early childhood educaaationtiontioncrcmich.org/publicat/2010s/2011/rpt366.pdf · in 2009, crc was...

Early Childhood EducEarly Childhood EducEarly Childhood EducEarly Childhood EducEarly Childhood EducaaaaationtiontiontiontionEarly Childhood EducEarly Childhood EducEarly Childhood EducEarly Childhood EducEarly Childhood Educaaaaationtiontiontiontion

FebruarFebruarFebruarFebruarFebruary 2011y 2011y 2011y 2011y 2011

RepRepRepRepRepororororort 366t 366t 366t 366t 366



CCCCCELEBRELEBRELEBRELEBRELEBRAAAAATINGTINGTINGTINGTING 95 Y 95 Y 95 Y 95 Y 95 YEARSEARSEARSEARSEARS OFOFOFOFOF I I I I INDEPENDENTNDEPENDENTNDEPENDENTNDEPENDENTNDEPENDENT,,,,, N N N N NONPONPONPONPONPARARARARARTISANTISANTISANTISANTISAN

PPPPPUBLICUBLICUBLICUBLICUBLIC P P P P POLICOLICOLICOLICOLICYYYYY R R R R RESEARCHESEARCHESEARCHESEARCHESEARCH INININININ M M M M MICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGAN

Citizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens Research Cch Cch Cch Cch Councilouncilouncilouncilouncilof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michigan

Citizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens Research Cch Cch Cch Cch Councilouncilouncilouncilouncilof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michigan

Board of DirectorsChairman Vice Chairman Treasurer

Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr. Jeffrey D. Bergeron Nick A. Khouri

Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr.Manoogian Foundation

John J. GasparovicBorgWarner Inc.

Ingrid A. GreggEarhart Foundation

Marybeth S. HoweWells Fargo Bank

Nick A. KhouriDTE Energy Company

Daniel T. LisKelly Services, Inc.

Sarah L. McClellandJPMorgan Chase & Co.

Aleksandra A. MiziolekDykema Gossett PLLC

Cathleen H. NashCitizens Bank

Joseph R. AngileriDeloitte.

Jeffrey D. BergeronErnst & Young LLP

Michael G. BickersPNC Financial Services Group

Beth ChappellDetroit Economic Club

Rick DiBartolomeoTerence M. DonnellyDickinson Wright PLLC

Randall W. EbertsW. E. Upjohn Institute

David O. EgnerHudson-Webber Foundation

Laura FournierCompuware

Paul R. ObermeyerComerica Incorporated

Kevin ProkopRockbridge Growth Equity, LLC

Lynda RossiBlue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Jerry E. RushArvinMeritor, Inc.

Michael A. SemancoHennessey Capital LLC

Terence A. Thomas, Sr.Amanda Van DusenMiller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone, PLC

Kent J. VanaVarnum

Advisory DirectorLouis Betanzos

Board of TrusteesTerence E. AdderleyKelly Services, Inc.

Jeffrey D. BergeronErnst & Young LLP

Stephanie W. BergeronWalsh College

David P. BoylePNC

Beth ChappellDetroit Economic Club

Mary Sue ColemanUniversity of Michigan

Matthew P. CullenRock Ventures LLC

Tarik DaoudLong Family Service Center

Stephen R. D’ArcyDetroit Medical Center

James N. De Boer, Jr.Varnum

John M. DunnWestern Michigan University

David O. EgnerHudson-Webber FoundationNew Economy Initiative

David L. EislerFerris State University

David G. FreyFrey Foundation

Mark GaffneyMichigan State AFL-CIO

Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr.Manoogian Foundation

Ralph J. GersonGuardian Industries Corporation

Eric R. GilbertsonSaginaw Valley State University

Allan D. GilmourWayne State University

Alfred R. Glancy IIIUnico Investment Group LLC

Thomas J. HaasGrand Valley State University

James S. HilboldtThe Connable Office, Inc.

Paul C. HillegondsDTE Energy Company

Daniel J. KellyDeloitte. Retired

David B. KennedyEarhart Foundation

Mary KramerCrain Communications, Inc.

Edward C. Levy, Jr.Edw. C. Levy Co.

Daniel LittleUniversity of Michigan-Dearborn

Sam LoganMichigan Chronicle

Arend D. LubbersGrand Valley State University, Emeritus

Alphonse S. LucarelliErnst & Young LLP, Retired

Susan W. MartinEastern Michigan University

William L. MatthewsPlante & Moran PLLC

Sarah L. McClellandJPMorgan Chase & Co.

Paul W. McCrackenUniversity of Michigan, Emeritus

Patrick M. McQueenThe PrivateBank

Robert MilewskiBlue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan

Glenn D. MrozMichigan Technological University

Mark A. MurrayMeijer Inc.

Cathy H. NashCitizens Bank

James M. NicholsonPVS Chemicals

Donald R. ParfetApjohn Group LLC

Sandra E. PierceCharter One

Philip H. PowerThe Center for Michigan

Keith A. PrettyNorthwood University

John Rakolta Jr.Walbridge

Douglas B. RobertsIPPSR- Michigan State University

Irving RoseEdward Rose & Sons

George E. RossCentral Michigan University

Gary D. RussiOakland University

Nancy M. SchlichtingHenry Ford Health System

John M. SchreuderFirst National Bank of Michigan

Lloyd A. SempleDykema

Lou Anna K. SimonMichigan State University

S. Martin TaylorAmanda Van DusenMiller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Kent J. VanaVarnum

Theodore J. VogelCMS Energy Corporation

Gail L. WardenHenry Ford Health System,Emeritus

Jeffrey K. WillemainDeloitte.

Leslie E. WongNorthern Michigan University

Citizens Research Council of Michigan is a tax deductible 501(c)(3) organization

C I T I Z E N S R E S E A R C H C O U N C I L O F M I C H I G A N

M A I N O F F I C E 38777 Six Mile Road, Suite 208 • Livonia, MI 48152-3974 • 734-542-8001 • Fax 734-542-8004L A N S I N G O F F I C E 124 West Allegan, Suite 620 • Lansing, MI 48933-1738 • 517-485-9444 • Fax 517-485-0423

CRCMICH.ORG

Citizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens ResearCitizens Research Cch Cch Cch Cch Council ouncil ouncil ouncil ouncil of Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michiganof Michigan

Early Childhood EducEarly Childhood EducEarly Childhood EducEarly Childhood EducEarly Childhood Educaaaaationtiontiontiontion



CRC’s education project is funded in part by grants from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation,the Frey Foundation, the PNC Foundation, ArvinMeritor, the Richard C. and Barbara C.Van Dusen Family Fund, and a consortium of education groups including the Tri-CountyAlliance for Public Education, Michigan Association of School Boards, Metropolitan DetroitBureau of School Studies, Inc., Michigan Association of School Administrators, MichiganSchool Business Officials, Middle Cities Education Association, Michigan Association ofIntermediate School Administrators, Michigan PTSA, Michigan Association of SecondarySchool Principals, and the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association.

C I T I Z E N S R E S E A R C H C O U N C I L O F M I C H I G A N

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

M a i n O f f i c e

38777 West Six Mile RoadSuite 208Livonia, MI 48152-3974734-542-8001Fax 734-542-8004

L ansing O ffice

124 West AlleganSuite 620Lansing, MI 48933-1738517-485-9444Fax 517-485-0423

crcmich.org

Eugene A. Gargaro, Jr., Chair Manoogian FoundationJeffrey D. Bergeron, Vice Chair Ernst & Young LLPNick A. Khouri, Treasurer DTE EnergyJoseph R. Angileri Deloitte.Michael G. Bickers PNC Financial Services GroupBeth Chappell Detroit Economic ClubRick DiBartolomeoTerence M. Donnelly Dickinson Wright PLLCRandall W. Eberts W. E. Upjohn InstituteDavid O. Egner Hudson-Webber Foundation New Economy InitiativeLaura Fournier CompuwareJohn J. Gasparovic BorgWarner Inc.Ingrid A. Gregg Earhart FoundationMarybeth S. Howe Wells Fargo BankDaniel T. Lis Kelly Services, Inc.Sarah L. McClelland JPMorgan Chase & Co.Aleksandra A. Miziolek Dykema Gossett PLLCCathy H. Nash Citizens BankPaul R. Obermeyer Comerica BankBryan Roosa General Motors CorporationLynda Rossi Blue Cross Blue Shield of MichiganJerry E. Rush ArvinMeritor, Inc.Michael A. Semanco Hennessey Capital LLCTerence A. Thomas, Sr. St. John HealthAmanda Van Dusen Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLCKent J. Vana Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt & Howlett LLPJeffrey P. Guilfoyle, President

PPPPPUBLICUBLICUBLICUBLICUBLIC K K K K K-12 E-12 E-12 E-12 E-12 EDUCDUCDUCDUCDUCAAAAATIONTIONTIONTIONTION INININININ M M M M MICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGANICHIGAN

Entering 2010, Michigan residents find public primary and secondary educationfacing numerous challenges:

• State revenues are falling;

• Local revenue growth is stagnating;

• K-12 education service providers are facing escalating cost pressures, withannual growth rates outpacing the projected growth in available resources;

• Spikes in the level of federal education funding resulting from the AmericanRecovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) will produce a budgetary“cliff” when the additional dollars expire; and

• School district organization and service provision structures are beingreviewed with the goals of reducing costs and increasing efficiencies.

Because of the critical importance of education to the state, its economy, and itsbudget, the Citizens Research Council of Michigan (CRC) plans a long-term projectresearching education in Michigan with an emphasis on the current governance,funding, and service provision structures and their sustainability.

Public education has been governed largely the same way since its inception in the1800s. It is important to review the current organization of school districts andstructure of education governance, as well as to review new and different ways toorganize and govern public education, to determine if Michigan’s governancestructure meets today’s needs. The school finance system has been revamped on amore regular basis throughout history. Changes have been made to address a hostof concerns, including per-pupil revenue disparities, revenue-raising limitations ofstate and local tax systems, as well as taxpayer discontent with high property taxes.Michigan’s current finance system was last overhauled in 1994 with the passage ofProposal A, providing sufficient experience to reconsider the goals of the financereforms and determine whether the system has performed as originallycontemplated.

In addition to analyzing education governance and revenues, it is important toreview cost pressures facing districts and how education services are provided inMichigan. School budgets are dominated by personnel costs, the level of which arelargely dictated by decisions made at the local level. Local school operatingrevenues are fixed by decisions and actions at the state and federal levels, but localschool officials are tasked with making spending decisions and matching projectedspending levels with available resources. However, those local decisions are oftenimpacted by state laws (e.g., state law requires districts to engage in collectivebargaining). The freefall of the Michigan economy since the 2001 recession hasimpacted all aspects of the state budget, including K-12 education, and requiresstate and local officials to review how things are done in an attempt to increaserevenues and/or reduce costs.

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a nii

Citizens Research Council Education Project

In 2009, CRC was approached by a consortium of education interests and asked to take a comprehensivelook at education in Michigan. CRC agreed to do this because of the importance of education to theprosperity of the state, historically and prospectively, and also because of the share of the state budgetthat education demands. Education is critical to the state and its citizens for many reasons: 1) Asuccessful democracy relies on an educated citizenry. 2) Reeducating workers and preparing students forthe global economy are both crucial to transforming Michigan’s economy. 3) Education is vital to state andlocal budgets. 4) Public education represents a government program that many residents directly benefitfrom, not to mention the indirect benefits associated with living and working with educated people. Aswith all CRC research, findings and recommendations will flow from objective facts and analyses and willbe made publicly available. Funding for this research effort is being provided by the education consortiumand some Michigan foundations. CRC is still soliciting funds for this project from the business andfoundation communities.

The goal of this comprehensive review of education is to provide the necessary data and expertise toinform the education debate in Lansing and around the state. This is a long-term project that will takemuch of the focus of CRC in 2010 and into 2011. While an overall project completion date is unknown,CRC plans to approach the project in stages and release reports as they are completed. Topic areas CRCplans to study include education governance, K-12 revenues and school finance, school district spendinganalyses, public school academies (PSAs) and non-traditional schools, school district service provision andreorganization, and analyses of changes to Michigan’s educational system.

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n iii

EEEEEARLARLARLARLARLYYYYY C C C C CHILDHOODHILDHOODHILDHOODHILDHOODHILDHOOD E E E E EDUCDUCDUCDUCDUCAAAAATIONTIONTIONTIONTION

Contents

Summary ..................................................................................................................... v

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

Kindergarten ............................................................................................................... 2Students ...................................................................................................................... 2Teachers and Teaching .................................................................................................. 4Kindergarten Content .................................................................................................... 6Effectiveness ................................................................................................................ 7

Brain Development, Poverty, and the Achievement Gap ............................................ 8Brain Development ....................................................................................................... 8Stress .......................................................................................................................... 8Poverty ........................................................................................................................ 9The Achievement Gap ................................................................................................. 11The Achievement Gap and College ............................................................................... 19The Policy of Intervention............................................................................................ 19

Publicly Funded Pre-Kindergarten for Disadvantaged Children ............................... 20The HighScope Perry Preschool Program ...................................................................... 20The Chicago Child-Parent Center Preschool Program...................................................... 22The Abecedarian Project ............................................................................................. 23Benefit-Cost Analyses .................................................................................................. 26Characteristics of High Quality Pre-K Programs.............................................................. 27

Teachers ............................................................................................................... 28Curriculum ............................................................................................................ 29Family Engagement ............................................................................................... 30Program Costs Depend on Program Attributes ......................................................... 31

The Federal Head Start Program .............................................................................. 32History of Head Start .................................................................................................. 32Head Start Impact Study ............................................................................................. 33

State Pre-K Programs ............................................................................................... 35The National Scene ..................................................................................................... 35Michigan’s Great Start School Readiness Program .......................................................... 35

Eligibility ............................................................................................................... 36Teaching Staff in GSRP .......................................................................................... 39Funding ................................................................................................................ 40Evaluations of Michigan’s Great Start Readiness Program.......................................... 44

Examples of Other Approaches to Pre-K ....................................................................... 48Funding for State Pre-K Programs ................................................................................ 48

CRC Report

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a niv

Meta Analysis of State Pre-K Programs ......................................................................... 49

Summary and Conclusions ........................................................................................ 50

Appendix A: Kindergarten Content Expectations ..................................................... 53

Appendix B: Examples of Other States’ Pre-K Programs .......................................... 57Oklahoma Universal Preschool Program ........................................................................ 57New Jersey Abbott Preschool Project ............................................................................ 57North Carolina More at Four Program ........................................................................... 58Montgomery County Public Schools .............................................................................. 58

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n


Tables

Table 1 Percentage Distribution of Risk Factors among First Time Kindergarteners,by Type of Community, Fall 1998.......................................................................... 4

Table 2 Percentage Distribution of Risk Factors among First Time Kindergarteners,by Race-Ethnicity, Fall 1998 ................................................................................. 4

Table 3 Michigan Children Age 0 to 6 Receiving Welfare, 2010 ......................................... 10

Table 4 Adult Outcomes by Poverty Status at Birth and by Race ....................................... 11

Table 5 NAEP Fourth Grade Math Scores ........................................................................ 12

Table 6 NAEP Fourth Grade Reading Scores .................................................................... 12

Table 7 Percent of Children Demonstrating Proficiency in Cognitive Skills,by Parents’ Educational Attainment, 2005-06 ...................................................... 13

Table 8 Percent of Children Demonstrating Proficiency in Cognitive Skills,by Poverty Status, 2005-06 ................................................................................ 14



Table 11 Percent of the U.S Population Below the Poverty Threshold, 2008 ......................... 15

Table 12 Percent of Children Demonstrating Proficiency in Cognitive Skills,by Race/Ethnicity, 2005-06 ................................................................................ 16



Table 15 Three Benefit-Cost Analyses of High-Quality Preschool Education ......................... 26

Table 16 Summary of Costs and Benefits per Participant for Three Early Interventions ......... 27

Table 17 Summary of Per Child Costs of Pre-K by Quality Level .......................................... 31

Table 18 Five-Year History of Funding for Head Start ......................................................... 32

Table 19 Head Start Program State Allocations and Enrollment- Michigan ........................... 34

Table 20 Annual Income Eligibility GuidelinesEffective July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010 .............................................................. 36

Table 21 Great Start Readiness Program Risk Factors, 2008-09 .......................................... 37

Table 22 Education and Training of GSRP Teaching Staff, 2008-09 ...................................... 40

Table 23 Teacher Compensation by Program Type, 2008-09............................................... 41

Table 24 State Spending per Child Enrolled in GSRP .......................................................... 41

Table 25 GSRP 2009-10 State Aid Allocations: Highest Poverty Districts .............................. 42

Table 26 GSRP 2009-10 State Aid Allocations: Highest Allocation Districts ........................... 43

Table 27 NIEER Quality Benchmarks and Michigan Compliance, 2009 ................................. 46

CRC Report

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n v

High quality early childhood education and preschoolprograms that implement best practices have beenshown to improve school success and graduationrates for disadvantaged children. This paper, one ina series of papers that CRC is publishing on impor-tant education issues facing Michigan, describes pro-grams that invest in the “front end” of formal edu-cation: kindergarten, Head Start, and Michigan’sGreat Start Readiness Program. It also describesresearch on brain development that helps to explainwhy investing in early education may be a more ef-fective strategy than other strategies that are beingpursued.

The educational achievement gap between poor andnon-poor children, and between minority and Whitechildren, has been at the center of education policydiscussions for decades. Although it narrowed from2005 to 2009, the achievement gap between Whiteand Black fourth grade students in Michigan remainsamong the largest in the nation. Furthermore, Michi-gan institutions of higher learning topped the lists ofboth public and private colleges and universities withthe largest White-Black graduation rate gaps: WayneState had the largest gap among public universitiesand Lawrence Technological University had the larg-est gap among private colleges and universities. Boththe K-12 system and higher education are challengedto address an achievement gap that, for many chil-dren, develops prior to school enrollment.

Michigan public schools are required to offer full dayor half day kindergarten for five-year-olds, althoughunder Michigan law, parents do not have to sendtheir child to school until the child reaches the ageof six. For most children, however, kindergarten isthe entry into the formal education system, wherethey are exposed to basic academic concepts (num-bers, letters, shapes, sizes, colors) and learn socialskills (following directions, sharing, communicating),generally through organized play activities in a class-room setting. There is no universally accepted defi-nition of the specific knowledge and skills that a childshould have on kindergarten entry, but according tothe U.S. Department of Education’s Early Childhood

Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K) data, most children onentering kindergarten can name all of the letters,count beyond ten, recognize single digit numbers,identify simple shapes, identify patterns, and com-pare the relative length of rod-shaped objects. Themajority are in good health, are reasonably well be-haved, and exhibit a positive approach to classroomtasks. However, 34 percent cannot identify lettersof the alphabet by name; 18 percent are not famil-iar with the conventions of print (reading from leftto right and from top to bottom of a page); 42 per-cent cannot count 20 objects, read some single digitnumbers, and judge relative length of objects; andsix percent cannot count ten objects.

Michigan law entitles a resident child who is at leastfive years old on or before December 1 to enroll inpublic kindergarten. Because some parents delaytheir child’s entry into kindergarten to allow the childmore time to mature, a kindergarten class may in-clude children ranging from four to six years old,which can create a relative disadvantage for theyoungest children. In addition to the child’s age andgender, certain family characteristics have been foundto be negatively correlated with children’s skills andknowledge, as well as health, social development,and behavior, at kindergarten entry. The ECLS-Kstudy found that 46 percent of kindergarteners hadone or more of four risk factors:

• Having a mother who had less than a high schooleducation (14 percent)

• Living in a family receiving food stamps or cashwelfare (18 percent)

• Living in a single-parent family (23 percent)• Having parents whose primary language is not

English (9 percent)

Having more risk factors was correlated with poorercognitive performance, as well as with poorer heath,social development, and behavior, though not withphysical growth or gross motor coordination. Stud-ies have identified common consequences for thosechildren who are already far behind when they en-


Summary

CRC Report

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a nvi

ter kindergarten: increased rates of assignment tospecial education, grade retention, dropping out ofschool, teenage parenthood, welfare, and incarcera-tion. These risk factors have particular relevance:In 2009, 615,494 Michigan children were under fiveyears old, and 22.2 percent of Michigan families withchildren under five had incomes below the povertylevel. More than half (53.6 percent) of familiesheaded by a woman, with no husband present, withchildren under five years of age, were living in pov-erty. Forty-five percent of all births in Michigan areto single women below the poverty level.

Recent research helps to explain, on a biologicalbasis, some of the challenges faced by children fromdisadvantaged backgrounds. Developmental neu-roscience has highlighted a broad variety of hazardsto avoid to ensure healthy brain development. Inaddition to avoiding hazards, the factors that arenecessary to development of healthy young brainsare abundant, safe opportunities to learn and ac-tive, reciprocal relationships with adults. These in-gredients are available in the vast majority of fami-lies with adequate resources, but unfortunately maynot be available to children in families of extremepoverty or dysfunction. The improved understand-ing of brain development has helped federal and statepolicymakers identify the conditions that place youngchildren at risk and develop programs targeted atspecific at-risk populations. It has also explainedwhy early intervention, at a time when young brainsretain a great deal of flexibility, is more cost effec-tive than later intervention.

Demonstration Projects

Several scientifically controlled projects conductedin the 1950s and 1960s demonstrated the effective-ness of high quality early childhood education inameliorating the effects of early disadvantages.These programs were specifically designed to testthe effect of high quality early childhood programson at-risk children, they had sound research designsand were longitudinal (they followed children in treat-ment and control groups through school and intoadulthood), they measured a number of differentoutcomes, and they calculated benefit-cost ratios.These benefit-cost analyses generally found substan-

tial benefits from high quality early intervention,which is defined to include better trained caregivers,smaller child to staff ratios, academic focus, and in-tensive services. The reported return on investment(up to $17 for each dollar invested) has been usedto support the allocation of public funds for pre-Kprograms for at-risk preschoolers.

Some studies have concluded that teachers with abachelor’s degree and specialized training in earlychildhood education and development are more ef-fective in promoting academic achievement thanthose who lack such credentials. An academic cur-riculum is crucially important, but it cannot substi-tute for poor quality teaching. The size of the classand teacher-child ratio is important: in high qualityprograms there are no more than 20 children in aclassroom and no more than ten children for everyteacher. Family engagement in a child’s learningenvironment has been linked to increased readingachievement, decreased rates of grade retention andspecial education, and higher high school gradua-tion rates.

Head Start

Head Start, which was established in the EconomicOpportunity Act of 1964 as part of President LyndonJohnson’s War on Poverty, is the federal initiative toaddress the special needs and boost the school readi-ness of low income preschool children by replicatingthe successful demonstration projects on a largescale. Head Start provides comprehensive child de-velopment services including preschool education;medical, dental, and mental health care; nutritionservices; and social and other services includingparent involvement services to enrolled children fromages three through five and to their families. HeadStart requires all teachers to hold at least a ChildDevelopment Associate Degree (CDA) credential andat least half of lead teachers to hold an associatelevel degree (more than 70 percent of Head Startteachers do not have a teaching degree). Languagein the 2007 reauthorization requires that all teach-ers must have an associate degree in a related fieldand half of teachers must have bachelor’s degreesby 2013, although no funding was provided for thismandate.


C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n vii

The final report of the Head Start Impact Study, re-leased in January, 2010, revealed that the programhad a positive effect on language and literacy devel-opment at the end of one program year, but cogni-tive effects faded quickly. At the end of kindergar-ten and first grade, the Head Start children (withthe exception of some subgroups) and control groupchildren were at the same level on essentially all ofthe measures used. While there were no significantimpacts on math skills, pre-writing, children’s pro-motion, or teacher reports of children’s school ac-complishments or abilities, children in Head Startcenters were much more likely to receive varioushealth care services than children in other center-based care. Fadeout effects have been attributed topoor schools and to the paucity of home resources,leading to questions about the effectiveness of short-term intervention and the need for continuing en-richment programs.

The Head Start program demonstrates the problemsof taking lessons learned in demonstration projectsto scale: the effort to serve many more children atlower cost results in use of less well trained staffand larger classes and/or caseloads.

In Michigan, Head Start serves about 35,000 chil-dren each year.

Great Start School Readiness Program

Because federal funding is insufficient to enable HeadStart programs to reach all eligible children, 40 statesand the District of Columbia have established statefunded pre-K programs. The Michigan School Readi-ness Program (MSRP) was established in 1985 tooffer preschool to four-year-olds who may be at riskof school failure, on the basis that children who havehigh quality child care and preschool experiences,including support for health and emotional well-be-ing, are more successful in later school years, areless likely to repeat a grade, are more likely to gradu-ate from high school, attend college, and becomeproductive citizens. Starting with the 2008-09 schoolyear, the name of the program was changed to theMichigan Great Start School Readiness Program(GSRP).

