Preschool Matters… Today!

Early Education on the International Scene

January 27, 2012

Continuing its focus on the importance of early childhood education, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) held its high-level roundtable “Starting Strong: Implementing Policies for High Quality Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC)” in Oslo, Norway this week. The OECD, a collaborative organization with 34 member nations, provides a forum for governments to share best practices and address common problems in a variety of areas.

Recognizing the impact of high-quality early learning, the OECD has had a special initiative focusing on early childhood and early care (ECEC) since 1996. Their “Starting Strong” initiative has collected data on policies, practices, and success across countries. The roundtable meeting, along with the release of a new publication, “Starting Strong III: A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care,” continued this legacy of international cooperation as nations try to protect crucial early learning investments during difficult financial times.

The roundtable featured invited guests from government, research, and advocacy throughout its member countries to focus on its three goals:

Focus attention on the economic and social importance of investing in high-quality early childhood education and care,
Highlight key policies and practices that can enhance investment in high-quality early childhood education and care in countries, and
Share perspectives and foster dialogue with, and among, stakeholders to promote understanding of the implementation challenges and how to address them.

Steve Barnett, director of NIEER, was a keynote speaker at the roundtable meeting and participated in a panel with other crucial ECEC stakeholders in the international community. Video footage can be found online, with Dr. Barnett’s address beginning at the 25:30 mark, and continuing into the panel at the 57-minute mark. The slides from his Oslo Benefits and Costs of ECEC presentation are available both from NIEER and on the OECD website alongside the video footage.

Norwegian Minister of Education Kristin Halvorsen gave a particularly striking speech (beginning at the 10-minute mark) in which she walked participants through the process of achieving high-quality early childhood education and care programs in Norway. Her argument was rooted in her experience as former Minister of Finance; that is, early childhood education is beneficial not only for the individual child but also for families that are better able to work and the economy that benefits from this. Her presentation slides are also available alongside the video footage of the event.

The complete Starting Strong III report is a 300-plus page tome addressing five policy levers utilized cross-nationally to improve quality in ECEC programs and ensure this crucial investment pays off. An interactive site guides stakeholders through these five levers, and well as the five “action areas” laid out below—this site is an incomparable tool for policymakers both stateside and in the international community.

Policy Levers

Setting out quality goals and regulations

Designing and implementing curriculum and standards

Improving workforce conditions, qualifications and training

Engaging families and communities

Setting out quality goals and regulations

Action Areas

Using research to inform policy and the public

Broadening perspectives through international comparison

Selecting a strategy option

Managing risks: Learning from other countries’ policy experiences

Reflecting on the current state of play

Steve Barnett and Ellen Frede (former co-director of NIEER) contributed to this report and its online materials, and NIEER’s research can be seen in a number of areas through the publication. Research briefs around each policy lever topic address the current body of knowledge on the topic, what is still unknown, and what the policy implications are in the field. NIEER’s contributions can particularly be seen in this brief on data monitoring and accountability.

The OECD hosts a plethora of material on ECEC in member nations. Much of NIEER’s research centers on early education funded by states, which reflect great diversity in resources, access, and quality. These differences are only magnified at the international level, offering a number of ideas that nations may wish to incorporate into their own programs. There is no one “right” model for early care and education; programs must be of high-quality, fit the needs of their community while being culturally responsive, and contribute to lasting gains. Cooperative efforts such as those launched by the OECD provide a crucial opportunity to share knowledge and ensure that all children are provided with quality early learning opportunities, contributing to an improved global economy.

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

1 Comment | Early Childhood, Early Education, International, Outcomes, Quality Early Childhood Programs | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Lack of Economic Mobility Adds Urgency to The Pre-K Debates

January 11, 2012

Economic mobility is in the news of late thanks to Republican presidential hopefuls drawing attention to recent studies showing that Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. This comes as sobering news to many who persist in believing the U.S. is the land of utmost opportunity. Not so if you are at the bottom of the income scale, it turns out.

Brookings Institution research finds that 42 percent of children born in the bottom income quintile in the U.S. stay there as adults and only six percent of them reach the top quintile. Meanwhile, a policy brief just out from The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Economic Mobility Project finds that in the U.S., there is a stronger link between parental education and children’s economic, educational and socio-emotional outcomes than in any of the other countries studied. In other words, who your parents are counts for more here than in other countries studied when it comes to moving up the ladder. Not surprisingly, another key finding is that exposure to preschool can have lasting positive effects on economic disparities, particularly for low- and middle-income children.

