Preschool « Preschool Matters… Today!

Filling an Assessment Need with the Early Learning Scale: NIEER’s New Preschool Assessment

March 14, 2012

As NIEER noted in a 2004 policy brief, “Child assessment is a vital and growing component of high-quality early childhood programs. Not only is it an important tool in understanding and supporting young children’s development, it is essential to document and evaluate program effectiveness. For assessment to be widely used though, it must employ methods that are feasible, sustainable and reasonable with regard to demands on budgets, educators and children. Equally important, it must meet the challenging demands of validity (accuracy and effectiveness) for young children. It is the balance between efficiency and validity that demands the constant attention of policymakers — and an approach grounded in a sound understanding of appropriate methodology.”

There are several purposes for using child assessments in early childhood. Generally, issues with assessment at this early age are often grounded in a mismatch between the chosen assessment and the purpose of the assessment. First, there are screening measures used to quickly highlight children in need of further assessment or intervention. There are standardized assessments to examine how children perform in relation to their peers, to evaluate the need for special services or to use in research evaluation protocols. Lastly, there are measures that document development and performance in students’ natural learning environment; these measures are best used to inform teaching. A recent report by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) describes the status of pre-K assessment policies and implementation in state-funded programs.

Teachers are already burdened with many responsibilities, and field research and professional development conducted by researchers at NIEER revealed that teachers feel overwhelmed by assessment requirements. Because of this, teachers are unable to effectively use assessment data in concert with instruction. Teachers expressed that they viewed assessment as an exercise of immense paperwork rather than a valuable resource used to improve student learning. In response, NIEER developed an observation-based performance assessment that is comprehensive and standards-based, but is also manageable and meaningful. The Early Learning Scale (ELS) was developed using respected research and with extensive input from teachers using it in the field. The ELS allows teachers to use high-quality data to effectively inform instruction and to make a direct impact on teaching and learning.

After a thorough review of child development research and literature, the authors of the ELS developed the scale, pilot-tested the instrument in preschool classrooms, and determined it is a reliable and valid measure, as described in the full technical report. This assessment system assists teachers in targeting the individual needs of children ages 3 to 5. Focusing on 10 measureable items across three critical domains—math/science, social-emotional/social studies, and language/literacy—the ELS provides teachers with a manageable and effective tool for assessing children’s progress toward early learning standards and expectations.

Using a curriculum-neutral approach, the ELS teaches educators how to become “participant observers” who use the rich data they collect to make accurate evaluations, plan instruction, and communicate effectively with parents and caregivers about children’s development. Before implementing the ELS, teachers are required to complete in-person training or self-paced online training, both of which are extensive and comprehensive. Furthermore, this training provides teachers with instruction on the importance of assessment, the components of an effective assessment cycle, how to use the ELS instrument, how to plan activities that will lead to efficient documentation, and how to meaningfully use data to plan for instruction.

For preschool programs interested in online capabilities, the ELS is available in paperless format via the Internet. The online version of the ELS was developed in conjunction with The Center: Resources for Teaching & Learning and is identical to the print version, except that the data is entered online and is available for evaluation electronically. Plus, the online version of the ELS offers handheld capabilities. Using a smartphone or tablet, teachers can record observations in real time and then upload them to the website, where observations are linked to items on the ELS.

To learn more about the ELS, call Lakeshore at (800) 421-5354 and ask for Custom Learning Solutions.

- Shannon Riley-Ayers, Assistant Research Professor, NIEER

- Judi Stevenson-Garcia, Research Coordinator, NIEER

3 Comments | Assessment, Early Education, Preschool, Research | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Where State Pre-K Assessment Stands

March 8, 2012

Assessment of children participating in state-funded pre-K programs has been highlighted recently, in part due to the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge funding competition’s focus on assessment strategies for our youngest learners. In response, Educational Testing Service (ETS) has submitted to the field State Pre-K Assessment Policies: Issues and Status, a timely report on the status of policies for the assessment of learning outcomes at the pre-K level. Debra J. Ackerman and Richard J. Coley, the researchers behind this report, answer the following questions:

“Which learning outcome measures, if any, are specified in Pre-K policies?
Do these specified measures fall under the categories of direct assessments, observation checklists or scales, or a combination of both assessment approaches?
How much choice do Pre-K providers have in selecting the measures to be used in their classrooms?
How frequently are learning outcome measures to be administered and reported?” (p. 3).

