universal preschool the promise and the peril the 16 th annual early childhood iowa congress des...

Universal Preschool

The Promise and the Peril

Universal Preschool

The Promise and the Peril

The 16th Annual Early Childhood Iowa Congress

Des Moines, Iowa

February 10, 2009

Walter S. Gilliam, PhD

The Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social PolicyChild Study Center

Yale University School of Medicine

The 16th Annual Early Childhood Iowa Congress

Des Moines, Iowa

February 10, 2009

Walter S. Gilliam, PhD

The Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social PolicyChild Study Center

Yale University School of Medicine

How We Knew It CAN WorkHow We Knew It CAN Work

• Abecedarian Project (Ramey & Campbell,

1991)

– Increase reading and math

– Decreased grade retention

– Earlier & longer is better

• Harlem Project (Deutsch, 1985)

– 200% more likely to be employed

– 33% more likely to have HS/GED

– 30% more likely to have post-HS Ed

• Abecedarian Project (Ramey & Campbell,

1991)

– Increase reading and math

– Decreased grade retention

– Earlier & longer is better

• Harlem Project (Deutsch, 1985)

– 200% more likely to be employed

– 33% more likely to have HS/GED

– 30% more likely to have post-HS Ed

How We Knew It CAN WorkHow We Knew It CAN Work

• Perry Preschool Project (Schweinhart et

al., 1993)

– 59% greater earnings

– 31% more likely to have HS/GED

– 56% less likely to need Special Ed

– 26% less likely Social Services/Welfare

– 80% less likely to be arrested

– 72% less likely to be arrested on drugs

– $7.14 return on the $1 (1992 dollar rate)

• Perry Preschool Project (Schweinhart et

al., 1993)

– 59% greater earnings

– 31% more likely to have HS/GED

– 56% less likely to need Special Ed

– 26% less likely Social Services/Welfare

– 80% less likely to be arrested

– 72% less likely to be arrested on drugs

– $7.14 return on the $1 (1992 dollar rate)

State PreK ImpactsState PreK Impacts

• Strongest:– Language/literacy

in K and 1st

– Grade retention (44% less by 5th)

– Achievement Tests

• Weakest:– Special Ed– Parent

Involvement

• Strongest:– Language/literacy

in K and 1st

– Grade retention (44% less by 5th)

– Achievement Tests

• Weakest:– Special Ed– Parent

Involvement 0 2 4 6 8

Parent Involvement

Special Ed

Grades

Attendance

Achievement Tests

Retention

Development

Number of States Studying Outcomes

Positive Impact No Impact

0 2 4 6 8

Parent Involvement

Special Ed

Grades

Attendance

Achievement Tests

Retention

Development

Number of States Studying Outcomes

Positive Impact No Impact

Gilliam, W. S., & Zigler, E. F. (2001). A critical meta-analysis of all impact evaluations of state-funded preschool from 1977 to 1998: Implications for policy, service delivery and program evaluation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 441-473.

More Evidence of EffectivenessMore Evidence of Effectiveness

• Tulsa Study (Gormley & Phillips)

– Improvements in language & math

• NIEER 5-state Study (GA, MI, NJ, SC, WV)

– Improvements in language &math

• UNC 11-State Study

– Relationship between quality &outcomes

• Tulsa Study (Gormley & Phillips)

– Improvements in language & math

• NIEER 5-state Study (GA, MI, NJ, SC, WV)

– Improvements in language &math

• UNC 11-State Study

– Relationship between quality &outcomes

5

6

State-Funded PreK: What?State-Funded PreK: What?

• State administered &

funded

• Serves children 3-4

• Classroom-based

• Goal: School Readiness

• 40 states

• ~ 982,000 children

• ~ 55,000 classrooms

• State administered &

funded

• Serves children 3-4

• Classroom-based

• Goal: School Readiness

• 40 states

• ~ 982,000 children

• ~ 55,000 classrooms

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Numb

er of

Stat

es

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Numb

er of

Stat

es

Gilliam, W. S., & Zigler, E. F. (2001). A critical meta-analysis of all impact evaluations of state-funded preschool from 1977 to 1998: Implications for policy, service delivery and program evaluation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 441-473.