Coinciding with all this is the arrival of a new book The Pre-K Debates: Current Controversies and Issues. Edited by Edward Zigler and Walter Gilliam of Yale University and myself, it calls on more than three dozen leaders in the various fields associated with early education to argue the issues surrounding the hottest debates. Chief among them — and first in line in the book — is the policy question of whether public preschool education should be made available to all children or only those who are economically disadvantaged.

I argue in favor of making public pre-K available to all children for four reasons:

Universal preschool programs will reach a significantly greater percentage of low-income children than has been the case with targeted programs these last 40-plus years.
Universal programs produce larger educational gains for disadvantaged kids.
Children from middle-income families also benefit and, numerically speaking, they account for most of the nation’s problems with inadequate school readiness and school failure.
Universal pre-K is likely to yield a larger net economic benefit to the nation.

David Lawrence Jr., president of the Early Childhood Initiative Foundation in Florida puts forth similar arguments for a universal approach, adding that outside the ivory tower or government no one thinks in terms of means testing and it is never a good strategy to divide Americans. Lawrence led the fight for Florida’s universal pre-K program and, while he calls it nowhere near good enough, those familiar with Lawrence know better than to doubt his dedication to program improvement.

Joining us on the pro-universal side of the debate are Sharon Lynn Kagan and Joyce Friedlander at Columbia University. They argue that all young children have a right to high-quality preschool education plus any additional health or social services needed to get children off to a good start in school. Their approach, termed “universal plus, ” represents a substantial shift in mindset away from the targeted services strategy that most state and federal programs have pursued in recent decades. My co-editor Ed Zigler has made much the same case over the years in advocating for his School of the 21^st Century.

The proponents of targeted services are predominantly economists like me. James J. Heckman, University of Chicago, proposes developing measures of risky family environments to facilitate targeting programs to the most disadvantaged kids. He recommends providing those families with home-visiting programs such as the Nurse-Family partnership as well as high-quality pre-K.

Art Rolnick at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs and Rob Grunewald, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis favor targeting because the highest returns on the public’s investment in pre-K come from programs for the disadvantaged. They acknowledge the substantial difficulties targeting has had in identifying and serving those who qualify and recommend redoubling those efforts by way of means testing.

Finally, sociologist Bruce Fuller of the University of California, Berkeley, cautions against pursuing a policy of universal preschool because it would, in his estimation, squander scarce public dollars and likely widen gaps in early learning because well-heeled communities would “top up” private investment in preschool with public funds and then recruit the most skilled teachers. Viewed through Fuller’s lens, universal pre-K would work to the disadvantage of disadvantaged kids.

Having studied pre-K in this country and abroad for the past 30 years, I have more than a little difficulty embracing the arguments of my colleagues on the anti-universal side of the debate. None of the opponents has offered a practical solution to the targeting problem. In Europe both average test scores and inequality in test scores decline as enrollment moves past our levels in the U.S. toward 100 percent. In the U.S. we have pursued a targeted approach since the early 1960s and still don’t reach half the children in poverty with even modest programs. And most private sector programs available to the beleaguered middle class fall far short of providing quality education, a problem that Quality Rating Systems will not fix. Forty years of failure should be enough to convince my economist colleagues that something must be wrong with their assumptions. On purely practical grounds, I think it is about time we chart a new course.

In future posts, we’ll address other issues of contention from The Pre-K Debates.

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

1 Comment | Economics, Outcomes, Preschool, Targeted, Universal | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Wide-reaching Implications: Assessments of the Very Young

January 4, 2012

Related Reading

Multifaceted Assessment for Early Childhood Education

Robert J. Wright

SAGE Publications, Inc.

Thousand Oaks, CA

352 pages, ISBN 978-1-41297-015-0, $49.95

Published in 2010, this book provides educators, in particular pre-service teachers, with a broad understanding of current practices in early childhood assessment. The author argues that “there has never been a time when it is more important for early childhood educators to have an understanding of educational assessment and measurement” (p. xix), considering educational accountability and legislation mandating early identification of children with special needs. Very important decisions are increasingly being made based on the results of educational assessments, such as about special needs support allocation, changes in teacher salaries, and early childhood center funding and closings. This book is a timely addition to existing teacher preparation resources.

