California State Findings of Major Research in Early Childhood Education HW (Before you start please see the rubric) and follow everything step by step. A
California State Findings of Major Research in Early Childhood Education HW (Before you start please see the rubric) and follow everything step by step.
Also, you will respond to three peers.
The discussion is based on the key research undertakings that impacted early childhood education, as well as important research questions on current concerns in the field. You have to sufficiently respond to the following discussion prompts:
1. List at least four findings of the major research in early childhood education. Make sure to have at least one from each (Abecedarian, High/Scope Perry Preschool, The Early Catastrophe, Head Start).
2. What are your thoughts about the research problem, methodology, and findings of these major studies? How do these influence your practice? How do these influence your advocacy?
3. How do the findings translate to policy and the general practice of early childhood education in the US?
4. What is a question that you had in mind while going over this week’s reading materials?
Please remember to consult the discussion in response to prompts “rubric” before you start “writing” Discussion Rubric (ECED 5345)
(30 points possible)
Criteria
Focus
(addresses
topic)
0
You did not
post.
Depth of
Response
You did not
post.
Writing Quality
You did not
post.
Below Expectations
Your posting/replies to others
postings are not focused or are
inaccurate, OR these do not
clearly relate to the topic or
guidelines for the discussions.
(1-3 points)
Your posting does not go
beyond a few facts from the
readings; Your replies to
others postings are to state
basic agreement with them;
Your postings do not clearly
demonstrate that you read the
assigned materials and/or that
you understand the topic. (1-5
points)
Approaching Expectations
You address the topic and
follow given guidelines in
your posting/replies to
others postings; some parts
may be off topic or unclear.
(4-6 points)
You respond to the prompts
with several facts/ideas from
the readings (and you cite the
source); Your replies to
others postings add new
information or extend the
discussion; Your response
show that you have a working
understanding of the topic.
(6-8 points)
Postings/replies are not
professionally written (overuse
of slang, casual voice, or
abbreviated texting-style
writing); Several grammar,
usage, or spelling errors are
noted and these detract the
reader from making sense of
your post; APA-citation style is
not used. (1-2 points)
Postings and replies are
mostly professionally written;
there may be some errors,
but they do not detract the
reader from getting meaning;
APA is attempted, but there
may be errors. (3-4 points)
Meets Expectations
You clearly address the topic and follow
the given guidelines in your
postings/replies to others postings;
your postings are focused on the topic
and accurate. (7-8 points)
Your postings include many facts/ideas
from the readings (and you properly
cite the source); You support your
responses with connections to other
readings and related personal
experiences; Your replies to others
postings add new connections, include
questions to further the discussion, or
may challenge (respectfully) ideas; Your
response shows your comprehensive
understanding of the topic. (9-10
points)
Postings and replies are professionally
written; there are few, if any, errors;
APA is accurate. (5-6 points)
Criteria
Timing and
Engagement
0
You did not
post a
response to
the prompts
and you did
not respond
to any of
your
classmates
postings
Below Expectations
You post your response to the
prompts after Friday, 11:59
PM.
Approaching Expectations
You post your response to
the prompts by Friday, 11:59
PM.
You start to respond to your
peers postings on Sunday.
You start to respond to your
peers postings on Saturday.
You respond to 1-2 of your
classmates postings AND you
did not respond to comments
on your post. (1-2 points)
You respond to 3 of your
classmates posting AND/OR
you did not respond to
comments on your post. (3-4
points)
Meets Expectations
You post your response to the prompts
by Friday, 11:59 PM
You start to respond to your peers
postings by Friday (or earlier).
You respond to at least three of your
classmates posting AND you reply to
comments on your post. (5-6 points)
27, 204207 (1998)
PM970275
PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
ARTICLE NO.
