What Difference Does Early Childhood Education Really Make

1
What Difference Does Early Childhood Education
Really Make?

• State Partnership Conference
• Alexandria, Virginia
• October 20, 2003
• Frances Campbell
• Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute
• University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

2
Why Should the Maternal and Child Health Bureau
be Concerned About Early Childhood Education?

• Goals for Healthy People 2010
• Special needs of children are a prime concern
• Developmental disabilities
• High school graduation

3
Americas children are increasingly cared for
outside their homes

• Over the last century, the proportion of children
  who are growing up in 232-parent families where
  only one parent works outside the home has fallen
  dramatically.
• Welfare reform increases the need for quality
  childcare among poor families.

4
Family Types for Children 0-17, 1900-2000
5
Poverty among some minority families is increasing

• Minority families tend to be over-represented
  among low-income families.
• Of minorities, only African Americans showed an
  increase in poverty rate from 2002 to 2003 (now
  24).
• For many years, state and Federal governments
  played a role in providing some basic health
  programs for young children, such as
  immunizations.
• We have been slower to agree on the need to
  provide quality childcare and early childhood
  education.

6
Statement of the problem

• Individuals who grow up in poverty are at high
  risk for developmental delays, school failure, a
  lesser degree of economic self-sufficiency, and
  more socially maladaptive behaviors.

7
Why worry about educating very young children?

• Scientists increasingly believe that the early
  years are very important for childrens cognitive
  development.
• It may be that if opportunities for early
  stimulation are missed, children will have a much
  harder time catching up.

8
Can we combine the need for group care and early
education?

• The need for group care gives an opportunity to
  stimulate cognitive growth for young children.
• Enhancing the educational value of the early
  environment of poor children should increase the
  degree to which they develop to their full
  potential and lead productive lives.
• How could we find out if an early childhood
  program helps?

9
Statement of the problem

• For a variety of reasons, the early years are
  believed to be the most efficacious period to
  intervene in the lives of poor children.
• Development appears to be more malleable in the
  early years.
• Children who arrive at kindergarten lacking basic
  readiness skills tend to fall further behind in
  later years.
• Massive attempts to prepare poor children for
  school success, such as Head Start, were
  initially disappointing.
• Research was needed to learn whether intensive
  early intervention that began in the infancy
  period could make more lasting difference for
  poor children.

10
Why is the Abecedarian study of interest?

• Attempted to ameliorate or prevent a progressive
  decline in intellectual test performance of young
  children at risk
• A very intensive early childhood intervention
  program
• Randomized trial
• Low attrition
• Periodic intellectual assessments over 21-year
  span

11
Acknowledgements

• Thanks are due the Maternal and Child Health
  Bureau for supporting important follow-up phases
  of the Abecedarian study.
• NICHD provided primary primary support of the
  early childhood and adolescent phases of this
  research.
• Other sources of support for earlier follow-up
  work include the David and Lucile Packard
  Foundation and the Office of Educational Research
  and Improvement.

12
Original Investigators

• Craig Ramey, Ph. D., Principal Investigator
• Joseph Sparling, Ph. D., Investigator
• Albert Collier, M. D., Investigator
• Frank Loda, M. D., Investigator
• Floyd Denney, M. D., Investigator
• Barbara Wasik, Ph. D., Investigator (CARE)

13
Eligibility

• Recruitment in community agencies serving poor
  women
• High Risk Index
• Other criteria
• Healthy newborn child
• Living within commuting distance of FPG
• Likely to remain in area

14
Who was invited to take part?

• 120 families invited to enroll
• 8 refused random assignment
• 2 infants reassigned at insistence of authorities
• 1 ineligible due to biological condition
  (seizure disorder with moderate MR)

15
Participants

• 4 cohorts of children born between 1972 and 1977
• Half randomly assigned to preschool education
  program, half were controls
• Original Sample N Males Females
• Treated 57 29 28
• Control 54 23 31
• Total 111 52 59