7

State-Funded PreK & State-Funded Head Start

State-Funded PreK & State-Funded Head Start

Ripple, C. H., Gilliam, W. S., Chanana, N., & Zigler, E. (1999). Will 50 cooks spoil the broth? The debate over entrusting Head Start to the states. American Psychologist, 54, 327-343.

8

State PreK & Head Start Enrollment

State PreK & Head Start Enrollment

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Head Start State PreK

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Head Start State PreK

9

State PreK & Head Start Spending(in Millions)

State PreK & Head Start Spending(in Millions)

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Head Start State PreK

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Head Start State PreK

10

National Prekindergarten StudyNational Prekindergarten Study

• Sample

– All 52 state preK systems (40 states)

– Simple random selection

– N = 40,211 n = 4,815

– 3,898 respondents (81.0% response; 73%-100%)

• CATI Survey Format

– Respondent: Lead Teacher

– 45-55 Minutes

– $10 + Letter of Appreciation

• Sample

– All 52 state preK systems (40 states)

– Simple random selection

– N = 40,211 n = 4,815

– 3,898 respondents (81.0% response; 73%-100%)

• CATI Survey Format

– Respondent: Lead Teacher

– 45-55 Minutes

– $10 + Letter of Appreciation

11

Where is PreK?Where is PreK?

14%15%

5%

2%

6%

Public School (not HS) Head Start (PS)HS (not PS) For-Profit Child CareFaith Affiliated Nonprofit

14%15%

5%

2%

6%

Public School (not HS) Head Start (PS)HS (not PS) For-Profit Child CareFaith Affiliated Nonprofit

58%

29%

13%

12

PreK and Head Start OverlapPreK and Head Start Overlap

Head Start = 29%

Public School = 72%

Other = 13%

48%

19%

Quality

Huge Variations

Quality

Huge Variations

13

14

Teacher EducationTeacher Education13%

14%

49%

24%

HS/GED AA BA MA+

13%

14%

49%

24%

HS/GED AA BA MA+

23% CDA; 57% Teaching Cert.23% CDA; 57% Teaching Cert.

15

Teacher Mean Years CollegeTeacher Mean Years College

4.0

2.8

2.1

2.9

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Pub School HS-School HS Other

4.0

2.8

2.1

2.9

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

Pub School HS-School HS Other

16

Teacher with BATeacher with BA

56%

37%

57%

87%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pub School HS-School HS Other

56%

37%

57%

87%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pub School HS-School HS Other

17

Teacher Ed & MandatesTeacher Ed & Mandates

• State mandates range from nothing (8) to BA+TC (16)

• Nationally, 7.1% below required degree

• Highest % below mandate

AR (BA) 31%; NJ-Abbott (BA) 24%;

AK (CDA) 20%; WA (AA) 17%; VT (BA) 17%

• State mandates range from nothing (8) to BA+TC (16)

• Nationally, 7.1% below required degree

• Highest % below mandate

AR (BA) 31%; NJ-Abbott (BA) 24%;

AK (CDA) 20%; WA (AA) 17%; VT (BA) 17%

18

Teacher Credentials Vary by StateTeacher Credentials Vary by State

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MA BA

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

MA BA

19

Assistant TeachersAssistant Teachers

• Nationally,

– 59% HS/GED; 17% CDA; 24% AA+

• Of 4 states that require a CDA

– TN = 69% below

– WA = 61% below

– AL = 44% below

– AR = 42% below

• Nationally,

– 59% HS/GED; 17% CDA; 24% AA+

• Of 4 states that require a CDA

– TN = 69% below

– WA = 61% below

– AL = 44% below

– AR = 42% below

20

Class SizeClass Size

19.218.519.319.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pub School HS-School HS Other