GSRP provides part-day or full-day, comprehensive,free, compensatory pre-K programs and bases eligi-

bility on family income and other criteria designedto measure need. The risk criteria are extremelylow or low family income; diagnosed disability oridentified developmental delay; severe or challeng-ing behavior; primary home language other thanEnglish; parent or guardian with low educationalattainment; abuse or neglect of child or parent; andenvironmental risk.

GSRP has a maximum adult to child ratio of one toeight. A qualified associate teacher must be addedwith the ninth child, and a third adult with the 17th

child in the class. Lead teachers must have a validMichigan teaching certificate with an early childhoodspecialist endorsement (ZA), a valid Michigan teach-ing certificate with a child development associatecredential (CDA), or a bachelor’s degree in child de-velopment with specialization in preschool teaching.GSRP paraprofessionals must have CDA, anassociate’s degree in early childhood education orchild development, or the equivalent as approvedby the state board.

Funding is provided from the state school aid fundfor formula based grants to eligible school districtsand from the general fund for competitive grants toother providers. In 2010-11, the allocation is $89.4million for the formula component and $8,875,000for competitive grant funding. Any public or privatefor-profit or non-profit entity (private child care cen-ters, Head Start programs, social service agencies,mental health agencies, ISDs, school districts, andpublic school academies that also have a Head Startprogram) may apply for a competitive grant. Ac-cording to an October 2009 analysis, 20,822 chil-dren attended GSR programs funded through schooldistricts and 3,615 children attended programs runby agencies that received competitive grants.

Generally, the Michigan School Readiness Program,which has been recognized as “definitely among thebetter conceptualized and staffed in the country,”has been found to produce significant, meaningfulimprovements in children’s readiness to enter kin-dergarten. Michigan’s state preschool policy require-ments met seven of the ten quality benchmarks usedby the National Institute for Early Education Research(NIEER) to evaluate state-funded pre-K. Michiganranked 21st of 38 states on access for four-year-

CRC Report

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a nviii

olds, 16th on state spending, and 22nd on all reportedspending.

A 2009 analysis by Richard Chase and Paul Anton ofWilder Research estimated that $1.15 billion wasrealized in Michigan in 2009 from cost savings andrevenues that resulted from investments in schoolreadiness over the past 25 years. These benefitsinclude savings from reduced grade repetition andspecial education, crime andcriminal justice, welfare spending,unemployment benefits, and childcare subsidies, and were gener-ated by current school childrenwho received early education ser-vices and by young adults whohave been more successful be-cause of school readiness. Ac-cording to the analysis, therewere about 80,000 adults, age 18to 29, in the Michigan labor forcewho were high school graduateswho would probably have dropped out of school ifnot for Michigan’s investment in their school readi-ness. The estimated economic impact of these adultsis about $1.3 billion annually, including $584 millionin reduced government spending and increased taxrevenues and at least $700 million in additional wagesthey have generated. Using an estimate of 35,000four-year–old Michigan children who were eligiblebut not served by Head Start or GSRP, this studyplaced the cost of not investing in school readinessfor all disadvantaged children at $598 million annu-ally. The cost of expanding GSRP to all eligible chil-dren was estimated at $236 million, which is $362million less than the estimated costs associated withnot expanding the program.

Conclusions

Most children who enter kindergarten without basicearly literacy skills never catch up to their peers,and children who have not already developed somebasic literacy skills when they enter school are threeto four times more likely to drop out. A number ofdemonstration projects have proven that high qual-ity, evidence based, early childhood education canameliorate some disadvantages, increase lifetimeearnings and decrease dependency on public ser-

vices. Very high quality, comprehensive early child-hood education has been shown to have lifelongbenefits for children that persist even 40 years later.

Early childhood programs including Head Start andMichigan’s Great Start Readiness Program are de-signed to sever the link between childhood povertyand poor outcomes in lifelong learning, behavior, andhealth, by supplementing the role of the family in

early childhood nurturing andeducation. Michigan’s GSRP hasadopted higher standards thanthe federal program and appearsto be more effective, though thevery poorest children attend HeadStart.

High quality pre-K programs maynot increase IQ over the longterm, but they do affect motiva-tion, emotional stability, self con-trol, and sociability, all of which

are equally important to the choices an individualmakes throughout his or her life. High quality pre-Kimproves the odds that children will become suc-cessful adults, and reduces the societal costs asso-ciated with poor school performance, crime and in-carceration, unemployment and welfare.

Michigan’s Great Start Readiness Program serves onlyeligible four-year-old children, raising the issue ofwhether the program should be expanded to includea component for three-year-old children, or for thoseeven younger. Other issues include the adequacy offunding; the criteria used to determine eligibility;whether funding should be restricted to public schooldistricts; home visits and family engagement; andintegration with K-12 expectations.

Extraordinary budget challenges facing the State ofMichigan have forced policy makers to make diffi-cult decisions about the best use of limited resources.At the same time that the state must improve itseconomic competitiveness, it must also reduce costsassociated with K-12, corrections, and Medicaid. Highquality pre-K programs targeted at disadvantagedthree and four-year-olds and high quality, all daykindergarten may be the best long term investmentin the state’s human capital.

High quality pre-K programstargeted at disadvantagedthree and four-year-oldsand high quality, all daykindergarten may be thebest long term investmentin the state’s human capital.

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n 1

Recent national efforts to reform public education,including the charter school movement, No Child LeftBehind, and Race to the Top, have focused atten-tion and resources on improving academic achieve-ment and closing the achievement gap. As part ofefforts to improve the state’s competitiveness, Mich-igan officials have also implemented programs and

requirements designed to improve educational out-comes. It may be, however, that dramatically im-proving high school core curricula standards, extend-ing the mandatory school attendance age to 18,reorganizing failing schools, and other announcedstrategies are necessary but insufficient to achievethat goal.


Introduction

Part of a Series on Public Education in Michigan

This paper is one in a series of papers that CRC is publishing on important education issues facingMichigan. Previous papers described the governance and financing of Michigan’s K-12 system. The goalof this comprehensive review of education provision is to provide the data and expertise necessary toinform the education debate in Lansing and around the state.

Expansion of high quality early childhood educationand preschool programs that implement practicesthat have been proven to be effective would improveschool success and graduation rates. These earlyeducation programs focus on the five domains ofschool readiness identified by the National Educa-tion Goals Panel: physical well-being and motordevelopment; social and emotional development;approaches to learning; language usage; and cog-nitive and general knowledge. This paper will de-scribe programs that invest in the “front end” of for-mal public education: kindergarten, Head Start, andMichigan’s Great Start Readiness Program. It willalso describe research on brain development thathelps to explain why investing in early education maybe a more effective strategy than others that arebeing pursued.

Given the challenging fiscal conditions in Michigan,it is important that scarce education resources aredevoted to programs that have been proven to work.For children most at risk of school failure, high qual-ity early childhood education has been proven toincrease the probability of success on a number ofmetrics. These interventions succeed not becausethey increase IQ, but because they can change atti-tudes and behaviors. When disadvantaged childrenenter kindergarten ready to learn, taxpayers incurlower costs for special education, grade repetition,juvenile and adult crime, welfare, Medicaid, andunemployment. When disadvantaged children en-ter kindergarten ready to learn, they are more likelyto graduate from high school; obtain further educa-tion; and become productive, tax paying adults.When disadvantaged children enter kindergartenready to learn, the education system, society, andthe economy all benefit.

CRC Report

C i t i z e n s R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l o f M i c h i g a n2

For most children, kindergarten is the entry into theformal education system. A separate part of ele-mentary school, kindergarten provides for a transi-tion from home or preschool to elementary school.In kindergarten, children are exposed to basic aca-demic concepts (numbers, letters, shapes, sizes,colors) and learn social skills (following directions,sharing, communicating), generally through orga-nized play activities in a classroom setting.

Nationally, the vast majority of chil-dren (98 percent) enroll in public,rather than private, kindergarten,and three-quarters are enrolled infull-day kindergarten. About half ofkindergarteners are in a schoolwith 500 or more students, andabout half of kindergarteners inpublic schools attend schools inwhich more than 50 percent of thestudents were eligible for free orreduced-price lunch.1

Students

Under Michigan law, parents do not have to sendtheir child to school until the child reaches the ageof six. Public schools are required to offer kinder-garten for five-year-olds, but attendance is not man-datory. Districts may offer full-day or half-day kin-dergarten, and may choose to offer morning orafternoon sessions, full day sessions, or alternatefull day sessions.

States generally specify a date by which a child shouldturn five in order to be eligible for kindergarten, andMichigan law entitles a resident child who is at leastfive years of age on or before December 1 to enroll inkindergarten [MCL 380.1147]. For the district to beeligible to count the pupil in membership and receivestate aid, the pupil must meet the age requirement[MCL 388.1606(4)]. Michigan is one of only five statesthat allow children who will not turn five until Decem-ber or January to enroll in kindergarten.2

On average, a child is five-and-a-half years old whenhe or she enters kindergarten, and both genetic en-

dowment and experiences before entering kinder-garten affect how prepared the child is for that schoolexperience. There is no universally accepted defini-tion of the specific knowledge and skills that a childshould have on kindergarten entry. Some statesprovide readiness testing for age appropriate chil-dren, although the reliability of these tests has beenquestioned. Cognitive skills and socio-emotionaldevelopment are both important (parents tend to

value cognitive development;teachers tend to value emotionaldevelopment).3

Some parents delay their age-eli-gible child’s entry into kindergar-ten because they believe that thechild (usually a boy) is not yet suf-ficiently mature. In 2008, 17 per-cent of U.S. children were six orolder when they entered kindergar-ten. Parents’ decisions to delayenrollment has resulted in increas-ing numbers of classrooms in

which children range in age from four to six. Inthese classrooms, the bigger, older children may wellhave an advantage.4 According to research by aMichigan State University economist, Todd Elder,“Nearly 1 million children in the United States arepotentially misdiagnosed with attention deficit hy-peractivity disorder simply because they are theyoungest-and most immature-in their kindergartenclass. These children are significantly more likelythan their older classmates to be prescribed behav-ior modifying stimulants such as Ritalin…” The di-agnosis of ADHD depends on a child’s behavior rel-ative to classmates and to the teacher’s perceptions,and children who are the youngest in a class maywell be less attentive, and less able to sit still forlong periods, than older classmates.5

When a child is qualified by residence and age toattend kindergarten, the school district is obligatedto accept the child’s enrollment in kindergarten de-spite any recommendation of school district person-nel that the child attend an alternative developmen-tal kindergarten program.6

Kindergarten

Under Michigan law, par-ents do not have to sendtheir child to school until thechild reaches the age of six.Public schools are requiredto offer kindergarten forfive-year-olds, but atten-dance is not mandatory.



The U.S. Department of Education’s Early ChildhoodLongitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99(ECLS-K) evaluated the knowledge, skills, health, andbehavior of a nationally representative sample of U.S.children when they entered kindergarten. Accord-ing to ECLS-K data, most children on entering kin-dergarten can name all of the letters, count beyondten, recognize single digit numbers, identify simpleshapes, identify patterns, and compare the relativelength of rod-shaped objects. The majority are ingood health, are reasonable wellbehaved, and exhibit a positiveapproach to classroom tasks. How-ever, 34 percent cannot identifyletters of the alphabet by name;18 percent are not familiar with theconventions of print (reading fromleft to right and from top to bot-tom of a page); 42 percent cannotcount 20 objects, read some sin-gle digit numbers, and judge rela-tive length of objects; and six per-cent cannot count ten objects.Some of these differences are agerelated, caused by school districts’ kindergarten cutoffdates and some parents’ decision to delay their child’sschool entry.7

A study of the four million children born in the U.S.in 2001 who entered kindergarten in 2006-07 or2007-08 found that at the time they entered kinder-garten, 76.1 percent of the children were living in

two-parent households, 76.1 percent were living inhouseholds with income above the poverty level, 18.5percent were in households where the primary lan-guage was not English, and 83.2 percent had had aregular early care and education arrangement.8

Generally, kindergarten girls are slightly ahead ofboys in reading skills, have more positive orienta-tion to learning activities, and are also better at “car-ing and sharing” behavior and less prone to prob-lem behavior. More boys experience developmental

problems (metrics include speak-ing clearly, paying attention, andsitting quietly).9

In addition to the child’s age andgender, certain family characteris-tics were found to be negativelycorrelated with children’s skills andknowledge, as well as health, so-cial development, and behavior, atkindergarten entry. The ECLS-Kstudy found that 46 percent ofkindergarteners had one or more

of four risk factors:

• Having a mother who had less than a highschool education (14 percent)

• Living in a family receiving food stamps orcash welfare (18 percent)

• Living in a single-parent family (23 percent)• Having parents whose primary language is not

English (9 percent)

Most children on enteringkindergarten can name all ofthe letters, count beyondten, recognize single digitnumbers, identify simpleshapes, identify patterns,and compare the relativelength of rod-shaped objects.

CRC Report


Having more risk factors was correlated with poorercognitive performance, as well as with poorer heath,social development, and behavior, though not withphysical growth or gross motor coordination. Riskfactors were found to be more common in large cit-ies, where 63 percent of first time kindergartenershad at least one of the noted disadvantages, andover a quarter had two or more (See Table 1).

Risk factors were also found to be more commonamong racial-ethnic minorities: 33 percent of His-panic kindergarteners and 27 percent of Blackkindergarteners had two or more risk factors. Only28 percent of Hispanic and Black kindergartenershad no risk factors, compared to 71 percent of Whitechildren with no risk factors (See Table 2).

Teachers and Teaching

Kindergarten teachers in public schools must have abachelor’s degree or higher and have an elementarycertificate issued by the State of Michigan. The fed-eral No Child Left Behind (NCLB) provided criteriafor identifying highly qualified teachers, and stateshave adopted their own definitions, which may in-clude college major, testing, experience and continu-ing education. A number of studies designed todetermine the conditions that make teaching effec-tive have determined that teacher credentials areonly one of many factors.

Project STAR

Harvard economics professor Raj Chetty recently

Table 2Percentage Distribution of Risk Factors among First Time Kindergarteners,by Race-Ethnicity, Fall 1998

No Risk One Risk Two or MoreFactors Factor Risk Factors

Hispanic 28 38 33Black 28 44 27Asian 39 44 17White 71 23 6

Source: U.S. Department of Education, ECLS-K, Fall 1998.

Table 1Percentage Distribution of Risk Factors among First Time Kindergarteners,by Type of Community, Fall 1998

No Risk One Risk Two or MoreFactors Factor Risk Factors

Large Cities 37 37 26Suburbs of Large Cities 63 26 11Midsize Cities 51 31 18Suburbs of Midsize Cities 56 30 13Small Towns 61 29 10Rural Areas 53 34 13

Source: U.S. Department of Education, ECLS-K, Fall 1998.



attempted to measure teacher quality. He foundthat higher test scores were achieved by children insmaller K-3 classes and in classes with more experi-enced teachers, but these test score gains faded byeighth grade. The analysis captured the number ofyears of experience that teachers had, but was alsoable to estimate teacher and class effects throughpeer test scores, and found that a child assigned toa group where peers scored high on tests was morelikely to earn more as an adult, more likely to go tocollege and attend a better college,more likely to be saving for retire-ment, and more likely to own ahouse. The cost benefit analysisof teacher quality estimated thatone standard deviation (SD) in-crease in teacher quality yields netpresent value (NPV) earnings gainsof $13,000 per student, or$260,000 for a class of 20 stu-dents. One SD increase in kinder-garten class quality leads to $1,536(9.7 percent) increase in wageearnings at age 27, lifetime earn-ings gain of $39,000, and totalpresent value earnings gain for a class of 20 stu-dents of $784,000.10

In an interview published in The Washington Post,Professor Chetty explained the long term effect ofbetter teachers:

One explanation for this fadeout and then re-emergence of the impact of kindergarten isthrough non-cognitive channels...So what thatmeans is measures like, they ask teachers toevaluate whether the students are being disrup-tive in class, whether the students are putting ina lot of effort, whether they’re motivated and soon. Now, we find persistent effects of your kin-dergarten class on these non-cognitive measures.There’s no fadeout, or very little fadeout on thenon-cognitive stuff.

So one potential explanation of all of the find-ings together is, a good kindergarten teacherteaches you the material that you’re tested on inkindergarten, and so you do well on kindergar-ten tests. That same good teacher also impartsnon-cognitive skills, like they teach you how tobe a disciplined learner, how to put in a lot of

effort, how to be patient. And those other, non-cognitive skills aren’t really directly tested in lat-er cognitive tests, like the kinds of tests that areadministered in fourth grade and eighth grade.But they get picked up in these non-cognitivetests in eighth grade, and then it’s quite intuitivethat these non-cognitive skills matter when you’rean adult. It helps to get a good job and to dowell in general if you’re a disciplined person, ifyou’re perseverant and so on.11

The Early Childhood Longi-tudinal Study, KindergartenClass of 1998-99

This national study was sponsoredby the U.S. Department of Educa-tion, Institute of Education Scienc-es, National Center for EducationStatistics, the agency that is pri-marily responsible for collecting,analyzing, and reporting data re-lated to education. The ECLS-Kgathered data and evaluated therelationship of kindergarten teach-ers’ qualifications and instruction-

al practices and student achievement in reading andmathematics. Students were tested in both the falland spring in order to determine changes in relativeachievement. Information including years of teach-ing experience, full or part time employment status,level of certification, educational attainment, and thenumber of courses completed in methods of teach-ing reading and mathematics, was gathered from3,305 kindergarten teachers. (Interpretation of in-formation on certification is complicated by the dif-ferent state requirements for certification.) The studyalso analyzed teaching practices, using self-report-ed information from teachers (although the reportacknowledges that teacher’s perceptions of what theydo may not always correlate well with what theyactually do).

…it was found that several teacher-reported vari-ables describing instructional practices and or-ganization were related to test-score gains.Among those factors that were more organiza-tional than pedagogical, the results indicate thatspending more time on subject and working with-in a full day kindergarten structure were associ-ated with relatively large gains in achievement

A child assigned to a groupwhere peers scored high ontests was more likely toearn more as an adult,more likely to go to collegeand attend a better college,more likely to be saving forretirement, and more likelyto own a house.

CRC Report


compared with spending less time on subject orworking in a part-day kindergarten setting.Among the instructional practices that teachersreported on in this study, those that emphasizedreading and writing skills, didactic instruction,phonics, and reading and writing activities werepositively associated with reading achievementgains. Instructional emphases on traditional prac-tices and computation, measurement and ad-vanced topics, advanced numbers and opera-tions, and student centered instruction (e.g.,having students explain how problems weresolved) were positively associated with mathe-matics achievement gains. The study providedno evidence of a direct relationship between theself-reported qualifications of teachers and stu-dent achievement with the exception of teach-ers’ employment status. Kindergartners whoseteachers were employed part time made smallerreading achievement gains than those whoseteachers were employed full time.

The analyses…found evidence that certain teach-er-reported background variables were positivelyassociated with the use of various practices that,in turn, were associated with higher achievement.In particular, the number of courses teachers re-ported taking in methods of teaching reading andmathematics was related to the emphasis placedon certain instructional approaches. The comple-tion of coursework in methods of teaching read-ing was positively associated with the use of phon-ics instruction, mixed-achievement grouping,student-centered instruction, and reading andwriting activities. Coursework in methods of teach-ing mathematics was positively associated withthe use of practices that emphasized numbers andgeometry, advanced numbers and operations, tra-ditional practices and computation, student-cen-tered instruction, and mixed-achievement group-ing. In addition, kindergarten teaching experiencewas negatively related to the use of student-cen-tered instruction in reading and positively relatedto the use of mixed-achievement grouping inmathematics. Teacher certification appeared un-related to reported instructional practices, withthe exception of a positive association with anemphasis on measurement and advanced topicsin mathematics.

Most of the effect sizes observed in this studyare small. For example, the effect sizes for theinstructional practice variables that showed sig-nificant relationships with achievement range

from approximately 0.03 to 0.10. Although small,they are consistent with those found in otherstudies of relationships between instructionalpractice and achievement.12

Kindergarten Content

As part of its response to the federal No Child LeftBehind Act of 2001, Michigan implemented K-8 gradelevel content expectations in 2004. These contentexpectations included English, math, science, socialstudies, health, and physical education. The expec-tations for kindergarten are included in an appendixto demonstrate the focus on academics, and to clar-ify why some children from disadvantaged homes maynot be prepared to be successful in kindergarten:

On June 15, 2010, the Michigan Department of Ed-ucation adopted common core standards in Englishand math that were developed in an initiative coor-dinated by the National Governors Association Cen-ter for Best Practices and the Council of Chief StateSchool Officers, involving the governors and statecommissioners of education from 48 states (Alaskaand Texas did not participate), the District of Co-lumbia, and two territories. Criteria for these stan-dards include the following:

• Aligned with expectations for college and careersuccess.

• Clear, so that educators and parents know whatthey need to do to help students learn.

• Consistent across all states, so that students arenot taught to a lower standard just because ofwhere they live.

• Include both content and the application ofknowledge through higher order skills.

• Build upon strengths and lessons of current statestandards and standards of top-performing na-tions.

• Realistic, for effective use in the classroom.• Informed by other top performing nations, so

that all students are prepared to succeed in ourglobal economy and society.

• Evidence and research-based.13

The Michigan Department of Education, ISDs, andother partners will provide training for teachers in



fall of 2010, instruction related to the new standardswill begin in fall of 2012, and students will be as-sessed on the standards beginning in 2014.14

Effectiveness

The previously mentioned ECLS-K study found thatmore time was spent on academicinstruction in full day classes, andthat children in full day classeslearned more reading and mathe-matics. Children in classes withmore than 25 students made lessprogress than students in classeswith 18 to 24 students. For Whitechildren, the presence of a class-room aid made no difference inreading progress, but Black chil-dren in classes with an aide mademore progress than Black childrenin classes with no aide.

The Early Childhood LongitudinalStudy, Birth Cohort This study,which was also sponsored by the National Centerfor Education Statistics, was designed to providecomprehensive data on early childhood development.It found that “children who participated in regularearly care and education arrangements the year pri-or to kindergarten scored higher on the reading and

mathematics assessments than children who had noregular experience in early care and education theyear prior to entering kindergarten.”15

Of course, in the ideal world, every child would en-ter kindergarten with the knowledge and skills nec-essary for success, and every kindergarten class

would be small and would have atalented and effective teacher.Unfortunately, not all kindergartenclasses have effective teachers andlow teacher-student ratios, andsome children, and disproportion-ately children from troubledhomes, are already far behindwhen they enter kindergarten asfive-year-olds. Studies have iden-tified some of the characteristicsof these disadvantaged children:they are poor; their mothers didnot graduate from high school;their mothers were teenaged whentheir children were born; there is

a family history of child abuse or neglect; a parent isincarcerated or has an addiction problem. Studieshave also identified consequences of these disad-vantageous factors, including increased rates of as-signment to special education, grade retention, drop-ping out of school, teenage parenthood, welfare, andincarceration.

Unfortunately, not all kin-dergarten classes have ef-fective teachers and lowteacher-student ratios, andsome children, and dispro-portionately children fromtroubled homes, are al-ready far behind when theyenter kindergarten as five-year-olds.

CRC Report


Brain Development

Recent research helps to explain, on a biologicalbasis, some of the challenges faced by children fromdisadvantaged backgrounds.

The child’s brain develops basic circuits first, andthen develops more complex circuits that are builton the previously constructed, more basic, circuits.“Brain architecture” is the term employed to describethis increasingly complex hierarchy of neural circuits,which creates a framework for thedevelopment of increasingly com-plex behaviors and skills.16

Healthy brain development re-quires initial overproduction ofneural connections, followed bythe elimination of those that ex-perience indicates are not needed(including experiences of chronic,overwhelming stress):

The process of synaptogenesisinvolves two phases. The first is“blooming.” Under genetic con-trol, an initial overproduction oc-curs of synapses distributedacross broad regions of the brain.Blooming varies in timing by brainarea but, by the end of the child’s first year, theyoung brain is a very dense organ. The secondphase is “pruning.” In this phase, a progressiveretraction of synapses occurs based partly onexperience, which helps determine which syn-aptic connections are activated and reactivated.Multiple activations help to strengthen and con-solidate synaptic connections, while the synapsesthat are activated less frequently are more likelyto be eliminated or reabsorbed…

With increasing age, therefore, the brain becomesorganized and functionally adapted to exerciseparticular skills and, as a consequence, much ofits earlier potential is lost…

The potential efficacy of early interventions isincreased by the greater plasticity of the youngbrain to adapt positively to such interventions.By contrast, it may be more difficult to remedy

problems after they have developed, as thebrain’s functional organization has been organizedaround early deficiencies.17

Further, according to Dr. Thompson,

Developmental neuroscience has highlighted abroad variety of hazards to avoid to ensurehealthy brain development. Many of these areassociated with poverty, and most arepreventable…these hazards include malnutritionof the mother during prenatal growth and of the

child during the early years, inad-equate health care, and exposureto dangerous chemicals, viruses,environmental toxins, and chron-ic stress during the prenatal andearly childhood years. Prenatalalcohol exposure, early sensorydeficits that remain untreated(such as strabismic amblyopia,commonly known as “lazy eye”),and extreme neglect or abuse alsoconstitute hazards to healthy braindevelopment.18

In addition to avoiding such haz-ards, the factors that are necessaryto development of healthy youngbrains are abundant, safe oppor-tunities to learn and active, recip-rocal relationships with adults.