The content coverage is broad and relevant to current practice and issues in early assessment, ranging from sections on teacher-created assessments and standardized tools to descriptions of assessments for children from birth through kindergarten and older. Throughout the book, the author provides detailed real-world examples of each topic. For instance, on pages 89-90, there is an example of a time-stamped anecdote from a kindergarten observation, describing the challenging behavior of a child who does not want to share a ball with other children on the playground and two different adults’ responses to that behavior. This example is a good one because it is very realistic, so that pre-service teachers in placements could easily imagine this scenario happening in a school playground and could likely relate it to some prior experience.

The book also covers some history of early childhood and assessment, and major issues related to assessment. For example, chapter 10 is on report cards, and reporting to parents, and this chapter covers the potential impacts of reporting children’s performance in report cards on the development of their self-esteem.

Multifaceted Assessment for Early Childhood Education is divided into five parts: 1) Background, current issues, and interpretation of assessments in early education; 2) Formative and summative assessments and tests; 3) Individual screening measures and full assessments; 4) Parent communication and special needs children; and 5) Evaluation of early childhood programs and schools. Each part is further subdivided into chapters, for a total of 13 chapters.

There are three features of the text that serve as advanced organizers: Section descriptions, Introduction and Themes, and Learning Goals. The section descriptions are one-page explanations preceding each part that outline the contents of the upcoming section. Similarly, the introduction and themes outline the content of the upcoming chapters. At the start of each chapter, the learning goals are described in sequential order.

Overall, Multifaceted Assessment for Early Childhood Education provides a complete overview of relevant, current issues in the field. The book is well-organized and could be an excellent learning tool for pre-service teachers. It is critical that pre-service teachers learn about and understand the uses and interpretations of assessments, as they prepare to enter a field in which assessment will continue to have wide-reaching implications for years to come.

- Reviewed by Alissa A. Lange, Ph.D.

Assistant Research Professor, NIEER

For more about early childhood education assessments, check out NIEER’s 2004 policy brief, Preschool Assessment: A Guide to Developing a Balanced Approach, by Ann S. Epstein, Lawrence J. Schweinhart, Andrea DeBruin-Parecki, and Kenneth B. Robin.

2 Comments | Assessment, Early Childhood, Early Education | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Holiday Greetings from NIEER

December 19, 2011

With 2012 right around the corner, I wanted to take some time to share NIEER’s work during the past year and give you a heads up on what we have planned for the New Year.

In April, we released The State of Preschool 2010 in Washington, D.C., joined by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Marci Young of Pre-K Now. The report, which found unprecedented decreases in both per-child and total state spending on state-funded pre-K programs helped jump start the national conversation on early childhood as a priority in difficult times. We are now working on the 10th year of data for our State Preschool Yearbook and are looking forward to sharing the results with you sometime in the spring.

In August, Science magazine published a special issue, “Investing in Early Education,” which explored a range of issues in the field from experts. I argued that recent findings on Head Start—a program that came under significant public scrutiny this year—called for mending a program that can help the very poorest of children, rather than ending it.

We continue to conduct research in a growing number of states here at home. Stay tuned for results from our randomized trials comparing full-day and half-day programs and on the effects of pre-K for all, which will be released early in the New Year. Also to be released early in the year are findings from our national survey of preschool teachers. In addition, we are continuing an effort we first told you about in October 2010 to study pre-K programs in Colombia, and our researchers are engaged in ongoing basis with evaluations of city and state pre-K programs. The picture we featured above captures the dedication of our Colombian team as they visited families despite the devastating floods that hit last year.

The NIEER offices will be closed from December 24 through January 2, but we’ll be back in the new year continuing on with these and other projects. We hope you’ll stayed tuned for all we have to offer.

Happy holidays from all of us here at NIEER.

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

1 Comment | Early Childhood, Research | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Crossing the Finish Line? Race to the Top–Early Learning Challenge Winners Announced

December 16, 2011

The U.S. Departments of Education and Health and Human Services today announced the nine states that will receive funding through the Race to the Top-E arly Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC). Thirty-five states, D.C., and Puerto Rico applied for a share of the $500 million available through this competitive program, which has been the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s efforts on early childhood education. The application process operated on a tight timeline: the program was announced over the summer, applications were due in October, and funds had to be awarded before December 31. Specific budgets will be released after the federal departments have conferred with the individual states.

