Investing in Children

October 11, 2010

On Wednesday, October 13, the Center on Children and Families at Brookings and the National Institute for Early Education Research will release a new collection of papers that assesses the field of early childhood education and child care. Edited by Senior Fellow Ron Haskins and W. Steven Barnett of Rutgers University, Investing in Young Children: New Directions in Federal Preschool and Early Childhood Policy focuses on Early Head Start, Head Start, and home visiting programs. The editors recommend promising reforms for all three programs, including closing ineffective Head Start centers or giving other program operators the opportunity to compete for Head Start funds. Other recommendations include offering a few states broad regulatory relief to innovate and coordinate Head Start with other state preschool educational programs and child care. To view the full report, visit nieer.org.

To address these issues, the Center on Children and Families will host a discussion featuring Haskins and Barnett. A panel of experts and program administrators will offer their views on the analysis, especially on the recommendations to reform Head Start.

Speakers and panelists, listed below, will take audience questions. To register, click here: https://www.cvent.com/EVENTS/Register/IdentityConfirmation.aspx?e=3e34ba9a-fc57-46cc-9e93-2ded83732c5e.

Welcome: Ron Haskins
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies, Brookings Institution

Overview: W. Steven Barnett
Professor and Co-Director, National Institute for Early Education (NIEER), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

Panel:
Ben Allen
Director, Public Policy and Research, National Head Start Association

Harriet Dichter
National Director, First Five Years

Roberto Rodriguez
Domestic Policy Council, The White House

Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst
Senior Fellow, Governance Studies

Nicholas Zill
Educational Consultant


Preschool Education Reform in America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation (or What I Learned from Fox Business News about Preschool)

February 19, 2010

I think I saw the “Borat” guy again on TV last night (Fox Business News). He cracks me up. This time he called himself “Stossel.” His fake reporter routine never gets old. You would think after the movie everyone would recognize him, even with the name change, or that his corkscrew logic and misinterpretations would tip people off. Last night he told the audience: “government schools” are basically jailing American children, students in Kazakhstan outscore those in the U.S., and highly-quality private education can be bought for a $1. How can we get U.S. of A. children out of jail he asked? His answer: close government schools, cut taxes, and have poor children go to charity schools, oh, and throw the unions down the well. Stossel thinks this would have happened except that some guy in Massachusetts tricked people into creating government schools (don’t look at Massachusetts test scores in the international test comparison studies, it messes up the argument). OK, he said, people probably won’t do that, but let’s have competition, that will solve all our educational problems anyway.

Stossel also jumped on the latest Head Start national impact study to report that taxpayers have gotten nothing from the $165 billion spent on that program over 40 years. That is not what the study finds, but he’s not about to acknowledge that children and taxpayers may have gotten something for their money, if less than they hoped. Nor is he going to report that Head Start’s test score gains compare poorly with those of government preschools that employ well-paid, highly educated teachers. That’s not how this fake reporter thing works. Instead, he managed to get the National Head Start Association’s Ron Herndon to blame public school failure for the fact that comparison children catch up to those who went to Head Start by the end of kindergarten. Never mind that the study found public kindergarten accelerated learning rates in literacy and math and gave enough of a boost to all of the children to eliminate Head Start’s modest gains.

The key to the fake reporter shtick is to take something that makes sense—like competition leads to better results—and then step by step distort things until you end up with a ridiculous, if not downright offensive conclusion. Competition is a good idea, and American public schools historically engaged in a great deal of competition. I recommend William Fischel’s recent book Making the Grade: The Economic Evolution of American School Districts (University of Chicago Press) to anyone who wants to learn how we got public schools and why local school districts are valuable. Along the way you can learn why we have a summer vacation, which has nothing to do with our agrarian past. My reading of the book suggests that breaking up large urban districts into smaller neighborhood districts would be a much better way to create competition than vouchers (they won’t work, read the book).