These ingredients are available in the vast majorityof families with adequate resources, but unfortunate-ly may not be available to children in families of ex-treme poverty or dysfunction. These ingredients arealso crucially related to the effects of stress on braindevelopment.

Stress

While the long-term effects of toxic exposure to lead,mercury, and organophosphate insecticides; prena-tal infections including rubella, toxoplasmosis, andcytomegalovirus; poor nutrition; prenatal exposureto some legal and illegal drugs; and other prenatalor postnatal physical impacts on the child are wellknown, the effects of stress have only relatively re-cently begun to be understood. The National Scien-tific Council on the Developing Child (NSCDC) has

Brain Development, Poverty, and the Achievement Gap

The potential efficacy ofearly interventions is in-creased by the greater plas-ticity of the young brain toadapt positively to such in-terventions. By contrast, itmay be more difficult toremedy problems after theyhave developed, as thebrain’s functional organiza-tion has been organizedaround early deficiencies.



defined three categories of stress in order to de-scribe the biological effects of adversity: positivestress, tolerable stress, and toxic stress.

Positive stress is part of normal, healthy experienceand, with supportive relationships with adults, al-lows the child to adapt and deal with normal butfrustrating experiences such as being told “no.” Ex-amples of positive stress are adjusting to a new childcare situation, learning to share, or getting a shot atthe doctor’s office. The physical effects of positivestress on the child’s body are short term, and mayinclude moderate increases in heart rate, blood pres-sure, serum glucose, and circulat-ing levels of stress hormones (cor-tisol and interlukin-6).

Tolerable stress is more serious andcan be damaging, but children areable to cope with this level of stresswith the help of supportive relation-ships. Examples of tolerable stressmay be the death or serious illnessof a loved one, parental divorce, aserious illness or injury, a naturaldisaster or terrorist attack,homelessness, or community vio-lence. The key factor in makingsuch stress tolerable, according tothe NSCDC, is the support given tothe child by one or more invested adults to help thechild cope with the threat. This allows the child’sphysical stress response to return to normal, andprevents permanent damage.

Toxic stress is the most serious category of stressand is characterized by strong and frequent activa-tion of the stress response system and the lack ofeffective, nurturing relationships that allow adapta-tion and recovery.19

The third and most threatening kind of stressexperience, called toxic stress, is associatedwith strong and prolonged activation of the body’sstress response systems in the absence of thebuffering protection of adult support. Stressorsinclude recurrent child abuse or neglect, severematernal depression, parental substance abuse,or family violence. Under such circumstances,persistent elevations of stress hormones and al-tered levels of key brain chemicals produce an

internal physiological state that disrupts the ar-chitecture and chemistry of the developing brain.Although individuals differ in their physiologicalresponsiveness and adaptive capacities, thesebodily reactions can lead to difficulties in learn-ing and memory, as well as health-damagingbehaviors and later adult lifestyles that under-mine well-being over time. Continuous activa-tion of the stress response system also can pro-duce disruptions of the immune system andmetabolic regulatory functions. In fact, sciencehas shown that toxic stress in early childhoodcan result in a lifetime of greater susceptibilityto physical illnesses (such as cardiovascular dis-

ease, hypertension, obesity, dia-betes, and stroke) as well asmental health problems (such asdepression, anxiety disorders,and substance abuse).20

An improved understanding ofbrain development has helped fed-eral and state policymakers iden-tify the conditions that place youngchildren at risk and develop pro-grams targeted at specific at-riskpopulations. While brains retaina great deal of flexibility, early in-tervention is more cost effectivethan later intervention. “Moreover,neurobiology tells us that the lat-er we wait to invest in children who

are at greatest risk, the more difficult the achieve-ment of optimal outcomes is likely to be, particularlyfor those who experience the early biological dis-ruptions of toxic stress.”21 However, according to asurvey of Michigan kindergarten teachers and in spiteof federal and state programs that provide servicesto select categories of children on a voluntary basis,one in three children enter kindergarten with previ-ously unidentified health, socio-emotional, develop-mental, or learning problems.22

Poverty

Poverty is one of the factors that can affect braindevelopment: it may be the most pervasive, it ishard to hide, and it is susceptible to measurement.All three of the key factors in brain development(learning resources, the child’s relationships, andstress) can be affected by poverty.

Poverty is one of the fac-tors that can affect braindevelopment: it may be themost pervasive, it is hard tohide, and it is susceptibleto measurement. All threeof the key factors in braindevelopment (learning re-sources, the child’s relation-ships, and stress) can be af-fected by poverty.

CRC Report


The child poverty rate in the United States has var-ied between 15 and 23 percent over the past 40years. Nationwide, 37 percent of children live inpoverty at some point in their childhood. Eight per-cent of White children and 40 percent of Black chil-dren are poor at birth. Being poor at birth is a strongpredictor of future poverty status: 31 percent ofWhite children and 69 percent of Black children whoare poor at birth go on the spend at least half oftheir childhoods living in poverty. Black children areabout 2.5 times more likely thanWhite children to ever be poor, andabout seven times more likely tobe persistently poor.

In 2009, 615,494 Michigan childrenwere under five years old, and 22.2percent of families with relatedchildren under five had incomesbelow the poverty level. More thanhalf (53.6 percent) of familiesheaded by a woman, with no hus-band present, with related childrenunder five years of age, were liv-ing in poverty.23 Forty-five percentof all births in Michigan are to sin-gle women below the poverty level.24

As of May, 2010, there were 436,210 children up toand including age six receiving benefits from theFamily Independence Program, Food Assistance Pro-gram, State Disability Program, Child Developmentand Care, and Medicaid programs administeredthrough the Michigan Department of Human Servic-es (See Table 3).

Studies have found that family income has consis-tently larger associations with measures of children’scognitive ability and achievement than with mea-sures of behavior, mental health, and physical health.Additionally, family economic conditions in early child-hood appear to be more important for shaping abil-ity and achievement than family economic condi-tions during adolescence, and the associationbetween income and achievement appear to havethe biggest impacts at the lowest levels of income.25

According to an analysis by GregDuncan of the University of Cali-fornia Irvine,

(Data) shows striking differenc-es in adult outcomes dependingon whether childhood income pri-or to age 6 was below, close to,or well above the poverty line.Compared with children whosefamilies had incomes of at leasttwice the poverty line during theirearly childhood, poor childrencomplete 2 fewer years of school-ing, work 451 fewer hours peryear, earn less than half as much,received $826 per year more in

food stamps as adults, and are more than twiceas likely to report poor overall health or high lev-els of psychological distress. Further, poor chil-dren have BMIs that are 4 points higher thanthose well above the poverty line, and are al-most 50% more likely to be overweight as adults.Poor males are twice as likely to be arrested andfor females, poverty is associated with a $200annual increase in cash assistance, and a sixfold

increase in the likelihood of bearing achild out of wedlock prior to age 21.

(Data) reports the weighted descriptivestatistics of the childhood period incomemeasures and control variables for thetotal sample, as well as by poverty sta-tus in early childhood. Not surprisingly,children with average annual incomesbelow poverty in the earliest period havelower average income in all three peri-ods compared with the other two groups.Additionally, the poorest children are lesslikely to be White and born into an in-tact family, and more likely to be born inthe South, have younger mothers, more

More than half (53.6 per-cent) of families headed bya woman, with no husbandpresent, with related chil-dren under five years ofage, were living in poverty.Forty-five percent of allbirths in Michigan are tosingle women below thepoverty level.

Table 3Michigan Children Age 0 to 6 Receiving Welfare, 2010

Age NumberUnder 1 Year 71,414Age 1 63,602Age 2 63,490Age 3 62,495Age 4 59,603Age 5 58,259Age 6 57,347

Source: Michigan Department of Human Services.



siblings, household heads with lower test scoresand educational attainment, homes rated as dirt-ier by interviewers, lower parental expectations,and household heads who report less preferencefor challenge versus affiliation, less personal con-trol, and less risk avoidance compared with theirhigher income counterparts.26

Children who are born into poverty and spend mul-tiple years living in poverty are more likely to bepoor as adults and more likely to drop out of highschool. In some cases, there are significant differ-ences in the effects of childhood poverty by race.Black children born into poverty are significantly morelikely to be poor adults. White girls born into pover-ty are significantly more likely to become unmarriedteenage mothers. (See Table 4.)

The Achievement Gap

The educational achievement gap between poor andnon-poor children, and between minority and Whitechildren, has been at the center of education policydiscussions for decades. The 1954 Brown v. Boardof Education desegregation decision, the 1965 pas-sage of the Elementary and Secondary EducationAct (ESEA focused on the inequality of school re-sources), and the 1964 Civil Rights Act were land-mark efforts to address disparities. No Child LeftBehind (NCLB) required universal testing and disag-gregating test scores in order to better identify andaddress disparities.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress’(NAEP) annual “report card” describes national andstate educational progress and measures the achieve-

Table 4Adult Outcomes by Poverty Status at Birth and by Race

Adult Not Poor PoorOutcomes At Birth At Birth DifferencePoor 50% or more of years (age 25-30)

All 4% 21% 18% White 2 6 3 Black 17 41 24No High School Diploma All 7 22 15 White 6 24 18 Black 11 20 8Teen Nonmarital Birth (Females Only) All 10 31 20 White 6 18 12 Black 40 38 -2Consistently Employed Men All 72 76 4 White 73 88 15 Black 69 36 -33 Women All 55 42 -13 White 54 46 -8 Black 54 40 -14

Source: Caroline Ratcliffe and Signe-Mary McKernan, The Urban Institute, Childhood PovertyPersistence: Facts and Consequences, June 2010.

CRC Report


ment gap between students on various criteria on a500-point scale. Major reductions in the achievementgap measured by NAEP occurred in the 1970s and1980s; reductions also occurred from 1994 through2004. From 1990 until 1994, and since 2004, theachievement gap has remained relatively stable.

Categories that are used to capture test results re-flect the attributes that experts believe to be impor-tant. One of those categories, gender, is a very mi-nor factor in academic success, but by fourth grade,boys are doing slightly better at math and girls aredoing better at reading (See Tables 5 and 6).

Table 5NAEP Fourth Grade Math Scores

National Michigan2005 2009 2005 2009

Gender All Students 237 239 238 236 Male 238 240 240 238 Female 236 238 236 235 Male-Female Difference 2 2 4 3

Source: NAEP State Comparisons, various.

Table 6NAEP Fourth Grade Reading Scores


Gender All Students 217 220 218 218 Male 214 216 216 214 Female 220 223 221 222 Male-Female Difference -6 -7 -5 -8




There is a very strong correlation between parents’educational attainment and young children’s perfor-mance on measures of cognitive knowledge andskills. Children of parents who have not graduatedfrom high school start far behind those whose par-ents have more education (See Table 7).

In 2006 in Michigan, 17.2 percent of births were tomothers with less than 12 years of education.27 In2008, ten percent of all Michigan children lived in

households where the head of household was not ahigh school graduate.28 Nationally, one-third of Blackchildren had a parent who had a high school diplo-ma, 24 percent had a parent with some college ex-perience, and less than 15 percent had a parent witha bachelor’s degree.29

Poverty is a major factor: differences in proficiencyin cognitive skills between children born into pover-

Table 7Percent of Children Demonstrating Proficiency in Cognitive Skills,by Parents’ Educational Attainment, 2005-06

At 9 Months OldEarly

Explores Explores Jabbers Problem NamesObjects Purposefully Expressively Solving Objects

Less than High School 98.4% 80.1% 26.0% 2.8% 0.5%H.S. Diploma or Equivalent 98.4 82.6 29.2 3.6 0.7Some College 98.7 84.4 30.8 3.9 0.7Bachelor’s Degree 98.8 83.9 30.2 3.8 0.7Any Graduate Education 98.8 84.1 30.5 3.9 0.7

At 2 Years OldMatching

Receptive Expressive Listening Discrimin- EarlyVocabulary Vocabulary Comprehension ation Counting

Less than High School 76.5% 50.4% 25.4% 21.5% 1.2%H.S. Diploma or Equivalent 81.9 58.8 32.0 27.4 2.5Some College 84.5 64.1 36.7 31.8 3.6Bachelor’s Degree 88.5 71.0 42.5 37.4 5.3Any Graduate Education 90.4 74.7 46.5 41.4 7.1

At 4 Years OldComparative Scores Percent Proficient

NumbersReceptive Expressive Overall Overall Letter and

Vocabulary Vocabulary Literacy Math Recognition ShapesLess than High School 7.1 1.9 8.9 17.9 16.0% 39.5%H.S. Diploma or Equivalent 7.9 2.3 10.6 19.9 22.8 50.5Some College 8.6 2.5 12.4 22.4 29.8 64.5Bachelor’s Degree 9.2 2.7 15.4 25.5 41.6 81.0Any Graduate Education 9.7 2.7 18.1 27.4 51.9 86.0

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Participation in Education, Preprimary Education,Tables A-3-1, A-3-2, and A-3-3

CRC Report


ty and children at or above poverty appear early andare persistent (See Table 8).

The 2009, 23.2 percent of children under the age offive were in families whose income was below thepoverty level, and in Michigan, 26.9 percent of chil-dren under five were in families whose income wasbelow the poverty level.30

Between 2005 and 2009, the achievement gap infourth grade math between those whose family in-come made them eligible for the subsidized lunchprogram (a proxy for income) and those who arenot increased in Michigan. The gap in performancebetween poor and non-poor students in Michiganwas above the national average in both years (SeeTables 9 and 10).

Table 8Percent of Children Demonstrating Proficiency in Cognitive Skills, by Poverty Status, 2005-06


Explores Explores - Jabbers Problem NamesObjects Purposefully Expressively Solving Objects

In Poverty 98.3% 80.9% 27.1% 3.1% 0.5%At or Above Poverty 98.7 84.0 30.4 3.8 0.7



In Poverty 78.7% 54.6% 29.0% 24.8% 2.1%At or Above Poverty 86.2 66.7 38.9 34.0 4.4



Vocabulary Vocabulary Literacy Math Recognition ShapesIn Poverty 7.7 2.1 9.9 18.9 20.1% 44.8%At or Above Poverty 8.9 2.5 14.2 24.0 36.7 71.8

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Participation in Education, Preprimary Education,Tables A-3-1, A-3-2, and A-3-3.



Eligibility for National School Lunch Program All Students 237 239 238 236 Not Eligible 248 250 246 247 Eligible 225 228 223 222 Not Eligible- Eligible Difference 22 22 23 25

Source: NAEP State Comparisons, various



According to at least one estimate, the Great Reces-sion may increase the number of children living inpoverty in the U.S. by an estimated five million.31

Race is also a factor. In the United States, povertyrates vary substantially by race and family composi-

tion. In 2007, one-third of Black children lived inpoverty, compared to one-tenth of White children.Nearly two-thirds of Black children lived in a singleparent household, and Black children were threetimes more likely than White children to live in asingle parent household (See Table 11).32

Table 11Percent of the U.S Population below the Poverty Threshold, 2008

All Children Under 18 YearsPersons All Families Female Householder*

All Races 13.2% 18.5% 43.5%White 8.6 10.0 31.7Asian/Pacific Islander 11.8 14.2 25.0Hispanic 23.2 30.3 51.9Black 24.7 34.4 51.9

*No husband present

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics: 2009, Table 21.



Eligibility for National School Lunch Program All Students 217 220 218 218 Not Eligible 230 232 227 229 Eligible 203 206 201 204 Not Eligible- Eligible Difference 27 26 26 24


CRC Report


Table 12Percent of Children Demonstrating Proficiency in Cognitive Skills, by Race/Ethnicity, 2005-06


Explores Explores Jabbers Problem NamesObjects Purposefully Expressively Solving Objects

White 98.8% 84.0% 30.4% 3.9% 0.7%Black 98.1 80.4 27.9 3.4 0.6Hispanic 98.5 82.9 29.0 3.4 0.6Asian 98.8 83.3 28.2 3.1 0.5Pacific Islander 98.9 81.8 23.7 2.0 0.3American Indian/ Alaska Native 98.4 80.3 27.3 3.4 0.6More than 1 Race 98.6 82.8 29.5 3.8 0.8



White 88.7% 70.8% 42.2% 37.1% 5.2%Black 79.4 55.7 29.9 25.5 2.2Hispanic 78.3 53.7 28.2 24.1 1.9Asian 82.6 62.0 35.4 30.7 3.7Pacific Islander 78.9 54.2 27.8 23.2 1.1American Indian/ Alaska Native 74.9 49.9 25.5 21.7 1.4More than 1 Race 85.0 64.5 37.0 32.2 3.7



Vocabulary Vocabulary Literacy Math Recognition ShapesWhite 9.2 2.6 14.2 24.2 36.8% 73.1%Black 8.0 2.4 12.0 20.6 28.3 54.7Hispanic 7.4 2.1 10.7 20.1 23.0 51.4Asian 7.9 2.1 17.5 26.3 49.4 81.2Pacific Islander N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AAmerican Indian/ Alaska Native 7.9 2.1 9.6 17.6 18.8 39.9More than 1 Race 9.0 2.5 13.9 23.0 35.4 65.4

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Participation in Education, Preprimary Education,Tables A-3-1, A-3-2, and A-3-3

Differences in proficiency in cognitive skills measuredby racial categories appear early and persist (SeeTable 12).

At the age of four, on average, children of Asian de-scent demonstrate superior performance on mea-sures of cognitive achievement. Children of Ameri-



can Indian/Alaska Native descent, on average, havefallen the furthest behind. On average, Hispanic andBlack children also lag White andAsian children.

Although it narrowed from 2005 to2009, the achievement gap be-tween White and Black fourth gradestudents in Michigan remainsamong the largest in the nation(See Table 13).

In 2005, only Wisconsin had a wider achievementgap in math between White and Black fourth grad-ers (37 points compared to 35 in Michigan). In 2009,the White-Black difference in fourth grade math was

33 in Illinois and Wisconsin, 32 in Michigan and Ne-braska, and lower in every other state. During the

same period, the gap betweenWhite and Hispanic students inMichigan narrowed from 22(above the national average) to 16(well below the national average)(See Table 14).

In 2005, the largest gap in read-ing scores between White and

Black fourth graders was 39 points in Minnesota;Illinois and Michigan tied for second highest with 36points. Minnesota tied with Wisconsin for the larg-est gap in reading scores between White and Blackfourth graders in 2009 (35 points); Illinois was next



Race/Ethnicity from School Records All Students 237 239 238 236 White 246 248 245 243 Black 220 222 211 212 Hispanic 225 227 224 227 White-Black Difference 26 26 35 32 White-Hispanic Difference 21 21 22 16




Race/Ethnicity from School RecordsAll Students 217 220 218 218White 228 229 226 225Black 199 204 190 194Hispanic 201 204 208 206White-Black Difference 29 25 36 31White-Hispanic Difference 26 25 19 19


The achievement gap be-tween White and Blackfourth grade students inMichigan remains amongthe largest in the nation

CRC Report


highest with 33 points, and Michigan was fourth high-est with a 31 point difference in achievement. InMichigan, the achievement gap in reading betweenWhite and Hispanic fourth graders was substantiallyless than the national average in both years.

A recent analysis of data on math and readingachievement from the NAEP focused on the academicprogress of Black males (a previous table indicatedlittle difference in fourth grade math or reading basedon gender, but this study focused on boys). It foundthat on the fourth grade reading assessment, only12 percent of black male students nationwide (andonly 11 percent of Black males students living inlarge central cities) performed at or above proficientlevels, compared with 38 percent of White males.In eighth grade, only nine percent of Black malesnationwide (and only eight percent of Black malesliving in large central cities) performed at or abovethe proficient level, compared with 33 percent ofWhite males. Math results were similar. More thanhalf of Black males scored below basic levels in bothfourth and eighth grade. The average Black fourthand eighth grade male who is not poor does no bet-ter in reading and math than White males who arepoor, and Black males without disabilities do no bet-ter than White males with disabilities. Black malestudents nationally scored an average of 104 pointslower than White males on ACT college readinessbenchmarks.33

In The Black-White Achievement Gap: WhenProgress Stopped, Barton and Coley searched forthe reasons for the unequal rates of progress in nar-rowing the achievement gap, and considered familycharacteristics, investment in early childhood edu-cation and nutrition34, more rigorous courses, de-segregation, class size, minimum competency test-ing, and No Child Left Behind. Parent characteristics,parent education and income, and race/ethnicity

explained part of the gap; desegregation and small-er class sizes may also have affected the gap. Chang-es in Black family structure, neighborhoods, andculture; ancestral inheritance; generational mobili-ty; and the effects of concentrated poverty were con-sidered, and the authors argued for increased sup-port for families and neighborhoods.35 The reportprovides a disquieting analysis of the complexity ofthe challenges facing disadvantaged children, andseeks to explain why some children enter kindergar-ten so far behind others who were born into bettercircumstances.

Parents education, employment, and income definesocioeconomic groups, and those in the lowest so-cioeconomic group have huge challenges.

“On starting kindergarten, children in the lowestsocioeconomic group have average cognitivescores that are 60 percent below those of themost affluent group…Moreover, due to deep-seat-ed equity issues present in communities andschools, such early achievement gaps tend toincrease rather than diminish over time.”36

While the achievement gap is generally defined interms of income and race, it may be that those mea-sures are too blunt to effectively identify all of thechildren most in need of early intervention. Factorsincluding mothers’ educational attainment, age,marital status, and employment history; family his-tory; the child’s birth weight, nutritional status, anddevelopmental maturity; and other issues have beenidentified as being indicative of children in need ofspecial intervention. It may well be that other fac-tors, as yet not recognized and captured in metrics,are also indicative of children in need of special in-tervention. The largest number of students retainedin grade and of students who drop out of high schoolare middle class.37



The Achievement Gap and College

In a world where higher education is increasinglyimportant, early educational experiences have a pro-found effect on later outcomes. The average grad-uation rate for Black students in public four-yearcolleges and universities in the U.S. is 16.2 percent-age points below that of White students (43.3 per-cent versus 59.5 percent); in pri-vate colleges and university, thegap is 18.7 percentage points (54.7percent versus 73.4 percent).Michigan institutions of higherlearning topped the lists of bothpublic and private colleges anduniversities with the largest White-Black graduation rate gaps: WayneState had the largest gap amongpublic universities and LawrenceTechnological University had thelargest gap among private colleg-es and universities.

At Wayne State University, a pub-lic urban commuter university inDetroit, fewer than one in ten Af-rican American students graduatewithin six years, one-fourth the success rate forWhites. The 9.5 percent Black graduation rate andthe 43.5 percent White graduation rate produce a34.0 percent White-Black gap, the largest gap in anyof the 293 public colleges and universities in the

study. Three other Michigan public universities wereamong the 25 public institutions with the largestgraduation gaps between White and Black students:Ferris State University (24.3 percentage points);Saginaw Valley State University (24.3 percentagepoints); and Michigan State University (22.6 percent-age points). Michigan State and Wayne State arealso among the public universities with the largest

graduation gaps between Whiteand Hispanic students.38

In 2009, Black men accounted forfive percent of the U.S. collegepopulation and 36 percent of thenation’s prison population.39

The Policy of Intervention

As previously noted, Michigan par-ents do not have to send their childto school until the child reaches theage of six. The data indicate thatthere is already a significantachievement gap well before chil-dren turn six, and that children whoenter school far behind their peersfrequently never catch up (in 2007,

eight percent of Michigan children ages six to 17had repeated one or more grades since starting kin-dergarten), and often encounter problems that havehigh social and economic costs.

Michigan institutions ofhigher learning topped thelists of both public and pri-vate colleges and universitieswith the largest White-Blackgraduation rate gaps:Wayne State had the largestgap among public universi-ties and Lawrence Techno-logical University had thelargest gap among privatecolleges and universities.

CRC Report


Publicly Funded Pre-Kindergarten for Disadvantaged Children

African American children ages 3 and 4 with IQsbetween 70 and 85 at the time they entered theprogram. All of the children lived in the area servedby the Perry Elementary School in Ypsilanti, Michi-gan. Their families were struggling: mothers hadan average of 9.7 years of schooling and fathershad an average of 8.0 years of schooling; 47 per-cent of families were single-parent households; 40percent of parents were unemployed; and 49 per-cent of families were on welfare.

