A Publication of the National Institute for Early Education ResearchMay/June 2006 Volume 4, No. 4

NIEER

Half-Day vs. Full-Day Preschool

PAGE 3

Does the Digital Revolution

Harm Preschoolers?

PAGE 4

FUNDED BY

m a t t e r s

You don’t need a Ph.D.to figure out that just asresearch can inform policy, it can also misinform it.Nowhere was the use andmisuse of research more ondisplay than in the debateover California’s Proposition82 ballot measure calling forstate-funded preschool forall. For every study cited bythose favoring state-fundedpreschool for all California 4-year-olds, it seemed anotherstudy purported to make thecase against it.

Whatever the merits ordemerits of Prop 82, its defeatmay have been due in part to the misuse of research thatled to erroneous conclusionsabout the effects of preschool

education. In too many cases,the press gave dubious find-ings equal weight with thosefrom more rigorous studiesand accepted without chal-lenge claims that were mis-leading and false. While seasoned education reporterscan often navigate these waterssuccessfully, the politicalreporters who wrote much of the Proposition 82 storyran aground for lack of suffi-cient background with whichto judge the research quality.

The rise of dubiousopposition research to com-bat rigorous findings in thefield is a problem that willonly be addressed when con-sumers of research are betterinformed. They ought to

know, for example, that ran-domized trials specificallydesigned to assess preschoolprogram effects are bettersources of information thananalyses of data from generalpurpose surveys that provideno measures of programquality, no verification ofprogram participation, andonly post-test data on chil-dren’s abilities. They oughtto know that the reported 65percent participation in pre-school among Californiachildren refers to any center-based program and that mostof these are of very limitededucational value.

This means that those ofus in the research communityhave a great deal of work todo to educate the public andthe media day in and day out—not just when an issuerises to the top of the politicalagenda.

On page 8 of this issue,we report a prime example ofstrong research—new resultson preschool’s effects from theIHDP study, a randomizedtrial with a large sample ofchildren from diverse back-grounds that followed themto age 18. Far from detectingfade-out, the IDHP studyfound substantial positiveeffects from preschool amongchildren as they enter adult-hood. On page 3 of this issue,we report results from anotherrandomized trial—NIEER’sstudy of half-day vs. full-daypreschool. Conducted in a

New Jersey school districtwith predominantly low-income families, it showedsignificant gains for childrenwho attended a full-day pro-gram over those who did not.

Of course, no study, nomatter how strong, stands byitself. Each should be inter-preted in the context of thelarger body of scholarshipand measured according tocommonly accepted criteriafor judging research. If welook harder at how a studywas conducted before accept-ing what it says, we can con-siderably reduce the confusion.

This task is made moredifficult when big moneyfuels media campaigns. InCalifornia, the campaigns forand against proposition 82spent millions. In such a cli-mate, half-truths can emergeand become accepted as “fact.” Turbulent waters awaitresearchers when a combina-tion of cash and spin inter-vene between their researchand the public perception ofit. The best way to navigatesuch seas is to invest in solidresearch for the long termand proactively educate thosewho will tell the story andtheir audiences. n

2

PR

ES

CH

OO

L M

AT

TE

RS

National Institute for

Early Education Research

120 Albany Street, Suite 500

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

732-932-4350

Fax: 732-932-4360

www.nieer.org

The National Institute for Early Education Research supports early childhood education initiatives

by providing objective, nonpartisan information based on research. NIEER is one component of

a larger early education initiative designed, funded and managed by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

W. Steven Barnett, Director

Carol Shipp, Director of Public & Government Affairs

Pat Ainsworth, Communications Director

Mary Meagher, Communications Assistant

Margaret Sotham, Contributing Editor

Sandy Ogilvie, Art Director

© 2006 National Institute for Early Education Research

Send comments, opinions, and news to editor@nieer.org.

Address Changes: Please include mailing panel on page 12when requesting address changes.

NIEER is a unit of Rutgers University.

NIEER

F R O M T H E D I R E C T O R ’ S C H A I R

Press, Politics MakeRough Sailing ForResearch

W. Steven BarnettDirector, NIEER

3

The big news in preschoolcircles has been the double-digit rate of growth in state-funded programs in recentyears. As more children attendstate-funded pre-K, however,the conversation in someplaces is increasingly turningto the issue of duration. Arehalf-day programs sufficientfor all kids who attend themor are the states, districts andmunicipalities developingfull-day programs on theright track?

Support for the latteroption, at least for popu-lations of disadvantaged children, comes by way ofrecently-released findingsfrom a study conducted byNIEER researchers in a NewJersey school district. It com-pared test scores of childrenfrom a low-income commu-nity who attended either an 8-hour public preschool program, or 2.5- to 3-hourpublic programs. Thoseattending the full-day pro-gram achieved significantlyhigher scores in reading andmath than children whoattended half-day programs.Furthermore, those gainspersisted through kinder-garten and into first grade.