Long-Term Cognitive and Academic Effects of Early Childhood
Education on Children in Poverty
W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D.1
RutgersThe State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
LONG-TERM EFFECTS
It is generally accepted that early childhood education improves the cognitive performance of children
in poverty in the short-term, but whether cognitive
effects persist in the long-term is hotly debated. This
paper presents the results of a critical review of 38
studies of the long-term effects of early childhood programs on children in poverty. Outcomes examined
include IQ, achievement, and academic success as
measured by grade repetition, special education
placement, and high school graduation. Early childhood education is found to produce persistent effects
on achievement and academic success, but not on IQ
(with some exceptions). Head Start and public school
programs produce the same types of effects as better
funded model programs, but at least some of the effects
are smaller. Costbenefit analysis based on one randomized trial finds that the economic return from providing early education to children in poverty far exceeds the costs. Head Start, public school preschool
education, and education in high-quality child care
programs all offer avenues for government investment
to improve the long-term cognitive development and
academic success of children in poverty. q1998 American
Health Foundation and Academic Press
Key Words: cognitive development; achievement; academic success; special education; early childhood; preschool education; child care; costbenefit analysis.
Three questions are addressed in this paper. What
are the long-term effects of early childhood education
on the cognitive development and academic success of
children in poverty? What are the economic consequences of these effects? What new public policies ought
to be implemented based on our knowledge of long-term
effects and their economic consequences?
1
To whom correspondence and reprint requests should be addressed at Rutgers Graduate School of Education, 10 Seminary Place,
New Brunswick, NJ 08903. Fax: (908) 932-6803.
The short-term effects of early childhood education
on the cognitive development of children in poverty are
well established. A wide range of programs specifically
designed to improve the education of these children
before age 5 have been shown to produce immediate
effects on IQ and achievement of about 0.5 standard
deviations, equivalent to about 8 IQ points [1,2]. Similar, though somewhat smaller, effects have been found
for ordinary child care programs, which on average
have less qualified and well-trained staff, larger class
sizes, and less parental involvement and do not provide
the same quality of educational experiences [3,4].
There has been less agreement about long-term effects, but the most common conclusion has been that
effects on cognitive development decline after children
leave the programs and are eventually lost altogether,
while some effects may persist on measures of school
success such as grade repetition and special education
placements [5]. In addition, some have concluded that
Head Start, public school, and other large-scale government efforts may not be able to reproduce the results
of high-priced model programs operated by universities.
Yet, the results of some studies are at odds with these
conclusions, and the question arises as to why longterm effects on school success should persist if cognitive
effects do not.
A review of the literature was conducted to address
these issues. Thirty-eight studies that estimated effects
of early childhood education programs (before age 5) on
the cognitive development or school success of children
in poverty at least through grade 3 were examined [3,6].
These included 15 studies of research-sponsored model
early childhood programs. Most model programs were
center-based, though some used home-visiting alone or
together with a center-based approach. A few provided
full-day child care. The other 23 studies investigated
the effects of large-scale public programs provided by
Head Start or the public schools. These were primarily
half-day preschool education programs, though Head
Start also provides medical and dental exams and care,
204
0091-7435/98 $25.00
Copyright q 1998 by American Health Foundation and Academic Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
COGNITIVE AND ACADEMIC EFFECTS OF EARLY EDUCATION
immunizations, and parent activities including education and counseling.
IQ Effects
The general pattern was for effects on IQ test scores
to fade out after entry to elementary school, in most
cases quite rapidly. To some extent this appears to occur
because children in poverty who do not receive early
education outside the home experience an increase in
IQ as a result of public education beginning in kindergarten. Two experimental studies that provided fullday educational child care programs from the first year
of life through age 5 differ from other studies in that
they find some effects on IQ (0.3 standard deviations,
5 points) persisting well into adolescence. This suggests
that intensive programs from birth through age 5 might
produce more persistent effects on IQ than part-day
programs beginning at age 3 or 4.
Achievement Effects
In contrast to effects on IQ, effects on achievement
do not fade out. In many studies, effects on achievement
appear to fade out, but this is primarily due to substantial and selective attrition in follow-up that reduces the
statistical power to detect effects and biases estimates
of effects toward zero. Lasting effects on achievement
are found in both experimental and quasi-experimental
studies that do not suffer from these or other serious
methodological flaws. True experiments with adequate
sample sizes and minimal attrition find sizable effects
on achievement test scores into adolescence.
