TEN IDEAS FOR IMPROVING EARLY HEAD START— AND WHY THE PROGRAM NEEDS THEM Nicholas Zill Early Head Start is a federal child development program intended to bolster the early learning and eventual school readiness of infants and toddlers from low-income families. The best available evidence, from a national random-assignment evaluation study, indicates that the program is not performing as intended. This paper suggests ten ways to improve the program, such as by placing more emphasis on family stability, parent- child interaction, and cognitive skills that are predictive of later achievement; using technology to help teach parents and children; employing volunteers to make early intervention less costly; and dispersing more funds to communities with greater need for the program. Nicholas Zill is a research psychologist and independent consultant based in Washington, DC. Prior to his recent retirement, he was Director of the Child and Family Study Area at Westat. In that capacity, he headed several national surveys and assessments of Head Start program performance. 40 ZILL Early Head Start (EHS) is a federal program for the child. Both small-scale observational intended to address the same social problem research4 and large-scale survey studies5 that the larger and better-known Head Start have found that young children in low- program addresses. That problem is that income, low parent-education families young children from economically and receive significantly less stimulation and socially disadvantaged families begin support than those growing up in families elementary school with knowledge and skill with higher parent-education and family levels that are substantially below those of income levels. According to the Head Start children from more advantaged families. Family and Child Experiences Survey Furthermore, attempts to create equality of (FACES), at the time children from low- educational opportunity have not produced income families enter Head Start, their equal educational results.1 By the later average vocabulary test scores are one full grades of high school, youth from standard deviation or more below national disadvantaged families typically have lower norms.6 That is, the number of words whose achievement test scores, more grade meanings they know is thousands of words repetition, higher dropout rates, and lower smaller than the number the typical non- college entrance and completion rates than poor child can identify at the same age.7 So youth from more advantaged families.2 there is research evidence supporting the Indeed, study after study has found that the need for efforts to enrich the early home family from which a child comes is a better environments of children in low-income predictor of educational accomplishment families. Whether EHS in its current form than the schools she has attended.3 provides enrichment that makes a meaningful difference in the development of Like Head Start, EHS is a these children is another question, one I will comprehensive child development program address in a moment. intended for children from low-income families. Comprehensive means that the program provides not only early childhood The available research education services, but also health screening and referral and family support. Whereas evidence suggests that local Head Start programs serve preschool EHS as currently children of ages 3 and 4, and 5-year-olds who have not yet started kindergarten, EHS constituted and serves infants and toddlers below the age of structured is less than 3. Whereas local Head Start programs are predominantly center-based, with some a sterling success. providing home-visiting services as well, EHS programs are predominantly home- based, or involve a mixture of home-based Prior to the passage of the American and center-based services. Recovery and Reinvestment Act, EHS provided funding to some 650 local The rationale for having EHS as well programs, whereas Head Start itself as Head Start proper is that the sooner one supported the operation of more than 18,000 can provide intellectual stimulation and centers and 49,000 classrooms around the emotional support to a child who may not be country. The annual budget for EHS ($690 receiving adequate levels of either, the better million in 2009) was about one-tenth the TEN IDEAS FOR IMPROVING EARLY HEAD START 41 size of that for Head Start proper.8 The entry. There was another follow-up study American Recovery and Reinvestment Act conducted when most of the students were provided an additional $1 billion for EHS in the fifth grade of elementary school. per year in 2009 and 2010. This represents almost a doubling of the program’s Child assessments included appropriations, at least for those two years. cognitive, language, and social-emotional measures based either on direct assessment Is this massive increase in funding or parent report. Parent assessments were justified, given the available evidence on the based on observation (videotapes and by efficacy of EHS? What recommendations interviewers) or a self-report. Families in the can we make regarding the design of the program and control groups were EHS program, based on available evidence demographically comparable at baseline and and practical experience? What policies and assessment points. Several research briefs practices ought the program put into and a journal article have been published 10 operation that might improve its long-term based on findings from the study. impacts on children’s school performance and behavior? What kinds of research The latest research brief that is publicly available is based on the findings as should the program undertake to inform 11 future policy and practice? These are the of the pre-K follow-up study. What that questions that this paper addresses. brief tells us is that, by the time of their entry into kindergarten, participation in EHS Evidence on Program Efficacy had no significant impact on children’s early reading skills, early math skills, English- The best available research evidence language vocabulary knowledge, or ability on the efficacy of EHS as currently to pay attention to a repetitive task in a implemented comes from a national random sustained manner. assignment study of the program conducted by Mathematica Policy Research for the A landmark review of six U.S. Department of Health and Human longitudinal child development studies Services.9 Does the evidence from that compiled by Greg Duncan of the University study justify the surge in funding that of California, Irvine, and his collaborators Congress has bestowed upon the program? showed that school-entry math, reading, and attention skills were the strongest predictors 12 The EHS Research and Evaluation of later academic achievement. Thus, it is Project was conducted beginning in 1996 in particularly troubling that EHS had no seventeen sites representing different impact on these potent predictors of later regions of the country, program auspices, achievement. An earlier report of the program models, and racial and ethnic Mathematica evaluation noted that at age 3, composition of the populations served. the EHS children scored significantly better Some 3,000 children and families from these than control children on the Bayley Scale of sites were randomly assigned either to Infant Mental Development (effect size = receive EHS services or be in a control .10) and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary group whose members could utilize any Test (effect size = .15). The differences were community services except EHS. Children, small (in the 10 to 20 percent range) and the families, and their child care arrangements scores of the EHS group, though higher than were assessed when children were 1, 2, and those of the control group, were still well 3, and 5 years old, prior to kindergarten below national norms. However, similar 42 ZILL differences were not apparent by the time of including internalizing and externalizing kindergarten entry. problems and social skills, were generally insignificant predictors of later academic One subgroup did show a difference performance, even among children with in language development at kindergarten relatively high levels of problem behavior. entry that was linked to EHS participation. There was a significant impact (effect size The pre-K follow-up study also of .27) on the Spanish-language vocabulary reports some positive impacts of EHS on knowledge of Spanish-speaking children. parental behavior, namely, more daily Though this impact was modest, it was reading (effect size = .09) and periodic actually one of the largest effects found in teaching activities (effect size = .09), more the pre-K follow-up study. The brief does supportive home environment (as measured not discuss why there should be an effect in by the HOME scale; effect size = .13), and Spanish but none in English. One may less depression (effect size = -.10), all as speculate that Hispanic parents were reported by parents themselves. Again, culturally less apt to speak with their however, the statistically reliable impacts children in ways that would stimulate the are miniscule in magnitude (effect sizes youngsters’ vocabulary development. ranging from .09 to .13). And balanced Participating in EHS may have worked to against these is a lack of any significant loosen the parents’ reticence in a more impact when the measures of parental pronounced fashion for Hispanic parents behavior are based on direct observation of than for those of other ethnicities. parent-child interaction (no significant differences in parental supportiveness or The pre-K follow-up found some negativity during videotaped play), as significant but tiny impacts of EHS on opposed to being based on parental report. children’s problem behavior (effect size = -.10) and approaches to learning (effect size In sum, the available research =.12), as reported by parents. But three other evidence suggests that EHS as currently measures of socio-emotional behavior and constituted and implemented is something engagement showed no impact. less than a sterling success. If one focuses Furthermore, the review paper by Duncan on the early effects of the program, the and his colleagues found that measures of program seems to show promise.