16
Study Design
EE
E
EC
29 Males 28 Females
R
23 Males 31 Females
CE
N111
C
CC
Follow-up Assessments
Preschool Treatment Ages 0-5
Preschool Treatment Ages 0-5
School-age Treatment Ages 5-8
Age 12
Age 15
Age 21
17
Educational Intervention

• Very intense
• Full day childcare program
• 5 days/week
• Year round
• Began in infancy (mean entry age 4.4 months,
  range 6 weeks to 6 months)
• 5 years, until kindergarten entry
• University-based setting
• Medical care on site
• Stable staff
• Low adult child ratios
• 1 3 infants
• 1 45 toddlers
• 1 7 preschoolers

18
Preschool Curriculum

• Eclectic in nature
• Stressed contingently responsive early
  environment for infants
• Learningames for the First Three Years
  (Sparling Lewis, 1979, recently reissued)
• Natural part of infants or toddlers day
• Learningames for Threes and Fours A Guide to
  Adult and Child Play (Sparling Lewis, 1984)

19
Preschool Curriculum

• Emphasis
• Language, especially pragmatic language
• Preliteracy activities
• Fine motor development
• Social development

To see samples of the methods, play the video
clips below .
Showing a scarf
Showing a roll
Placing a block
Choosing a spoon
Saying a word
20
Preschool Results

• Tests of cognitive development constituted major
  outcome during early years
• Infants equivalent at outset (3 month Bayley MDI
  scores)
• Cognitive measures
• Bayley Scales of Infant Development
• 318 months
• Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Form LM, 1972
  norms)
• 24 years
• Wechsler Preschool Primary Scale of
  Intelligence
• 5 years

21
Preschool Test Scores
22
School-Age Program
EE
E
EC
R
CE
C
CC
Follow-up Assessments
Preschool Treatment Ages 0-5
Preschool Treatment Ages 0-5
School-age Treatment Ages 5-8
Age 12
Age 15
Age 21
23
School-Age Program

• Home-School Resource teacher (first three years
  of school)
• Consultation with classroom teacher
• Individualized curriculum items based on needs
• Encouragement of parental involvement with home
  activities
• Liaison between home school
• Family support as needed

24
School-Age Results

• Reading Scores
• Strong preschool effect on reading scores at age
  8 (plt.01)
• Significant trend for EEgtECgtCEgtCC (plt.05)
• No effect for school-aged treatment alone

25
(No Transcript)
26
School-Age Results

• Trend for preschool effect on mathematics scores
  (plt.10)
• Linear trend in mathematics scores not
  significant
• No effect for school-age treatment alone

27
(No Transcript)
28
Long-Term Effects
EE
E
EC
R
CE
C
CC
Follow-up Assessments
Preschool Treatment Ages 0-5
Preschool Treatment Ages 0-5
School-age Treatment Ages 5-8
Age 12
Age 15
Age 21
29
Long-Term Effects

• Intellectual measures in the follow-up
• Age-appropriate Wechsler scales administered
• Full Scale IQ used in plots
• Examiners unaware of earlier treatment/control
  status
• Because school-age treatment had no effect,
  reverted to two-group model

30
Long-Term Effects on intellectual development

31
Long-Term Effects, continued

• Treated children earned higher scores across time
• Treatment/control group difference was greater
  during the early, treatment years
• Slopes differ in treatment/post-treatment phases
• Treated children differed from control children
  in rates of change during treatment years but not
  during post-treatment years
• Both groups showed upward trends during the early
  years and declines in post-treatment years
• Up to young adulthood, the group with early
  treatment maintained an advantage over controls.

32
Can we identify mediators of long-term treatment
effects on cognitive development?

• Early task orientation mediated effects of early
  treatment on test scores but effect size did not
  show much change when this factor was entered
  into the model.
• Early verbal development accounted for much of
  the treatment effect on test performance, and in
  later years, wholly accounts for it.