Children were matched based onIQ scores, socioeconomic status,and gender, and one student fromeach pair was assigned to the con-trol group and the other to the“treatment” group, based on a coinflip. Children from the same fam-ily were assigned to the samegroup. The treatment group to-taled 58 children and the controlgroup had 65 children, which is asmall sample size. About 75 per-cent of children participated for

two years, at ages three and four; the remainderparticipated for one year, at age four. The meanparticipation was 1.8 years.

Children in the treatment group participated in twoand one-half hour classes, five mornings a week,for the 30-week school year (October through May).The four teacher positions in the program were filledby ten teachers over the five years of the program.Teachers were certified in elementary, early child-hood, or special education, there were 20 to 25 stu-dents each school year, and the teacher to studentratio was 1 to 5.7. Teachers were paid regular schoolteacher salaries plus a bonus of ten percent for par-ticipating in the program. The program was locatedin a public school. The education program used wasthe HighScope Curriculum (at that time called the“cognitively-oriented curriculum”), which was large-ly developed by the program director and teachersand emphasized active learning (in active learning,students engage in activities with educational mate-rials, rather than listening to lectures).41

Poverty, parents’ educational attainment, family dys-function, and other factors contribute to an achieve-ment gap that exists long before children enter thetraditional public education system, and that preventsmany disadvantaged children from being successful.Several scientifically controlled projects conducted inthe 1950s and 1960s demonstrated the effectivenessof high quality early childhood education in amelio-rating the effects of early disadvantages.

Three demonstration projects are widely cited in theliterature: the High/Scope PerryPreschool Project, the CarolinaAbedecarian Project, and Chicago’sChild/Parent Centers. These pro-grams were specifically designed totest the effect of high quality earlychildhood programs on at-risk chil-dren, they had sound research de-signs and were longitudinal (theyfollowed children in treatment andcontrol groups through school andinto adulthood), they measured anumber of different outcomes, andthey calculated benefit/cost ratios.40 In general, thelargest effects have been found by the most rigor-ous studies of small demonstration projects.

One of the important challenges facing researchershas been identifying appropriate comparison groups.Studies have compared outcomes of specific pre-school programs (referred to as “interventions” or“treatments”) to comparison groups having no pre-school experience, to comparison groups having arange of other experiences including care outsidethe home, or to comparison groups enrolled in dif-ferent programs.

The HighScope Perry Preschool Program

The HighScope Perry Preschool Program was con-ducted from 1962 to 1967. It involved random as-signment of students to a preschool program or acontrol group and longitudinal follow up of partici-pants and control group members through age 40.

This landmark demonstration study involved 123

Several scientifically con-trolled projects conductedin the 1950s and 1960sdemonstrated the effective-ness of high quality earlychildhood education inameliorating the effects ofearly disadvantages.



The role of adults in the Perry Program model isto observe, guide, support, and help to extendthe children’s activities by arranging and equip-ping a variety of interest areas within the learn-ing environment, maintaining a daily routine thatpermits children to plan and carry out their ownactivities, and joining in with children’s activitiesas active participants and helping children to thinkabout their play. The curriculum does not teachpredefined lessons, but instead teachers listenclosely to what students plan and then work withand question them to extend their activities todevelopmentally appropriate experiences.42

Teachers conducted one and one-half hour home visits with moth-ers one weekday afternoon everyweek during the school year, toinvolve the mother in the educa-tional process and help implementthe curriculum at home. Parentswere given specific advice on howto monitor their child’s develop-ment and to provide experiencesthat extended learning.

The HighScope Educational Foun-dation, which designed the pro-gram, has conducted evaluations of participants fromages 3 to 12, and at 14, 15, 19, 27, and 40 usinginterviews, tests, and review of school and courtrecords. The pattern of findings was internally con-sistent and plausibly related to the preschool pro-gram. Those findings include the following:

Participants in the treatment group scored signifi-cantly higher than control group participants on vo-cabulary and nonverbal intellectual performance testsat the end of their first and second preschool years,and continued to maintain a slight edge. At ageten, 17 percent of treatment children had been heldback a grade, compared to 38 percent of childrenwho had not been enrolled in the program. Partici-pants were less likely to be placed in special educa-tion than those in the control group.

High school grade point averages were significantlyhigher for treatment participants (2.08 compared to1.71) and control group members received nearly

twice as many failing grades. At age 14, treatmentparticipants significantly outscored the control groupon California Achievement Tests (California Achieve-ment Tests are among the most widely used tests ofbasic academic skills for children from kindergartenthrough grade 12). Treatment participants gave morepositive responses to questions measuring their at-titude toward high school.

At age 19, a higher proportion of treatment partici-pants were working (50 percent versus 32 percent);they were twice as likely to be economically self-sufficient and half as likely to be on welfare. At age

19, participants had 47 property orviolence arrests; the control grouphad 74. Participants were half aslikely to have been arrested for anon-minor offense, to have causedsomeone an injury requiring med-ical attention, or to have been introuble with the police.

By age 27, treatment participantshad higher educational attainment(11.9 years compared to 11.0years) and higher high school grad-uation or GED attainment (71 per-

cent compared to 54 percent). Females in the treat-ment group had significantly higher educationalattainment (12.5 years compared to 10.5 years) andhigh school graduation or equivalent (84 percentcompared to 35 percent). At age 27, participantshad higher average monthly earnings ($1,020 ver-sus $700); three times as many owned their ownhomes (36 percent versus 13 percent); twice as manyowned a second car (30 percent versus 13 percent);59 percent of participants had ever received welfareor other social assistance, versus 80 percent of thosein the control group. At age 27, 40 percent of par-ticipant women were married, compared to eightpercent of control group women; 57 percent of par-ticipant women were single parents compared to 83percent of women who had been in the control group.At age 27, participants had a significantly lower num-ber of arrests (average of 2.3 versus 4.6); sevenpercent of participants had been arrested five timesor move, versus 35 percent of the control group.

At age 19, a higher propor-tion of treatment partici-pants were working (50percent versus 32 percent);they were twice as likely tobe economically self-suffi-cient and half as likely tobe on welfare.

CRC Report


At age 40, participants had higher average monthlyearnings ($1,856 versus $1,308) and were more like-ly to be insured. At age 40, 36 percent of partici-pants, and 55 percent of the control group, had beenarrested more than five times.

The early education did not make students smarterover the long term, but it did increase motivationand achievement, which led to more productive livesand significant savings to taxpayers. According toestimates, and in 2000 adjusted dollars, the cost ofthe program was $15,166 per child, and the returnto society was $244,812 per child.

The Chicago Child-ParentCenter Preschool Program

In 1967, Chicago Public Schoolsinitiated the Child-Parent Center(CPC) Program, a center-basedearly intervention program thatprovides comprehensive educa-tional and family support servicesto economically disadvantagedchildren from preschool to thirdgrade. The program was devel-oped by the Chicago school super-intendent, Lorraine Sullivan, toimprove disadvantaged children’s success in schooland to increase their parents’ involvement in thechildren’s lives in school. It is based on the ideathat the foundation for success in school is enhancedby a stable and enriched learning environment andby the active participation of parents in their chil-dren’s education.

Federal funding for the program was initially provid-ed under Title I of the Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act of 1965, which reflected the “war onpoverty” goal that every child should enter schoolready to learn. Title I provides funds to public schoolsthat serve low income students, and the childrenwere from the highest poverty neighborhoods inChicago. After 1977, the program was funded bythe federal and state governments.

Participating children were 94 percent African Amer-ican and six percent Latino. They attended the pro-gram for a half day, five days a week, during the

school year. The preschool program had a certifiedteacher and an assistant in each classroom; the meanclass size was 17 children. Parent volunteers alsoassisted in classrooms. All teachers had bachelor’sdegrees and were certified as early childhood teach-ers. The program was part of the public school sys-tem, and teachers earned regular public school teach-er salaries.

Classroom teachers worked with a lead teacher, whoalso worked with the principal of the school wherethat center was located, to develop curricula. Fre-quent meetings among teachers allowed them toevaluate results and plan improvements.

Each center also had a teacher who was responsiblefor the parent outreach programand who staffed a parent resourceroom, as well as community-schoolrepresentatives (often parents ofchildren who had been through theprogram). The goal of this part ofthe program was to get parentsinvolved in the center, includingvolunteering in the classroom, go-ing on field trips, and participatingin parenting workshops. Althoughthe community school representa-

tives did conduct home visits, the goal was to getparents actively engaged in the center.

Children entered the center program as three-year-olds and stayed until they entered kindergarten, witha mean participation of 1.6 years. Centers werelocated in public elementary schools or adjacent topublic elementary schools, and when they complet-ed the program, the children transitioned to linkedK-3 programs in the same or a nearby building. Thisproximity, and the fact that the center program waspart of the public school system, allowed for jointplanning and communication between the center andthe early elementary program.43

Originally implemented at four sites, and at one timeexpanded to 25 schools, the program now operatesat 13 sites in central Chicago and serves economi-cally disadvantaged children aged three to five inhalf-day or full-day pre-kindergarten.

The early education did notmake students smarter overthe long term, but it did in-crease motivation andachievement, which led tomore productive lives and sig-nificant savings to taxpayers.



The federally funded Chicago Longitudinal Studybegan in 1986, 19 years after the Child-Parent Cen-ter Program was implemented. The study exam-ined the effects of program the for 1,150 high riskchildren who were born in 1980 and who receivedservices from the CPCs from1983 through 1985. The studyalso included another 389 chil-dren who were born in 1980and who participated in an al-ternative all-day kindergartenprogram in one of five Chica-go public schools serving lowincome children (althoughthese schools served neighbor-hoods with less concentratedpoverty than the CPC schools).The comparison group childrenreceived all the other kinds ofinterventions that were avail-able in inner city Chicago, in-cluding Head Start.

The goals of the study were to track the effects ofthe program on school performance over time, toevaluate the effects of the program on child andyouth development, and to investigate the effectson educational and social development. Childrenwere tested at the start of kindergarten using theIowa Tests of Basic Skills: CPC children tested at the47th percentile (near the national average), whilecomparison group children tested at the 28th per-centile. CPC parents remained more involved throughelementary school. Scholastic effects persistedthrough age 15, with children less likely to be re-tained or placed in special education from the firstthrough eighth grades. “Participation in the Child-Parent Center Program for different lengths oftime…has been found to be significantly associatedwith higher levels of school achievement into ado-lescence, with higher levels of consumer skills, withenhanced parent involvement in children’s educa-tion, and with lower rates of grade retention andspecial education, lower rates of early school drop-out, and with lower rates of delinquent behavior.”44

The Abecedarian Project

This scientifically controlled study of the effects ofhigh quality early childhood education for poor chil-dren in Chapel Hill, North Carolina was conducted

on four groups of high risk chil-dren between 1972 and 1977.The risk index that was usedfor selection into the programincluded the following factors:

•Family income below 50 per-cent of poverty•Low maternal and paternaleducational attainment•Low maternal IQ•Single parent family•No close maternal relatives inthe community•Mentally retarded older sib-lings; older siblings with poorschool performance

• Public assistance (welfare and/or public hous-ing) recipient

• Family contact with mental health agencies forreasons including child abuse or neglect

• Parental mental health problems• Parental unemployment

The 111 infants who were selected were randomlyassigned to an intervention (treatment) group (57infants) or to a control group (54 infants). All of thechildren were born into poverty to mothers who hadnot graduated from high school, 98 percent wereAfrican-American, and only 25 percent of the infantswere living with both parents at the time of theirbirth.

Infants entered the program at an average age of4.4 months and those assigned to the interventiongroup received high quality, developmentally appro-priate child care for six to eight hours a day, fivedays a week, 50 weeks per year, for five years, until

“Participation in the Child-ParentCenter Program... has been foundto be significantly associated withhigher levels of school achievementinto adolescence, with higher lev-els of consumer skills, with en-hanced parent involvement inchildren’s education, and with lowerrates of grade retention and spe-cial education, lower rates of earlyschool dropout, and with lowerrates of delinquent behavior.”

CRC Report


they entered kindergarten. These children receivednutritional supplements and disposable diapers, pe-diatric care and supportive social services. Infantsassigned to the control group also received nutri-tional supplements, pediatric care, and social ser-vices to ensure that these factors did not affect out-comes. Some of the children in the control groupdid use other child care and preschool resourcesavailable in the community.

The treatment program took placeat the University of North Carolina,Chapel Hill. For the infants as-signed to intervention, thecaregiver to infant ratio was 1 to 3(two teachers with six infants). Forthe second year, the ratio was 1 to4 (two teachers with eight tod-dlers). In the third year, ten chil-dren were assigned to two teach-ers, and in the fourth year, 14preschoolers were assigned to twoteachers. Activities targeted byteachers included cognitive and finemotor skills, social and self-helpskills, language, and gross motorskills, and were individualized forinfants and children based on readi-ness. Planned curriculum was in-tegrated into play and exploration, with teaching andlearning occurring throughout the day. When thechild reached age three, the child care center be-came a high quality preschool program with morestructured educational curricula.

Teachers received salaries comparable to publicschool teachers’ salaries (on a 12 month, rather thana nine month, scale) and most of the teachers hadcollege degrees. Teachers were actively supervised,met weekly, and engaged in ongoing observing, as-sessing, and planning.

Children in the Abecedarian Project lived in an afflu-ent community that had a very small underprivilegedpopulation and that had many community resourc-es and services. Furthermore, these children en-tered one of the two best public school systems inNorth Carolina.45

At the time children entered kindergarten, childrenin both the treatment group and the control groupwere randomly assigned to a support program (theHome School Resource Program) or to no supportprogram for the period through second grade. TheAbecedarian K-2 program assigned a resource teach-er to each child and family. Resource teachers, whohad masters or PhD degrees and at least five yearsof experience, had caseloads of 12 families. Re-source teachers prepared individualized sets of read-

ing and math home activities,taught parents how to use theactivities, tutored the children, metwith classroom teachers to coor-dinate educational efforts, andserved as advocates for the childand family. Resource teachersmade about 15 home visits and17 school visits annually per child.They also provided a variety ofsummertime support, includingvisits to the library, tutoring, sum-mer activity packets, and help inarranging summer camp experi-ences.

Progress in the areas of cognitivefunctioning, academic skills, edu-cational attainment, employment,

parenthood, and social adjustment were monitoredat ages 3,4,5,6.5,8,12,15, and 21. At age three,treatment group children had significantly higher IQscores; those whose mothers have low IQ scoresbenefited the most. IQ scores and reading and mathtests revealed the most effective program combinedearly plus and continuing intervention, followed byearly intervention, followed by late intervention. (Thebenefits of K-2 intervention disappeared by age 15).Children in the control group who were not in the K-2 program scored the lowest. At age eight, the chil-dren who had no intervention and no K-2 programscored at the 11th percentile, while the children whohad both intervention and K-2 scored in the mid tohigh 40s, near the national average. Treatment groupchildren had significantly higher reading and mathscores at ages eight through 21. At age 15, 31.2percent of treatment group and 54.5 percent of con-trol group students had been retained in a grade,

These researchers projectedthat children in high-qualityprograms would earn about$143,000 more over theirlifetimes than children whodid not receive that care,and that school districtscould expect to save morethan $11,000 per child be-cause participants were lesslikely to require special or re-medial education.



and 24.5 percent of the treatment group had beenplaced in special education, compared to 47.7 per-cent of the control group.

Of the 111 original participants, 104 were followedup at age 21. At that age, compared to the con-trol group, students enrolled in the preschool pro-gram had an increase of 1.8 grade levels in read-ing achievement and 1.3 grade levels in math; hadcompleted a half year more edu-cation; were twice as likely to beenrolled in school (42 percentversus 20 percent); were morethan twice as likely to be attend-ing a four-year college (35 per-cent versus 14 percent); weremuch more likely to have a skilledjob (47 percent versus 27 per-cent); were much less likely tohave been teenage parents (26percent versus 45 percent); and were less likelyto engage in criminal activity.46

Researchers at the National Institute of Early Child-hood Education Research determined that the ben-efits of the program outweighed the costs by a ratioof four to one. These researchers projected thatchildren in high-quality programs would earn about$143,000 more over their lifetimes than children whodid not receive that care, and that school districtscould expect to save more than $11,000 per childbecause participants were less likely to require spe-cial or remedial education. Participants were lesslikely to smoke, resulting in health benefits, and lesslikely to use marijuana (18 percent versus 39 per-

cent, self-reported).

Benefits were mutigenerational: the mothers of par-ticipants, participants, and the children of partici-pants were more likely to have higher earnings. Whenchildren were four-and-a-half years old, it was foundthat teenage mothers of those participants in pre-school were more likely to have graduated from highschool, received post-secondary education, and be

self-supporting, and less likely tohave had subsequent children.

According to a benefit-cost analy-sis, the average annual cost of theAbecedarian Program is $13,900,higher than either the averageannual cost of the Perry PreschoolProject ($9,200) or Head Start($7,000). According to this study,the total cost of providing the

Abecedarian program to the estimated 3.8 millionpoor children who were less than five years old wouldhave been about $53 billion. This was compared to2001 federal government expenditures on early child-hood care and education of $16 billion, state andlocal government expenditures of $9 billion, and di-rect expenditures by families of $30 billion.

The analysis considered future education, income,welfare costs, health, maternal benefits, and foundthat if all these factors are taken into consideration,the internal rate of return for the Abecedarian inter-vention is slightly more than seven percent.47

Benefits were multigenera-tional: the mothers of par-ticipants, participants, andthe children of participantswere more likely to havehigher earnings.

CRC Report


Benefit-Cost Analyses

Because the demonstration programs were so welldocumented, they have served as the basis of a largenumber of benefit-cost analyses that estimate theireconomic impact. However, different benefit-coststudies have taken different approaches, considereddifferent factors, made different assumptions, useddifferent time periods, and arrived at different ben-efit amounts. Table 15 came from the NationalInstitute for Early Education Research.

Researchers at the University of Minnesota took adifferent approach and arrived at similar benefit-costestimates (See Table 16).

Another study, published in 2007, found a benefitcost ratio of $17.1 to1 for the Perry Preschool Project($12.90 to the general public and $4.17 to partici-pants); $10.15 to 1 for the Chicago Child-ParentCenters ($6.86 to the general public and $3.29 toparticipants); and $2.50 to 1 for the AbecedarianProject ($2.35 to participants, their mothers and theirchildren).48

Table 15Three Benefit-Cost Analyses of High-Quality Preschool Education

High/Scope Chicago CarolinaPerry Preschool Child-Parent Centers Abecedarian

Year began 1962 1983 1972Location Ypsilanti, MI Chicago, IL Chapel Hill, NCSample size 123 1,539 111Research design Randomized trial Matched neighborhoods Randomized trialAge Ages 3–4 Ages 3–4 6 weeks to age 5Program Schedule Half-day, school yr Half-day, school yr Full day, all yrCost $17,599 $8,224 $70,697Child Care 1,051 2,037 30,753Maternal Earnings 0 0 76,547K-12 Cost Savings 9,787 5,989 9,841Post-Secondary Education Cost -1,497 -685 -9,053Abuse & Neglect Cost Saving NE 329 NECrime Cost Savings 198,981 41,100 0Welfare Cost Savings 885 NE 218Health Cost Savings NE NE 19,804Earnings 74,878 34,123 41,801Second Generation Earnings NE NE 6,373Total Benefits $284,086 $83,511 $176,284Benefit-to-Cost Ratio 16.1 10.1 2.5

Note: All amounts in 2006 dollars, discounted at 3%

Note: “NE” indicates that a benefit was not estimated for a particular outcome even though onemight have occurred.

Source: W. Steven Barnett and Donald J. Yarosz, National Institute for Early Education Research,Rutgers Graduate School of Education, Preschool Policy Brief, November 2007, Who Goes toPreschool and Why Does It Matter?



While all three of these analyses estimated the ben-efit to cost ratio of the Abecedarian Project at $2.50to 1, an analysis by the National Institute for EarlyChildhood Research found a return of “roughly fourdollars for every dollar invested.”49

One advocate organization, Pre-K Now, a campaignof the Pew Center on the States, asserts that “Every$1 invested in high-quality pre-k saves taxpayers upto $7.”50

Regardless of the approaches, the various factorsconsidered, and the precise dollar amount that iscalculated, benefit-cost analyses have generallyfound substantial benefits from high quality earlyintervention. These well documented and exten-sively studied demonstration projects have been usedto define “high quality” to include better trainedcaregivers, smaller child to staff ratios, academicfocus, and more intensive services. The reportedreturn on investment has been used to support theallocation of public funds for pre-K programs foryoung, at risk children.

Characteristics of High QualityPre-K Programs

The demonstration projects themselves differed insome ways, but shared key characteristics. Theybegan early and had many contact hours with thechildren, for more than one year. Teachers werewell educated and trained and were well paid; turn-over was low. Class sizes were small and child toteacher ratios were low. Programs were intense,with well planned curricula and opportunities forteachers to evaluate and adjust curricula to improveeffectiveness. There was intentional, systematicoutreach, and parents were involved in reinforcingthe center experience in two of the programs. Twoof the three programs were formally linked to theearly elementary program.

In an evaluation of the three demonstration projectsbased on interviews with project evaluators, EllenGalinsky suggests additional important principles ofsuccess:

Table 16Summary of Costs and Benefits per Participant for Three Early Interventions

High/Scope Chicago CarolinaPerry Preschool Child-Parent Centers Abecedarian

Average Cost per Participant $18,260 $8,512 $73,159Cost for One Year of Participation 10,283 5,434 16,020Total Benefits 159,610 86,400 182,422Net Benefits 141,350 77,899 109,263Public Benefits 130,690 58,476 36,429Net Public Benefits 112,430 49,964 (36,730)Total Benefit per Dollar Invested 8.74 10.15 2.49Public Benefit per Dollar Invested 7.16 6.87 0.50

Source: Arthur J. Reynolds, Judy A. Temple, and Barry A White; University of Minnesota; Cost-Effective Early Childhood Development Programs: A Synthesis of Evidence in the First Decade of Life.

CRC Report


• Clarity of focus, accountability, and alignmentbetween goals and strategies used to achievethe goals

• Interventions focused on the whole child: intel-lectual, social, emotional, and physical growthand well-being

• The relationship between the teacher and childwas seen as central to thechild’s learning

• Children were considered tobe active and experientiallearners

• Strong focus on evaluation andon-going learning by teachersto improve teaching practices51

Benefit-cost analyses and studiesof the characteristics of high qual-ity programs have informed thedevelopment of federal and statepre-K programs. These programshave adopted different models,different criteria, and differentstandards, and have been fundedat different levels. While a few states have adopteda goal of universal pre-kindergarten (publicly fund-ed pre-k that is available to, but not required for, allfour-year-olds), most states’ programs are designedto supplement Head Start, which targets the poor-est children. State programs that supplement HeadStart target poor children, or children who meet spe-cific risk criteria, or children in designated low in-come geographic areas. The goals of publicly fund-ed pre-K programs for at risk children generallyinclude the following:

• To improve school readiness (cognitive, social,physical)

• To reduce costs for K-12 education (grade re-tention, special education)

• To close the achievement gap• To allow mothers to work or go to school• To reduce lost tax revenues (mothers, partici-

pants, participants’ children)• To improve parenting practices• To refer preschool children to needed medical

and dental services

• To make appropriate social service referrals forfamilies when children are very young

• To reduce later societal costs for welfare, socialservices, and the criminal justice system includ-ing incarceration

If pre-kindergarten is intended to provide disadvan-taged children with the experienc-es, skills, and attitudes necessary tobe successful in K-12 classes (andthereby reduce the achievementgap), much greater investment mustbe made in teachers and curricu-lum than if the purpose is to pro-vide opportunities for socializationfor middle class children. The in-tent and purpose of the pre-K pro-gram is key to the issue of publicfunding. It may be difficult to ar-gue for using taxpayer dollars tosubsidize child care for middle andupper income families, but a muchstronger case can be made for in-vesting in disadvantaged children toreduce the likelihood that they will

become a burden on the taxpayer in the future.

Teachers

Historically, a majority of child caregivers and teach-ers in private pre-K programs have lacked advancedacademic training in general and training in earlychildhood education required of public school teach-ers in particular. Some studies have concluded thatteachers with a bachelor’s degree and specializedtraining in early childhood education and develop-ment are more effective in promoting academicachievement than those who lack such credentials.As of 2005, about 73 percent of teachers in state-funded pre-K programsin the U.S. had at least abachelor’s degree, and 56 percent reported theyheld state certifications for teaching children young-er than five. The 2007 reauthorization of HeadStart requires that 50 percent of lead teachers havebachelor’s degrees by 2013.52 Michigan’s state fund-ed pre-K program, the Great Start Readiness Pro-gram, requires lead teachers to have Bachelor’sdegrees and specialized training in early childhoodeducation.

