early childhood education 2012 community indicators symposium human capital development and...
TRANSCRIPT
Early Childhood Education
2012 Community Indicators Symposium
Human Capital Development and Education: Early Childhood, K-12, Workforce Preparedness
February 10, 2012
Getting it Right from the Beginning
Early Childhood Education (ECE)Overview of Presentation
Why is this
Important?
What makes up the ECE System?
How do you measure Quality and Impact?
ECE Communi
ty Indicators and Policy
Recommendation
s Early Childhood Education (ECE)
Why is this Important?
19901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
Brazoria Chambers Fort Bend GalvestonHarris Liberty Montgomery Waller
Why is this Important?Number of Children in Region Growing Rapidly
383,397
Source: Annie E. Casey Kids Count Data Book, http://datacenter.kidscount.org/
553,414
Why is this Important? Increase in Women in Workforce
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
28% 33% 37% 38% 39% 40% 41% 43% 44% 45% 46% 48% 49%
72% 67% 63% 62% 61% 60% 59% 57% 56% 55% 54% 52% 51%
Women Men
Why is this Important? Over Half of Young Children in Care of Other Adults while Parents Working
Chil-dren
at Home43%
Chil-dren in
Care of
Others (Work-
ing Par-ents)57%
237,968 young children
315,446 young children
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2005-2009 average
Infant Brain Development
Longitudinal Research on Impact of High Quality ECE
ROI on Children, Families
ROI on Community
Why is this Important?Science, Research, ROI
Science and ResearchNature and Nurture: Synapse formation in the first three years
Source: Core Concepts in the Science of Early Childhood Development, Center for the Developing Child, Harvard University, C.A. Nelson (2000)
Science and ResearchNature and Nurture: Disparities in vocabulary begin at 18 months, significant by 36 months
0 16 20 24 28 32 360
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Child’s Age (Months)
College Educated
Working Class Parents
Low Income Parents
Cumulative Vocabulary (W
ords)
Source: Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young American children.
Longitudinal ResearchAbecedarian Project provided high quality child care in early years, tracked children through adulthood
Never Repeated Grade High School Graduation by age 19
College Attendance0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
66% 67%
36%34%
51%
13%
Students in High Quality ECE Control Group
Return on InvestmentLifetime Effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40 Showed 16 to 1 ROI
Arrested 5+ times by 40
Earned $20K/yr. at 40
Graduated HS
IQ of 90+ at 5 years
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
36%
60%
77%
67%
55%
40%
60%
28%
Control Group Program Group
Source: HighScope Perry Preschool Study: Lifetime Effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40 (2005)
Return on Investment60-80% of long-term benefits of quality early education go to society
80%
20%
60%
40%
Benefits to IndividualIncreased earnings
Benefits to SocietyCrime-cost Savings
Reduced Special Education and Welfare
Increased Income Taxes
Perry Preschool
Study
Abecedarian Study
Return on InvestmentHigher ROI for Early Investments
Source: James J. Heckman, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate in Economics, University of Chicago, 2008
Return on InvestmentHigher ROI for Early Investments
Source: James J. Heckman, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate in Economics, University of Chicago, 2008
“The fiscally responsible thing to do is to invest more resources in early childhood education. It is something for which we must find the dollars because it saves money as early as kindergarten and builds equity throughout the life of the child. Early childhood education creates a taxpayer who reduces his or her own tax burden through greater productivity, healthier living and stronger contributions to society.”
Return on InvestmentPublic Expenditures Compared to Brain Development
Source: R. Haveman and B. Wolfe, “The Determinants of Children’s Attainments: A review of Methods and Findings,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 33, December 1995, pp. 1829-1878. Updated in 2005.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 180102030405060708090100
% of Total Brain Growth % of Public Expenditure
Age
Cu
mu
lativ
e P
erc
en
t of P
ub
lic
Sp
en
din
g o
n C
hild
ren
0 - 1
8
% o
f Bra
in g
row
th p
er y
ear,
0 –
18 y
ears
What makes up the Early Childhood Education
System?