Detailed in several easy-to-navigate charts, the authors report state-specific data regarding the type of assessment required in policies, the specific name(s) of the assessment(s) required, the role of program choice in selecting an assessment, and the frequency of administration and reporting on these measures. Although the data shows variation in the requirements for early childhood assessments for state pre-K programs, several trends were noted.

First, the authors found a preference for a universal measure or a limited menu of options providing choice to the local provider. There is also an indication that states are mostly administering assessments and reporting at least two times per year, although several states do not specify how often child outcomes should be measured and reported. Lastly, only a small number of states report policies that require a type of direct assessment. This type of assessment is generally an individually administered assessment that is norm-referenced and provides opportunities to aggregate data and compare results over time. On the other hand, more states require observation checklists and scales. These assessments are generally conducted during the regular school experience requiring some observation and recording of children’s skills by the classroom teacher and are used to inform instruction. Furthermore, eight programs reported policies requiring a combination of approaches while 19 programs allowed individual providers to choose which measures to use. This report provides policymakers with data on the landscape of early childhood assessments so that stakeholders can evaluate the options that other states are utilizing and perhaps identify new assessments or approaches to consider. It also provides some guidance for choosing an early childhood assessment and provides questions for key stakeholders to consider in this selection. The NIEER policy report, Preschool Assessment: A Guide to Developing a Balanced Approach, recommends that the measures for assessment be selected by a qualified professional to ensure they meet acceptable psychometric standards as well as being developmentally appropriate for the children being assessed.

A developmentally appropriate assessment new to the arena that meets the criteria of being reliable and valid is the newly available Early Learning Scale (ELS) developed by researchers at NIEER – myself, Judi Stevenson-Garcia, Ellen Frede, and Kim Brenneman. The ELS is an observation-based performance assessment which was developed in response to a request by educators for a concise and manageable tool that is also comprehensive and based on standards. The ELS is currently in use by pre-K teachers in West Virginia (as noted in the ETS report), among other places, and provides programs with an assessment system capable of informing instruction and making a direct impact on teaching and learning. More information on the ELS is available in this NIEER technical report, and the ELS will be available for purchase in April from Lakeshore Learning Materials.

In conjunction with the ETS report reviewed here, readers are encouraged to peruse Developing Kindergarten Readiness and Other Large-Scale Assessment Systems, a recent report from the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). This report by Kyle Snow provides further guidance for policymakers in building an effective assessment system for young children. Detailed considerations and caveats are provided on the selection, administration, and utilization of large-scale assessment systems for young children.

Assessments are vital and useful tools in high-quality preschool education classrooms as they allow programs to chart progress and make improvements. In addition, they are a key component not only of program quality but also for understanding and supporting young children’s development. However, assessments should be used with caution and should not stand alone when making high-stakes decisions about the future of an individual program or child. It is therefore necessary that pre-K providers to be knowledgeable about assessments in general as well as to have access to reliable and valid assessment tools. The ETS report State Pre-K Assessment Policies: Issues and Status, as well as the other resources I’ve mentioned here, will help policymakers and practitioners make important decisions about assessments.

- Shannon Riley-Ayers, Assistant Research Professor, NIEER

2 Comments | Assessment, Outcomes, Preschool | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

“Privatizing” Pre-K Is About More than Saving Money

March 2, 2012

It was with no small measure of alarm that we learned this week of a proposal in the North Carolina legislature to completely privatize pre-K classrooms by the summer of 2013. It’s part of a draft report that calls for pre-K to be the exclusive domain of child care centers and to be removed from the public schools that currently serve about half the state’s preschoolers. It also would decrease eligibility from an annual family income of about $50,000 to $22,000— for all practical purposes, the poverty line.

If passed, this legislation will erase years of progress that made North Carolina one of the premiere states for delivering quality preschool education. In the process, it will relegate the children most at risk of school failure to programs that will more closely resemble babysitting than anything that enables children to start school ready to learn. Although it seems that the North Carolina legislature may back away from some aspects of the proposal, the proposal’s core principles are likely far from dead.

For anyone wondering how policy leaders could consider consigning the state’s disadvantaged kids to such a poor start in life, this should serve as a wake-up call. They should realize that those who are pushing to eviscerate high-quality state pre-K are not the least bit interested in the welfare of the children. Rather, they are pursuing a different agenda, seeking instead to separate preschool from public education. Rayne Brown, the co-chairwoman of the committee that came up with this plan told the Winston-Salem Journal she thinks privatization would be a “great thing to do and that it would help shrink government.”