It may be difficult to arguefor using taxpayer dollars tosubsidize child care formiddle and upper incomefamilies, but a much stron-ger case can be made forinvesting in disadvantagedchildren to reduce the like-lihood that they will becomea burden on the taxpayerin the future.



According to the Pew Center on the States, “Thefollowing elements are critical to providing the kindof pre-k that provides the best results for children:

• Teachers in high-quality pre-k programs holdbachelor’s degrees and have received special-ized training in early childhood education.

• Teacher aides have a child development associ-ate credential, at a minimum.

• Teachers and aides are required to devote at least15 hours each year to appropriate professionaldevelopment.

• Teachers and aides are paid salaries and receivebenefits that are on par with those of K-12 teach-ers and aides.

• High-quality programs recruit teachers and aideswho reflect the cultural diversity of the childrenand families they serve.”53

A 2006 study of 878 children in 237 state-fundedpre-K classrooms in six states, addressed the asso-ciation between teachers’ education, academic ma-jor, and credentials with classroom quality and chil-dren’s educational gains. The study sought todetermine whether or not the education level andcredential systems tend to produce or identify high-ly effective teachers, or if other factors are requiredto ensure high quality pre-K classes. The study foundthat children whose teachers had more years of ed-ucation gained significantly more in math skills, butnot language skills. Teachers with more than a Bach-elor’s degree had higher scores on the teaching andinteraction portion of a measure of classroom qual-ity. Children who had teachers with a BA in earlychildhood or child development made more gains innaming colors. State certification was not linked tochildren’s gains in any skill area. For teachers with ahigh school or AA degree, having a CDA was associ-ated with children’s gains in identifying letters, num-bers, and colors, and in rhyming.

In spite of the weak correlations found, the study de-fends professionalizing the early childhood workforce,though “The findings also suggest that we will not at-tain high-quality in all classrooms using our currentteacher preparation and support system.”54

Years of education and credentials are easier tomeasure than the quality of the teacher-child inter-

action and how well teachers are teaching. The “pro-cess quality” of teaching includes the emotional cli-mate, classroom management, concept develop-ment, and quality of feedback.

“It is the teacher’s classroom plans and organi-zation, sensitivity and responsiveness to all thechildren, and moment-to-moment interactionswith them that have the greatest impact on chil-dren’s learning and development. The way teach-ers design learning experiences, how they en-gage children and respond to them, how theyadapt their teaching and interactions to children’sbackgrounds, the feedback they give—thesematter greatly in children’s learning.”55

The size of the class and teacher-child ratio is alsoimportant: In high quality pre-K programs, thereare a maximum of 20 children in a classroom, andno more than ten children for every teacher.56

Curriculum

Curriculum is crucially important, but it cannot sub-stitute for poor quality teaching. Curriculum shouldbe thoughtfully planned, challenging, engaging, de-velopmentally appropriate, culturally and linguisti-cally responsive, comprehensive across all develop-mental domains, and likely to promote positiveoutcomes for all young children.57 Curriculum mustalso be coordinated with kindergarten and grade-level class content. According to the advocacy groupPreK Now,

• A high-quality pre-k curriculum sets goals spe-cific to pre-k and uses learning and developmen-tal standards that are research-based, age-ap-propriate, and aligned with the state’s K-12standards.

• The curriculum builds on each child’s interestsand natural curiosity and gives children oppor-tunities to direct their own learning.

• The curriculum provides daily learning opportu-nities for language and reasoning, science, math,block play, dramatic play, art, and music.

• The curriculum provides learning opportunitiesin a variety of settings, including whole-classactivities, work in small groups, and individualinteractions with the teacher.

CRC Report


• The curriculum supports the development of eachchild’s home language and helps each child learnEnglish.

• The curriculum provides integrated learningacross children’s cognitive, physical, social, andemotional development.58

Assuming that pre-K resembles kindergarten in thisrespect, full day programs result in increased stu-dent achievement and social and behavioral devel-opment because “the added time in a full day pro-gram fundamentally changes the nature of activitiesin that program. Not only do teach-ers tend to do more in full day pro-grams, they tend to do more of theinstructional strategies that re-searchers recommend to promoteyoung children’s learning.”59 Long-er class days provide more oppor-tunities for teaching and learning,and similar to teachers’ credentials,affect the cost of programs.

Family Engagement

Family engagement in a child’slearning environment has been linked to increasedreading achievement, decreased rates of graderetention and special education, and higher highschool graduation rates.Policies that promote effective family engagementin early childhood education include the following:

• Early learning programs expect, welcome,and support family participation in decisionmaking related to their child’s education

• Families and early learning programs engagein consistent, two-way, linguistically and cul-turally appropriate communication.

• Families’ knowledge, skills, and backgroundare integrated into the learning experience.

• Programs help families foster a home envi-ronment that enhances learning.

• Early learning programs create an ongoingsystem for promoting family engagement.60

Unfortunately, for some children, in some families,the quality and quantity of support available from

parents is insufficient to enable the child to be suc-cessful in school. This can happen in families wherethere is mental illness, chronic physical illness, in-carceration, substance abuse, homelessness, phys-ical or sexual abuse, or other problems.

Successful schools build on the efforts of suc-cessful families. Failed schools deal in large partwith children from dysfunctional families that donot provide the enriched home environmentsenjoyed by middle class and upper middle classchildren. Since failure in school is linked to somany social pathologies, each with substantial

social and economic costs, a pol-icy of equality of opportunity inaccess to home environments (ortheir substitutes) is also a onethat promotes productivity inschools, the workplace, and so-ciety at large…Enriched preschoolcenters available to disadvan-taged children on a voluntarybasis coupled with home visita-tion programs have a strong trackrecord of promoting achievementfor disadvantaged children.61

Head Start and Early Head Startprograms require teacher visits to homes, sugges-tions for activities that parents can engage in withchildren, and other family support including refer-rals to social service agencies. Michigan’s state fund-ed pre-K program also seeks to improve parentingskills, involve parents in their children’s learning, andbring needed resources to families.62

The federal Individuals with Disabilities EducationAct (IDEA) Part B, which covers pre-K children withspecial needs, requires that the family and the inter-vention team partner develop an individual familyservice plan that contains information about the ser-vices necessary to facilitate the child’s development.

Recognition of the importance of parental involve-ment in a child’s education has occasioned variousattempts to increase parental involvement, includ-ing Wayne County Prosecutor Kim Worthy’s propos-al that parents who repeatedly miss parent-teacherconferences spend up to three days in jail.

Family engagement in achild’s learning environmenthas been linked to in-creased reading achieve-ment, decreased rates ofgrade retention and specialeducation, and higher highschool graduation rates.



Program Costs Depend on Program Attributes

A 2008 analysis by Pre-K Now estimated annual perchild costs for pre-K programs that are provided for185 days per year, at different class sizes, varyinghours per day (half day, school day, and work day),and with different teacher qualifications. Teacherqualifications used are:

• BA-I: Bachelor’s degree with a credential in ear-ly childhood or related field, paid at typical kin-dergarten teacher wages

• BA-II: Bachelor’s degree with a credential in earlychildhood or related field, paid at typical pre-Kwages

• AA: Associate’s degree in early childhood or re-lated field

• CDA: Child Development Associate Credential

Although the estimates are not state specific, theydo serve as a rough guide to the relative costs asso-ciated with teacher qualifications, class size, andhours of pre-K per day (See Table 17).

Naturally, programs with more highly trained teach-ers and longer hours of operation are more expen-sive. The very qualities that make programs moreexpensive are the qualities most needed by disad-vantaged children, who come from the families leastlikely to be able to afford high quality programs.

Table 17Summary of Per Child Costs of Pre-K by Quality Level

Class Size15 17 20

3-Hour Program BA-I $4,893 $4,506 $4,071 BA-II 4,390 4,062 3,694 AA 3,947 3,672 3,361 CDA 3,751 3,499 3,214



Source: Pre-K Now, The Pew Center for the States, Education Reform Series, MeaningfulInvestments in Pre-K: Estimating the Per-Child Costs of Quality Programs, May 2008, Table 1.

CRC Report


History of Head Start

Head Start is the federal initiative to address thespecial needs and boost the school readiness of lowincome preschool children by replicating the success-ful demonstration projects on a large scale. HeadStart provides comprehensive child developmentservices including preschool education; medical,dental, and mental health care; nutrition services;and social and other services including parent in-volvement services to enrolled children from agesthree through five and to their families. The federalprogram was established in the Economic Opportu-nity Act of 1964 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’sWar on Poverty. The first eight-week summer pro-gram began in 1965, and the next year a full-yearprogram was authorized.63 Nationwide, the programserves nearly one million children from families whoseincomes do not exceed 100 percent of the federalpoverty level; this is less than half the number ofchildren who meet the eligibility criteria.

Grants are awarded by regional offices to about 1,600local public agencies, private non-profit and for-profitorganizations, Indian Tribes, and school systems tooperate Head Start programs.64

The Head Start Act provides that the federal share

of the program will not exceed 80 percent, and thatthe required match may be cash or in-kind contribu-tions such as the value of real property, equipment,goods, and services (including volunteer services)that directly benefit the grant program and are spe-cifically identifiable to it (See Table 18).65

Head Start requires all teachers to hold at least aChild Development Associate Degree (CDA) creden-tial and at least half of lead teachers to hold an as-sociate level degree. According to the National In-stitute for Early Education Research, Head Startemploys about 50,000 teachers at average annualsalaries of $21,000 (public school teachers earn about$43,000 annually). More than 70 percent of theseHead Start teachers do not have a teaching degree.66

New language in the 2007 reauthorization requiresthat all teachers must have an associate degree in arelated field and half of teachers must have bache-lor’s degrees by 2013, although no funding was pro-vided for this mandate.

The Early Head Start Program was established in1995 to serve infants and toddlers from birth throughage two. This program promotes healthy prenataloutcomes, enhances the development of infants andtoddlers, and promotes healthy family functioning.

The Federal Head Start Program

Table 18Five-Year History of Funding for Head Start(Dollars in Millions)

Local Head Support RecoveryStart Projects Activities Act Total

FY 2010 Appropriation $6,996.4 $238.4 0 $7,234.8FY 2009 Actual 6,871.9 238.3 $2,100.0* 7,110.3FY 2008 Actual 6,643.9 233.3 0 6,877.1FY 2007 Actual 6,654.8 233.6 0 6,888.4FY 2006 Actual 6,554.7 222.0 0 6,776.8

* The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act appropriated $2.1 billion for Head Start and EarlyHead Start in FY 2009 to expand enrollment by 64,000 children and families. The funds areavailable for two years.

Source: Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Program Fact Sheets for 2010, 2009,2008, 2007, and 2006.



Head Start Impact Study

The 1998 reauthorization of Head Start mandatedthat DHHS determine if access to Head Start causedbetter developmental and parenting outcomes forthe children and families the program served. Thefinal report of the Head Start Impact Study was re-leased in January, 2010. Because the study used anationally representative sample of Head Start pro-grams and children, the authors believe that resultscan be generalized to the full national program.

Children in the Head Start program generally hadmore highly trained teachers, more classroom liter-acy and math instruction, better classroom teacher-to -child ratios, and more highly rated teacher-childinteractions and care environment than children inthe control group. However, only 70 percent of theHead Start centers in the study were rated as hav-ing a relatively high quality environment (at least afive on a seven-point scale). About 60 percent ofHead Start children were in classes that emphasizedlanguage, literacy, and math activities. About 30percent of the Head Start children had teachers witha bachelor’s degree and another 30 percent hadteachers with at least an associate’s degree. Theremainder (40 percent) of the Head Start childrenhad teachers who had received 25 or more hours oftraining in the last year.67

While Head Start had a positive effect on languageand literacy development at the end of one programyear, cognitive effects faded quickly. At the end ofkindergarten and first grade, the Head Start children(with the exception of some subgroups) and the con-trol group children were at the same level on essen-tially all of the measures used. For the four-year-olds, there were no significant impacts on math skills,pre-writing, children’s promotion, or teacher reportsof children’s school accomplishments or abilities.

The control group in the three-year-old cohort wasgiven access to Head Start in the second year, soimpacts for the three-year-old cohort reflect the ben-efits of receiving an earlier year of Head Start, notthe effects of two years of Head Start. At the end oftheir first Head Start year, the three-year-olds dem-onstrated better skills in language, literary develop-ment, and math. At the end of the age four year,these children continued to have somewhat improved

literacy skills. There was no strong evidence of im-pacts on these children’s language, literacy, or mathskills at the end of kindergarten or first grade.

To put the results in context, 95 percent of all chil-dren in the U.S. know all the letters of the alphabetby the end of their kindergarten year, but only 55percent of the four-year-old Head Start group and 65percent of the three-year-old Head Start group couldrecognize all of their letters by the end of kindergar-ten. For the control group, 58 percent of four-year-olds and 64 percent of three-year-olds could recog-nize all their letters by the end of kindergarten.68

In its effort to improve the school readiness of disad-vantaged children, Head Start provides medical, den-tal, and mental health care; nutrition services; andefforts to help parents foster their child’s develop-ment.69 Children in Head Start centers are much morelikely to receive various health care services than chil-dren in other center-based care: 72 percent receivedhearing, speech, or vision testing, 36 percent receivedphysical exams, and 74 percent received formal test-ing for developmental or learning problems in 2005.This compares to 31 percent of children in non-HeadStart center-based care who received hearing, speech,or vision testing; 6 percent who received physicalexams; and 28 percent who received formal testingfor developmental or learning problems.70

There was no difference in socio-emotional develop-ment during the treatment year or kindergarten forthe four-year-old children, and conflicting reports forfirst grade (teachers reported more shy and hesitantbehavior; parents reported less withdrawn behavior).There was suggestive evidence of improvements inhealth and health insurance coverage as comparedto the control group. At the end of the Head Startyear, parents were less likely to use time out as adisciplinary practice than parents in the control group.

Behavior problems and hyperactivity were reducedfor the three-year-old cohort at the end of the treat-ment year; there was moderate evidence of lesshyperactive behavior at the end of kindergarten.Teachers reported no impacts on social-emotionaldevelopment for the three-year-old cohort in kin-dergarten or first grade. Access to dental care wasimproved, and there was moderate evidence of im-provements in health status at the end of the Head

CRC Report


Start year, and moderate evidence of improvementshealth insurance coverage at the end of kindergar-ten. At the end of the treatment year, parents ofchildren in the three-year-old cohort were less likelyto have spanked their children, were more likely tohave read to them, and were more likely to haveinvolved their children in cultural enrichment activi-ties than parents in the controlgroup. At the end of the year thattheir child was four, these parentswere less likely to use a parentingstyle characterized by high controland low warmth.

Other studies using different datasources and methods have founddifferent results. Studies using theEarly Childhood Longitudinal StudyKindergarten Cohort of 1998 foundno effect on cognition and negativeeffects on socio-emotional develop-ment and behavior, but the researchmethodology has been challenged. A study of the highquality Tulsa Head Start program found effects of 0.33to 0.55 standard deviations on literacy and math as-sessments, but that program was atypical in that leadteachers had bachelor’s degrees and early childhoodteacher certification and received public school teach-er salaries and benefits. Some studies have founddifferent effects for different ethnicities.71

Critics of the Head Start program have noted thatthe advantages children gained from Head Start pro-duced only a few statistically significant differencesin outcomes at the end of first grade. Fadeout ef-fects have been attributed to poor schools and to

the paucity of home resources, leading to questionsabout the effectiveness of short-term interventionand the need for continuing enrichment programs.

The Head Start program demonstrates the problemsof taking lessons learned in demonstration projectsto scale: the effort to serve many more children at

lower cost results in use of less welltrained staff and larger classes and/or caseloads. Among the manypublic policy issues associated withthe federal program are the eligi-bility criteria, funding levels, curric-ula, and teacher qualifications.Metrics used to measure outcomeshave been challenged. In addition,there is the issue of cultural differ-ences between professional staffand disadvantaged children andtheir families, racial and ethnic dif-ferences, and different child rear-ing beliefs and practices.

Critics of Head Start have sought to transfer controlof programs to states, and have noted financial ir-regularities in audits of some programs. A 2010Government Accountability Office (GAO) investiga-tion of Head Start enrollment procedures in a sam-ple of 13 programs in six states (not including Mich-igan) and the District of Columbia found that workersin more than half the centers misrepresented infor-mation about applicants’ earnings to fraudulentlyregister ineligible children, possibly to ensure thatagencies met enrollment targets.72

In Michigan, Head Start serves about 35,000 chil-dren each year (See Table 19).

Table 19Head Start Program State Allocations and Enrollment- Michigan(Dollars in Millions)

Fiscal Year Funding Enrollment 2008 $235.2 34,949 2007 235.5 35,067 2006 232.0 35,069 2005 233.9 35,069

Source: Administration for Children and Families, Head Start Program Fact Sheets for 2006-2010.

The Head Start programdemonstrates the problemsof taking lessons learned indemonstration projects toscale: the effort to servemany more children at lowercost results in use of lesswell trained staff and largerclasses and/or caseloads.



The National Scene

Because federal funding is insufficient to enable HeadStart programs to reach all eligible children, 40 statesand the District of Columbia have established statefunded pre-K programs. Some of these state pro-grams partner with Head Start to increase the num-ber of children served; some states have developed,funded, and administered pre-Kprograms separate from HeadStart; some states both supple-ment Head Start and operatetheir own programs. Most stateslimit eligibility based on incomeand other risk factors, while a fewoffer universal access (open toany age appropriate child). Somestates limit providers to publicschools. Some states restrictaccess to four-year-olds, whileothers allow three- and four-year-olds to attend.Some states provide only educational services, whileothers provide “wrap around” services such as healthcare and parenting classes.73

Funding for state programs may take the form ofcompetitive grant programs that are subject to an-nual appropriations, supplements to the Head Startprogram, or school funding formulas. Most statesfund their pre-K programs from their general fund,but some, including Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Mary-land, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Ver-mont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, fund all or partof their pre-K program though their school aid for-mula (as of FY 2008).74 Some states have dedicatedrevenues from specific sources to pre-K programs.Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee use dedi-cated lottery funds as part of their sources for fund-ing pre-K. Missouri uses revenues from non-lotterygaming. California uses cigarette tax revenues; Kan-sas and Louisiana have used tobacco settlementmoney.75

In 2009-10, over 1.2 million three- and four-yearold children attended a state-funded preschool pro-gram, and state-funded programs in Oklahoma, Flor-ida, Georgia, and Vermont served over half of their

four-year-olds. In FY 2010, states spent $5.3 billionon pre-K, but a number of states are now respond-ing to extreme budget pressure by reducing fundingfor these pre-K programs.76

The ongoing challenge is to reconcile the potentialbenefits of high quality state programs with the needfor affordability. It has been demonstrated that highly

educated teachers, teachers whohave taken courses in early child-hood development, support forteachers’ professional develop-ment, systems that provide feed-back and promote continuousimprovement, favorable teacher-child ratios, small class sizes, bet-ter quality learning materials,and programs that extend atleast 2.5 hours a day for at leasta 180-day school year, are most

likely to produce quality results. All of these qualityinputs make pre-Kindergarten programs more ex-pensive.

Michigan’s Great StartSchool Readiness Program

The Michigan School Readiness Program (MSRP) wasestablished in 1985 to offer preschool to four-year-olds who may be at risk of school failure, on thebasis that “Children who have high quality child careand preschool experiences, including support forhealth and emotional well-being, are more success-ful in later school years, are less likely to repeat agrade, are more likely to graduate from high school,attend college, and become productive citizens.”77

Starting with the 2008-09 school year, the name ofthe program was changed to the Michigan Great StartSchool Readiness Program (GSRP).

The state funded and monitored program providespart-day or full-day, comprehensive, free, compen-satory pre-K programs for eligible four-year-olds.Part-day programs operate for at least three hoursof teacher-child contact time per day, four days aweek for 30 weeks per year, but for fewer hoursthan a full-day program. Full-day programs operate

Michigan’s state funded andmonitored Great Start SchoolReadiness program providespart-day or full-day, compre-hensive, free, compensatorypre-K programs for eligiblefour-year-olds.

State Pre-K Programs

CRC Report


for at least the same length of day as a school dis-trict’s first grade program, four days a week for 30weeks per year.

The state provides GSRP funding to school districtsand other providers that meet the following programrequirements:

• Cap on class size• Proper credentialing for staff• Program models and required

weeks-in-session for eachmodel

• Use of Early Childhood Stan-dards of Quality for Pre-Kinder-garten (quality standards adopted by MDE)

• Program evaluation based on the PreschoolProgram Quality Assessment (PQA)

• Use of an approved comprehensive curriculum• Use of an approved comprehensive child

assessment tool• Parents are integrated as program partners

and decision-makers• Active support of an Early Childhood Specialist78

Public school districts can subcontract with other localproviders to offer GSRP.

Eligibility

GSRP bases eligibility on family income and othercriteria designed to measure need. Families at orbelow 100 percent of the poverty level must be re-ferred to Head Start. In 2009-10, school districtsoperating GSRP were required to ensure that more

than 50 percent of children partic-ipating in the program were fromfamilies with household incomeequal to or less than 300 percentof the federal poverty level. (SeeTable 20.)

Effective October 1, 2010, 75 per-cent of children enrolled in a Great

Start Readiness Program must be from families withincome under 300 percent of the federal poverty lev-el (up from 50 percent of children in 2009-10). Chil-dren are prioritized for enrollment based on specificrisk factors. Prior to 2009-10, children in families below300 percent of the federal poverty level had to haveat least one of 24 other risk factors for educationaldisadvantage, while children above the income thresh-old had to have at least two of the risk factors. Thoserisk factors, and their incidence in 2008-09, are illus-trated in Table 21.

Table 20Annual Income Eligibility GuidelinesEffective July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010

Free Extremely Low Low FamilyFederal Meals Family Income Income

Household Poverty 130% 200% 300% Size Level of Poverty of Poverty of Poverty

1 $10,830 $14,079 $21,660 $32,4902 14,570 18,941 29,140 43,7103 18,310 23,803 36,620 54,9304 22,050 28,665 44,100 66,1505 25,790 33,527 51,580 77,3706 29,530 38,389 59,060 88,5907 33,270 43,251 66,540 99,8108 37,010 48,113 74,020 111,030

Source: Michigan Department of Education.

GSRP bases eligibility onfamily income and othercriteria designed to mea-sure need.



In 2008-09, children attending GSRP had, on aver-age, 4.33 of these risk factors.

In 2008, the GSRP Biennial Legislative Review Com-mittee recommended that the Michigan Departmentof Education (MDE) review and revise the risk fac-tors. MDE established a committee that evaluatedthe factors in the context of recent research anddeveloped a consolidated and updated list. The StateBoard of Education adopted the eight recommend-ed, revised risk factors on May 12, 2009. Childrenmust now show evidence of two or more of the risk

factors defined by the State Board of Education. Thenew risk factors are:

• Extremely low family income (below 200percent of the federal poverty level)

• Low family income (between 200 and 300percent of the federal poverty level)

• Diagnosed disability or identified develop-mental delay (child is eligible for special edu-cation services or child’s developmental progressis less than expected for his/her chronological

Table 21Great Start Readiness Program Risk Factors, 2008-09

Number of Percent ofChildren Children*

Low family income 17,474 69.4Single parent 8,452 33.6Nutritionally deficient 7,976 31.7Housing in rural or segregated area 7,789 30.9Unemployed parent/parents 6,819 27.1Family history of low school achievement or dropout 6,263 24.9Teenage parent 5,087 20.2Long-term or chronic illness 4,152 16.5Chronically ill parent/sibling (physical, mental, or emotional) 4,013 15.9Low parent/sibling educational attainment or illiteracy 3,704 14.7Parental/sibling loss by death or parental loss by divorce 3,655 14.5Low birth weight 3,599 14.3Language deficiency or immaturity 3,597 14.3Lack of stable support system or residence 3,424 13.6Family history of diagnosed family problems 3,410 13.5Substance abuse or addiction 3,346 13.3Non-English or limited English speaking household 2,942 11.7Family density 2,457 9.8Developmentally immature 2,075 8.2Family history of delinquency 2,045 8.1Incarcerated parent 1,781 7.1Destructive or violent temperament 1,729 6.9Physical and/or sexual abuse or neglect 1,444 5.7Diagnosed handicapping condition (main streamed) 1,190 4.7Other 533 2.1

*Percent of children in GSRP who met this criterion.

Source: Michigan Department of Education.