The ECE System: 5 ComponentsHome Care, Informal Care, Child Care, Pre-K and Head Start
Cared for by Parents*43.4%
Cared for by Relatives, Friends, Family Members
21.6%
Child Care (center/ home-based)23.6%
Pre-kindergarten9.8%
Head Start1.6%
* This could also be another family member or other person who has custody and primary responsibility for a child.
Unregulated CareParents, Relatives, Neighbors, Friends – 65%
Regulated ECE35%of all Children, 0-5, in Texas Gulf Coast participate in regulated ECE System
Child Care 67.4%*
Pre-K28.0%
Head Start4.6%
Systems within ECE
# of Children*
Child Care (center/ home-based) 132,143Pre-kindergarten 54,037
Head Start 8,822Total in Region 195,002
Within Regulated System. . .
*The number of children in child care in our region is based on an estimate using national Census Bureau surveys as the state does not track this number.
Regulated ECEThree systems
Child Care• Most children• Lowest standards• Highest cost to
families• Limited subsidies• Serves all ages, birth
to after school care
Head Start• Fewest children• High standards• No charge to
families• Serves 3-4 year olds
Pre-K• All eligible children
served• Teachers highly
educated, no standard for ratios
• No charge to eligible children
• Serves mainly 4 year olds, some 3s
Regulated ECE SystemHead Start – Funded by Federal Government
3-4 year olds*
Purpose: Reduce impact of poverty on children
Most comprehensive
* Very small amount of funding for “Early Head Start” to serve infants, toddlers
Regulated ECE SystemHead Start – Children Eligible, Children Served
Source: Head Start Program Fact Sheet, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2009 Data; Annie E. Casey Kids Count, 2009 Data
1 of 9 eligible children served
Access based on first come, first served
Different than Social Security, Medicare
High level of accountability
California Texas New York Florida0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000 660,912601,319
293,539 303,161
97,89467,591 48,013 35,390
Eligible Served
The Regulated ECE SystemPublic Prekindergarten – Local ISD, State, Federal
Primarily 4 year olds*
Purpose: Academic preparation for school
Part of public school system, degreed teachers
* 3 year olds served if spaces available, or if eligible for Preschool Program for Children with Disabilities (PPCD)
Regulated ECE SystemChild Care System – Primarily funded by tuition, limited federal subsidies
Infants through school-age care (after-school)
Purpose: Care and education of children who have working parents
Range of quality – custodial care to very high quality early education
Home-based Child Care
Center-based Child Care
Annual Tuition - Public University
$0$1,000$2,000$3,000$4,000$5,000$6,000$7,000$8,000$9,000
$6,450
$7,850
$5,350
$6,600
$7,743
Infant Preschool College
Regulated ECE SystemChild Care System – Cost of Care in Texas
Average annual cost of child care centers rival cost of Texas Public University
Source: “Child Care in America: Fact 2011, National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, 2011
How do you Measure Quality and Impact in ECE?