Congratulations to those nine winners announced today, who may only just be regaining their breath after the mad dash to the application finish line. Those states are California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Washington.

These states are no strangers to the Race to the Top competition – six of the nine have previously been awarded funding through the two earlier rounds of RTT targeted toward K-12 improvement; California, Minnesota, and Washington were the only ones not to be awarded RTT funds previously. All state applications are available online, and reviewer comments and scores are posted as well.

The press conference itself was a who’s who of early childhood education celebrities, including Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. Barbara Bowman, co-founder of the Erikson Institute and NIEER Scientific Advisory Board Member, called for “well-rounded programs offering [children] multiple opportunities to learn” while James Heckman, a Nobel Prize winner for his work on the economics of education, heralded the program as “a critical first step in recognizing the importance of the early years…that will promote better education, health, social, and economic outcomes for all…”

RTT-ELC garnered significant attention within the early childhood community—the inclusion of money under the umbrella of Obama’s trademark Race to the Top during such austere budget times was seen as a good sign. While responses to the specifics of the program were mixed, all observers can agree that RTT-ELC represents a big step as state-funded early learning programs are elevated to an issue of national interest.

As a quick refresher from NIEER’s original coverage, the competition was guided by three sets of priorities: absolute, competitive preference, and invitational.
• Absolute: These must be addressed in each state’s application.

Early learning and development standards and kindergarten entry assessments
Tiered quality rating and improvement system (QRIS)

• Competitive Preference: These criteria will secure “extra” points for applicants.

Include all early learning and development programs in the tiered QRIS

• Invitational: These are areas of particular concern for the Departments.

Sustained program effects in early elementary grades
Encourage private sector support through public/private partnerships

Consideration for the grants relied on four selection criteria focused on aligning a variety of programs; establishing high-quality standards and comprehensive assessments to improve kindergarten readiness; implementing a statewide tiered quality rating improvement system (QRIS); and developing and retaining an effective early learning workforce.

Winners were also selected based on demonstrated past commitment to early childhood education. Many stakeholders were concerned that this factor would work against states who are only just starting state-funded early childhood education programs—perhaps an accurate sentiment given that all grant winners already provide state-funded pre-K under NIEER’s definition; Arizona (whose program was cut in the 2010-2011 school year), Hawaii, Mississippi, and Puerto Rico were all denied funding. However, as reflected by NIEER’s rankings on access and spending, as well as quality standards benchmarks, these programs are largely those who have demonstrated a commitment to early education but still have much work ahead of them. Table 1 shows these rankings for the nine RTT-ELC winners, based out of the 40 states that had state-funded preschool programs in the 2009-2010 school year.

Table 1. 2009-2010 NIEER Yearbook Rankings for RTT-ELC Winners

State	Access for 4-year-olds	Access for 3-year-olds	State (including TANF) Spending per Child	All Source Spending Per Child	Quality Standards (out of 10)
California	23	6	12	18	4
Delaware	32	None served	7	13	8
Maryland	12	None served	21	3	9
Massachusetts	28	14	24	26	6
Minnesota	39	22	5	11	9
North Carolina	20	None served	13	10	10
Ohio	36	19	23	25	2
Rhode Island	40	None served	9	5	10
Washington	31	16	6	12	9

Only five of the nine winners currently serve any 3-year-olds, and only California breaks into the “top ten” for percent of 3-year-olds served; none make the top ten for percent of 4-year-olds served. Spending is a mixed bag. As can be seen by the difference between state per-child spending and all source spending per child, many of these states already utilize multiple funding streams (from federal and local sources) to supplement state funds. The majority of these programs generally meet a high number of quality benchmarks, with both North Carolina and Rhode Island’s state-funded pre-K programs achieving all 10 of NIEER’s benchmarks. On the other side of the coin, though, are both California and Ohio who have struggled to implement high-quality standards through difficult budget times. Both Delaware and Minnesota already partner with their existing Head Start programs to provide early education, which may have served them well in a competition that calls for alignment across sectors.