The new study is signifi-cant in that it is the first ran-domized trial to comparehalf- and full-day programs.NIEER researchers compared85 children who were assignedto an 8-hour program for 45weeks to 254 children assignedto 2.5 to 3-hour programsfor 41 weeks. All childrenwere from the same schooldistrict. Because a limited

number of spaces were avail-able in the 8-hour program,a lottery determined entryand provided the basis forthe random assignment.Children not selected throughthe lottery primarily attendedthe half-day programs. Back-grounds of the children in thestudy resembled the make-upof the school district, whichis 50 percent Hispanic and 21 percent African-Americanwith more than 75 percent ofall families living in poverty.

Positive ImpactsThe classroom quality

in both programs was ratedas fairly high, teacher-to-student ratios were low andteachers in both programswere required to have bache-lor’s degrees. The childrenwere assessed in the fall andspring of their pre-K andkindergarten years, andabout half were assessedagain in the spring of firstgrade. Results showed thatboth programs had positiveimpacts on achievement—but the full-day programshowed clear and promisingadvantages over the half-day.

In the spring of theirkindergarten year, the half-day children achieved a littleover 90 percent of the nationalnorm in math and approached90 percent of the nationalnorm in language. The full-day children, on the otherhand, bracketed the nationalnorm in both tests—exceed-ing it in math and falling justshort of it in language (Seechart).

“The results of this study

show that students who arefar behind at entry to pre-school can develop vocabu-lary, math and literacy skillsthat approach nationalnorms,” says Ken Robin, one of the lead researcherson the project, “As long ashigh quality is maintained,children seem to benefitfrom more of a good thing.”Considering NIEER’s find-ings, high-quality full-dayprograms may play animportant role in addressingthe school readiness gap.

That thought is not loston New York City CouncilSpeaker Christine Quinnwho has proposed that thecity adopt full-day pre-K forits children participating inthe state Universal Prekinder-garten Program. Quinn saysshe sees the NIEER study asconfirmation that “we simplycannot wait to provide ourchildren with the full day ofprekindergarten they needand deserve.”

Meanwhile, growth inextended-day programs con-tinues. Georgia now providesmore than 70,000 4-year-oldswith 6.5 hours of preschoolper day. North Carolina’sMore at Four program servesmore than 16,000 4-year-oldswith at least six hours per day.Tennessee and Arkansas areexpanding access to their pro-grams which call for 4-year-olds to receive 5.5 and 7.5hours per day, respectively.

In Oklahoma, where dis-tricts have a choice betweenhalf-day and full-day pro-grams, enrollment in state-funded full-day preschoolhas grown 82 percent since2002. Federal Head Start has expanded its full-dayprograms, too.

The study is detailed inthe NIEER working paper Is More Better? The Effects of Full-Day vs. Half-DayPreschool on Early SchoolAchievement and is available at nieer.org. n

MA

Y/JU

NE

20

06

Can More Full-Day Pre-K Address the Readiness Gap? Latest NIEER Research Points in that Direction

Math and Language Scores by Length of Pre-K Day

1/2 dayMath

* National Average Score = 100 n Fall of Pre-K n Spring of K

LanguageFull day 1/2 day Full day

110

100

90

80

70

60

50

Stan

dar

d S

core

s*

4

PR

ES

CH

OO

L M

AT

TE

RS

The digital revolutionmay have passed by someadults, but it hasn’t missedyoung children. More pre-school-age children than everlearn to wield a mouse, playgames, listen to music andeven type on the home com-puter. Those who keep trackof technology in educationlike Warren Buckleitner,Editor of Children’s Tech-nology Review (CTR), saythat is but a warm-up for theinfusion of technology chil-dren will encounter in school.

Buckleitner sees a futurein which computer screenshang from preschool ceilingsinstead of desktop versions.Dance pads and eye toys will enable children to mani-pulate computer images. Web-cams will take them to once-inaccessible places. The samegame console technology thatis a platform for often-violentvideogames is, he says, evolv-ing into education applicationsas well.

Promising as all this maybe, it is accompanied by wide-spread concern over whatdigital technology’s effect onchildren might ultimately be.Concern over technology’sinfluence on youngsters isprobably as old as technologyitself. Before the computerera, film, radio and televi-sion ignited debate aboutpotential effects on children.Television, many experts said,would lower academic achieve-ment and shorten attentionspans. Such dire predictionswere not always borne out by research findings.

Ellen Wartella, a leadingscholar in media and chil-

dren’s development says thekey to whether these technol-ogies exert a positive or nega-tive influence is the contentthey carry. Her new book,Children and Television: 50Years of Research, compilesand summarizes a large bodyof research findings. In it,there is ample fodder for bothsides of the debate. She saysthe research is “highly con-sistent” in finding that chil-dren learn violence from themedia and as a result developa predisposition to this typeof anti-social behavior.

