Tag Archives: early childhood education

Relationships Matter: How States Can Include Teacher-Student Interaction in ECE and ESSA Plans

This blog post originally appeared at New America as part of the Early Learning and ESSA Blog Series

Pre-k class at the Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany, photo by Jocelyn Biggs

Relationships and interactions between teachers and students make a big difference in the classroom. Teacher-child interactions form the cornerstone of children’s academic and social emotional development, especially in early learning classrooms. As states look for ways to measure and improve educational quality beyond test scores, the federal Every Student Succeeds Act provides an opportunity to consider data on teacher-child interactions. Washington, DC, and Louisiana provide two examples of states exploring this promising avenue, with some valuable lessons for their peers who might be considering teacher-child interaction measures, or other non-traditional quality measures that include or emphasize the early years.

So, what should other states take away from DC and Louisiana?

Pick a reliable tool and get to know it well

States, localities, and Head Start grantees are currently using tools designed to reliably measure teacher-child interactions in ECE settings. Both DC and Louisiana use the Classroom Observation Scoring System (CLASS), a well-researched observational tool widely used in early childhood and Pre-K settings, with versions available through high school. Both states took several years to pilot the implementation of this tool to learn more about teacher-child interactions before using it as a quality measure. DC has used CLASS for several years as a citywide Pre-K performance measure in a sample of 3- and 4-year-old classrooms. The DC Public Charter School Board also uses CLASS for Pre-K in its formal Performance Management Framework, the accountability tool for charter schools. Similarly, after the Louisiana Department of Education chose CLASS as a common statewide measure of early learning quality, the state piloted CLASS for several years, working with local early childhood networks to improve local implementation and understanding along the way. Continue reading

If Trump’s Serious About Championing Women and Families, He Should Start by Supporting Home Visiting

In celebration of NAEYC’s “The Week of the Young Child” April 24 – 28, Bellwether looks at programs that improve the lives of young children.

Earlier this week, Ivanka Trump got boos and jeers in Berlin when she called President Trump a “champion for supporting families” and an “empowerer” of women. This has been her line since the campaign trail, often accompanied by a deeply flawed child care plan.

If Ivanka wants to start making those talking points a reality, and maybe even get cheers from the early childhood community, she should talk to her father about home visiting programs.

In these programs, pregnant women and families with young children at-risk of poverty or other factors receive regular at-home visits designed to encourage healthy parenting, support maternal health and child development, and connect families with other services. Home visiting is growing, but currently these programs reach only about 5 percent of the over 3 million American infants and toddlers living in poverty.

Supporting home visiting programs sounds like something everyone can agree on, right? So why are they missing from Trump’s budget proposal and Ivanka’s “women and children” speeches?

On one hand, it is hard to imagine President Trump supporting any program that was a cornerstone of Hillary Clinton’s campaign promises in early childhood, not to mention the fact that federal home visiting grants were originally created as part of the Affordable Care Act. On the other hand, with a solid evidence base across multiple program models and geographies, home visiting has garnered praise and support from both sides of the aisle in recent House hearings and Senate briefings, and it’s the kind of cost-efficient preventative program that can save money in the long term.

While home visiting programs like these have been around for decades, when the federal Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting grant program (MIECHV) was established in 2010, it helped spread home visiting across the country. There are 18 home visiting models that meet federal evidence standards, and most of these allow for lots of variation, so home visiting programs can take many forms on the ground. Here are two examples:

  • Last summer, my Bellwether colleague Marnie Kaplan described the HIPPY program  after Hillary Clinton touted it. HIPPY focuses on preschool-aged children, and offers families training and materials to support early literacy and language development in weekly home visits.
  • Another highly-rated program is Healthy Families America (HFA), which primarily serves families with infants (birth to 12 months), and focuses on preventing child abuse and neglect by encouraging nurturing parent-child relationships. Home visitors screen for child development and family risk factors, teach families about child development, promote health and nutrition, and help parents develop positive knowledge, skills, and attitudes towards parenting.

Home visiting programs are not a replacement for more intensive early care and education programs, like Head Start, but they can provide important supports for families in a cost-efficient and flexible way. Part of the beauty of home visiting programs is that they are locally-run and administered, and are flexible to a variety of community contexts — for example, training home visitors within rural communities can create jobs, ensure community-responsive services, and reach more people than a single brick-and-mortar social services site.

While the Trump administration has been quiet on these programs so far, hopefully the combination of strong evidence, local control, and cost-efficiency could protect programs from looming budget cuts, or even see them grow in the future. If Trump commits support and resources for programs that work for children and families, that could be something to applaud.

A Very American Story: Access Determined by Zip Code

rug

We’ve accepted in American political discourse and rhetoric that “a zip code should not determine a child’s future.” But our public policies have a long way to go, especially in the domain of early childhood education, one of the most effective policy strategies for ensuring low-income children are prepared for academic and lifelong success. In fact, a report published last month by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) reveals that an eligible child’s access to Head Start — the only federal pre-k program — is constrained by where he/she resides.

Head Start was first instituted in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’’s War on Poverty. The program served low-income children long before most states adopted state-funded pre-k programs and specifically aimed to ameliorate the effects of growing up in poverty through comprehensive child development programs. Started as a niche summer program that served 560,000 children, today Head Start serves nearly one million children across the country year round.

NIEER’s State(s) of Head Start is the first report in Head Start’s 50-year history to examine Head Start enrollment, funding, quality, and duration across the states. It reveals that only 18% of low-income three-year-olds and 21 percent of low-income four-year-olds receive Head Start services. Additionally, it shows that access to Head Start varies greatly by state. For example, among three- and four-year-olds living in poverty, 100% of eligible children in North Dakota attended Head Start programs in 2014-2015, whereas just 16% of eligible children in Nevada were enrolled in Head Start programs. In other words a poor three- or four-year-old in Nevada has less than a one in five chance of attending Head Start, while a poor child in North Dakota has a 100% chance of attending Head Start.

