Does Pre-K Work? the Research on Ten Early Childhood Programs—And What It Tells Us
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Does Pre-K Work? The Research on Ten Early Childhood Programs—And What It Tells Us KATHARINE B. STEVENS AND ELIZABETH ENGLISH APRIL 2016 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Does Pre-K Work? The Research on Ten Early Childhood Programs—And What It Tells Us KATHARINE B. STEVENS AND ELIZABETH ENGLISH APRIL 2016 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE © 2016 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. All rights reserved. The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed here are those of the author(s). Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Part I: Early Childhood Research 101 ........................................................................................................... 5 Randomized Control Trial ..................................................................................................................... 5 Regression Discontinuity Design ........................................................................................................... 7 Propensity Score Matching ..................................................................................................................... 9 Difference-in-Differences ..................................................................................................................... 11 Part II: Ten Early Childhood Programs ....................................................................................................... 12 Key Points to Keep in Mind ................................................................................................................. 12 Guidelines for Interpreting Study Findings .......................................................................................... 13 Abbott Preschool Program ................................................................................................................... 16 Abecedarian Project .............................................................................................................................. 17 Boston Pre-K ........................................................................................................................................ 19 Chicago Child-Parent Center Program ............................................................................................... 21 Georgia Pre-K ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Head Start ............................................................................................................................................ 24 Nurse-Family Partnership ..................................................................................................................... 26 Oklahoma Pre-K .................................................................................................................................. 28 Perry Preschool Program ....................................................................................................................... 29 Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K ................................................................................................................... 31 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 34 Strengthen and Accelerate Rigorous Research in Early Childhood ...................................................... 34 Advance High-Quality Child Care and Home Visiting ....................................................................... 37 Concluding Thoughts .......................................................................................................................... 37 Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................... 39 References ................................................................................................................................................... 42 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................... 46 About the Authors ...................................................................................................................................... 48 iii Executive Summary ith growing public and political support, the it designed? What kind of research has been conducted Wearly childhood field is advancing quickly, now on it? What methods were used, and what results were focused primarily on expanding school-based pre-K. found? What are the key takeaways? Yet pre-K is just one part of a broad landscape of pro- grams for children from birth through age four, and the A close look at these 10 programs reveals that they emphasis on pre-K often overshadows other valuable are as different as they are similar. Some focused approaches, such as child care and two-generation ini- on four-year-olds, some on three-year-olds, and some tiatives that work with children and parents together. solely on infants and toddlers. Some programs ran for Neither the public nor policymakers have a clear pic- just one year, others for two, and one served children ture of the range of early childhood programs, the from infancy to kindergarten. Some were school-based varied evidence on their effectiveness, and how that while others were home-based. Some targeted children evidence can guide us going forward. alone while some targeted their families too. Some pro- This report aims to provide a starting point for a grams increased the number of alphabet letters children more comprehensive, nuanced dialogue around core knew when they were five; others led to large increases policy goals in early childhood and the best strat- in social, economic, and health outcomes decades later. egies to accomplish those goals. It examines 10 of the best-known, widely cited programs of the last The research conducted on the 10 programs also half century—Abbott Preschool, Abecedarian, Bos- varied greatly. Researchers used different methods to ton Pre-K, Chicago Child-Parent Centers, Georgia investigate a range of questions: some evaluated basic Pre-K, Head Start, Nurse-Family Partnership, Okla- academic skills in kindergarten, some examined chil- homa Pre-K, Perry Preschool, and Tennessee Volun- dren’s performance in elementary school, and still oth- tary Pre-K—and the research on those programs. The ers tracked a range of long-term social and economic report has two parts. effects into adulthood. Some studies were more rigor- Part I is a short guide to the four research meth- ous than others. ods most commonly used to evaluate early childhood programs. While research findings are often presented The research shows neither that “pre-K works” nor in policy debates as black and white, they have a lot that it does not; rather, it shows that some early more gray than is often acknowledged. A basic under- childhood programs yield particular outcomes, standing of how studies are conducted is essential to sometimes, for some children. Overall, our report correctly interpreting their results. This brief overview finds that this body of research provides less useful aims to help nonexperts understand the methods used information than is commonly assumed. It shows that in early childhood research, how the choice of meth- early childhood programs can have a significant, sus- ods can influence study results, and the limitations of tained impact on the lives of children born into disad- each method. vantaged circumstances, but falls far short of showing Part II describes the 10 programs, answering sev- that all programs have that impact. The most rigorous eral broad questions about each: What is the specific research shows that the most meaningful, far-reaching nature of the program? Whom does it serve, and how is effects occurred with intensive, carefully designed, 1 DOES PRE-K WORK? well-implemented programs—specifically Abecedar- • Advance high-quality child care and volun- ian, Nurse-Family Partnership, and Perry—that target tary home visiting for disadvantaged children. very young children, engage parents, and teach a broad Our current knowledge base does not justify a range of skills. large expansion of pre-K as the best path forward. Two important policy implications emerge. To move Instead, the leading science and strongest research the early childhood field forward, we must: indicate that advancing high-quality, educational child care and supporting parents in better ful- • Strengthen and accelerate rigorous research in filling their role as their children’s “first teachers” early childhood. The early childhood research are the most practical and promising avenues to base is often characterized as rigorous and exten- help the children and families most in need. The sive, and it indeed includes hundreds of studies growing pre-K push may well do more harm than published over the last several years. Yet both the good by diverting attention and scarce resources relevance and rigor of this research