Teaching PotentialAt the same time, the

research also demonstratesthat television can be used to teach pro-social lessonsand cognitive skills. Childrenwatching Mr. Rogers werefound to be more considerateof their peers, play welltogether and share with oth-ers. Studies also showed thatBig Bird, Kermit, CookieMonster and the rest of theSesame Street gang did infact help children learn theirletters and numbers, developstrong language skills, andlearn basic arithmetic.

New research from twoUniversity of Chicago econo-mists concludes that childrenexposed to television in the1950s and 1960s had the sameor slightly higher test scoresthan those who didn’t havetelevision. Positive resultswere more pronounced wherethe household was nonwhite,English was a second language,or the mother had less than a high school education. Thestudy did not look at content

or how television affects achild’s focus, aggression orother behaviors.

Wartella notes that besideschanges in the type and vol-ume of children’s program-ming, there is also somethingelse to watch—the age of firstexposure to television hasdropped while the amount of time spent viewing hasincreased.

“The best evidence wehave says that children [bornin the 1950s and 1960s] beganwatching television betweenages 4 and 5,” Wartella says.“Today one-quarter of

American families with chil-dren under 2 have televisionin the child’s bedroom.”

Computers seem destinedto follow the same pattern.The U.S. Department ofEducation reports that 67percent of children betweenages 2 and 5 have used com-puters, and 23 percent havesurfed the Internet withadult supervision. A 2003telephone survey conductedby Princeton Research Asso-ciates for the Kaiser FamilyFoundation found that nearlythree out of four (73 percent)families with children 6

The Potential to Harm or Help is There, But Definitive Answers Are Hard to Come By

Does Exposure to Digital TechnologyReally Harm Preschoolers?

Content is the key to whether digital technology has a positive or negativeeffect on preschoolers, says one expert.

5

MA

Y/JU

NE

20

06

months to 6 years of agehave a computer at home,and about half (49 percent)have a video game player. Italso found that new media istrumping old: nearly twice as many children in this agegroup live in a home withInternet access (63 percent)as with a newspaper subscrip-tion (34 percent). Nearly allof them (97 percent) haveproducts—clothes, toys andthe like—based on charactersfrom TV shows or movies.

Art Coley, CEO ofComputer Tots - ComputerExplorers, a company pro-viding software, curriculumand training, says schools—including preschools—arerecognizing how technologyhas become an integral partof kids’ lives. For example,the federal No Child LeftBehind Act requires 8thgraders to demonstrate com-puter proficiency, an acknowl-edgement that such skills arecritical in the globalized, high-tech marketplace today’schildren will enter. Somepreschool providers are find-ing that offering computer-based learning is necessary tocompete. Wartella would like

to see research that exploreswhether computer-basedlearning helps children betternegotiate the multi-taskingworld they encounter today.

In the vanguard of organ-izations concerned abouttechnology’s growing pres-ence in children’s lives is the American Academy ofPediatrics (AAP). The AAPhas recommended strict limits on children’s “screentime,” which includes televi-sion, videos, videogames andcomputers. The AAP citesstudies showing that toddlerswho watched any amount oftelevision had lower readingand long-term memoryscores, were more likely toengage in bullying, and hadattention problems moreoften. The organization rec-ommends that screen timefor children be limited toone to two hours per day.Children under 2 should not be exposed to any screentime, says the AAP.

Wartella believes cautionis in order when exposingyoung children to television.“Television exposure oftenbegins in the first year of life,and we just don’t know thelong-term consequences ofsuch early exposure,” shesays. A voice lending supportto Wartella’s position is ScottTraylor, an educational game developer and assistant professor withHarvard Extension. LikeBuckleitner, Traylor is pro-technology when it comes to educationapplications. Yet he is suspicious of bombarding 3- and 4-year-olds with technology when the educa-tional merits of the productsare not known. His rule of

thumb: “I try to think, ‘Whatwould Mr. Rogers do?’”

Shows like Mr. RogersNeighborhood pioneered theuse of television to interactwith children in an educa-tional way. Hedda Sharapan,a 38-year veteran of the Mr.Rogers’ Neighborhood staff,sees a difference between thatshow and some of the mediabeing developed today. Shecites the personal nature ofFred Rogers’ approach andthe conversation he had withchildren as defining qualities—what Wartella calls con-tent—that made the show acultural icon.

Sharapan also recognizes

the limitations of the tech-nology. “My child develop-ment background says to methat there’s something verydifferent about building withblocks that are three-dimen-sional, that I can touch andthat I’m balancing in myhand, than manipulatingsomething onscreen. Weneed children to have realexperiences with objects andthen the virtual experiencescan give them another levelof understanding,” she says.Or as Fred Rogers was fondof saying, “A computer canhelp you know how to spellhug, but it can’t help you getthose feelings.” n

“The same game

console technology that

is a platform for often-

violent videogames is

evolving into education

applications as well.”