During the 2009-2010 school year, these programs served a combined 234,566 young learners in state-funded pre-K programs with a total of $1.2 billion in state and TANF funds. However, these states vary widely in terms of the size of their programs and states. Funding from these grants will not be limited only to state-funded pre-K programs, so it is useful to understand how many 3- and 4-year-olds are currently served in a variety of government-funded early education programs. To that end, Table 2 includes the enrollment and spending figures for these nine state pre-K programs and Table 3 shows total enrollment for state pre-K, special education, and state and federal Head Start.

Table 2. Enrollment and Spending Data for RTT-ELC Winners in 2009-2010

State	State Pre-K Enrollment	Percent of 3-year-olds Enrolled	Percent of 4-year-olds Enrolled	State Spending per Child Enrolled in State Pre-K	Total Per-child Spending from All known Sources
California	147,185	10%	17%	$5,410	$5,571
Delaware	843	0%	7%	$6,795	$6,795
Maryland	26,147	0%	35%	$4,116	$9,645
Massachusetts	13,468	4%	14%	$3,895	$3,895
Minnesota	1,874	1%	1%	$7,301	$7,301
North Carolina	31,197	0%	24%	$5,239	$7,824
Ohio	5,700	1%	2%	$3,902	$3,902
Rhode Island	126	0%	1%	$5,556	$9,127
Washington	8,026	2%	7%	$6,817	$6,817

Table 3. State and Federal ECE Enrollment for RTT-ELC Winners in 2009-2010

State	Enrollment in State Pre-K, Special Education Pre-K, and State and Federal Head Start (Unduplicated)
	Percent of 3-year-olds in state	Percent of 4-year-olds in state
California	18%	31%
Delaware	11%	18%
Maryland	10%	46%
Massachusetts	14%	26%
Minnesota	10%	15%
North Carolina	7%	35%
Ohio	14%	19%
Rhode Island	10%	19%
Washington	9%	20%

As Sara Mead noted shortly after the announcement, “The list also should clearly underscore that ELC is NOT a pre-k program: Rhode Island, for instance, has only a recently-created pre-k pilot, and Minnesota serves relatively few children in pre-k.” In a program that called so clearly for inter-agency collaboration and recommended private-sector partnerships, the impact will go far beyond just pre-existing state-funded pre-K programs. There will be no shortage of analysis on the impact in Head Start and child care in the coming days, months, and years.

A number of these states have been in the news recently for their early education programs, and the news has not all been good. California merged its pre-K and child care programs in the 2009-2010 school year but has faced continued funding challenges. North Carolina, once a national leader in early childhood education, has been involved in a lengthy legal battle over the program; Steve Barnett recently wrote that the state is “on the verge of abandoning its commitment to high-quality pre-kindergarten education.” Rhode Island only recently started its small pre-K program, while Ohio completely cut one such program as of the 2009-1020 program year. It is hoped the RTT-ELC grants will spur these states to become true national leaders.

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

- Jen Fitzgerald, Public Information Officer, NIEER

Leave a Comment » | Early Education, Early Learning Challenge Fund, Federal policy, Preschool, Race to the Top | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Investing in Future Jobs: Will North Carolina Fail the First Hurdle in the Economic Race?

December 1, 2011

North Carolina, on the verge of abandoning its commitment to high-quality pre-kindergarten education, could not have worse timing. In the midst of a struggling recovery, now is not the time to give up on an investment research has proven to provide terrific economic returns.

North Carolina’s pre-K program, formerly known as More at Four, was ranked as one of the best programs nationally in terms of quality. Solid research from University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill shows More at Four improved readiness and raised third grade test scores for at-risk children.

Nationally, the research is clear that effective preschool programs like North Carolina’s permanently raise achievement, decrease dropout, and increase employment, productivity and earnings as recently reported in the distinguished journal Science.

Over the last half century, North Carolina’s leaders took on the enormous task of updating the state’s traditional economy of textiles and tobacco to refocus on newer fast-growing industries such as biotech and information technology. They did so, in part, by investing in improvements in education needed to boost the skills of the work force.

It’s a good thing they did or North Carolina would have an unemployment rate much worse than the 10.5 percent reported in September.

Given North Carolina’s legacy of pro-business policies and the ongoing economic development arms race between the states, one would think North Carolina would jealously guard its comparative advantages as it looks forward to economic recovery. Sadly, this is not the case.