19.218.519.319.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Pub School HS-School HS Other

21

Class Size > 20Class Size > 20

16%

27%

10%

26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Pub School HS-School HS Other

16%

27%

10%

26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Pub School HS-School HS Other

22

Class SizeClass Size

• Mandates Vary Considerably:

– 15 in Colorado – 28 in Ohio

– 11 states have no mandate

• 12%-16% exceed state mandate

• (26%-31% exceed 20 students)

• Highest % exceeding mandate

– Colorado: 48% (max=15)

– Kentucky: 37% (max=20)

– Iowa: 34% (max=16)

• Mandates Vary Considerably:

– 15 in Colorado – 28 in Ohio

– 11 states have no mandate

• 12%-16% exceed state mandate

• (26%-31% exceed 20 students)

• Highest % exceeding mandate

– Colorado: 48% (max=15)

– Kentucky: 37% (max=20)

– Iowa: 34% (max=16)

23

Child:Teacher RatioChild:Teacher Ratio

8.67.78.2

9.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Pub School HS-School HS Other

8.67.78.2

9.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Pub School HS-School HS Other

24

Child:Teacher > 10:1Child:Teacher > 10:1

20%

8%

6%

18%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Pub School HS-School HS Other

20%

8%

6%

18%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Pub School HS-School HS Other

25

Child-Teacher RatiosChild-Teacher Ratios

• Mandates Vary Considerably:

– 7.5 in NJ-Abbott & LA to 20 in Florida

– 7 states have no mandate

• 13%-21% exceed mandate

• (16%-19% exceed 10:1)

• Highest % exceeding mandate

– Louisiana: 86% (max = 7.5:1)

– Massachusetts: 34% (max = 8:1)

– California ½-Day: 34% (max = 8:1)

• NJ-Abbott exceeded in none!

• Mandates Vary Considerably:

– 7.5 in NJ-Abbott & LA to 20 in Florida

– 7 states have no mandate

• 13%-21% exceed mandate

• (16%-19% exceed 10:1)

• Highest % exceeding mandate

– Louisiana: 86% (max = 7.5:1)

– Massachusetts: 34% (max = 8:1)

– California ½-Day: 34% (max = 8:1)

• NJ-Abbott exceeded in none!

26

Comprehensive ServicesComprehensive Services

• Health Screenings & Immunizations

• Developmental/Mental Health Screening

• Family Resource Services

• Home Visits & Meals

• Health Screenings & Immunizations

• Developmental/Mental Health Screening

• Family Resource Services

• Home Visits & Meals

27

Health Screenings & ImmunizationsHealth Screenings & Immunizations

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Health Dental Vision/Hearing Immunizations

Pub School HS-School HS Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Health Dental Vision/Hearing Immunizations

Pub School HS-School HS Other

28

Developmental ScreeningsDevelopmental Screenings

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mental Health Speech/Lang

Pub School HS-School HS Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Mental Health Speech/Lang

Pub School HS-School HS Other

29

Family Resource ServicesFamily Resource Services

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Social Services Parenting Education Case Management Adult Education

Pub School HS-School HS Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Social Services Parenting Education Case Management Adult Education

Pub School HS-School HS Other

30

Home Visits & MealsHome Visits & Meals

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Home Visits Meals

Pub School HS-School HS Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Home Visits Meals

Pub School HS-School HS Other

31

Program Length of DayProgram Length of Day

19%27%

36%

58%

44% 33% 22%

24%

37% 40% 43%

18%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pub School HS-School HS Other

Extended-Day School-Day Half-Day

19%27%

36%

58%

44% 33% 22%

24%

37% 40% 43%

18%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pub School HS-School HS Other