Warren Buckleitner, Editor, Children’s

Technology Review

6

When the Illinois Legislature passedGovernor Rod Blagojevich’s Preschoolfor All proposal and he signed it intolaw, the Prairie State became the first in the nation to develop a state-fundedpre-K program intended to eventuallyserve all 3- and 4-year-olds whose par-ents wish them to attend. The recentlypassed state budget dedicates $45 mil-lion to moving toward universal pre-school in 2007. According to the gover-nor’s office, that will enable 10,000 morechildren to have access to state pre-K.

The latest increase follows a total of$90 million worth of increases over thepast three years and raises total spendingfor state-funded pre-K to $318 million.A total of $145 million has been allocatedto moving toward universal access overthe next three years. The new program,passed by large majorities in both housesof the legislature, will enable every com-munity to offer state-funded preschoolin a variety of settings, including publicand private schools, child care centersand other community-based agencies. It requires that preschools be staffed by

teachers who have bachelor’s degreesand training in early education and thatproviders deliver at least 2.5 hours perday of high-quality instruction designedto foster cognitive, physical, social andemotional skills.

In the early years of implementation,the program gives first priority to at-riskchildren and to working families thatmeet income guidelines. A family of fourwith an annual income of four times thefederal poverty level will be eligible inthe first year and 4-year-olds will be eligible before 3-year-olds will. State policymakers say it will take 5 years toreach full implementation of the pro-gram, at which time 190,000 childrenare projected to be enrolled.

The new program came about in partdue to recommendations made by theIllinois Early Learning Council, a groupcomprised of policymakers, advocatesand early education experts, includingNIEER Scientific Advisory Board mem-ber Dr. Samuel J. Meisels of the EriksonInstitute for Advanced Study in ChildDevelopment. n

Illinois Passes Preschool for AllIt’s the First State Planning to Serve 3- and4-Year-Olds with a Universal Program

Teachers in WashingtonState report nearly half of allchildren are unprepared forlearning when they enterkindergarten. With studiessuggesting these deficits plaguestudents’ ability to succeedthroughout school, policy-makers, led by GovernorChristine Gregoire, decidedto do something about it.

Expanding access to pre-school was one solution…and that is happening. Not tobe overlooked, however wassomething more structural:

Washington’s fragmentedapproach to providing care

and education opportunitiesto children between birth andage 5. Various components

of the numerous early learn-ing programs fell under thesupervision of the Departmentof Social and Health Servicesand the Department of Com-munity Trade and EconomicDevelopment as well as underthe care of the state schoolsuperintendent.

Seeing redundancy andfragmentation, Gregoire andWashington legislators createda new state agency—theDepartment of Early Learning.The consolidated agency willreduce bureaucracy, use funds

more efficiently and serve as resource for parents andteachers. The new agencywill be monitored to ensureits success and must file areport with lawmakers bian-nually. Its performance willbe audited by the Joint Leg-islative Audit and ReviewCommittee by 2010.

By creating a departmentspecifically for early educa-tion, Washington joins otherleading states such as Georgiaand Massachusetts. n

Washington State Moves to Align Early Childhood Departments

P R E S C H O O L N E W S F R O M A C R O S S T H E N A T I O Nin the trenchesP

RE

SC

HO

OL

MA

TT

ER

S

“One area where

we need work is

early learning.”

Christine Gregoire, Governor of

Washington State

Universal Pre-K Not Yet in California’s Cards

7

MA

Y/JU

NE

20

06

State Funds for Head Start: Going But Not Growing

Since California’s Proposition 82 calling for state-fundeduniversal preschool failed to pass, support has grown for GovernorArnold Schwarzenegger’s less ambitious pre-K plan. His proposalcalls for directing $50 million of the state’s 2007 budget towardan expansion of 43,000 new pre-K slots in low-performingschool districts and $50 million for beefing up the Child CareFacilities Revolving Fund to pay for pre-K facilities expansion.

Schwarzenegger’s plan, which hadn’t been approved by thelegislature at press time, calls for spending $145 million over thenext three years to expand pre-K access for 4-year-olds in low-per-forming districts. That’s a far cry from the $2.4 billion Proposition82 would have dedicated to state-funded pre-K if it had passed.

Still, advocates seemed to view the governor’s plan as a baseupon which to build future expansions in access and quality.Actor-director Rob Reiner, who spearheaded the drive for Prop-osition 82 asked opponents of the measure to “help us come upwith another way” to provide early education to the state’s 4-year-olds. Reiner had also led the drive for Proposition 10, a 1998 bal-lot measure that passed and now funds early childhood educationthrough a tobacco tax that delivers about $700 million a year.

Not all Californians are waiting for the state to move onproviding universal access to state-funded preschool, however.The counties of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Clara andSan Mateo are already in the process of using state funds tooffer universal access for 4-year-olds.

