washington, DC: Georgetown Unversity, CROCUS. 8. Lipsey, M., Farrran, D., Bilbrey, C., Hofer, K., & Dong, N. (2011). Initial results of the evaluation of the Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K Program. Nashville: Vanderbilt University. 9. Neidell, M., & Waldfogel, J. (2010). Cognitive and noncognitive peer effects in early education. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(3), Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B. (2004). The final report: Effective pre-school education. Technical paper 12. London: Institute of Education, University of London. 11. Waldfogel, J., & Zhai, F. (2008). Effects of public preschool expenditures on the test scores of fourth graders: Evidence from TIMMS. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14, 9 28.