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECETwo Approaches
Process
Environment
Use of Curriculum
Professional Development
Assessment of Child Development
• Process Indicators are more thorough, require observation of program to track progress
• Structural indicators represent standards of systems that can either be verified through observation or through self-report
• Certain structural indicators positively correlate to child well-being, school outcomes
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECEState Strategy for Measuring Quality
Nearly one-half of states and District of Columbia have a Quality Rating and Information System (QRIS) that provides parents and state officials with process indicators on ECE system
Texas in the process of developing framework for QRIS
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECEExample: Process Indicator, College Bound from Birth
Inadequate Minimal Good+0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
46%
31%23%
Inadequate Minimal Good+0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0%23%
77%
Baseline- 2008 2011
Assessment of Quality of Classroom Environment % of Classrooms in Low, Minimal, Good/Excellent Categories Over Time
Early Childhood Education Example: Structural Indicator, Teacher Education
0%10%20%30%40% 35%
25%40%
Source: Collaborative for Children, QualiFind Database, 2011
Child Care Programs in Texas Gulf Coast
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECEStep Toward QRIS
• Research-based• Oregon Model• “Consumer Report” layout
Established Indicators
• Self-Report• State and National data
Collect data• Excellent• Good• Minimum Standards
Rate programs
• On-line updating• Confirm• Validate sample
Update
Source: Collaborative for Children, QualiFind Database, 2011
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECEQualiFind Indicators
QualiFind
Teacher : Child ratio, Group Sizes
Licensing Compli-ance
Staff Tenure
Family Involve-ment
Accredita-tion Status
Education or Specialized Training of
Staff
Early Childhood Education Indicators
Early Childhood Education Community Indicators: Teacher Education
Child Care Head Start PreK0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
576
1
360
1
504 93 294
Minimal Good Excellent
35% “Ex-cellent”
98% “Excellent”
100% “Excellent”
# of Program
s
N = 1,441 programs 130,132 children
N = 294 programs 54,347 children
N = 95 programs 8,986 children
Source: Collaborative for Children, QualiFind Database, 2011
Early Childhood Education Trend Line – Teacher Education
7/1/2009
9/1/2009
11/1/2009
1/1/2010
3/1/2010
5/1/2010
7/1/2010
9/1/2010
11/1/2010
1/1/2011
3/1/2011
5/1/2011
7/1/2011
9/1/2011
0100200300400500600700800900
1,000
Teachers Rated “Excellent” Slowly Growing
Child Care PreK
Source: Collaborative for Children’s QualiFind Early Childhood Education Database, 2011
564 programs31%
# of Program
s with
Teachers
Rated “Excellent”
891 programs49%
January 2010 – June 2011 represents time that Federal Stimulus Funding Invested in Gulf Coast
Region with focus on improving teacher education and training
Early Childhood Education Community Indicators: Teacher Education
Child Care Head Start PreK0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
35%
4%
41%
53%
29%
39%
12%
67%
20%
Minimal Good ExcellentSource: Collaborative for Children’s QualiFind Early Childhood Education Database, 2011
% of Program
s
N=1,652 N=434N=105
Early Childhood Education Community Indicators: Teacher to Child Ratios
7/1/2009
9/1/2009
11/1/2009
1/1/2010
3/1/2010
5/1/2010
7/1/2010
9/1/2010
11/1/2010
1/1/2011
3/1/2011
5/1/2011
7/1/2011
9/1/2011
050100150200250300350400450
Programs with “Excellent” Teacher-to-Child Ratios Slightly Increasing, then Worsening
Child Care PreK
354 Programs410 Programs
355 Programs
Source: Collaborative for Children’s QualiFind Early Childhood Education Database, 2011
# of Program
s with
“Excellent”
Teacher-to-Child Ratios
Early Childhood Education Community Indicators: Teacher to Child Ratios
Early Childhood Education Community Indicators: Teacher to Child Ratios
Public Policy Recommendations
Public Policy Recommendations
• Includes all systems of ECE• Incorporates observations of programs
Quality Rating System
• Many parents have no choice but to choose low quality programs because it is all that they can afford.
Expand Access to High Quality ECE Programs
• Standards are outdated, reflect “custodial” care rather than high quality early education
Strengthen standards for child care
Source: Center for Houston’s Future Early Childhood Education Advisory Committee
Public Policy Recommendations
• Standards are outdated, reflect “custodial” care rather than high quality early childhood education
Improve Teacher/Child
Ratios
• Funding cuts have impacted the quality of Pre-K programs, more children in classrooms, fewer teachers’ aides
Replace $200M cut from Pre-K
in 2011
• Expand funding so all children who are eligible for Head Start and child care subsidies are served
Fund federal programs so all eligible served
Source: Center for Houston’s Future Early Childhood Education Advisory Committee
Extra Slides
Regulated ECE SystemHead Start Issues
Long way from serving all eligible children – grant vs. eligibility based
Significant strides have been made in improving teacher standards
Opportunity for Improvement: Offer extended day options for working parents
Regulated ECE SystemPublic Prekindergarten Issues
Only one of three ECE systems that has goal of serving all eligible children
State cut funding for Pre-K by $200M in 2011 session
Pre-K only grade that districts have had to apply for portion of funding, not enough for all districts
Opportunity for Improvement: Teacher to Child Ratios, extended day options for working parents
Research on Impact of Pre-KImpact of Oklahoma’s Universally Available, High Quality Prekindergarten Program on School Readiness
Black Hispanic Native American White0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
53%
79%
49% 52%
21%
54%
35%
6%
Letter Word Identification Applied ProblemsSource: Gormley, W.T., et.al (2004). The Effects of Oklahoma’s Universal Pre-K Program on School Readiness. Washington, DC: Center for Research on Children in the United States, Georgetown University.