If test scores are any indication, the state has a long way togo in preparing children to succeed in school. According to the2005 National Assessment of Education Progress, the readinglevel of the state’s fourth graders is lower than in 43 otherstates, with half failing to read at a basic level. Improving performance will be challenging in California since 38 percentof children starting school are English Language Learners.

A key feature of Proposition 82—and one reason its imple-mentation would have been expensive—is it raised programstandards, including requiring teachers to have bachelor’s degreesand be paid commensurately with public school teachers. Whilethe Schwarzenegger plan increases access and builds facilities, itso far has done little to tackle California’s low rating for quality.The state program achieves only 4 of NIEER’s 10 benchmarksfor quality.

Despite its defeat, Proposition 82 succeeded in moving Pre-Kforward on California’s agenda. “Our victory is that preschoolis now high on the California radar,” says Catherine Atkin, pres-ident of advocacy organization Preschool California. “There willnever be another serious conversation in this state about schoolreform that does not include preschool,” she says. n

A C R O S S T H E N A T I O N

Rob Reiner, who championed Proposition 82 and its predecessor, Proposition 10,visits a California preschool. Photo credit: California First Five

Supplementing Head Start programswith state funds is something that makessense to those who see Head Start fillingan important niche in the mix of earlyeducation services in the states. Thisallows states to build upon the servicesoffered with federal Head Start funds byserving additional children, providingextended-day/extended-year program-ming, or otherwise enhancing services.States are offering Head Start supple-ments less frequently now than in thepast, however. According to The State ofPreschool: 2005 State Preschool Yearbookpublished by NIEER, fewer states are

supplementing Head Start, fewer chil-dren are being served in state-supple-mented Head Start, and less money isbeing spent by the states for that pur-pose than four years ago. Here is whathas happened in state funding of HeadStart between fiscal years 2002 and 2005:

• Inflation-adjusted funding by the statesdeclined from $218 million to $152million.

• Most of the decline in funding can beattributed to Ohio, the state with thelargest Head Start supplement. Usinginflation-adjusted numbers, Ohio’s

funding fell from $110 million in 2002to $49 million in 2005. Starting withfiscal year 2006, Ohio replaced its sup-plemental Head Start programs with anew program, the Early LearningInitiative.

• The total number of 3- and 4-year-oldsin state-supported Head Start programsserved declined from 27,900 to 17,400.

• The number of states supplementingHead Start declined from 19 to 17.

• Indiana and Washington state stoppedfunding Head Start programs. n

8

PR

ES

CH

OO

L M

AT

TE

RS

Numerous studies haveshown that children whoattend high-quality preschoolprograms make significantgains in the short term. Amore difficult challenge,however, is showing long-term gains from preschoolprograms. That’s why thepositive effects found inrecently published findingsfrom a rigorous long-termstudy of low-birth weightchildren are so significant.

The 18-year follow-up tothe Infant Health and Devel-opment Program (IHDP)not only confirms findingsfrom earlier rigorous studieslike the Carolina Abecedarianstudy and Perry Preschoolstudy, but it also expands thefindings to a bigger, broader

sample of children. Becauseit was a large, rigorous ran-domized trial conducted inmultiple locations, it pointsto the probability that sus-tained positive effects can begained from larger programs.

Harvard School of PublicHealth Professor Marie C.McCormick and others fund-ed by the Robert WoodJohnson Foundation, reportlong-term results from thisstudy that began with 985low-birth weight childrendivided into a heavier and alighter group. Children in thetreatment groups received anintensive preschool educationintervention beginning whenchildren reached age 1 andlasting for two years. All fam-ilies benefited from a home

visitation program duringthe children’s first three yearsof life. The children wereassessed at ages 3, 5, 8 and 18.

Key findings were:• Members of the heavier

group who received theintervention demonstrated

higher achievement in math and reading and alower propensity for riskybehaviors. Though effectsizes were moderate, theyremained constant. Effectsseen as significant at ages 3and 5 remained relativelyundiminished at 8 and 18.

• The lighter group did notdemonstrate higher achieve-ment at age 18—a notentirely unexpected resultgiven that this group’seffects appeared to fade byage 8—though effects werefound at 3 and 5.

While the lack of sus-tained effects for the lightergroup has the researchersscratching their heads forexplanations, McCormick

Long-Term Study of Low-Birth Weight KidsShows Positive Effects from PreschoolDo Moderate Effects Mean More These Days Than in the Past?

Researchers struggle with how best to gauge the significance of effects these days. In the IHDP study, theeffect size at the end of the preschool intervention (age3) was .75 of a standard deviation for the heavy group oflow-birth-weight children. In other words, on a test with a mean score of 100 and a standard deviation of 16, thatwould be a 12-point gain. At ages 8 and 18, the effectsize was a little less than one-third of a standard devia-tion, or 4 to 5 points, for the same group. In the dose-related findings for the children who attended 350 daysor more at the center over two years, the effect at age 8was .66 of a standard deviation—an effect Brooks-Gunnconsiders large.