CRC Report


age, or chronic health issues causing develop-ment or learning problems)

• Severe or challenging behavior (child hasbeen expelled from preschool or child care cen-ter)

• Primary home language other than English(English is not spoken in the child’s home; En-glish is not the child’s first language)

• Parent/guardian with low educational at-tainment (parent has not graduated from highschool or is illiterate)

• Abuse/neglect of child or parent (domes-tic, sexual, or physical abuse of child or parent;child neglect issues)

• Environmental risk (parental loss due to death,divorce, incarceration, military service, or ab-sence; sibling issues; teen parent; family is home-less or without stable housing; residence in ahigh-risk neighborhood; or prenatal or postnatalexposure to toxic substances known to causelearning or developmental delays)

Children in families below 200 percent of the federalpoverty level who cannot be served in Head Start,are given priority for admission to GSRP. Children infamilies below 300 percent of FPL who have twoadditional risk factors are next in line for admission.Children in families below 300 percent of FPL withone additional risk factor are next, followed by chil-

Arguments For and Against Universal Preschool

middle group (the middle quintile) scored 6 pointshigher in reading, 7.3 points higher in general knowl-edge, and 6.5 points higher in math than the chil-dren in the bottom quintile (the 20 percent of fami-lies with the lowest incomes). Yet, the middle groupwas still 6.7 points lower in reading, 6.5 points lowerin general knowledge, and 6 points lower in maththan children in the top quintile (the 20 percent offamilies with the highest incomes).

Many middle-income children are deprived of earlyeducation opportunities because they don’t qualifyfor income-tested programs, but their parents can-not afford or choose not to pay for pre-Kindergar-ten out of their own pockets. Among families withincomes between $30,000 and $75,000, just halfof children ages three and four not yet in kinder-garten, are enrolled in preschool. This compareswith three-quarters of children the same age rangewhose families have incomes $75,000 and above.Studies in California and Boston indicate that thesupply of preschool programs in middle-incomeneighborhoods is often no greater than in low-in-come neighborhoods and in some cases, preschoolis even more scarce. Universal pre-Kindergartenwould address these gaps by greatly expandingopportunities for middle-income children to partici-pate in high quality early education experiences.80

The Research and Policy Committee of the Committeefor Economic Development, which is a nonprofit, non-partisan research and policy organization of 250 busi-ness leaders and educators, argues for universal pre-school for all three- and four-year-olds.

The gap in school readiness scores at kindergarten entrybetween children from middle income families and thosefrom the wealthiest families is equal to, or larger than,the gap between children in poverty and children frommiddle income families. The numerical majority of chil-dren who are placed in special education, retained ingrade, or who drop out of school are in the middle-in-come bracket.79

The Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study, which fol-lowed a sample of children with a wide variety offamily backgrounds from their next-to-last year inpreschool (prior to entering kindergarten) throughtheir early elementary school years, found higherquality preschool-age child care to be associatedwith better cognitive and social outcomes for chil-dren across the economic spectrum. Several large-scale studies of preschool in the United States andabroad offer further evidence that preschool mat-ters for children from diverse economic back-grounds. The evidence is quite consistent, whilechildren from better-off families may not get ex-actly the same benefits from preschool as childrenin poverty, all children benefit.

School readiness presents challenges for many chil-dren who are not poor. A national study of first-time kindergarten students in 1998 found that chil-dren from families with average (median) incomeswere as far behind children in families with higherincomes as poor children were behind the average.This middle class readiness gap was found for so-cial and emotional development as well as cogni-tive development. For example, dividing childreninto five income groupings, the children in the



Preschool programs available to all students canreach those children who, because of varying fam-ily circumstances, may otherwise fall through thecracks. Widely accessible public programs may bemore efficient and easier to administer than pro-grams with enrollment restrictions because they donot require tracking program eligibility. Further-more, programs that are broadly accessible oftenenjoy broader political and financial support, mak-ing it less likely the programs will be cut or sufferbudget shortfalls.81

Targeted, publicly funded preschool is designed to improveschool readiness among disadvantaged children, but theseprograms often fail to reach all disadvantaged children.Children from middle income families also benefit fromquality preschool, but middle income families often havechallenges finding and paying for quality programs. Thesedilemmas raise the question of whether Michigan and otherstates should expand quality, state-funded pre-K programsto make access to them universal, perhaps by graduallyrelaxing the thresholds for admission.

Such a policy would be opposed by those who believethat universal preschool is an expensive and unneces-sary subsidy for the middle class, or a babysitting conve-nience for working mothers. According to the HeritageFoundation, a federal program that creates incentivesfor states to provide universal preschool would crowdout private preschool programs or increase regulations

on those private preschools that seek to participate inthe government run program.82

Another argument against increasing investment in pre-school is focused on failing K-12 schools and districts. Inspite of federal and state programs to identify and inter-vene in failing schools, the state tolerates a broad vari-ety in effectiveness in schools and school districts. Whatis the economic justification for investing in effective earlychildhood education for children entering a school dis-trict that is highly likely to fail to educate them?

If the goal of state preschool programs is to close thegap between advantaged and disadvantaged children, auniversal program could preserve the gap, although withina universal program more intensive services could beprovided to disadvantaged children. Children from middleclass families could benefit from high quality programs(according to Pre-K Now, 49 percent of the children whodo not recognize the letters of the alphabet when theyenter kindergarten are middle income or higher), but thereis insufficient data to allow a cost-benefit analysis of thosebenefits. Further, it is certain that public costs wouldincrease if those children’s care was subsidized, and thecompetition for additional dollars would pit preschoolagainst Medicaid, Corrections, and other critical programs.

In the current fiscal situation, any significant expansionof a state program is unlikely.

Arguments For and Against Universal Preschool (continued)

dren in families with income above 300 percent ofFPL who have two risk factors (children from fami-lies above 300 percent of FPL may take up to 25percent of available slots).

In 2008-09, there were 25,174 children enrolled inthe Great Start School Readiness Program, of whom1,775 left the program during the year. Accordingto an October 2009 analysis, 20,822 children attend-ed programs funded through school districts and3,615 children attended programs run by agenciesthat received competitive grants. Of those children,60.6 percent were White, 22.6 percent were Black,and 5.9 percent were multi-racial. Seventy percenthad a working parent. Two-thirds of the childrenattended a part-day program; one-quarter attendeda full-day program. The remainder attended all-day(alternate), home-based, or GSRP-Head Start blend-ed programs.79

Legislation for FY 2011 encourages districts to es-tablish a sliding fee scale for tuition to provide pro-gramming for children who do not meet the GreatStart Readiness Program eligibility criteria.

Teaching Staff in GSRP

One of the characteristics of high quality pre-K pro-grams is that teachers have bachelors degrees andspecialized training in early childhood education.Michigan requires lead teachers in GSRP center basedprograms to have a valid Michigan teaching certifi-cate with an early childhood specialist endorsement(ZA), a valid Michigan teaching certificate with a childdevelopment associate credential (CDA), or a bach-elor’s degree in child development with specializa-tion in preschool teaching. Michigan requires GSRPparaprofessionals to have a CDA, an associate’s de-gree in early childhood education or child develop-

CRC Report


ment, or the equivalent as approved by the stateboard (See Table 22).

High quality programs allow no more than 20 chil-dren per classroom and no more than ten childrenper teacher. GSRP has a maximum adult to childratio of one to eight. A qualified associate teachermust be added with the ninth child, and a third adultwith the 17th child in the class.

In 2008-09, both lead and associate teachers in GSRPwere almost entirely female: 87.4 percent of leadteachers were White and 10.4 percent were Black;72.9 percent of associate teachers were White and20.4 percent were Black. More than half (54.2 per-cent) of lead teachers had five or more years of teach-ing experience, and almost half (49.1 percent) of as-sociate teachers had five or more years of teachingexperience. More than a quarter (28.8 percent) oflead teachers had two years or less of teaching expe-rience, and a third (33.0 percent) of associate teach-ers had two years or less of teaching experience.

Another characteristic of high quality pre-K programsis that teachers and aides receive salary and bene-fits that are comparable to those of K-12 teachersand aides. In GSRP, the mean annual salary for lead

teachers was $48,546; mean annual salary for as-sociate teachers was $19,415. Salary levels variedsubstantially depending on whether the program wasoffered by a school district, a competitive agency, orboth a school district and a competitive agency (SeeTable 23).

Funding

Funding is provided from the state school aid fundfor formula based grants to eligible school districtsand from the general fund for competitive grants.In 2009-10, the state allocated $88.1 million fromthe school aid fund; in 2010-11, the allocation is$89.4 million from the school aid fund for the for-mula component. Funding the pre-K programthrough an appropriation from the school aid fundemphasizes that pre-K is an essential part of thepublic education system, but also places pre-K incompetition with K-12 for limited resources.

In FY 2010, state legislation allowed school districtsto use GSRP funds to make up for other state schoolaid reductions, and districts redirected $8.3 millionto other programs.84 In FY 2011, Great Start fund-ing is not allowed to be used to compensate for perpupil reductions.

Table 22Education and Training of GSRP Teaching Staff, 2008-09

Lead Teacher Associate TeacherPercent Number Percent Number

Associate’s Degree (Early Childhood) 0.6 7 21.7 215CDA Credential 2.0 24 42.0 417MI Teaching Certificate (ZA) 52.0 615 3.8 38Associate’s or Bachelor’s in Other Fields 1.0 12 NC* NC*120 Hours Approved Training NC* NC* 25.7 255Bachelor’s Degree (Early Childhood) 17.2 203 5.8 58Graduate Degree 27.2 322 1.0 10

*Not a choice

Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive

Source: HighScope Educational Research Foundation, 2008-09 Great Start Readiness ProgramProgram Quality Assessment, Statewide Data Report, September 2009.



The real value of state spending per child enrolled inGSRP declined from $4,538 in 2007 to $4,286 in2009 (See Table 24).

The formula distribution is based on the followingcalculation: 1/2 of the percentage of the district’spupils in grades 1 to 5 who are eligible for free lunch,multiplied by the average kindergarten enrollmentof the district for the 2 immediately preceding fiscalyears, multiplied by $3,400. If the physical facilityor staff resources available limits the number of chil-dren who can be served to less than the numbergenerated by the formula, that number is multipliedby $3,400. State funds are distributed among dis-tricts in decreasing order of concentration of eligiblechildren. Each child enrolled in a full-day programcounts as two children for purposes of determining

the number of children served and for determiningthe grant amount. Programs may receive other fed-eral or local funding as well.

In 2009-10, there were 30 Michigan school districts(public school academies are considered districts)where more than 80 percent of students in gradesone through five were under the poverty threshold.Eleven of the 20 districts with the highest povertyrankings are public school academies; nine are tra-ditional school districts (See Table 25).

Table 23Teacher Compensation by Program Type, 2008-09

Annual SalarySchool Competitive School District andDistrict Agency Competitive Agency

Lead Teacher $50,873 $31,864 $37,392Associate Teacher 18,101 22,297 18,779

Source: HighScope Educational Research Foundation, 2008-09 Great Start ReadinessProgram Program Quality Assessment, Statewide Data Report, September 2009.

Table 24State Spending per Child Enrolled in GSRP(2009 Dollars)

2002 $4,3742003 4,3672004 4,3822005 4,0632006 4,4652007 4,5382008 4,3572009 4,286

Source: National Institute for EarlyEducation Research, State PreschoolYearbook, The State of Preschool 2009.

CRC Report


The largest 2009-10 state aid allocations for for GreatStart Readiness Programs are shown in Table 26.

A district may contract with a head start agency toserve children enrolled in head start with a full-dayprogram by blending head start funds with a part-day Great Start Readiness Program allocation. AllHead Start and Great Start Readiness Program pol-icies and regulations apply to the blended program.85

Any public or private for-profit or non-profit entity(private child care centers, Head Start programs,

social service agencies, mental health agencies, ISDs,school districts, and public school academies thatalso have a Head Start program) may apply for acompetitive grant to operate a Great Start Readi-ness Program. Competitive grant funding, which ismade from the general fund, was reduced from$14,150,000 in 2008-09 to $7,575,000 in 2009-10,then increased to $8,875,000 in 2010-11. The larg-est of the 34 competitive grants awarded in 2009-10 was $530,400 to the Oakland Livingston HumanService Agency.

Table 25GSRP 2009-10 State Aid Allocations: Highest Poverty Districts

Grade1-5 Slots Original MaximumPoverty Allowed or State Slots Aid

District Percent Requested Funded Payment1 Benton Harbor Charter School 100% 96 35 $119,0002 Bridge Academy 99 68 68 231,2003 Francis Reh PSA 99 32 18 04 Benton Harbor Area Schools 98 188 160 639,2005 Three Oaks Public School Academy 98 64 64 217,6006 El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz Academy 98 32 32 108,8007 Beecher Community School District 96 68 68 231,2008 Business Entrepreneurship, Science, 95 44 32 108,8009 Highland Park City Schools 93 100 95 306,00010 Discovery Arts and Technology PSA 91 30 24 81,60011 Universal Academy 91 32 13 108,80012 Covert Public Schools 90 62 62 210,80013 Center Academy 88 36 32 108,80014 Baldwin Community Schools 88 32 32 108,80515 Pontiac City School District 88 384 384 1,305,60016 Flint City School District 88 736 704 2,502,40017 River Rouge School District 88 54 36 153,00018 Mid-Michigan Leadership Academy 87 36 36 122,40019 Grand Rapids Public Schools 87 903 775 2,635,00020 Riverside Academy 87 124 92 421,600

Source: Michigan Department of Education, Office of Early Childhood Education and FamilyServices, Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP) 2009-10 State Aid Allocations Based on$88,100,000 at 3,400 Per Part-Day Equivalent Slot, Revised 4/29/10.



Table 26GSRP 2009-10 State Aid Allocations: Highest Allocation Districts

Grade1-5 Slots Original MaximumPoverty Allowed or State Slots Aid

District Percent Requested Funded PaymentDetroit City School District 82% 4,207 4,207 $14,303,800Grand Rapids Public Schools 87 903 775 2,635,000Flint City School District 88 736 704 2,502,400Lansing Public School District 68 864 672 2,284,800Dearborn City School District 63 480 480 1,632,000Pontiac City School District 88 384 384 1,305,600Saginaw City School District 80 352 336 1,142,400Kalamazoo Public School District 63 374 324 1,101,600Taylor School District 58 443 324 1,101,600Port Huron Area School District 47 446 269 914,600Wexford-Missaukee ISD* 323 261 887,400Jackson Public Schools 65 298 225 765,000Bay City School District 44 235 211 717,400Battle Creek Public Schools 75 216 216 707,200Muskegon Public Schools 85 216 216 734,400Newaygo County RESA# 215 215 731,000Lincoln Park Public Schools 56 266 236 693,600Traverse Bay Area ISD^ 219 201 682,423Riverside Academy+ 192 160 652,800Benton Harbor Area Schools 98 188 160 639,200

* For four school districts

# For five school districts

^ For three school districts

+ For Riverside and Bridge Academies

Source: Michigan Department of Education, Office of Early Childhood Education and FamilyServices, Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP) 2009-10 State Aid Allocations Based on$88,100,000 at 3,400 Per Part-Day Equivalent Slot, Revised 4/29/10.

CRC Report


Evaluations of Michigan’s Great Start SchoolReadiness Program

A number of assessments of GSRP have been done,using various approaches and metrics. Some ana-lyze classroom quality; some look at long-term ef-fects; some estimate benefits and costs.

2008-09 Program Quality AssessmentOf the 1,213 classrooms in the dataset for the 2008-09 Program Quality Assessment, 942 (77.7 percent)were run by school districts, 189 (15.6 percent) wererun by competitive agencies, and 82 (6.7 percent)were run by both a school districtand a competitive agency; 94.7percent were center based and theremainder were home based. Pro-gram quality assessment (PQA)scores for GSRP classroom qualitywere self reported by grantees ona scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being thelowest. The total PQA mean scorefor 2008-09 was 4.35, down slightlyfrom the 2007-08 mean score of4.48.86

High/Scope Longitudinal StudyThe High/Scope Educational Research Foundationbegan a longitudinal study of the Michigan SchoolReadiness Program in 1996. In 2002, when EffectsFive Years Later: The Michigan School Readiness Pro-gram Evaluation Through Age 10 was prepared forthe Michigan Board of Education, the program wasoperating in 488 school districts and 67 agencies, andwas providing full and part day programs for 20,000children. Major findings include the following:

• Program participants were significantly higher inoverall development at kindergarten.

• Program participants were rated significantlymore ready to learn from kindergarten throughgrade four.

• Program participants had a significantly lowerrate of grade retention from grade two throughgrade four (35 percent fewer participants need-ed to repeat a grade).

• Program participants had a significantly higherpercent of satisfactory scores on the MEAP testsfor both reading and mathematics when those

held back a grade were taken into account (24percent more participants passed the MEAP lit-eracy test in fourth grade and 16 percent morepassed the mathematics test).

• Parents of program participants were significantlymore involved in school activities and communi-cation with teachers during the first three yearsof school.

• No effects were found on reducing special ser-vices received by participants or on enhancingparents’ involvement in home activities and ex-pectations for their child’s education.87

These outcomes are substantiallybetter than those produced byHead Start, which is to be expect-ed given the higher standards ofteacher training and teacher tochild ratios, but the design of thisstudy has been criticized.88

A subsequent evaluation of theprogram by the High/Scope Edu-cational Research Foundationtracked the original 596 study par-

ticipants in middle school (from grade six throughgrade eight) using data from the Center for Educa-tional Performance and Information (CEPI) and MEAPscores.

• There were no statistically significant differenc-es in seventh grade MEAP scores, although pro-gram participants were more likely to have tak-en the MEAP on time (at their grade level).

• Participants were less likely to have been retainedin grades six, seven, and eight. In seventh andeighth grades, non-White participants had a sig-nificantly lower rate of grade retention, whilethere was no difference for White children. Ineighth grade, there was a statistically significantdifference in favor of male participants, but notfemale participants.

• There was no difference in school attendancerates between participants and members of thecontrol group.

• In seventh grade, male participants were morelikely to take more math courses, while femaleparticipants were less likely to take math cours-

A number of assessments ofGSRP have been done, us-ing various approaches andmetrics. Some analyze class-room quality; some look atlong-term effects; some es-timate benefits and costs.



es than non-participants. In eighth grade, non-White participants took more math courses thannon-White members of the control group, butWhite participants took fewer math courses thanWhite members of the control group.

• There was no difference in the number of sci-ence courses taken, but children in the controlgroup who also had a high rate of receiving freeor reduced price lunch tended to take signifi-cantly fewer science courses in seventh grade.

• There were no differences in Title I or at-riskservices received.

• Program participants tended toreceive more special educationservices than the control groupin seventh and eighth grades(program participants had anaverage of 3.9 of the 25 quali-fying risk factors; there was nodata on the number of risk fac-tors experienced by the con-trol group—a limitation of thestudy).89

2005 National Institute for Early EducationResearch (NIEER) EvaluationA December, 2005 report on the Michigan SchoolReadiness Program found that:

1. The MSRP produced an increase in children’svocabulary scores of over 3 raw score points, 24percent more growth over the year due to theprogram (and a 6 percent increase over children’saverage vocabulary scores). This improvementtranslates into an additional two months ofprogress in vocabulary growth due to the pro-gram. This outcome is particularly importantbecause the measure is strongly predictive ofgeneral cognitive abilities.

2. Children who attended the MSRP scored higheron a test of early math skills. The MSRP increasedchildren’s math scores by over 2 raw score points,64 percent more growth over the year due tothe program (and a 21 percent increase overchildren’s average math scores). Skills tested in-clude basic number concepts, simple addition andsubtraction, telling time and counting money.

3. The MSRP had large effects on children’s under-standing of print concepts. The program in-creased children’s print awareness scores by over22 percentage points, more than doubling growthover the year due to the program (and a 63 per-cent increase in children’s average print aware-ness scores). Children who attended the MSRPbefore entering kindergarten knew more letters,more letter-sound associations and were morefamiliar with words and book concepts.

4. No significant effects on a measure of children’sskills in phonological awareness. Asthis measure was relatively new, itwas difficult to determine the ex-tent to which the result was dueto a true lack of program effects.90

The Michigan School ReadinessProgram was found to produce sig-nificant, meaningful improvementsin children’s readiness to enter kin-dergarten, similar to the results ofother high quality programs in oth-er states.

An Effectiveness-based Evaluation of FiveState Pre-Kindergarten Programs usingRegression-DiscontinuityThis 2007 NIEER study evaluated how five higherquality state pre-K programs affected children’s re-ceptive vocabulary, print, and math awareness skills.The five state programs (Michigan, New Jersey, Okla-homa, South Carolina, and West Virginia), were “def-initely among the better conceptualized and staffedin the country” and “have among the highest qualitystandards in the nation and thus are not nationallyrepresentative.” This evaluation found positive short-term effects on cognitive development:

“To summarize the Michigan effects is easy.PPVT scores were not affected, but math andprint awareness scores rose because of pre-K.Students in the program scored about 1.82points higher on the Woodcock-Johnson AppliedProblems subtest and answered 22.14 percentmore items correctly on the print awarenessmeasure.”91

The Michigan School Readi-ness Program was found toproduce significant, mean-ingful improvements inchildren’s readiness to enterkindergarten, similar to theresults of other high qualityprograms in other states.

CRC Report


NIEER RankingsThe National Institute for Early Education Researchannually evaluates and ranks state-funded pre-Kprograms. (According to NIEER, Hawaii, Idaho, In-diana, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, NorthDakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming have nostate-funded preschool programs.) NIEER has de-veloped ten quality benchmarks against which itannually judges state programs: in 2007-08, Ala-bama and North Carolina met all ten benchmarksand ten state programs met nine benchmarks. Mich-igan’s state preschool policy requirements met sev-en of the ten quality benchmarks used by NIEER toevaluate state-funded pre-K programs (the reportclarifies that actual practice may deviate from thepolicy). (See Table 27.)

Michigan ranked 21st of 38 states on access for four-year-olds, 16th on state spending, and 22nd on allreported spending. According to NIEER, 24,091 four-year-olds were enrolled in Michigan state-funded pre-Kindergarten in 2008-09; this was 19.1 percent offour-year olds (25 states have programs for three-year-olds; Michigan offers special education only forthree-year-olds). The State of Michigan spent$103,250,000 on preschool in 2008-09, an averageof $4,286 per enrolled child and $71 less per child inadjusted dollars than in the previous year.92

Cost Savings Analysis of School ReadinessProgram in MichiganA 2009 analysis prepared by Wilder Research forthe Early Childhood Investment Corporation estimat-ed that $1.15 billion was realized in Michigan in 2009

Table 27NIEER Quality Benchmarks and Michigan Compliance, 2009

Does MichiganState Meet the

Policy Requirement Benchmark RequirementEarly learning standards Comprehensive Comprehensive Yes

Teacher degree BA BA Yes

Teacher specialized training See note 1 Specializing in pre-K Yes

Assistant teacher degree CDA or equivalent CDA or equivalent Yes

Teacher in-service See note 2 At least 15 hours/year No

Maximum class size 18 20 Yes

Staff-child ratios 1:8 1:10 or better Yes

Screening/referral and Vision, hearing, Vision, hearing, Yes support services health, developmental health & at least

& support services one support service

Meals Snack At least 1/day No

Monitoring Other monitoring Site visits No

Note 1: Michigan requirements are: EE certification and ECE endorsement (public); EE certificationand CEC endorsement or CDA, or BA in CD (nonpublic)

Note 2: Michigan requirements are: 6 semester credit hours/5 years (certified staff); 12 clockhours/year (other staff)

Source: National Institute for Early Education Research, State Preschool Yearbook, The State ofPreschool 2009.



from cost savings and revenues that resulted frominvestments in school readiness over the past 25years.93 These benefits were generated by currentschool children who received early education servic-es and by young adults who have been more suc-cessful because of school readiness. The analysisascribed estimated benefits to schools, taxpayers,or the general public. The components of the esti-mated cost savings and revenues, and the benefi-ciaries, were as follows:

Schools$221 million in K-12 savings:

• $136 million in reducedspending because fewer K-12 students repeated agrade

• $69 million in reduced spe-cial education spending fordisabilities that have beenprevented or amelioratedthrough early interventionsuch as mild or moderatespeech or language prob-lems, cognitive impairment,specific learning disabilities, emotional impair-ment, and other health problems

• $16 million in reduced costs of replacingteachers who leave their jobs due to dissat-isfaction with working conditions related tostudent behavior or performance that areinfluenced by improved school readiness

• Moreover, school budgets are higher by anestimated $125 million, funding they wouldhave lost if more current students preparedby early education had dropped out. Thisamount isn’t counted with the other benefitsto Michigan because, technically, the schoolsget more money but it is merely a transferfrom the taxpayers, thus netting to zero forthe state as a whole.