Effects on School Success
There is highly uniform evidence of long-term positive effects on school success as measured by rates of
grade retention, special education, and high school
graduation. All but one of the model program studies
reported grade retention and special education rates,
and in each the rates are lower for the children with
preschool education. Despite their small sample sizes,
a statistically significant effect on grade repetition or
special education rates was found in 5 model program
studies and in one other for length of time in special
education. Ten of 13 Head Start and public school program studies that collected relevant data reported statistically significant effects on grade retention or special
education. In the 5 studies (3 model program, 1 Head
Start, 1 public school) with high school graduation data,
results favored the preschool education group in all 5
and were statistically significant in 3.
Comparing Model and Public Programs
From a public policy perspective, it is important to
know how Head Start and public school early childhood
205
programs compare to model programs with respect to
effectiveness. Although both types of programs have
been found to produce positive effects, the size of effects
produced by the two types of programs may not be the
same. Useful effect size comparisons are precluded for
IQ and achievement test effects by the lack of IQ measures in Head Start and public school studies and the
serious problems with achievement test data in many
studies. However, it is possible to compare effect sizes
for school success.
Average effects on cumulative rates of special education placement, grade repetition, and high school graduation by program type are presented in Table 1 [6].
Average effects are substantial for both types of programs, but effects on special education are much larger
for model programs24 percentage points for model
programs and 5 percentage points for Head Start and
public school programs. There is no statistically significant difference between the two types of programs in
effects on grade retention. Effects are comparable for
high school graduation, but the small number of studies
with this outcome measure reduces confidence that the
lack of difference in effects is representative.
Differences in effects on special education and grade
repetition between the two program types were investigated further with regression analyses that controlled
for design (randomized or not), length of follow-up, age
of entry (prior to age 3 or not), type of program (model
or public), and the comparison groups rate of grade
retention or special education placement. With one exception, none of the independent variables was significantly related to the long-term effects. The comparison
groups rate was positively related (P , 0.01) to the
size of the estimated program effect. The higher the
comparison groups rate, the larger a programs effect.
Although the regression results seem to indicate that
Head Start and public school programs are as effective
as model programs when the population served is taken
into account, such a conclusion should be approached
cautiously. Few studies of the two types of programs
overlap in the degree of disadvantage indicated by the
comparison group rates of special education or grade
repetition. This raises questions about whether model
programs have targeted more disadvantaged populations or public program studies have serious measurement problems. Also, program quality and intensity
were at best crudely represented in the regression analysis. If public programs targeted more disadvantaged
populations, they might be less successful unless they
increased the quality and intensity of their services.
Moreover, studies of program quality and one study
directly comparing model and large-scale public programs indicate that differences in quality between
model and public programs affect program outcomes
[6].
206
W. STEVEN BARNETT
TABLE 1
Long-Term Effects on School Success by Type of Program
Model programs
Outcome measure
Decrease in special education
Decrease in grade retention
Increase in high school graduation
Head Start/Public school
Median
Mean
SD
N
Median
Mean
SD
N
24.0
14.5
16.0
19.6*
14.5
16.0
14.6
10.0
2.0
11
14
3
5.0
10.0
15.0
4.7*
9.5
15.0
5.3
6.4
2.8
9
11
2
Note. Data were measured as percentage point decrease or increase.
*P , 0.01, t test.
ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
Programs that produce substantial improvements in
the cognitive development and school success of children in poverty can be expected to produce substantial
direct benefits through educational cost-savings and
substantial indirect benefits as the result of increased
productivity and social responsibility. A comprehensive
costbenefit analysis of the long-term effects of early
childhood education has been conducted based on data
from the High/Scope Perry Preschool study [7]. This
study is a randomized trial of a part-day preschool education program with weekly home visiting that has collected detailed data on 123 study participants with minimal attrition through age 27 [8].