While those are substantial effects, the estimates may in fact be on the conservative side. McCormickpoints to two aspects of the study that in her view could account for built-in bias against finding even larger effects:

• The children were born in the mid-1980s when pre-school was more prevalent than in the 1960s when thePerry Preschool Project was undertaken and the 1970swhen the Abecedarian Study occurred. Therefore, thecontrol group not receiving the preschool interventionwas more likely to attend some other type of preschoolprogram than children in those older studies. If so, thatwould tend to “close the gap” between the control andtreatment groups, making effect sizes smaller.

• All the children studied were premature, making it pos-sible that they didn’t achieve the same magnitude ofgains that full-term children would. Also, children atsome of the study sites were born at the height of thecrack cocaine epidemic of the 1980s. It wasn’t unusual forlow-birth-weight children born in such circumstances tosuffer from additional impairment related to parentaldrug abuse.

How Do We Judge the Size of an Effect?

discoveries S C I E N C E N E W S Y O U C A N U S E

Because it was a large,

rigorous randomized

trial conducted in

multiple locations, it

points to the probability

that sustained positive

effects can be gained

from larger programs.

9

MA

Y/JU

NE

20

06

and her team are more thana little encouraged by whatthey see for the heavierbabies. “These findings areconsistent with results seenin earlier long-term studiesand are widely applicable tothe general population,” sheconcludes. Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, a professor at theNational Center for Childrenand Families at ColumbiaUniversity who worked withMcCormick and others onthe study says the findings“provide evidence for thegrowing belief that invest-ment in early childhood edu-cation pays off in enhancedachievement in high schooland reduced risky behaviors.”

What sets the IHDP studyapart is that it takes this lon-

gitudinal research to a sam-ple that, at age 18, consistedof 636 youngsters whosecollective profile resemblesthe general population ofchildren. The samples for the Perry Preschool andCarolina Abecedarian studieswere far smaller and consistedentirely of economically dis-advantaged children.

Nonetheless, the IHDPstudy is closely related to theCarolina Abecedarian study.It used a version of the Abece-darian Partners in Learningcurriculum and administeredfull-day preschool interven-tions and home visits early inchildren’s lives. Both studiesincluded doctor’s visits fortreatment and control groupsalike.

The way Brooks-Gunnsees it, the effects for theheavier group apply to allchildren. “Although the heavybabies in our study were lowbirth weight, they were onlyat slightly increased risk ofimpairment. What we findwith them we can expect tofind with full-term children,”she says.

Light Baby GroupAs for the lack of sus-

tained effects for the lighterbabies, there are a couple of schools of thought. One is that at 2,000 grams or lessper child, there might be a biological basis, such asimpaired neurological devel-opment, for the lack of sus-tained effects. Another possi-

bility may be that there wasinsufficient dosage to sustaineffects among the lighterchildren. Brooks-Gunn leansin that direction, since thestudy found that childrenwho attended center-basedcare 350 days or more hadlarge sustained effects onachievement at age 8—regardless of whether theywere in the heavy or lightgroup. McCormick agreessaying, “The issue withregard to the lower birthweight group is how do wesustain the substantial effectsthat we saw at age 3?”

As with other long-termstudies, more time will likelytell more of the tale. ThePerry Preschool Study, forinstance, has followed itssample through age 40 andidentified and clarifiedpreschool’s effects in areassuch as earnings and employ-ment, crime, child rearingand health behaviors. Whetherthe IHDP study follows thattrack is an open question.McCormick says no deci-sions have been made. Muchdepends on funding and howeffectively the sample can besustained. Today’s mobilesociety and prevalence of cellphones for which there is nodirectory do not make iteasy. “It would be great toget data when these folks arein their 20s to track employ-ment and other variables,”Brooks-Gunn says. To readmore about the study, go to: http://www.rwjf.org/newsroom/newsreleasesdetail.jsp?id=10396. n

Positive effects from early intervention programs remain relatively undiminished from ages 3 to 18.

10

PR

ES

CH

OO

L M

AT

TE

RS

As public preschool gainsin popularity, there’s at leastone crowd still on the fence:Existing child care programsalready serving 3- and 4-year-olds. It doesn’t take much todraw out the anxiety amongexisting providers about theimpact of new or expandedpublic programs. “I hear theconcern all the time, as Itravel,” says Libby Doggett,executive director of thenational advocacy group,Pre-K Now. “Existingproviders are worried publicpreschool will put them outof business.”

Many providers worrythey will lose their 4-year-olds, who are often seen asthe financial linchpin of theiroperations. That doesn’t haveto be the case, says a newreport on the roll-out of pre-K services in New York Statewhere existing providers—including child care centers,Head Start programs, settle-

ment houses, special educa-tion providers and even fam-ily child care providers—arenow partners in the deliveryof public pre-K services.