Taxpayers$584 million in reduced government spend-ing and increased tax revenues:

• $214 million in juvenile corrections, which in-cludes reduced costs to arrest, adjudicate,and detain juvenile offenders

• $106 million in reduced substantiated childabuse and neglect, including the costs of out-of-home placement

• $94 million in adult criminal justice, whichincludes reduced costs to arrest, process, andincarcerate adult offenders

• $66 million in reduced spending by the stateon welfare (TANF) and Medicaid due to theimproved employment outcomes for disad-vantaged children who have reached adult-hood

• $40 million in reduced unemployment bene-fits due to improved employmentoutcomes for disadvantaged chil-dren who have reached adulthood• $31 million in reduced childcare subsidies for families who areeligible for child care subsidy pay-ments but do not use the subsidywhile their children are enrolled inthe early education program• $33 million in increased in-come tax and sales tax revenuedue to both higher wages for dis-

advantaged children who have reached adult-hood and higher productivity of parents whiletheir children are enrolled in early educationprograms

The public$347 million in reduced social costs to thepublic:

• $162 million in reduced tangible losses tovictims of violent crimes and property offens-es committed by juveniles

• $97 million in reduced tangible losses to vic-tims of violent crimes and property offensescommitted by adults

• $74 million in increased productivity and in-comes of employed parents while their chil-dren are enrolled in early education programs

• $14 million in health savings due to reducedalcohol and drug abuse among teenagers andadults who benefited from school readinessprograms when they were children94

A 2009 analysis estimatedthat $1.15 billion was real-ized in Michigan in 2009from cost savings and rev-enues that resulted from in-vestments in school readi-ness over the past 25 years.

CRC Report


According to this analysis, there were about 80,000adults, age 18 to 29, in the Michigan labor forcewho were high school graduates who would proba-bly have dropped out of school if not for Michigan’sinvestment in their school readiness. “These peoplecontribute more to state government than they usein government services, but had they not graduatedthey would have been a net fiscal drain on the state.

The estimated economic impact ofthese adults is about $1.3 billionannually, including the $584 mil-lion described above in reducedgovernment spending and in-creased tax revenues and at least$700 million in additional wagesthey have generated.”

Using an estimate of 35,000 four-year–old Michigan children whowere eligible but not served by Head Start or GSRP,this study placed the cost of not investing in schoolreadiness for all disadvantaged children at $598 mil-lion annually. These costs were described as follows:

$115 million in K-12 spending:• $71 million in grade repetition• $36 million in preventable special education

spending• $8 million in teacher turnover

$303 million in increased government spend-ing and decreased tax revenues:

• $111 million in juvenile corrections• $55 million in child welfare• $49 million in adult criminal justice• $35 million in public assistance (state por-

tion of TANF and Medicaid)• $21 million in unemployment benefits• $16 million in child care subsidies• $16 million in lost income and sales tax revenue

$180 million in increased social costs:• $84 million losses to victims of juvenile crime• $51 million losses to victims of adult crime• $38 million in decreased productivity of em-

ployed parents

• $7 million in reduced health costs (alcohol,drug abuse)

The cost of expanding GSRP to all eligible childrenwas estimated at $236 million, which is $362 millionless than the estimated costs associated with notexpanding the program.95

Examples of OtherApproaches to Pre-K

State-funded preschool programsthat demonstrate different ap-proaches include Oklahoma’s uni-versal preschool program, NewJersey’s Abbott Preschool Program,and North Carolina’s More at FourProgram, all of which are describedin greater detail in the followingsections. An example of a school

district initiative to integrate pre-K into a district wideeducational goal is provided by Montgomery Coun-ty, Maryland. Descriptions of these programs are inAppendix B.

Funding for State Pre-K Programs

Michigan allocates funding for its formula-based pre-K program from the School Aid Fund, and for themuch smaller competitive program from the Gener-al Fund. Most states that have state funded pre-Kprograms appropriate from their general funds tosupport the program. In 2008, 11 states and theDistrict of Columbia allocated pre-K funds throughtheir school funding formulas.

Some states utilize dedicated funding from lotteries,gaming revenues, tobacco settlement money, and spe-cial taxes. Arkansas uses a sales tax on beer. Georgiaand Tennessee use lottery revenues to support bothpre-K and college scholarships; North Carolina also useslottery revenues to fund pre-K. Missouri uses non-lottery gaming revenue to support pre-K. Californiadedicates a portion of its cigarette tax to its pre-K pro-gram. Kansas has used tobacco settlement money tosupplement funding for pre-K. One percent of the statesales tax is dedicated to education, including grants topre-K, in South Carolina.

Michigan allocates fundingfor its formula-based pre-Kprogram from the SchoolAid Fund, and for the muchsmaller competitive pro-gram from the GeneralFund.



States including Minnesota, Nebraska, North Caroli-na, South Carolina, and Washington have solicitedfunding from the private sector, including founda-tions and corporations, to support pre-K programs.96

A number of states including Michigan have reducedor eliminated funding for pre-K programs as part ofefforts to balance budgets threatened by the “GreatRecession.” Alabama eliminated its state supplementfor Head Start. Connecticut reduced funding for itsSchool Readiness Program and state funded Head Start.Illinois reduced funding for its Pre-K for All program.Louisiana cut funding for the LA 4 Preschool program.Massachusetts reduced funding forearly education and child care. Mich-igan reduced funding for the com-petitive portion of the Great StartReadiness Program. New Jersey re-duced funding for its preschool pro-gram. Ohio eliminated funding forthe Early Learning Initiative pre-school program for poor children.Washington reduced funding for theEarly Childhood Education and As-sistance Program.97 The slower than expected recov-ery may result in additional states reducing funding forprograms intended to improve school readiness, and/or further reductions by states that have already madecuts, but most states have chosen to protect or in-crease funding for early learning programs.

Meta Analysis of State Pre-K Programs

In addition to funding sources, state pre-K programsvary in many other ways—access and availability,target population, providers, schedules, teacher qual-ifications, staff to child ratio, class sizes, curriculum,expectations, standards, linkages—and evaluationsof these programs also differ in approach and qual-ity. A 2004 Yale University study of state pre-K pro-gram evaluations98 found 14 evaluations that mettheir quality criteria, including an appropriate con-trol group. Two of the evaluations (of the Georgiaand Oklahoma programs) were of universal accessprograms, while the rest targeted at-riskpreschoolers. Unfortunately, not all studies evaluat-ed the same program impacts.

In general, positive effects in overall developmentwere commonly found at the end of pre-kindergar-

ten, and were sustained to kindergarten. Signifi-cant effects were most commonly found in the do-mains of development in social, self-help, language,and literacy and numeracy skills.

• Of five studies that evaluated impacts on chil-dren’s behavior problems, only Florida reporteda significant positive impact as late as fourthgrade.

• Of five studies (including Michigan) that evalu-ated attendance, four found significant impactsthat persisted well beyond school entry (Mary-land reported a sizable impact at tenth grade).

• Of three studies that evaluat-ed grades earned in math and read-ing, only Washington found a sig-nificant impact, only for math andonly in first grade.• Of eight evaluations that re-ported academic achievement testscores, all except D.C.’s reportedstatistically significant impacts onacademic achievement tests at one

or more grade levels.• Of seven states that reported retention rates (be-

ing held back in a grade), all reported significantpositive impacts for pre-K participants.

• With the exception of Maryland, few significantdifferences were found in special education re-ferral and placement rates in the eight evalua-tions that reported this outcome.99

Michigan reported statistically significant effects inboth literacy and math at fourth grade: 24 percentmore pre-kindergarten participants passed the Mich-igan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) liter-acy test and 16 percent more passed the mathe-matics test. Michigan was one of four states thatreported parental involvement in the child’s subse-quent education: Michigan parents of pre-K studentsreported greater involvement in school activities andteacher-parent communications. (Texas also report-ed positive effects on this metric.)

The Michigan pre-K program appears to be relative-ly successful, given the general ineffectiveness ofmost states’ pre-K programs.

The Michigan pre-Kprogram appears to berelatively successful, giventhe general ineffectivenessof most states’ pre-Kprograms.

CRC Report


The American education system was one of the as-sets that made this nation the richest in the world,but recent reports provide disquieting informationabout our nation’s human capital now and in thenear future:

• In 2007, 40.4 percent of adults aged 25 to 34 inthe United States had an associate degree orhigher, and the U.S. ranked 12th in the world onthis metric. In Canada, 55.8 percent of adultsages 25 to 34 had an associate degree or higher.Other countries that had larger percentages ofyoung adults with degrees thanthe U.S. were South Korea,Russia, Japan, New Zealand,Ireland, Norway, Israel, France,Belgium, and Australia.100

• About 47 percent of U.S. highschool graduates in the classof 2010 took the ACT collegeentrance exam, and only 24percent of those taking the testscored high enough in math,reading, English, and scienceto indicate that they would passentry-level college courses.101

• Only four percent of Black stu-dents and 11 percent of Hispanic students metthe ACT’s benchmarks for college readiness inall four subject areas tested. This compares to30 percent of White students and 39 percent ofAsian students who met benchmarks in all fourareas. In math, 13 percent of Black studentsand 27 percent of Hispanic students met the col-lege-ready benchmark of 22, compared with 52percent of White students and 68 percent of Asianstudents.102

• Only 12 percent of Black fourth grade boys areproficient in reading, compared with 38 percentof White boys, and only 12 percent of Blackeighth grade boys are proficient in math, com-pared to 44 percent of White boys. African-Amer-ican boys drop out of high school at twice therate of White boys, and their SAT scores are anaverage of 104 points lower.103

• In 1999, Michigan median household incomeranked 16th highest of the 50 states. The 2009American Community Survey found Michiganranked 35th in median household income and 37th

in the percentage of people over 25 who havecompleted a Bachelor’s degree, a realignmentof education and income that reflected the state’sloss of high wage, low skill manufacturing andconstruction jobs.104

If Michigan and the United States are to be success-ful, we must improve educational outcomes for all of

our citizens. The achievement gapdescribed in this paper raises a hostof questions: To what degreeshould parents be held accountablefor ensuring that their children havethe knowledge and skills necessaryto start kindergarten? What is thestate’s/taxpayers’ responsibility toreduce children’s educational andsocial deficits at the start of kinder-garten? What guidelines should beused to identify the children mostat need of intervention before theyenter kindergarten? What kinds ofprograms are most effective in re-ducing the achievement gap?

Should the state lower the minimum age for startingschool? And, in an age of shrinking public resources,what is the most cost effective approach to addressthe problem?

Reforms that target high school students, such asadoption of a common core curriculum and raisingthe age at which a student may drop out of school,may be intervening too late to help many children.To improve the odds for disadvantaged children, in-tervention must start much earlier—even earlier thankindergarten.

Most children who enter kindergarten without basicearly literacy skills never catch up to their peers,and children who have not already developed somebasic literacy skills when they enter school are threeto four times more likely to drop out. A 2005 anal-

Summary and Conclusions

Most children who enterkindergarten without basicearly literacy skills nevercatch up to their peers, andchildren who have not al-ready developed some ba-sic literacy skills when theyenter school are three tofour times more likely todrop out.



ysis by Princeton Professor Cecilia Rouse estimatedthat each high school dropout costs the nation about$260,000 over the course of his or her lifetime.105

These disadvantaged children often share a historyand a set of characteristics that allow early identifi-cation and intervention. The the-ory, timing, structure, and cost ofintervention have been informedby research on the developingbrain.

Early experiences determinewhether a child’s developing brainarchitecture provides a strong orweak foundation for all futurelearning, behavior, and health.The brain is composed of billionsof highly integrated sets of neural circuits (i.e.,connections among brain cells) that are “wired”under the interactive influences of genetics, en-vironment, and experience. Genes determinewhen circuits are formed, but a child’s experi-ences shape how that formation unfolds. Chil-dren develop in an environment of relationshipsthat begins within their family, extends into theircommunity, and is affected by broader social andeconomic resources. From early infancy, they nat-urally reach out for interaction through such be-haviors as babbling, making facial expressions,and uttering words, and they develop best whencaring adults respond in warm, individualized,and stimulating ways. In contrast, when the en-vironment is impoverished, neglectful, or abu-sive, the result can be a lifetime of increasedrisk for impairment in learning, behavior, andhealth.

Because brain architecture and skills are builtcontinuously over time, policies that promotehealthy development throughout the early yearscreate a foundation for later school achievement,economic productivity, responsible citizenship,and successful parenting. For children at unusu-ally high risk, neuroscience provides a compel-ling argument for beginning programs at birth, ifnot prenatally, since a substantial amount of braincircuitry is constructed very early in life. Devel-opmental research shows that children masterdifferent skills at different ages, which suggeststhat opportunities for a variety of effective inter-ventions are present throughout early child-hood.106

A number of demonstration projects have proventhat high quality, evidence based, early childhoodeducation can ameliorate some disadvantages, in-crease lifetime earnings and decrease dependencyon public services. Very high quality, comprehen-

sive early childhood education hasbeen shown to have lifelong bene-fits for children that persist even40 years later.

According to one Harvard Univer-sity report, the principal elementsof programs that have consistent-ly produced positive impacts in-clude the following:

• highly skilled teachers;• small class sizes and high adult-to-child ratios;• age-appropriate curricula and stimulating mate-

rials in a safe physical setting;• a language-rich environment;• warm, responsive interactions between staff and

children; and• high and consistent levels of child participation.107

For disadvantaged children, a program that focuseson both the child and the parent(s) who are experi-encing adversity is most likely to be effective.

It is unfair, impractical, and uneconomic, to condemna five-year-old child to failure because of the cir-cumstance into which he or she was born. Earlychildhood programs including Head Start and Mich-igan’s Great Start Readiness Program are designedto sever the link between childhood poverty and pooroutcomes in lifelong learning, behavior, and health,by supplementing the role of the family in early child-hood nurturing and education. Unfortunately, scaled-up, publicly funded pre-K programs have been lesseffective than the intense demonstration programs.The most recent evaluation of the federal Head Startprogram found minimal effects. State funded pre-Kprograms including GSRP provide safe environmentsfor children, and may allow parents to work, but thereal justification for public investment in these pro-grams relates to their educational and developmen-tal effectiveness and their long-term impacts.

It is unfair, impractical, anduneconomic, to condemn afive-year-old child to failurebecause of the circum-stance into which he or shewas born.

CRC Report


Michigan’s Great Start Readiness Program serves onlyeligible four-year-old children, raising the issue ofwhether the program should be expanded to includea component for three-year-old children, or for thoseeven younger. Other issues include the adequacy offunding and standards, the criteria used to deter-mine eligibility, whether funding should be restrict-ed to public school districts, and whether all tradi-tional public school districts should be required toparticipate in the program. Strengthening GSRP tomore closely follow successful demonstrationprojects, including home visits and family engage-ment, implementing higher standards that are bet-ter integrated with K-12 expecta-tions, and expanding access to theprogram, could be a better use ofscarce state resources.

High quality pre-K programs maynot increase IQ over the long term(although very early interventionsdo appear to raise IQ, especiallyfor girls), but they do affect moti-vation, emotional stability, self con-trol, and sociability, all of which areequally important to the choices anindividual makes throughout his or her life. Highquality pre-K improves the odds that children willbecome successful adults, and reduces the societalcosts associated with poor school performance, crimeand incarceration, unemployment and welfare.

Investing in disadvantaged young children raises theproductivity of society at large, according to JamesHeckman and Dimitriy Masterov, and is more effec-tive than interventions that come later in life.108 Fac-tors such as high school graduation, teenage preg-nancy and parenting skills, citizenship andemployment, crime and incarceration, are reflectedin the relative health of communities, and finally inthe human capital and strength of the nation.109

While the potential future benefits of high qualitypreschool programs for disadvantaged children hasbeen demonstrated, policy makers faced with acutecurrent budget challenges may be tempted to re-

duce funding for state pre-K programs to save mon-ey in the short term in a way that has no immediate-ly visible costs. NIEER estimates that 19 states willhave cut about $350 million in funding for pre-K pro-grams in the fiscal year 2009 through 2011 peri-od.110 Timothy Bartik of the Upjohn Institute notesthat while there are limited short term economicbenefits, the annual earning effects of pre-K pro-grams on former program participants do not ex-ceed the annual costs until at least 20 years later.111

Limited resources force very difficult decisions aboutquality of, and access to, publicly funded pre-kin-

dergarten and kindergarten. Tra-ditional metrics, which count in-puts (cost per child, teachercredentials, adult-child ratios) rath-er than outputs (school readiness),should be revised to enable effec-tive programs to be replicated andineffective programs to be revised.Low quality programs are ineffec-tive, but cost less and often pro-vide a politically expedient meansto cut public funding. Targetingthe most at-risk children at young-

er ages may be more effective, but increases pro-gram costs. Limiting the pre-K program to the mostdisadvantaged, or kindergarten to half day, may limitcosts, but without adequate explanations of the long-er term benefits, may also reduce public support.Universal access to pre-K may expand public sup-port, but drain resources from other essential edu-cation programs.

Extraordinary budget challenges facing the State ofMichigan have forced policy makers to make diffi-cult decisions about the best use of limited resourc-es. At the same time, the state’s leaders are acutelyaware of the need to improve the future economiccompetitiveness of this state, and of the importanceof an educated work force to economic competitive-ness. High quality pre-K programs targeted at dis-advantaged three and four-year-olds and high qual-ity, all day kindergarten may be the best investmentin the state’s human capital.

High quality pre-K improvesthe odds that children willbecome successful adults,and reduces the societalcosts associated with poorschool performance, crimeand incarceration, unem-ployment and welfare.



R E A D I N GWord Recognition and Word StudyPhonemic Awareness• Demonstrate phonemic awareness by the wide

range of sound manipulation competenciesincluding sound blending and deletion.

• Recognize that words are composed of soundsblended together and carry meaning.

Phonics• Understand the alphabetic principle, that

sounds in words are expressed• by the letters of the alphabet.• Use grapho-phonemic (letter-sound) cues to

recognize a few one-syllable words whenpresented completely out of context. Begin toassociate letters and sounds, particularly initialand final consonants.

Word Recognition• Automatically recognize a small number (about

18) of frequently• encountered, personally meaningful words in

print.• Make progress in automatically recognizing a

few of the 220 Dolch basic• sight words.• Follow familiar written text while pointing to

matching words.• Narrow possibilities in predicting words using

initial letters/sounds (phonics), patterns oflanguage (syntactic), and picture clues (se-mantic).

• Know the meanings of words encounteredfrequently in grade-level reading and orallanguage contexts.

Vocabulary• In context, determine the meaning of a few

words, familiar and repeated phrases includingobjects, actions, concepts, content vocabulary,and literary terms, using strategies and re-sources including picture clues, prediction, andother people.

Fluency• Automatically apply the following aspects of

fluency: naming of letters, association ofletters and their sounds, recognition of a fewwords both when encountered in context andisolation, and demonstrating understanding ofconcepts of print.

Narrative Text• Become familiar with classic, multicultural, and

contemporary literature• recognized for quality and literary merit that

represents our common heritage as well ascultures from around the world.

• Identify the basic form and purpose of avariety of narrative genre

• including stories, nursery rhymes, poetry, andsongs.

• Discuss setting, characters, and events innarrative text.

• Identify how authors/illustrators use literarydevices including pictures

• and illustrations to support the understandingof settings and characters.

• Respond to individual and multiple texts byfinding evidence, discussing, illustrating, and/or writing to reflect, make meaning, and makeconnections.

Informational Text• Identify and describe the basic form and

purpose of a variety of informational genreincluding environmental text, concept books,and picture books.

• With teacher guidance, discuss informationaltext patterns including descriptive and sequen-tial.

• Explain how authors use text features includ-ing pictures, illustrations, and icons to enhancethe understanding of key ideas presented indescriptive (definitions, enumeration) andsequential (directions, steps, procedures)organizational patterns.

Appendix AKindergarten Content Expectations: English Language Arts

CRC Report


• Respond to individual and multiple texts byfinding evidence, discussing, illustrating, and/or writing to reflect, make meaning, and makeconnections.

Comprehension• Begin to make text-to-self and text-to-text

connections and comparisons by activatingprior knowledge and connecting personalknowledge and experience to ideas in textthrough oral and written responses.

• Retell up to three events from familiar textusing their own words or phrasing.

• Begin to make connections across texts bymaking meaningful predictions based onillustrations or portions of texts.

• Apply significant knowledge from grade-levelscience, social studies, and mathematics texts.

Metacognition• Self-monitor comprehension when reading or

listening to familiar text by using simple strate-gies to increase comprehension includingmaking credible predictions based on illustra-tions.

• Construct and convey meaning using strategiesincluding story grammar to identify the au-thor’s perspective (e.g., first, second, and thirdperson) and sorting and ordering information.

Critical Standards• Recognize how to assess personal writing and

the writing of others with teacher supervision.

Reading Attitude• Become enthusiastic about reading and learn-

ing how to read.• Choose books, book activities, word play, and

writing on their own during free time in schooland at home.

W R I T I N GWriting Genre• Write a brief personal narrative using pictures,

words, word-like clusters, and/or sentences assupport.

• Approximate poetry, using copy change andteacher guidance, based on reading a widevariety of grade-appropriate poetry.

• Write a brief informational piece such as apage for a class book using drawings, words,word-like clusters, and/or sentences.

• Contribute to a class research project byadding relevant information to a class bookincluding gathering information from teacher-selected resources and using the writingprocess to develop the project.

Writing Process• With teacher assistance, consider the audi-

ence’s reaction as they plan narrative orinformational writing.

• Brainstorm to generate and structure ideas fornarrative or informational writing.

• Draft focused ideas using semi-phoneticspelling to represent narrative and information-al text when writing, incorporating pictures,and drawings.

• Attempt to revise writing based on reading italoud, requesting suggestions and clarificationsthat support meaning.

Personal Style• Develop originality in oral, written, and visual

messages in both narrative (e.g., naturallanguage, expressed sentiment, original ideas)and informational writing (e.g., listing, naming,describing).

Spelling• In the context of writing, correctly spell a small

number (about 18) of frequently encounteredand personally meaningful words.

• In the context of writing, correctly spell lessfrequently encountered words, relying onstructural cues (beginning and simpler endingsounds) and environmental sources (wordwall, word lists).

Handwriting• Form upper and lowercase manuscript letters.• Leave space between words and word-like

clusters of letters.



• Write from left to right and top to bottom.

Writing Attitude• Be enthusiastic about writing and learning to

write.

S P E A K I N GConventions• Explore and use language to communicate

with a variety of audiences and for differentpurposes including problem-solving, explain-ing, looking for solutions, constructing relation-ships, and expressing courtesies.

• Speak clearly and audibly in complete, coher-ent sentences and use sound effects or illustra-tions for dramatic effect in narrative andinformational presentations.

• Present in standard American English if it istheir fi rst language. (Students whose firstlanguage is not English will present in theirdeveloping version of standard AmericanEnglish.)

• Understand, providing examples of how lan-guage differs from playground and classroomas a function of linguistic and cultural groupmembership.

Discourse• Engage in substantive conversations, remain-

ing focused on subject matter, with interchang-es beginning to build on prior responses inliterature discussions, paired conversations, orother interactions.

• Briefly tell or retell about familiar experiencesor interests focusing on basic story grammaror main ideas and key details.

• Respond to multiple text types by reflecting,making meaning, and making connections.

• Plan and deliver presentations using a descrip-tive informational organizational patternproviding several facts and details to maketheir point clearly and audibly.

L I S T E N I N G & V I E W I N GConventions• Understand and follow one- and two-step

directions.

• Ask appropriate questions during a presenta-tion or report.

• Listen to or view knowledgeably while demon-strating appropriate social skills of audiencebehaviors (e.g., eye contact, attentive, sup-portive) in small and large group settings;listen to each other, interact, and respondappropriately.

• Begin to evaluate messages they experience,learning to differentiate between sender andreceiver.

Response• Listen to or view knowledgeably and discuss a

variety of genre.• Listen to or view knowledgeably, and respond

thoughtfully to both classic and contemporarytexts recognized for quality and literary merit.

• Respond to multiple text types listened to orviewed knowledgeably, by discussing, drawing,and/or writing in order to reflect, make mean-ing, and make connections.

Kindergarten Content Expectations: Mathe-matics

NUMBER AND OPERATIONSCount, write, and order numbers• Count objects in sets up to 30.*• Use one-to-one correspondence to compare

and order sets of objects to 30 using phrasessuch as “same number”, “more than”, or “lessthan”; use counting and matching.

• Compare and order numbers to 30 usingphrases such as “more than” or “less than.”

• Read and write numbers to 30 and connectthem to the quantities they represent.*

• Count orally to 100 by ones. Count to 30 by2’s, 5’s and10’s using grouped objects asneeded.

Compose and decompose numbers• Understand the numbers 1 to 30 as having

one, or two, or three groups of ten and someones. Also count by tens with objects in ten-groups to 100.

CRC Report


• Compose and decompose numbers from 2 to10, e.g., 5 = 4 + 1 = 2 + 3, with attention tothe additive structure of number systems, e.g.,6 is one more than 5, 7 is one more than 6.*

• Describe and make drawings to representsituations/stories involving putting togetherand taking apart for totals up to 10; use fingerand object counting.