The preschool world could take the lead from New Jersey’s Abbott Preschool Program and encourage school districts to contract with multiple private providers for as many students as parents choose to send to them, so long as the providers meet high standards for teaching and learning. In small districts this might be unnecessary and inefficient, but in large districts there could be considerable improvements in preschool education. Head Start should consider using competition in a similar way. To facilitate competition Head Start should:
• Prune the Head Start Performance Standards down to a very small list to give programs more freedom to innovate;
• Focus more on measuring learning and teaching using external as well as internal observers and with grantees implementing a continuous improvement cycle;
• Give parents information on provider performance on learning and teaching;
• Grantees, at least in densely populated areas, should contract with private providers who compete to serve Head Start parents and children; and
• Fire programs that don’t perform (however, giving parents information on learning and teaching is likely to make that rare).

Honestly, it is not as ridiculous as that guy on Fox, whoever he really is, made it sound. It is not a panacea, but it would help us provide children with the education they deserve.

Steve Barnett
Co-Director, NIEER


Change we need: Responding responsibly to the results of the Head Start Impact Study

January 15, 2010

One prediction I make confidently is that most responses to the new report on Head Start’s effects will be wrong. Advocates of Head Start will try to “kill the messenger” by attacking the study and rejecting any notion that Head Start needs serious reform. Opponents of Head Start will claim that the program has been shown to be a complete failure. People on both sides will claim that the report shows “fade out” and many will blame poor public schools.

I make another prediction that the Obama administration, with its theme of “Change,” will avoid these errors and chart a new course for Head Start based on what can be learned from this study and others. Confidence in this prediction is tempered by the knowledge that real policy change never comes easy, but I have high hopes. In what follows, I set out six key lessons from the findings, make three specific recommendations for change, and close with some good news.

My comments and recommendations are not based on the Impact Study alone. Science is cumulative. New studies don’t simply obviate everything that has gone before, and the Head Start National Impact Study has to be interpreted in light of the full body of research on Head Start, early care and education, and child development.

What did we learn?

(1) In this study, and in others, Head Start’s initial impacts are modest. Just how small they are is hard to say because many children in the control group attended other programs including preschools in the public schools. Taking into account that some children in the study crossed over (some assigned to Head Start did not go and some control group children found their way into Head Start), the estimated gains are larger, and accounting for other preschool programs attended by the controls would lead to even larger estimates. However, even with generous allowance for effects of other programs, it seems highly unlikely that Head Start produced gains as large as have been found for quality programs elsewhere. Most private preschool programs are lower in quality and less effective compared to Head Start. State-funded pre-K varies tremendously; some state programs are likely less effective, while the best are more effective.

(2) There is little evidence of persistent effects on children’s cognitive and social development. This is exactly what other studies would predict given small initial impacts. Our comprehensive meta-analysis of research on the effects of preschool indicates that after school entry, cognitive effects are only about half as large as initial effects. Given how small the advantages from Head Start access were to start with it is not a surprise that they are no longer discernible at the end of kindergarten or first grade. What will surprise many is that this is not “fade out,” but catch up.

(3) The Head Start Impact Study provides some very interesting graphs that show how fast children learn year by year and demonstrate that the lost advantage overtime is not likely fade out. With the exception of the PPVT (the one cognitive measure with some evidence of persistent gain), learning rates on cognitive measures are much faster in kindergarten than during Head Start. Neither Head Start nor control children made much progress during the Head Start year, which is the fundamental problem. By comparison, kindergarten greatly accelerated learning for both groups, and the acceleration is slightly greater for the control group so they catch up. Many other studies have found that the public schools devote tremendous resources to catching up children who enter school far behind; this is inefficient and expensive, but it works. When initial gains from early education are small, they can be swamped by the effects of more intensive efforts in kindergarten and the early grades. Read the rest of this entry »


Ted Kennedy: Champion of Early Care and Education

August 28, 2009

Senator Kennedy leaves behind a towering legacy of fighting for children’s healthy development: “Were it not for Kennedy’s unwavering commitment to improving the lot of young children, we likely would have far less federal support for young children’s development across the board,” said NIEER Co-Director Steve Barnett.

Which leaves us all with the question: Where do we go from here? How can the vacuum in children’s advocacy be filled?

Read Sen. Kennedy’s Newsmaker interview with Preschool Matters earlier this year.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 30 other followers