Evaluation shows significant gains by all sub-groups for children participating in program compared to non-participants.
Test Score Gains
Attended Pre-K, 11,318
Eligible; 3,189
Not Eligible; 2,137
16,644 Kindergarten Students in HISD in 2010-2011Only 13% (2,137) Not Eligible for Pre-Kindergarten
Regulated ECE SystemEvaluation of HISD Pre-K Program, 2011
Source: HISD Research Department, 2011
Regulated ECE SystemEvaluation of HISD Pre-K Program, 2011
Reading Math0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
54 5145 43
61 60
HISD PreK Econ. Disadv - No PreKNon-Econ. Disadv. - No PreK
Standardized Scores: Below 34: Below Average 35 – 65: Average Above 65: Above Average
Standardize
d Score (NCE’s)
Results of Stanford in KindergartenAssessment in English
Reading Math01020304050607080
6572
5361
5362
HISD PreK Econ. Disadv - No PreKNon-Econ. Disadv. - No PreK
Standardized Scores: Below 34: Below Average 35 – 65: Average Above 65: Above Average
Standardize
d Score (NCE’s)
Regulated ECE SystemEvaluation of HISD Pre-K Program, 2011
Results of Aprenda in KindergartenAssessment in Spanish
Regulated ECE SystemChild Care represents huge family expense
“No frills” Monthly Budget – Family of 3 (1 adult, 2 children)
Amount
Housing $768
Food $356
Child Care (High quality) $918
Medical Insurance and out-of-pocket $212
Transportation $285
Other necessities (clothes, furniture, household items) $288
Payroll & Income Tax Payments/Credits -$33
Total (monthly) $2,903
Hourly Wage Needed $17
Annual Income Needed $34,836
Income as % of Poverty Level (2008) 198%
Child Care is 32% of monthly salary
2008 Federal Poverty Guideline for 3-person family: $17,600/yr
Minimum wage was $6.55/hr in 2008, $13,624/yr
Source: Center for Public Policy Priorities, National Center for Children in Poverty, 2009
Regulated ECE SystemChild Care System – Subsidy for Low Income Families
Source: Family Resource Simulator, Houston, Texas, 2008, National Center for Children in Poverty; www.nccp.org
$6/hr
$8/hr
$10/hr
$12/hr
$14/hr
$16/hr
$18/hr
$20/hr
$22/hr
$24/hr
($15,000)
($10,000)
($5,000)
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
Impact of Subsidy on Net Family Resources: Houston
No subsidy Subsidy Breakeven
Reso
urce
s M
inus
Exp
ense
s (a
nnua
l)Loss of subsidy
Impacts ability to hold job
Approximately 1 of 6 eligible families served due to limited resources from child care block grant
Regulated ECE SystemChild Care Issues
Standards reflect “custodial care” mentality, rather than high quality early education
Tuition-based funding system means families make choices on care based on what they can afford
Like Head Start, limited funding for child care subsidies serve few (1 of 6 eligible)
Opportunity for Improvement: Standards for Teacher training, Teacher to Child Ratios,
Demographics – Harris CountyDifference in Demographics Depending on Age
Ages 65-95 Ages 30-46 Ages 0-50%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
69%
42%
22%18%
25%
18%
11%
27%
54%
2%6% 6%
Anglo Black Hispanic Asian/Other
Source: Center for Public Policy Priorities, U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census