Those services are free to parents, but each providerreceives a per-child reim-bursement. By including the full spectrum of existingproviders, New York’s pro-gram makes the most of pub-lic and private investmentsalready made in early child-hood education, aligns themwith the public schools andbrings new resources to pri-vate programs which hadbeen traditionally under-funded. Those are among the conclusions of a newreport, “A Diverse Pre-KSystem Delivers: LessonsLearned in New York State,”to be released in June by Pre-K Now and WinningBeginning, New York, a state-based advocacy campaign.

“It’s true there was a lotof anxiety in the child carecommunity at the beginning.Many worried the publicschools just wanted to takeover,” says Nancy Kolben,executive director of ChildCare, Inc. and co-convenorof Winning Beginning, NewYork. “And I don’t want tominimize the work it took to bring everyone together.There was a lot of hard workand a lot of learning acrosssystems. But the results arequite promising for everyone.”

Among the benefits identified by educators andresearchers studying theimplementation of pre-K in New York are:

• Private programs couldafford to buy new equipmentand teaching materials.

• More teachers in private pro-grams sought certification.

• More low-income childrenhad access to services.

• Programs serving childrenwith special needs couldexpand, creating more integrated classrooms.

• Professional developmentexpanded for teachers inprivate programs.

• Developmentally appropri-ate practice increased acrossall settings.

• Private providers andschools began to alignlearning expectations.

New York’s experiencegrew out of a mandate for 10 percent of the services tobe delivered by private pro-grams, a requirement writteninto the law back in 1997.The law also allowed state

officials to add pre-K servicesto existing programs, such as child care and Head Start,fueling experimentation on a broad scale. Today, privateprograms enroll 65 percentof the children and operateunder contracts with theirlocal school districts.

New York’s approachdoes more than blend sites or add classrooms at privatesites. Various UPK providersshare staff, supervision, fund-ing streams, professionaldevelopment and assessment,and learning expectations.“It’s a true partnership in the most successful commu-nities,” says Kolben. In theBronx in New York City, forexample, teachers in privateprograms attend professionaldevelopment sessions withthose based in the schools,creating a rich dialogue onbest practices for early child-hood education.

“We are all learningtogether and that is part ofthe success and excitement,”says Bonnie Mallonga, direc-tor of the Future of AmericaLearning Center in New YorkCity. “We are all richer for it. We have more resources.More children can enrollbecause we add not onlyspace, but also the hours that working parents need.”

Karen Schimke, directorof the Schuyler Center forAnalysis and Advocacy andco-director of WinningBeginning, New York, says “What we’ve learned is that pre-K can be anengine of positive changefor all concerned.” n

New York State’s Approach Proves to Be a Winner

Can Child Care Centers Thrive AfterPublic Pre-K Comes to Town?

In New York, private programs are now partners in the delivery of public pre-K services.

11

MA

Y/JU

NE

20

06

Channell Wilkins, aprominent leader from NewJersey with a strong record ofhelping underserved popula-tions in both the public andprivate sectors was recentlytapped to serve as associatecommissioner of the HeadStart Bureau in Washington,D.C. Wilkins brings plenty of hands-on experience—as president of the Board ofTrenton Head Start and exe-cutive director of the NewJersey Community ActionAssociation. Preschool Mattersasked Wilkins about theissues he and Head Start face.

Q: What prompted you toaccept the challenge of lead-ing the national Head StartBureau?A: My career has been inpublic and non-profit serviceand management, especiallyaround low-income families,and opportunity presenteditself. I had just heard a pastorpreach about faith withoutfear. I decided to challengemyself and acknowledge whatothers had told me in theLeadership Management forUrban Executives Institute,New Jersey. Alex Haley oncesaid, “In every conceivablemanner, the family is the linkto our past and bridge to thefuture.” For me, it was mygreat-grandmother, grand-mother, mother-in-law, wife,and aunt and uncle whoreared me and connected me to Head Start or earlyeducation.

Q: What are the issues ornew initiatives where you

hope to make a difference?A: I hope to make a differ-ence with active listening,and in areas of reorganiza-tion and in the structure ofthe Head Start Bureau and inbroadening the collabora-tions and partnerships ofHead Start to better serveparents and children.

Q: How do you see HeadStart responding to thechanging preschool land-scape—such as the call forgreater coordination andcollaboration?A: We will actively engagethe various states in an opendialogue to see how best tocreate synergy of resourcesand ideologies to improvethe quality of life for low-income children and fami-lies. Hopefully, we will notonly focus on the immediateplans but how we can col-lectively shape a system toaddress every child in need.Each state’s plan with HeadStart may differ but we hopeto find ways to partner andeach share our best practicesto develop better results.