In this year’s budget, the legislature reduced funding to state pre-K and Smart Start programs by 20 percent, meaning they could serve several thousand fewer children this fall. If this cut is sustained, thousands more children will enter kindergarten each year unprepared to succeed in school.

More recently, Judge Howard Manning, Jr. stepped in as part of the ongoing Leandro case to rule that it’s unconstitutional for the state to prevent eligible at-risk children from enrolling in state pre-K.

After Manning’s ruling, Governor Beverly Perdue issued an executive order requiring the state to accept all eligible 4-year-olds into North Carolina’s pre-K. Perdue’s plan restores enrollment to previous levels by January at no added cost to the taxpayer and provides a roadmap to achieve full enrollment on a reasonable time table over the next few years.

What remains to be seen is whether state lawmakers will support the plan Governor Perdue has put forward. The first test will be whether they pass the legislation needed to restore services to thousands of children in January at no cost. If they fail this first hurdle, it will serve as yet more evidence that not only has North Carolina’s economy declined, so has the quality of its leadership. And time is fast running out to take advantage of the opportunity the governor has offered.

Unless this situation is resolved to the benefit of the thousands of kids who lack a fair shot at succeeding in school, North Carolina risks rolling back years of progress made by earlier leaders who remember all too well what life was like when cotton was king.

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

3 Comments | Access, Economics, Preschool, State-funded programs | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

A Life Devoted to Healthy Development for All: J. Fraser Mustard

November 28, 2011

The Toronto Star recently reported the sad news that Canadian physician and researcher Dr. James Fraser Mustard died in his home at age 84. In addition to being a part of the research team that discovered aspirin could help reduce the likelihood of heart disease, Dr. Mustard studied early childhood development with his research influencing his home province’s education policy. His Early Years Study was used by the Ministry of Education in Ontario when it established a program to offer full-day kindergarten throughout the province. His broader body of work influenced early childhood policy around the globe.

Dr. Mustard was a strong global disseminator of the science base for public investments in early childhood development. He was expert in tying together diverse research from medicine, neuroscience, and social science so as to make clear to virtually any audience the connections and implications. Dr. Mustard had a keen understanding of the impacts of early brain development on later outcomes including adult health. He also understood the importance of showing policymakers and the public that the relationship between socio-economic background and human development is a gradient—a smooth continuous slope—and that the level and steepness of these slopes varies considerably across nations depending on their public policies. As he wrote in 2010:

“Results from developmental neurobiology studies and animal and human studies provide strong evidence that early neurobiological development affects health (physical and mental), behaviour and learning in the later stages of life. Countries that provide quality universal early development programs for families with young children tend to out-perform countries in which the early development programs are chaotic.”

Mustard was born in Toronto, Ontario and attended the University of Toronto. He later conducted postgraduate study at the University of Cambridge before returning to the University of Toronto as a research associate. He was also involved with the National Heart Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Heart Foundation, and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, amongst others. Dr. Mustard was a founding member of both the McMaster Medical School and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, a multidisciplinary nonprofit that has conducted research on topics such as economic growth and policy, experience-based brain and biological development, human-environment interactions, human development, population health, and successful societies.

Beginning in the 1980s, Dr. Mustard became more involved with research on early childhood development and learning. He became the head of the Founders’ Network, a group dedicated to studying economic and social impacts on health and human development, with an emphasis on early childhood. Dr. Mustard’s research work produced the 1999 report on the Early Years Study commissioned by the government of Ontario and follow-up reports in 2002 and 2007. Collectively, the reports criticized Canada’s commitment to preschool learning and called for national early childhood development initiatives on par with K-12 education as a means to promote lifelong healthy outcomes. In 2004, Dr. Mustard co-founded the Council for Early Childhood Development, an organization whose goals include promoting the message of the Early Years Study and further studying early childhood development.

We are heartened that Dr. Mustard’s work proceeds on. Less than a week after his death, a third report based on the Early Years Study was published, recommending that children as young as 2 years old should have access to voluntary prekindergarten education. And, the full-day kindergarten initiative in Ontario continues to roll out, with final implementation slated for September 2014.