Even less three-year-olds living in poverty across the country have access to Head Start. The number of enrolled three-year-olds as a percent of children in poverty ranges from 2.7% in Nevada to 13% in the District of Columbia. The picture for low-income children in Nevada is concerning. There is a large population of children living in poverty, but the state has the lowest percentage of children living in poverty enrolled in Head Start of any state. In certain states the lack of Head Start spots would be less concerning because they have robust state pre-k programs that serve a high percentage of low-income children. This is not the case in Nevada.  Nevada’s public pre-k program is not serving these vulnerable children. Overall, only 6.72% of four-year-olds in the state are enrolled in Head Start or state funded pre-k.

Further complicating access inequities is the fact that states with large Hispanic populations are receiving less money per child enrolled in Head Start. Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, and Texas — all states with large Latinx populations — receive less funding per Head Start child than the national average.

In the report, authors Barnett and Friedman-Krauss write: “We can think of no reason that poor children in one state are less deserving of a strong early childhood program than those in another.”

So what actually explains these inequities? Continue reading

Starting Earlier than Pre-K Provides More Benefits For Disadvantaged Kids

Earlier this week there were a flurry of news articles covering Nobel-prize winning economist James Heckman’s latest report“The Lifecycle Benefits of an Influential Early Childhood Program.” The report presents compelling evidence that offering high-quality intensive early childhood education experiences to children living in poverty dramatically improves their long-term health, education and earnings.

Some in the education community were surprised by the amount of press coverage the report received and interpreted the study as simply reinforcing the existing body of pre-k research. While the study does build on Heckman’s previous analysis of the health benefits of the same two programs, what many people don’t understand is that Heckman is examining intensive early childhood programs which served children from eight weeks old through age five, not one or two years of pre-k programs. This misunderstanding reinforces Heckman’s argument that public discussion has ossified around the idea that public pre-k for four year olds is the best solution to ameliorate the effects of childhood poverty. In fact, that is not true. Heckman’s reseach shows more intensive early childhood programs produce even more dramatic impacts which persist into adulthood.

Heckman’s latest study analyzes the lifetime impact of two early childhood programs from the 1970s: the Carolina Abecedarian Study (ABC) and Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE), which served disadvantaged children from 8 weeks to age five. Heckman and his co-authors examined the long-term impacts of the programs across multiple dimensions, including education level, personal earnings, parental earnings, crime, and health effects. The study finds that the program produced a 13% rate of return (or $6.30 for every $1 spent). This return includes reduced crime, better health effects (lower rates of diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc.) higher education levels and higher incomes for the participants and their parents. Previously, Heckman found that the Perry Preschool program (which served disadvantaged three- and four-year-olds) produced a 7-10% return. Along with a higher return on investment, the new ABC and CARE analysis finds graduates had higher IQs at age 21 than control group counterparts. In comparison, the participants in the Perry pre-k program did not display lasting IQ effects in adulthood. No pre-k studies have shown lasting IQ effects without fadeout. Therefore, this new research reveals that early childhood programs that start early have a greater impact than pre-k programs. 

This is not a particularly surprising finding. More intensive interventions are more likely to positively impact a child. This explains why children who spend two years in pre-k make greater gains than those who attend for only one year and why children in full-day programs make greater gains than those in half-day programs. Additionally, we know life cycle skill formation is dynamic in nature and that skill begets skill.

Heckman’s previous research on the Perry Preschool program played an important role in convincing policymakers across the spectrum that public pre-k pays for itself long term. As a result, we’ve seen growing political support for universal pre-k and the adoption of new state and local pre-k programs. Even with this growing support, only 29% of four year olds across the country are enrolled in public pre-k. The number of three year olds is even smaller, at 5%.

While it’s unlikely that any local communities will suddenly decide to start public school for infants, as some misleading headlines have tried to suggest, Heckman’s research should encourage policymakers to consider a more comprehensive approach to early childhood education which includes coordinated interventions from birth to age five. Currently, few states or local communities allocate enough resources to provide universal pre-k, so its hard to imagine them suddenly adopting comprehensive programs that start at birth, especially since programs like ABC and CARE are more expensive – at least $18,514 per year. Heckman is adamant that policymakers should make calculations based on benefits instead of costs. Looking through the benefits lens, more comprehensive approaches to early childhood education that start at infancy would produce huge dividends for society.

In a world where minimal funding is allocated to early childhood education, one might ask: does Heckman’s research mean states and municipalities should move away from expanding pre-k programs and instead adopt programs for infants and toddlers? As my colleague Sara Mead has argued, this is a false choice. A robust early childhood system should include universal pre-k, high-quality programs for infants and toddlers, and targeted interventions for disadvantaged children. But communities with truly limited funding that are serious about curbing childhood poverty should allocate funding to children with the greatest need. For that money to truly provide the greatest return, it should fund a more comprehensive program that starts in infancy.

The Charter Model Goes to Preschool

Richmond College Prep emphasizes a student-centered atmosphere.

Photo courtesy of Richmond College Prep

Over the past 20 years, both charter schools and prekindergarten have taken on increasingly prominent roles in the schooling of America’s children. Charter schools in 43 states now serve more than 2.6 million students — roughly six percent of all students attending public schools. And more than two-thirds of four-year-olds attend some form of public or privately funded preschool, with 1.4 million of them enrolled in state-funded pre-k programs.

As separate reforms, charter schools and pre-k produce strong, positive results for high-need children. But what happens if we marry high-performing charter schools with high-quality pre-k? Could the combination of these two reforms produce a result better than the sum of its parts?

Continue reading