This is not just more of the public employee/teacher union bashing that has been popular of late. It is part of strategy to deny rights and escape responsibilities that adhere to public education through state constitutions. By shifting preschool to child care and out of education, prohibitions against funding religious education are eluded and children’s rights to an effective education are made irrelevant. Make no mistake, this is a carefully crafted legal strategy spreading across the states wherever legislators fear that courts might force them to offer young children a real (and more costly) education or interfere with the legislature’s desire to funnel public funds to the religious and business institutions of their choice.

To my mind, children’s advocates who now almost uniformly describe preschool programs as “early learning” rather than “education” and support moving administration of early childhood programs out of state education departments are playing right into the hands of their opponents. As children’s advocates care deeply about the quality of education and closing the achievement gap, they will find the consequences tragic. The legal foundations of public education make it uniquely suited to bringing all sectors—including Head Start and faith-based organizations—into comprehensive state systems with uniformly high quality standards and adequate funding.

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

12 Comments | Early Education, Preschool, Quality Early Childhood Programs, State-funded programs | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

Investing for Today and Tomorrow: Early Learning in the Federal FY 2013 Budget Proposal

February 15, 2012

Starting the week on an exciting note for elected officials, advocates, and policy wonks, President Obama released his proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 on Monday morning. Education was a clear priority throughout the press conference at Northern Virginia Community College in Annandale, Virginia, particularly on preparing students for 21^st century jobs by focusing on career and technical skills. As readers of this blog can attest, early education is an important building block in preparing students for a life of learning and earning.

Details of the budget are still being fleshed out, but there seems to be good news for early education in the White House’s proposal, as outlined below.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed budget:

Department-wide discretionary budget of $76.4 billion, a $0.3 billion increase over the FY2012 level.
Head Start and Early Head Start: Set to receive more than $8 billion to serve about 962,000 children and families, which would maintain the enrollment expansion seen in the 2009-2010 program year. The proposal acknowledges that it will support the implementation of the new Head Start re-competition regulations.
Child care subsidies: Additional $7 billion over 10 years to support child care subsidies for low-income children.
Child Care Development Block Grant: Additional $300 million to improve the quality of child care facilities.

Department of Education proposed budget:

Department-wide discretionary budget of $69.8 billion, a $1.7 billion increase over FY2012 level.
Race to the Top (RTT): $850 million for another round. According to a Department of Education press release, a “significant portion” of these funds would be allocated for an expansion for the Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge, which would continue under the joint tutelage of the Departments of Education and HHS.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): $472.7 million in Grants for Infants and Families, to provide early intervention services to children birth through age 2 with disabilities and $372.6 million for IDEA Preschool Grants for children ages 3 through 5 with disabilities.
Promise Neighborhoods: Proposed increase of $100 million for this competitive grant program that seeks to help high-need communities develop cooperative strategies to improve outcomes for children through both educational reforms and life outside the classroom. Past winners have focused energies specifically on early education as a tool.
Investing in Innovation Fund (i3): Requests $150 million for the Investing in Innovation Fund (i3) to build on three previous i3 competitions. The Department’s budget summary only goes so far as to suggest that priority “could be given to projects proposing to improve early learning outcomes.”
Institute for Education Sciences (IES): $30 million in new research and development grants for early learning and elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education.

In addition, the National Women’s Law Center has information on additional federal programs in the FY13 proposal that support families with young children, including the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit. Of course, not all child care funding goes to children under 5 (though most does) and early education will only be a modest fraction of such high-profile initiatives such as i3, Promise Neighborhoods, and RTT.

Laura Bornfreund, Maggie Severns, and Clare McCann at Early Ed Watch compiled the helpful table below to track changes since FY2011 in some key programs used for early education.

As noted by the New America Foundation’s Key Questions on the Obama Administration’s 2013 Education Budget Request, there are still a number of questions surrounding the place of early education in this budget, including whether the portion of RTT funds earmarked for early learning would be distributed at the state level or district level. They also note that the budget proposal encourages districts to redesign school schedules to better serve students through the 21^st Century Community Learning program, though it is unclear so far whether states will be encouraged to apply this to the early grades, such as extending half-day kindergarten into full-day services.

It’s worth noting that a presidential budget proposal is, according to Birth to Thrive, just “the first move in a high-stakes game that will be complicated this year by presidential and congressional politics.” Considering the sharp partisan divisions seen in recent legislative battles, the pressure of the Budget Control Act to cut spending by $900 billion over 10 years, and the high-profile politics of an election year, it is hard to say exactly how much of this proposal will ever see funding. The great strength of the budget proposal, though, is to allow the president to lay out his priorities in greater detail than any speech or campaign ad could. Early education is clearly an administration priority, though perhaps not as high a priority as we would like. All of us concerned about the future of America’s youngest learners must ensure that elected officials remember that high-quality early education programs are a good economic investment both short-term and in the future.