Q: Do you think researchcan continue to contributeto the development of HeadStart?A: Yes. Ed Zigler once said:“Head Start is not a pro-gram, but a process driven by research.” Head Start’sorigins are in research and itsfuture will also be in research.The need to constantly chal-lenge ourselves to do better is rooted in knowing throughsome forms of empirical data

that what we do is valid andreliable and predictive.

Q: Some conclude from theHead Start Impact Studythat one year of Head Startyields fairly small gains on children’s learning anddevelopment. First, do youagree with that interpreta-tion? Second, what conclu-sions or implications do you draw from the study? A: No. To minimize theimpact of any learning, butespecially for very youngchildren, by classifyingresults as “fairly small gains”takes away from the realitythat knowledge and learningis cumulative. Emerging les-sons from early brain researchhelps us to understand howyoung children’s brains devel-op at astonishing speeds. Theseeds of learning and socialdevelopment planted todaymay not flourish at a paceacceptable to all but they mustbe planted to flourish at all.

Q: Head Start serves morethan 900,000 children. Withflat or declining budgets,what adjustments do youforesee as a result? A: Head Start and manyother programs for low-income children and familieshave found ways to surviveand re-invent themselvesduring economically hardtimes. When is too much andwhat is the scenario when itbecomes undoable? I don’tknow. However, with scarceresources we will seek part-nerships as noted above tocompliment rather than

compete. An importantquote to remember, and I am paraphrasing, is this: “We will be judged by howwe treat those in the dawn of life and the shadow oflife.” The Head Start Bureauwill seek to treat those in thedawn of life the best we canwith what we have.

Q: What has been your mostpleasant surprise since join-ing the Head Start Bureau? A: I’ve been very surprised atthe level of professionalismand dedication among thepeople here. These peoplecontribute yeoman’s servicewith many working longhours. Their work followsthem home, too. I knowbecause I get e-mails thatwere written at 2 in themorning. n

newsmaker P E O P L E M A K I N G N E W S

Channell Wilkins: Brings Community ActionLeadership to Head Start Bureau

Channell Wilkins visiting a DetroitHead Start program.

NON–PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDNEW BRUNSWICK, NJ

PERMIT NO. 157

ADDRESS SERVICEREQUESTED

National Institute for

Early Education Research

120 Albany Street, Suite 500

New Brunswick, NJ 08901

NIEER

A well-trained, knowl-edgeable workforce is anintegral aspect of a qualityearly care and education(ECE) program. Yet moststate polices require the ECEworkforce to have only mini-mal pre-service credentials,and much of the in-servicetraining to which teachershave access may actually dolittle to advance their knowl-edge and practice at any point

in their careers. Further-more, the current researchbase on early childhood pro-fessional development is notyet large enough to providesufficient guidance to policy-makers who wish to upgradeteachers’ training in order toalso improve ECE quality.

This policy context servesas the basis for Critical Issuesin Early Childhood ProfessionalDevelopment, which seeks toidentify “the series of prob-lems and gaps in the under-standing of early childhoodprofessional development” as well as “strategies to moveboth research and practice”(p. 1) in this area forward.Using contributions frommore than 45 researchersand policymakers in theUnited States, the book has15 chapters and is dividedinto five sections. In Section I,

chapters tackle issues relatedto defining and measuringprofessional development aswell as accurately assessingthe training needs of a work-force with a wide variety ofqualifications and character-istics. Section II discussesapproaches to professionaldevelopment that help teach-ers enhance children’s earlylearning and self-regulation.

The third section of thebook focuses on professionaldevelopment that providesteachers with training inresponse to classroom interac-tions, state literacy standards,and the field’s standards ofquality. Given the limitedamount of professional devel-opment funds most programshave, Section IV examinesthe variables that need to beincluded when consideringthe costs and benefits of any training initiative. Alsoexamined are the effects ofproviding parents with infor-mation about the quality ofavailable ECE as a means foralso increasing teacher pro-fessional development.

The book concludes withseveral chapters focusing on the research needed toimprove early childhoodprofessional development.

Such studies include field trials of monitoring systemsthat could provide an accu-rate picture of both teachers’daily practices and children’soutcomes, as well as exami-nations of the effect of spe-cific types of professionaldevelopment on teachers’practices and children’s out-comes. In addition, studiesneed to determine not onlywhat works best for particu-lar groups of teachers butalso how limited funds mightbest be spent in order tomaximize children’s gains.

While there is much leftto be learned about effectiveprofessional development forthe ECE workforce, we doknow that it is key forimproving both teachers’daily practice and the qualityof ECE our country’s youngchildren receive. CriticalIssues in Early ChildhoodProfessional Developmentis a valuable resource forresearchers and policymakerswho would like to play a rolein expanding that knowledgebase. n

—Debra J. Ackerman,Assistant Research Professor,NIEER

Related Reading

Critical Issues in Early Childhood Professional DevelopmentMartha Zaslow & Ivelisse Martinez-Beck, Editors, 2006Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.412 pp., ISBN 1-55766-825-6, $34.95