Extended-Day School-Day Half-Day

32

Access BarriersAccess Barriers

• Inability to Pay Fees – 11% of Classes

– Florida = 60%

– Missouri = 50%

– Hawaii = 47%

– Massachusetts = 46%

• Transportation – 22% of Classes

– New Mexico (SFHS) = 57%

– Maine (SFHS) = 44%

– Ohio (SFHS) = 44%

• Inability to Pay Fees – 11% of Classes

– Florida = 60%

– Missouri = 50%

– Hawaii = 47%

– Massachusetts = 46%

• Transportation – 22% of Classes

– New Mexico (SFHS) = 57%

– Maine (SFHS) = 44%

– Ohio (SFHS) = 44%

33

State PreK Expulsion RatesState PreK Expulsion Rates

34

High Child-Teacher Ratio Predicts Expulsion

High Child-Teacher Ratio Predicts Expulsion

7.7%

10.5%

12.7%

9.8%

Under 8 8 to 9 10 to 11 12 and Up

Number of Children Per Teacher

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g

7.7%

10.5%

12.7%

9.8%

Under 8 8 to 9 10 to 11 12 and Up

Number of Children Per Teacher

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g

35

Quality’s Effects on TeachersQuality’s Effects on Teachers

36

Teacher Job Stress Predicts ExpulsionTeacher Job Stress Predicts Expulsion

4.9%

9.3%

14.3%

Low Stress Average Stress High Stress

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g

4.9%

9.3%

14.3%

Low Stress Average Stress High Stress

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g

37

Group Size & Teacher Stress Predict Expulsion (MA)

Group Size & Teacher Stress Predict Expulsion (MA)

46.9% 50.0%

12.0%

45.7%

High Size Low Stress

Low Size High Stress

High Size High Stress

Low Size Low Stress

Class Size & Teacher Stress

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g 46.9% 50.0%

12.0%

45.7%

High Size Low Stress

Low Size High Stress

High Size High Stress

Low Size Low Stress

Class Size & Teacher Stress

% C

lass

room

s E

xpel

lin

g

38

39

Group Size Predicts Depression & StressGroup Size Predicts Depression & Stress

9%

18%

11%

21%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

% Depress % Stress

<=20 >20

9%

18%

11%

21%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

% Depress % Stress

<=20 >20

40

Child:Teacher Ratio Predicts Depression & StressChild:Teacher Ratio Predicts Depression & Stress

10%

18%

12%

21%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

% Depress % Stress

<=10:1 >10:1

10%

18%

12%

21%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

% Depress % Stress

<=10:1 >10:1

41

Number of Other Adults in Room Predicts Depression & StressNumber of Other Adults in Room Predicts Depression & Stress

14%

21%

9%

18%

10%

17%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

% Depress % Stress

0 1 2

14%

21%

9%

18%

10%

17%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

% Depress % Stress

0 1 2

42

Debates & DirectionsDebates & Directions

• Universal vs. Targeted

– Economic vs. Developmental & Political

• Must Focus on Access & Quality

• Who Provides?

• Need Support Systems to Promote Quality

• Viewing ECE as an Economic Engine

– Children, Primary Workforce, Secondary

Workforce

• Universal vs. Targeted

– Economic vs. Developmental & Political

• Must Focus on Access & Quality

• Who Provides?

• Need Support Systems to Promote Quality

• Viewing ECE as an Economic Engine

– Children, Primary Workforce, Secondary

Workforce

43

Walter S. Gilliam, PhDDirector,The Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social PolicyChild Study CenterYale University School of Medicine230 South Frontage RoadPO Box 207900New Haven, CT 06520-7900

Phone: 203-785-3384Email: walter.gilliam@yale.edu

ziglercenter.yale.edu

Walter S. Gilliam, PhDDirector,The Edward Zigler Center in Child Development and Social PolicyChild Study CenterYale University School of Medicine230 South Frontage RoadPO Box 207900New Haven, CT 06520-7900

Phone: 203-785-3384Email: walter.gilliam@yale.edu

ziglercenter.yale.edu