- Megan Carolan, Policy Research Coordinator, NIEER

2 Comments | Child Care, Early Education, Early Head Start, Federal policy, Head Start programs, Race to the Top, Special Education | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

The Pre-K Debates: What the Research Says About Teacher Quality

February 10, 2012

The body of research on teacher quality is, if nothing else, a mixed bag, in terms of both quality and approach. Studies of the effects of preschool education levels have employed techniques ranging from simple correlations to complex statistical analyses that seek to account for the complexities of interrelated policies and practices that affect teaching and learning. Given just how complex policy and practice are, it may be that the simple correlations are just as informative for policy purposes, but neither approach is particularly satisfactory. Controlled randomized trials that look at teacher quality might get us farther, but even these may not tell us what we really want to know, and they are few and far between in any case. Little wonder, then, that some studies find that teachers with higher levels of education have stronger effects on children’s learning while others do not. A 2007 NIEER quantitative summary (meta-analysis) of the literature found a modest positive effect of teachers with a bachelor’s degree compared to those with less education. A few studies in that analysis deserve extra attention because they have obvious strengths:

1. The Cost, Quality and Outcomes Study of child care found that higher levels of teacher education and pay were associated with higher quality as measured by structured observations, and children’s cognitive test scores. A reanalysis that controlled for location and center found no differences between teachers with bachelor’s degrees and those with associate’s degrees or high school diplomas. However, the reanalysis fails to take into account that programs basically hire all their teachers under the same budget constraint, that teachers within a center are not independent performers, and that centers like to assign difficult-to-teach kids to better teachers.

2. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) study of early care and education has an advantage over most studies because it includes measures of education in the home, thereby more completely modeling the processes that contribute to children’s learning and development. And, it does so over multiple years and not just a few months. Several NICHD studies have found that teacher education contributes to children’s learning and development.

3. Two studies that found no effects of teacher education on children’s learning are a University of Nebraska study of child care centers in four Midwest states and a University of North Carolina study using data from the National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL) Multi-State Study of Pre-K. The latter involved more than 230 classrooms and 800 children. While both have relatively large samples, nether takes into account teacher assignment, apparently assuming that it is random and they do not measure home learning processes. In the Nebraska study, only about seven teachers out of the hundreds interviewed had salaries above $30,000.

To my mind, the most informative evidence comes from real policy changes such as when the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered high-quality preschool provided to all children in 31 low-income school districts. This “natural experiment” was implemented in a public system wherein most children were served by private providers under contract to the districts. Teachers lacking the necessary credentials received scholarships to attend more schooling so they could meet the new standard of a bachelor’s degree and early childhood certification. Salaries were raised to public school levels. Teachers received coaching on a regular basis. It comes as no surprise to many involved in this dramatic, albeit painful, transition that the quality of teaching as measured by direct observation was transformed, changing from poor-mediocre to good-excellent.

Of course, we can’t pinpoint teacher qualifications as the sole source of success in New Jersey, and I wouldn’t. Raising qualifications requirements without raising pay from its typically abysmal level is a recipe for disaster. Honestly, would the field really be debating whether preschool teachers needed to be well-educated if wages were not at issue? In addition, coaching and a continuous improvement process are certainly important, but it would be equally misguided to conclude that specialized training and professional development alone could produce quality teaching over the long-run with low wages and poorly educated teachers.

Education research rarely provides a basis for certainty and this is particularly true of studies looking at teacher effectiveness where so many variables matter. If policymakers want greater certainty than the existing evidence provides, different sorts of studies will be needed that are based on real policy changes. In the meantime, leading experts in the field provide us with well-reasoned arguments for and sometimes against requiring higher levels of education for preschool teachers than is currently the case in most classrooms across the nation. Their arguments are well represented in The Pre-K Debates, a new book edited by Ed Zigler and Walter Gilliam at Yale and me. If nothing else, it is always interesting to see university professors argue that their students don’t learn anything useful or that minority students can’t make it in higher education. I’m always happy to put forward Rutgers University as a counterexample.

- Steve Barnett, Director, NIEER

Note: This post is part of a series discussing issues of contention from The Pre-K Debates. For my analysis of universal preschool’s role in economic mobility, see this earlier post in the series.

1 Comment | Child Care, Outcomes, Preschool, Quality Early Childhood Programs, Research, Teachers | Permalink
Posted by NIEER

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

2 Comments | 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

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