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

- Jen Fitzgerald, Public Information Officer, NIEER

Leave a Comment » | Child Development, Early Childhood, Early Education, Health, International | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Celebrating Children’s Rights

November 18, 2011

Since 1954, the United Nations (UN) has observed November 20 as “Universal Children’s Day,” a day to honor children and promote activities for their welfare. On this day in 1959, the UN General Assembly adopted their Declaration of the Rights of the Child. On this date in 1989, these rights became legally binding to all UN member countries that ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which at present includes all member countries except Somalia and the United States. However, not all countries act equally on the goals of the Convention—many signatories are not taking proactive steps, while the United States, who has not signed, may even be doing more on some fronts.

The basic premise of the Convention is that all children are born with fundamental freedoms and inherent rights, and the principles held within it further UN goals of protecting children’s rights, including expanding opportunities to advance children’s potential as well as meeting their basic needs. Like human rights in general, children’s rights are based on respect for each individual’s dignity and incorporate civil, cultural, economic, political, and social rights. Article 28 of the Convention outlines very specific goals for children’s educational opportunities:

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:

(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;

(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;

(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;

(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.

2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.

3. States Parties shall promote and encourage international cooperation in matters relating to education, in particular with a view to contributing to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world and facilitating access to scientific and technical knowledge and modern teaching methods. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.

Even without having ratified the Convention, the U.S. has long had free and compulsory education for children from first grade through high school. However, we at NIEER feel that our country is missing a golden opportunity but not providing more free – although voluntary – educational services when children are younger. Full-day kindergarten programs are far from the norm throughout the country, and access to freely available prekindergarten is limited rather than universal and varies greatly from state to state. Preschool education programs can further many of the goals in Article 28, including the reduction of drop-out rates, combating chronic absenteeism, and the elimination of illiteracy. Studies have found that preschool education programs have long-term outcomes and far-reaching benefits beyond school success, including financial stability, reducing crime, preparing U.S. military forces, and better health, all of which are in line with the UN’s vision for both children and adults.

Though publicly-funded pre-K remains the domain of state governments in the U.S., early education is gaining traction as an issue of international importance. As a recent OECD report noted the decrease in well-qualified workers globally, NIEER’s Steve Barnett responded that “far too many of our children enter kindergarten so far behind that higher education will not be within their reach, despite the best efforts of our schools to prepare them.” Recognizing the lifelong impact of early childhood education, developing nations are offering such programs, including Colombia (where NIEER is conducting a study). Early childhood education stands as one of the most effective interventions in facing the modern challenges of a global economy, a fact recognized by campaigns from both the OECD and the UN. A strong research base has demonstrated that providing access to preschool is beneficial to the society as a whole and furthers children’s rights not just in education but in other areas as well. Indeed, it can contribute to the Convention’s goals of “the full and harmonious development of [a child’s] personality” and allow a “child [to] be fully prepared to live an individual life in society.” The UN must continue to provide specific goals and technical assistance as countries work towards their vision of respecting and promoting the rights of all children.

- Jen Fitzgerald, Public Information Officer, NIEER

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

Leave a Comment » | Access, Early Education, International, Outcomes, Preschool | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

OECD Report Sounds a Warning: Early Education Needed Now More Than Ever

November 1, 2011

One critical lesson we can draw from this recession is that demand for knowledge workers is increasing at a furious rate — so fast that many skilled people who found themselves out of work when the recession began now find themselves behind the curve knowledge wise as they apply for new jobs. As old jobs have gone by the wayside, the new ones, scarce as they are, are requiring more skills of applicants.

The growing importance of education in the labor market is underscored in a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Data from across OECD’s member nations shows that unemployment rates among university graduates stood at an average 4.4 percent in 2009, a year after the recession began. People who left school without qualifications experienced an unemployment rate of 11.5 percent in 2009, up from 8.7 percent the year before. These figures are likely different now (and not for the better), but the disparity between the educated and relatively uneducated remains, without a doubt, valid.

OECD calculated employment levels for citizens in three education categories: 1) Below upper secondary, 2) Upper secondary and post-secondary (but not tertiary) and 3) Tertiary educations. Those categories roughly account for 1) High school dropouts, 2) High school graduates with some secondary schooling, and 3) College graduates. What they found was that in 2009 for OECD member countries as a whole, 56 percent of category 1 was employed, 74 percent of category 2 was employed and 84 percent of category 3 was employed. The U.S. workforce placed below these levels at 52, 69 and 81 percent employed respectively. (Note: Because of the way the numbers are compiled it is not valid to infer unemployment levels from these employment data.)