33
Long-Term Effects, continued

• Adding child and family characteristics to the
  prediction model
• No significant effect for child gender
• No significant treatment x gender interaction
• Gender x time2 interaction reflects complex
  pattern of change in intellectual test
  performance of males and females over time

34
Long-Term Effects, continued

• Females change more rapidly in early childhood
• Females decline more sharply than males in early
  adolescence
• Males decline more sharply than females in later
  adolescence

35
Long-Term Effects, continued

• There is also a main effect for the HOME score
• Main effect is moderated by a HOME x age
  interaction
• Effect of HOME is stronger in the early years
• Parental attitudes in early life did not have a
  significant effect on intellectual test
  performance.
• No significant effects of mothers marital status.

36
Long-Term Effects, continued

• Does a modest effect on IQ test performance
  matter?
• The evidence indicates that the significant
  long-term effect of treatment on academic
  performance was mediated by its effect on early
  cognitive performance.

37
Long-Term Effects, continued

• Does a modest effect on IQ performance really
  matter?
• Early treatment was associated with significantly
  higher scores on reading from age 8 to age 21

38
Long-Term Effects, continued

• Does a modest effect on IQ matter?
• Early treatment was associated with significantly
  higher scores on math from age 8 to age 21

39
Long-Term Effects, continued

• Real-life benefits in young adulthood
• Treated group attained more years of education
• Treatment associated with increased likelihood of
  attending a 4-year college or university

40
Long-Term Effects, continued

• Teenaged parenthood was less likely for those
  having preschool treatment.

41
What was the early intervention worth?

• Cost-benefit study was carried out at the
  National Institute of Early Education Research
  (NIEER) at Rutgers University
• Leonard Masse and Steven Barnett

42
Cost of Abecedarian Program Compared with Others
(1999 Dollars)
43
Ratio of Costs to Benefits

• NIEER researchers estimated that the Abecedarian
  program will save society, on average, 4 for
  every dollar spent.

44
Why would it save money?

• Individuals who had early childhood education are
  projected to earn, on average, roughly 143,000
  more over their lifetimes than preschool
  controls.
• Mothers of children who had the free preschool
  program are expected to earn about 133,000 more
  over their lifetimes (preliminary figures).

45
Why would it save money? (continued)

• School districts can expect to save about 11,000
  per child because of reductions in the need for
  special or remedial education services.
• There appeared to be a reduction in smoking among
  those with early childhood education, leading to
  better health and longer lives (saving
  approximately 164,000 per person).

46
NIEER Conclusions

• The Abecedarian program effected significant
  savings to society.
• The estimate may be conservative because of the
  community where the children grew up relatively
  affluent and low crime.
• Benefits of a similar analysis for the Perry
  Preschool study estimate 7 saved for each dollar
  spent. This was due largely to a significant
  reduction in criminal involvement among treated
  individuals.

47
Questions and conclusions
48
Questions and conclusions

• Intellectual test performance can be enhanced
  through early childhood programs.
• Modest gains are sustainable
• Treatment/control differences narrowed but did
  not converge.
• Even at the last stage, the difference, although
  modest, was significant.
• There is a practical significance to even modest
  intellectual development
• Students who received preschool treatment
  attained more years of education.
• They were more likely to attend college or
  university.
• They stand a better chance of holding good jobs
  as adults.
• Teenaged pregnancy was reduced among the
  treatment group.
• .

49
Questions and conclusions

• Early treatment was responsible for these gains
  because
• Infants were randomly assigned to the treatment
  and control groups..
• There is no evidence the members of the groups
  differed to begin with.
• Families were from the same communities, and the
  children attended the same school system in
  public school.
• Attrition was low. Most of those lost to
  treatment during the early years have been
  included in the follow-up, in their original
  groups, so the current analyses are conservative
  tests of the treatment effect.