Add and subtract numbers• Record mathematical thinking by writing

simple addition and subtraction sentences,e.g., 7 + 2 = 9, 10 - 8 = 2.

Explore number patterns• Create, describe, and extend simple number

patterns.

MEASUREMENTExplore concepts of time• Know and use the common words for the parts

of the day (morning, afternoon, evening,night) and relative time (yesterday, today,tomorrow, last week, next year).

• Identify tools that measure time (clocks mea-sure hours and minutes; calendars measuredays, weeks, and months).

• Identify daily landmark times to the nearesthour (lunchtime is 12 o’clock; bedtime is 8o’clock).

Explore other measurement attributes• Compare two or more objects by length,

weight and capacity, e.g., which is shorter,longer, taller?

• Compare length and weight of objects bycomparing to reference objects, and use termssuch as shorter, longer, taller, lighter, heavier.

GEOMETRYCreate, explore, and describe shapes• Relate familiar three-dimensional objects inside

and outside the classroom to their geometricname, e.g., ball/sphere, box/cube, soup can/cylinder, ice cream cone/cone, refrigerator/prism.

• Identify, sort, and classify objects by attributeand identify objects that do not belong in aparticular group.

Explore geometric patterns• Create, describe, and extend simple geometric

patterns.

Kindergarten content expectations for science,social science, physical education, and health canbe accessed on the Michigan Department ofEducation website, www.michigan.gov/mde.



Appendix BExamples of Other States’ Pre-K Programs

school districts (Abbott districts). The program,which concentrates funding for educating low-incomechildren in the 31 neediest districts, was developedin response to a New Jersey Supreme Court schoolfunding case, Abbott v. Burke, with the goal of clos-ing the achievement gap in urban, low-income dis-tricts. The Court established basic program stan-dards that included a maximum class size of 15,certified teachers with early childhood expertise,assistant teachers in every classroom, comprehen-sive services and a developmentally appropriate cur-riculum designed to meet learning standards. Thestate program went beyond the court required stan-dards to include wraparound services and summerschool. Teachers are paid on the same scale as publicschool teachers, and dedicated staff work with par-ents and the community. The full day, full year pro-gram is available for up to ten hours per day, 245days per year, and includes health screenings.

The Abbott Preschool Program began in 1999-2000and by 2008-09 grew to serve more than 43,775three and four year old children in a mix of settingsthat includes public schools, private child care cen-ters, and Head Start agencies. The 2009 AbbottPreschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study eval-uated outcome data at the end of first and secondgrade for the 2004-05 cohort of Abbott PreschoolProgram attendees. The study found that overall inlanguage, literacy, and mathematics, effects for oneyear of Abbott pre-K through second grade wereabout 0.20 percent of one standard deviation, whichwas enough to move a child from the 50th to the 57th

percentile (enough to move a child up past sevenpercent of the population). For language and math,the effects of two years of Abbott pre-K were enoughto move a child from the 50th to the 67th percentile.Further, by second grade, grade repetition was 10.7percent for children who did not attend the program,7.2 percent for those who attended for one year,and 5.3 percent for those who attended for twoyears.114

New Jersey started restricting eligibility in 2006.Before 2007, any family living in an Abbot school

Oklahoma Universal Preschool Program

Because high quality preschool programs benefit allchildren, states including Oklahoma, New York, Flor-ida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, and West Vir-ginia have adopted legislation that calls for univer-sal preschool, although none have achieved thegoal.112

Universal programs are available to anyone whowants his or her child to attend, either for free or ona subsidized basis (they are not compulsory). Uni-versal public preschool programs can be providedby school districts, non-profits, for-profits, and faith-based organizations.

Oklahoma, which began its universal preschool in1998, served 71 percent of four-year-olds in 2008-09. When special education and Head Start enroll-ments were included, about 90 percent of Oklaho-ma children were served. Instructors had bachelor’sdegrees and an early childhood education certificate,there were assistant teachers in every classroom,and classes were limited to 20 children.

Researchers from Georgetown University’s Center forResearch on Children in the United States have ob-served every preschool class in Tulsa, and reportgains of three to seven months in early literacy andmath development for participating children enter-ing kindergarten, compared to children who did notattend the program. Students from all racial andeconomic backgrounds showed gains, with Hispanicchildren demonstrating the largest gains. “Theteam’s data suggests the teacher plays a large rolein the success of students. Higher quality instruc-tion tends to occur in classrooms in which the teacherhad a high undergraduate grade point average,majored in early childhood education, had more yearsof experience in the classroom, and followed a morestructured curriculum.”113

New Jersey Abbott Preschool Project

This New Jersey program provides high quality pre-school education in the state’s 31 highest poverty

CRC Report


district could participate; after 2007, eligibility wasrestricted to families at or below 300 percent of thefederal poverty level. In 2009, eligibility was re-stricted to families at or beloPre-K Now, The PewCenter for the States, Education Reform Series, AMatter of Degrees: Preparing Teachers for the Pre-KClassroom, March 2010

w 250 percent of the federal poverty level, and start-ing in September, 2010, eligibility was restricted tofamilies at or below 200 percent of the federal pov-erty level (families that were previously enrolled willbe grandfathered in under the old rules). Only thepoorest families now receive wraparound services,and parents have to prove they either have a job orare attending school.115

North Carolina More at Four Program

The North Carolina “More at Four” program for at-risk four-year-olds, which was implemented in 2001-02, is viewed as a state economic development strat-egy. State standards relate to staff qualifications,class size (maximum of 18), teacher-child ratios (oneto nine), child care licensing, curriculum, and provi-sion of other program services. Teachers must holda bachelor’s degree and birth-kindergarten or pre-school add-on license; teaching assistants must holda CDA. Program standards are aligned with andsupport K-12 standards; classrooms must use a re-search based curriculum that has appropriate aca-demic emphasis. There is an emphasis on on-goingfamily involvement.

The program targets children in families below 75percent of the state median income or 300 percentof federal poverty status, and those meeting desig-nated risk factors (limited English proficiency, dis-abled, chronic health conditions, and developmen-tal/educational need). The state provides funds forclassroom-based programs at sites including publicschools, Head Start, and for profit and nonprofit childcare centers that meet quality standards. This pre-school program is provided for six to six-and-a halfhours per day for a ten-month school year; it oper-ates on a school day and school calendar basis. Pro-viders may not charge for the More at Four pro-gram, but may charge for wrap-around services.

More at Four served about 32,000 of the state’s four-year-olds in 2010.

According to the state’s own evaluation,

Children in the More at Four Program have con-tinued to exhibit patterns of substantial growthacross key school readiness skills in the areas oflanguage/literacy, math, general knowledge, andsocial skills. While the children at greatest riskhad lower scores in most skill areas both at en-try into the program and at the end of the schoolyear, they made gains at the same rate as otherchildren. For children with lower levels of En-glish proficiency, the program had even greaterbenefits. While they similarly exhibited lowerscores in both the fall and spring, these childrenmade even greater progress over the pre-k yearthan children at higher proficiency levels. More-over, the associations found between skills inEnglish and Spanish for Spanish-speaking Englishlanguage learners in particular suggest that sup-porting children’s home language in their pre-kclassrooms may enhance their acquisition ofschool readiness skills. As the More at Four Pro-gram has continued to expand, one concern hasbeen whether quality would be maintained. Al-though the overall quality of classroom practiceshas remained relatively high, it is still not quiteas high as in the early years of More at Four insome areas. Taken as a whole, however, the ev-idence suggests that children are benefitingacross the range of classroom experiences pro-vided, in ways that help prepare them for great-er success in school.116

Montgomery County Public Schools

The Montgomery County, Maryland school districtimplemented a district wide, integrated, early learn-ing strategy that linked specific goals for high schoolgraduation and college readiness with pre-K pro-grams. The plan aligned the instructional activitiesof early learning teachers, specialists, and staff tothe system-wide goal of college readiness, then tospecific early learning strategies with an emphasison foundational skills that tied directly to the dis-trict’s core plan for improving student learning. Theplan was based on four essential components:

• More time is critical for the youngest learners.



• Time must be spent on standards-based activi-ties.

• Consistency at the same school matters.• Involve parents and community to support early

learning.

Part of the challenge in building alliances and coor-dinating a diverse set of early education providerswas met through the development of a collabora-tion council, a comprehensive plan for early child-hood education in the county, and a children’s agen-da of seven actionable goals. Bringing the separatepublic and private programs into a coherent servicedelivery system with shared expectations, commonstandards, and uniform high quality pedagogy in-volved kindergarten, Head Start, district funded pre-K, state funded centers that offer wraparound ser-vices to young children and their families, and special

education pre-K programs. The process includedadopting aligned standards based curriculum; schoollevel meetings of school, Head Start and district pre-K staff; and building strong school-family partner-ships that can include referrals and home visits.

Head Start and pre-K teachers are regular districtteachers, with professional development opportuni-ties, a peer assistance and review system, and ac-cess to high quality curricula and materials. Stu-dent progress is measured and teachers are heldaccountable.

The percentage of third and fifth graders readingat the proficient or above level increased steadilyfrom 2003 through 2009, with more rapid progressfor African-American and Hispanic students.Though an achievement gap still remains, it hasnarrowed considerably.117

CRC Report


1 Kristin Denton Flanagan and Cameron McPhee, U.S.Department of Education, National Center for EducationStatistics, The Children Born in 2001 at Kindergarten Entry:First Findings from the Kindergarten Data Collections of theEarly Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B),October 2009.

2 Connecticut and Vermont have a January 1 cutoff date;California, Hawaii, and Michigan have cutoff dates inDecember; the majority of states require the child to be fiveon or before October 16.

3 National Institute for Early Education Research, PreschoolPolicy Facts, Prepared for Kindergarten: What Does “Readi-ness” Mean?

4 Pamela Paul, The New York Times, The Littlest Redshirts SitOut Kindergarten, August 20, 2010.

5 Michigan State University News, August 17, 2010 http://news.msu.edu/story/8160/.

6 Michigan Attorney General opinion 1987 OAG 6467.

7 Nicholas Zill and Jerry West, U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics, Entering Kindergar-ten: A Portrait of American Children When They BeginSchool: Findings from The Condition of Education 2000,2001.


9 Nicholas Zill and Jerry West, U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics, Entering Kindergar-ten: A Portrait of American Children When They BeginSchool: Findings from The Condition of Education 2000,2001.

10 Raj Chetty et al, How Does Your Kindergarten ClassroomAffect Your Earnings? Evidence from Project STAR, Septem-ber 2010.

11 The Washington Post, http://voices.washington post.com/ezra-klein/2010/08/cutting_funding_for_early_chil.html.

12 Cassandra M. Guarino, Laura S. Hamilton, and J.R.Lockwood, U.S. Department of Education, National Centerfor Education Statistics, Teacher Qualifications, InstructionalPractices, and Reading and Mathematics Gains ofKindergarteners, March 2006.

13 National Governors Association and Council of Chief StateSchool Officers, Common Core State Standards InitiativeFrequently Asked Questions, March 2, 2010.

14 Michigan Department of Education, State Board of Educa-tion Unanimously Adopts Common Core Standards, June 15,2010.


16 Ellen Galinsky, The Committee for Economic Development,The Economic Benefits of High-Quality Early ChildhoodPrograms: What Makes the Difference? 2006.

17 Ross A. Thompson, National Institute for Early ChildhoodResearch, Preschool Policy Brief, Connecting Neurons,Concepts, and People: Brain Development and its Implica-tions, December 2008, Issue 17.

18 Ross A. Thompson, National Institute for Early ChildhoodResearch, Preschool Policy Brief, Connecting Neurons,Concepts, and People: Brain Development and its Implica-tions, December 2008, Issue 17.

19 Jack Shonkoff, Child Development, Volume 81 Issue 1,Building a New Biodevelopmental Framework to Guide TheFuture of Early Childhood Policy, 2010 and Ellen Galinshy,The Committee for Economic Development, The EconomicBenefits of High-Quality Early Childhood Programs: WhatMakes the Difference?, 2006.

20 Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University, AScience-Based Framework for Early Childhood Policy: UsingEvidence to Improve Outcomes in Learning, Behavior, andHealth for Vulnerable Children, August 2007.

21 Jack P. Shonkoff, Child Development, January/February2010, Volume 81, Number 1, Building a NewBiodevelopmental Framework to Guide the Future of EarlyChildhood Policy, 2010.

22 Great Start Facts and Issues, www.greatstartforkids.org/content/facts-issues.

23 U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, AmericanCommunity Survey 1-Year Estimates, 2009, Michigan.

24 Great Start Facts and Issues, www.greatstartforkids.org/content/facts-issues.

25 Greg J Duncan, Kathleen M. Ziol-Guest, and Ariel Kalil,Early-Childhood Poverty and Adult Attainment, Behavior, andHealth, Child Development, January/February 2010, Volume81, Number 1, pgs 306-325.

26 Greg J Duncan, Kathleen M. Ziol-Guest, and Ariel Kalil,Early-Childhood Poverty and Adult Attainment, Behavior, andHealth, Child Development, January/February 2010, Volume81, Number 1, pgs 306-325.

Endnotes



27 The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count 2010, http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=8.

28 The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count 2010, http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=75.

29 Sharon Lewis et al, The Council of Great City Schools, ACall for Change: The Social and Educational Factors Contrib-uting to the Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools,November 2010.

30 U.S. Census Bureau, American Factfinder, United States –Selected Economic Characteristics: 2009 and Michigan -Selected Economic Characteristics: 2009.

31 Julia B. Isaacs, Child and Family Policy Fellow at theBrookings Institute, quoted in Recession Hits State PreschoolPrograms; More Cuts Expected, May 10, 2010 at NIEERwebsite, http://nieer.org/mediacenter/index.php?pressID=91.

32 Sharon Lewis et al, The Council of Great City Schools, ACall for Change: The Social and Educational Factors Contrib-uting to the Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools,November 2010.

33 Council of Great City Schools News Release for: SharonLewis et al, The Council of Great City Schools, A Call forChange: The Social and Educational Factors Contributing tothe Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools, October,2010.

34 Head Start, ESEA, U.S. Department of Agriculture nutritionprograms.

35 Paul Barton and Richard J. Coley, Policy InformationCenter, Educational Testing Service, The Black-WhiteAchievement Gap: When Progress Stopped, 2010.

36 National Association for the Education of Young Children,Position Statement adopted 2009, Developmentally Appropri-ate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Childrenfrom Birth through Age 8.

37 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count 2010,

http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=5110.

38 Mamie Lynch and Jennifer Engle, The Education Trust, BigGaps, Small Gaps: Some Colleges and Universities Do BetterThan Others in Graduating African-American Students,August 2010.

39 Sharon Lewis et al, The Council of Great City Schools, ACall for Change: The Social and Educational Factors Contrib-uting to the Outcomes of Black Males in Urban Schools,October, 2010.



42 Promising Practices Network, Programs that Work,HighScope Perry Preschool Programwww.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=128.


44 Arthur J. Reynolds, The Chicago Longitudinal Study: AStudy of Children in the Chicago Public Schools, August,1999.


46 Social Programs that Work, Abecedarian Project,

http://evidencebasedprograms.org/wordpress/?page id=70.

47 Leonard N. Masse and W. Steven Barnett, NationalInstitute for Early Education Research, A Benefit CostAnalysis of the Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention.

48 Albert Wat, Pre-K Now Research Series, Dollars and Sense:A Review of Economic Analyses of Pre-K, May, 2007.

49 National Institute for Early Education Research, A Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Abecedarian Early Childhood Interven-tion, http://nieer.org/docs/?DocID=57.

50 Pre-K Now, Fact Sheets, www.preknow.org/policy/factsheets/benefits.cfm.


52 Pre-K Now, The Pew Center for the States, EducationReform Series, A Matter of Degrees: Preparing Teachers forthe Pre-K Classroom, March 2010

53 Deborah Roderick Stark, The Pew Center on the States,Education Reform Series, Engaged Families, Effective Pre-K:State Policies that Bolster Student Success, June, 2010.

54 Diane M. Early et al, Early Childhood Research Quarterly21, pgs 174-195, Are Teachers’ Education, Major, andCredentials Related to Classroom Quality and Children’sAcademic Gains in Pre-Kindergarten?, 2006.

55 National Association for the Education of Young Children,Position statement adopted 2009, Developmentally Appropri-ate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Childrenfrom Birth through Age 8.

56 Pew Center on the States, Pre-K Now.

57 Lisa Klein and Jane Knitzer, National Center for Children inPoverty, Columbia University, Pathways to Early ChildhoodSuccess, Issue Brief No.2, Effective Preschool Curricula andTeaching Strategies, September 2006.

CRC Report



59 Jonathan A. Plucker et al, The Effects of Full Day VersusHalf Day Kindergarten: Review and Analysis of National andIndiana Data, prepared for the Indiana Association of PublicSchool Superintendents, January 2004.

60 Deborah Roderick Stark, The Pew Center on the States,Education Reform Series, Engaged Families, Effective Pre-K:State Policies that Bolster Student Success, June, 2010

61 James Heckman and Dimitriy Masterov, The ProductivityArgument for Investing in Young Children, January, 2007.


63 www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/index.html.

64 www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/about/index.html.

65 Early Childhood Learning & Knowledge Center, Office ofHead Start, Non-Federal Share Narrative.

66 National Institute for Early Childhood Research, PreschoolPolicy Facts, Investing in Head Start Teachers.

67 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Adminis-tration for Children and Families, Head Start Impact Study,Final Report, January 2010.

68 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Adminis-tration for Children and Families, Head Start Impact Study,Final Report, January 2010.

69 W. Steven Barnett, National Institute for Early EducationResearch, Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects:Research and Policy Implications, September 2008.

70 National Center for Educational Statistics, Initial ResultsFrom the 2005 NHES Early Childhood Program ParticipationStudy, Table 13, http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/earlychild/tables/table_13asp.

71 W. Steven Barnett, National Institute for Early EducationResearch, Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects:Research and Policy Implications, September 2008.

72 Sam Dillon, The New York Times, Inspectors Find Fraud atCenters for Children, May 18, 2010.

73 Diana Stone, Pre-K Now Research Series, The Pew Centeron the States, Funding the Future: States’ Approaches toPre-K Finance, February, 2006.

74 Pre-K Now, Pew Center on the States, Fact Sheets, Pre-KAcross the Country.

75 Diana Stone, Pre-K Now Research Series, The Pew Centeron the States, Funding the Future: States’ Approaches toPre-K Finance, February, 2006.

76 Pre K Now Education Reform Series, The Pew Center onthe States, Formula for Success: Adding High-Quality Pre-Kto State School Funding Formulas, May 2010.

77 http://greatstartforkids.org/content/child-care-early-education.

78 Michigan Department of Education, 2009-10 Great StartReadiness Program, Frequently Asked Questions, November9, 2009.

79 Great Start Readiness Program 2008-09 Risk Factor DataReport, October 2009, prepared by High/Scope EducationalResearch Foundation for the Michigan Department ofEducation.

80 Allison Friedman et al, National Institute for Early Educa-tion Research, New Jersey Preschool Expansion AssessmentResearch Study, December 2009.

81 National Institute for Early Childhood Research, Debunkingthe Myths: Benefits of Preschool.

82 Committee for Economic Development, The EconomicPromise of Investing in High-Quality Preschool: Using EarlyEducation to Improve Economic Growth and the FiscalSustainability of States and the Nation, 2006.

83 Lindsey Burke, Backgrounder No. 2378, The HeritageFoundation, More Government Preschool: An Expensive andUnnecessary Middle-Class Subsidy, March 2, 2010.

84 Pew Center for the States, pre[k]now, Leadership Matters:Michigan, www.pre-Know.org/leadership matters/MI.cfm.

85 MCL 388.1639(2)-(4).

86 HighScope Educational Research Foundation, 2008-09Great Start Readiness Program Program Quality Assessment,Statewide Data Report, September 2009

87 Zongping Xiang and Lawrence J. Schweinhart, High/ScopeEducational Research Foundation, Effects Five Years Later:The Michigan School Readiness Program Evaluation ThroughAge 10, January, 2002

88 Vivian C. Wong, Thomas D. Cook, W. Steven Barnett, andKwanghee Jung, National Institute for Early EducationResearch, Rutgers University, An Effectiveness-basedEvaluation of Five State Pre-Kindergarten Programs usingRegression-Discontinuity, June 2007.

89 Elena Malofeeva, Marijata Daniel-Echols, and ZongpingXiang, High/Scope Educational Research Foundation,Findings from the Michigan School Readiness Program 6 to 8Follow Up Study, October 2007.

90 Cynthia Lamy, W. Steven Barnett, and Kwanghee Jung, TheNational Institute for Early Education Research, RutgersUniversity, Program on Young Children’s Abilities at Kinder-garten Entry, December 2005.



91 Vivian C. Wong, Thomas D. Cook, W. Steven Barnett, andKwanghee Jung, National Institute for Early EducationResearch, Rutgers University, An Effectiveness-basedEvaluation of Five State Pre-Kindergarten Programs usingRegression-Discontinuity, June 2007.

92 W. Stephen Barnett et al, National Institute for EarlyEducation Research, Rutgers Graduate School of Education,The State of Preschool, 2009.

93 Richard Chase and Paul Anton, Wilder Research, CostSavings Analysis of School Readiness in Michigan, November,2009.



96 Diana Stone, Pre-K Now, Funding the Future: States’Approaches to Pre-K Finance, 2008 Update, 2008.

97 NACCRRA, State Budget Cuts: America’s Kids Pay the Price,January 2010.

98 Walter S. Gilliam and Edward F. Zigler, Yale University ChildStudy Center, State Efforts to Evaluate the Effects of Pre-Kindergarten: 1977 to 2003, April, 2004.

99 Walter S. Gilliam and Edward F. Zigler, Yale University ChildStudy Center, State Efforts to Evaluate the Effects of Pre-Kindergarten: 1977 to 2003, April, 2004.

100 The Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2010, Scores Stagnateat High Schools.

101 The Wall Street Journal, August 18, 2010, Scores Stagnateat High Schools.

102 Catherine Gewertz, Education Week, More MinoritiesTaking ACT, but Score Gap Persists, Online August 18, 2010.

103 Trip Gabriel, The New York Times, Proficiency of BlackStudents Is Found to Be Far Lower than Expected, November9, 2010.

104 U.S. Census Bureau, FactFinder, Rankings.

105 Cecilia Rouse, Jumpstart, America’s Early ChildhoodLiteracy Gap, September 2009.

106 Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University, AScience-Based Framework for Early Childhood Policy: UsingEvidence to Improve Outcomes in Learning, Behavior, andHealth for Vulnerable Children, August, 2007.

107 Center on the Developing Child, Harvard University,

A Science-Based Framework or Early Childhood Policy: UsingEvidence to Improve Outcomes in Learning, Behavior, andHealth for Vulnerable Children, August 2007.

108 James Heckman and Dimitriy Masterov, The ProductivityArgument for Investing in Young Children, January, 2007.

109 Jack P. Shonkoff, Child Development, January/February2010, Volume 81, Number 1, Building a NewBiodevelopmental Framework to Guide the Future of EarlyChildhood Policy, 2010.

110 Dale Epstein and Steve Barnett, National Institute forEarly Education Research, Brief Report: Funding Cuts toState-funded Pre-Kindergarten Programs in FY 10 & 11, July,2010.

111 Timothy J. Bartik, The W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employ-ment Research, How Policymakers Should Deal with theDelayed Benefits of Early Childhood Programs, UpjohnInstitute Staff Working Paper 09-150, June, 2009.

112 National Institute for Early Education Research, PreschoolMatters, May/June 2010, Volume 8, No.2) (In contrast, Ohioeliminated funding for its pre-K program.

113 LiAnna Davis, Georgetown College, Georgetown UniversityResearch News, At the Intersection of Public Policy and EarlyChildhood Development: Dr. Deborah Phillips.

114 Ellen Frede et al, National Institute for Early EducationResearch, The APPLES Blossom: Abbott Preschool ProgramLongitudinal Effects Study (APPLES) Preliminary Resultsthrough 2nd Grade, Interim Report, June 2009.

115 Sarah Garland, Hechinger Report, New Jersey TighteningRules on Free Pre-K, August 3, 2010.

116 Ellen S. Peisner-Feinberg and Jennifer M. Schaaf, FPGChild Development Institute, University of North Carolina atChapel Hill, Evaluation of the North Carolina More at FourPre-kindergarten Program: Performance and Progress in theSeventh Year (2007-2008) Executive Summary, 2008.

117 Geoff Marietta, Foundation for Child Development, ThePew Center on the States, Education Reform Series, Lessonsin Early Learning: Building an Integrated Pre-K-12 System inMontgomery County Public Schools, August 2010.

early childhood educaaationtiontioncrcmich.org/publicat/2010s/2011/rpt366.pdf · in 2009, crc was...

Documents