The report also shows how the global talent pool is changing: Japan and the United States have nearly half of all tertiary-educated adults in the OECD area (47 percent). But that lead is slipping. While it’s true that one in three university-educated retirees resides in the U.S., it is also true that only one in five university graduates entering the workforce does.

Contrast this picture with China where only 5 percent of adults have a tertiary degree. Because of its population size, however, China now ranks second behind the U.S. and ahead of Japan in population with tertiary attainment.

Why are these figures important? Because, says the report, the earnings premium (net present value over a lifetime) for an individual with a tertiary degree exceeds $300,000 for men and $200,000 for women across the 34 OECD countries.

With trends like these and the apparent absence of political will to boost investment in education, it is little wonder that OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurria talks about the developed countries producing a “lost generation” of citizens who will be ill-equipped to make their way in the ever more competitive world.

So why am I focusing on higher education in a blog on preschool education? Because far too many of our children enter kindergarten so far behind that higher education will not be within their reach, despite the best efforts of our schools to prepare them. If the United States is to increase the percentage of our population with education beyond high school, we will have to do a much better job educating children in the first five years. The current recession only makes that more difficult, of course, but the choices we make now at local, state, and national levels will determine whether the United States will have–as Thomas Friedman has argued–“a hard decade or a bad century.”

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

2 Comments | Achievement gap, Economics, International, Outcomes | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Will the Real UPK Please Stand Up?

October 20, 2011

The pre-K debates often focus around choice – whether parents will be able to send their children to half-day or full-day programs, to private centers or public schools, and perhaps most importantly, to any high-quality preschool program at all. Universal pre-K can make high-quality programs a choice for every family, one that we think few would refuse. Therefore, one might assume universal programs would always have higher enrollments than targeted programs. Interestingly enough that does not turn out to be the case for several reasons.

In a 2009 policy brief, NIEER identified three states as having universal programs – Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma – and three more as on the path to universal access – Illinois, New York and West Virginia. However, states can vary greatly in progress down that path. For instance, Illinois’s Preschool for All, aims for universal access but has only enrolled 31 percent of the state’s 4-year-olds. Compare this with Arkansas’s program that has more limited eligibility requirements but enrolls a larger percentage of those eligible; at 41 percent of 4-year-olds, it far surpasses Illinois’s Preschool for All.

According to The State of Preschool 2010, 20 state programs report that enrollment is open to “all children in districts offering the program” or report a timeline to achieve that goal. (See Table 1 for a list of these programs.) However, unless the program is offered in all districts in a state, a program may then be “universal” only in certain communities. For instance, New Jersey’s Abbott districts enroll 18 and 20 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds statewide, but these 35 districts contain only about a quarter of the state’s children.

Table 1. State pre-K initiatives that could be considered universal or on the path to universal enrollment

Alabama	Iowa SVPP	Nevada	Pennsylvania K4
Connecticut	Louisiana LA4	New Jersey Abbott	Rhode Island
Florida	Maine	New Jersey ECPA	Vermont Act 62
Georgia	Massachusetts	New York	West Virginia
Illinois	Missouri	Oklahoma	Wisconsin 4K

Many of the top 10 states by percent of 4-year-olds enrolled (see Table 2) don’t fall into the universal category.

Table 2. Top 10 states by access for 4-year-olds rank

State	Percent of 4-year-olds enrolled
Oklahoma	70.7%
Florida	68.1%
West Virginia	55.3%
Georgia	54.6%
Vermont	52.1%
Wisconsin	51.5%
Texas	46.8%
New York	45.3%
Arkansas	41.1%
Iowa	38.1%

At present only Oklahoma can really be considered to offer universal high-quality pre-K. Florida might be said to be universal, but not high-quality (or even moderately good). Based on recent progress and future plans, West Virginia and Vermont have the best chance of joining Oklahoma in the near future. Politics could tip other leading states toward universal or stop them in their tracks. How states respond when the recession eases and it becomes easier to expand funding for pre-K will be quite telling, and preschool supporters should be prepared to push when that happens.

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

- Jen Fitzgerald, Public Information Officer, NIEER

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

1 Comment | Preschool, State-funded programs, Universal | Permalink
Posted by NIEER