The results of the costbenefit analysis are summarized in Table 2. All figures in the table are in 1992
dollars discounted at a real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) rate
of 3%. The cost of the program was roughly $7600 per
child for a year. The cost figure in Table 2 is a weightedaverage of the costs of 1 and 2 years because a few
children (n 5 13) began at age 4 and received only 1
year of the program while most (n 5 45) began at age
3 and received 2 years. Benefits were estimated in seven
categories: custodial child care value, reduced costs of
K12 education, reduced costs of adult education, increased costs of college education, increased earnings
and fringe benefits, decreased costs of crime, and decreased costs of welfare. These costs and benefits are
shown for society as a whole and are broken down into
the costs or benefits of direct effects on the study participants and the program costs and benefits of indirect
effects on other members of society who may be thought
of as the taxpaying public generally. For example, the
economic benefit to society as a whole from a reduction
in welfare dependency is merely the reduction in administrative costs, which is shown in the first column; program participants receive fewer welfare payments so
this is shown as a cost in the second column, while the
taxpayers benefit from both lower administrative costs
and fewer payments so that the sum of these appears
as a benefit in the third column. In addition, benefit
estimates that depend only on program effects measured through age 27 are distinguished from benefit
estimates that require projections beyond age 27 (such
as increased earnings from ages 2865 and future
crime reductions).
As can be seen from the bottom lines of Table 2, the
estimated economic benefits of preschool education are
quite large relative to its costs. In fact, the estimated
rate of return on preschool education exceeds the average rate of return on investments in the stock market
over the past 30 years [7]. The generalizability of these
results is enhanced by the fact that the Perry Preschool
programs underlying effects are fairly close to the public program averages in Table 1 (special education 13
percentage points, grade repetition 5 percentage points,
and high school graduation 18 percentage points) and
TABLE 2
Present Value of the Perry Preschool Programs Costs and Benefits
per Child (1992 Dollars, Discounted at 3%)
Cost or benefit
A
To society
as a whole
($)
B
Program
participants
($)
C
Taxpayers/
general public
($)
Measured benefits
Child care
K-12 education
Adult education
College education
Earnings
Crime
Welfare
Total measured
738
6,872
283
(2868)
14,498
49,044
219
70,876
738
0
0
0
10,270
0
(22,193)
8,815
0
6,872
283
(2868)
4,228
49,044
2,412
61,972
Projected benefits
Earnings
Crime
Welfare
Total projected
15,833
21,337
46
37,216
11,215
0
(2460)
10,755
4,618
21,337
506
26,461
108,002
(212,356)
95,646
19,570
0
19,570
88,433
(212,356)
76,077
Total benefits
Program cost
Net benefits
Note. Costs or disbenefits appear as negative numbers in parentheses. Benefits reported under earnings include all employee costs paid
by an employer including fringe benefits. Column A is the sum of
columns B and C, but numbers may not add exactly to totals due to
rounding. Source is Ref. [7].
COGNITIVE AND ACADEMIC EFFECTS OF EARLY EDUCATION
by the magnitude of the economic benefits. Also, as
Head Start and public school programs cost significantly less than the Perry Preschool program, they
would pay off in the long-term even if their benefits
were lower by a factor of 10.
PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS
In light of the evidence, every child living in poverty
in the United States ought to be provided with at least
1 year of quality education prior to school entry in a
part-day preschool education program or a full-day developmental child care program rich in cognitive interactions between teachers and children. Custodial child
care, home-visiting programs, and other models that
do not provide sustained, intensive improvements in
the childs learning environment cannot be expected
to produce the desired outcomes [3]. As there is some
uncertainty about the size of the effects of existing programs, a conservative strategy would be to increase the
quality and intensity of public programs to approach
the levels of model programs found to be effective in the
context of experimental evaluations of public programs
long-term effects.
Increased maternal labor force participation and federal welfare reform have made the half-day school-year
preschool program at ages 3 and 4 obsolete for much
of the population. As larger effects on cognitive development may be produced by full-day, year-round programs
beginning before age 1, the government should sponsor
large-scale experiments comparing the effects of such
interventions to existing programs that begin at age 3
207
or 4. Head Start can conduct such randomized trials as
well as investigating the potential returns to improving
the quality of existing models. Although early childhood
education is not a panacea, research-based early education programs can substantially improve the cognitive
development, academic success, and lives of children
in poverty while benefiting the nation as a whole.
REFERENCES
1. McKey RH, Condelli L, Ganson J, Barrett G, McConkey C, Platz
M. The impact of Head Start on children, families, and communities. Washington: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1985. [DHHS Publication No. OHDS 85-31193.
2. White K, Casto G. An integrative review of early intervention
efficacy studies with at-risk children: implications for the handicapped. Anal Interv…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
