How effective are pre-Kindergarten programs at improving student accomplishments?


http://www.nber.org/papers/w10452

---- Abstract -----

Prekindergarten programs are expanding rapidly, but to date, evidence on their effects is quite limited. Using rich data from Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, we estimate the effects of prekindergarten on children's school readiness. We find that prekindergarten increases reading and mathematics skills at school entry, but also increases behavioral problems and reduces self-control. Furthermore, the effects of prekindergarten on skills largely dissipate by the spring of first grade, although the behavioral effects do not. Finally, effects differ depending on children's family background and subsequent schooling, with the largest and most lasting academic gains for disadvantaged children and those attending schools with low levels of academic instruction.





http://www.nber.org/digest/mar05/w10452.html



The behavior of disadvantaged children who attended pre-kindergarten was similar to that of the general population of children at school entry. But by spring of the first year, it got somewhat worse. They were in the 69th percentile in terms of problem behaviors. Attending pre-kindergarten, however, does not appear to increase the probability that a disadvantaged child will repeat kindergarten or be held back in first grade. Also, the behavioral effects may differ depending on whether or not the child continues on in kindergarten in the same school as the pre-kindergarten program.

From these findings, the authors conclude that for maximum effectiveness, further expansions of pre-kindergarten should be mainly focused on children who are disadvantaged or who will go on to attend low instruction schools. In 1990, governmental leaders endorsed as the first of eight national educational goals that: "By the year 2000, all children should enter school ready to learn." Nonetheless, the enrollment of disadvantaged children in early education programs remains relatively low - despite an increase in overall state spending on pre-kindergarten of 250 percent to $1.9 billion by the turn of the century.




http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/05_5563_barnett-belfield.pdf



Across these studies, the average initial effect on cognitive abilities is about 0.50 standard deviations, roughly equivalent to 7 or 8 points on an IQ test with a 100-point scale and a standard deviation of 15. Average effects on self-esteem,
motivation, and social behavior are also positive, though somewhat smaller. In what follows, we review the best evidence to summarize what is known about how various programs—family support, child care, Head Start, public preschool, and several very intensive educational interventions (which have yet to be implemented on a large scale)—affect children’s skills.

Studies find that typical center-based child care (as opposed to home or other types of care) improves cognitive abilities by about 0.10–0.33 standard deviations. Most estimates are in the 0.10–0.15 range for cognitive and language development. Evidence is mixed on whether effects are larger when care begins before age three. Some nonexperimental studies have found that child care can increase antisocial behavior at school entry, with effect sizes of about 0.08–0.20.

The evidence is mixed with respect to whether effects are larger for disadvantaged
children than for those from more advantaged homes. Some studies have found that
higher program quality, measured in various ways, may lead to small improvements
(0.04–0.08) in cognitive and language ability and in behavior.

Though early child care and education have positive initial effects on cognitive abilities, those effects tend to decline over time and in many studies are negligible several years after children leave the programs. The fade-out is most salient for general cognitive abilities, or aptitude, as measured by IQ and
similar measures.


http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol5no3.pdf


Long-Term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs: Analysis and Recommendations


1. What are the long-term outcomes of early childhood programs?
The evidence for long-term benefits in the evaluation literature is not
uniformly positive, so questions are often raised about what outcomes can
reliably be produced by different program types.


2. What can be learned from the experience of the past three decades to help design more effective programs?

If different programs do yield different long-term results, then perhaps those varying results can provide lessons to guide program design and to
help policymakers prioritize investments among competing program types.

3. Can early childhood programs provided in a routine manner on a large scale
yield the expected benefits?

If the level of funding and quality of services provided by the large-scale public programs do not measure up to the quality of the carefully designed, model programs that yielded long-term outcomes, perhaps the public programs will not be able to produce the same positive outcomes.

Generally, the research indicates that participation in early childhood programs
can result in IQ gains of about eight points immediately after completion of the program. The IQ advantage that the children who attended the early childhood program
have over those in the control group usually persists until the children enter school, but it diminishes as they progress through the early grades. In most studies, the IQ scores of the two groups converge: the IQ scores of participating children tend to drop a little, while the scores of the control children rise in response to the stimulation they encounter in the school environment.

----


It looks to me as if any advantage offered by pre-K programs are likely to be
(a) small (b) short term, (c) expensive, and (d) unreliable.


So, with this and more professional literature in hand, what has the Lancaster ISD "Team of Eight" decided about pre-K?

More to come.

Ten Mile Crook

T.I.G.E.R.s, others of Lancaster, and wanna-be developers ought to check out the new blog on the block: The Ten Mile Crook. Lots of back-story about the Uniform Development Code, city politics, and why Landon and Lewis were so important (or not) in recent history.

Check it out.

Security in LISD

The AEIS data on all districts includes a budget line for "security". It's up to each district what sorts of things are charged off to this budget line. The payroll for district police, for instance, almost certainly is in all districts. But the ID badges that may (or in some districts, may not) be used to control access to campus may be charged off to "security" or to an attendance or overhead budget. So it's not always an exact apples-to-apples comparison to compare security budgets from one district to another or even within the district from one year to another.

Let's do so anyway. Having data is always better than not having the data. (And it's certainly better than not bothering to even look for the data.)

Since 1996, in Texas overall, spending for school security is up from 0.4% of the budget to 0.7% in 2006. But it's actually been holding fairly steady between 0.6% and 0.7% for the past 4 years.

DeSoto, by contrast, somehow manages to devote about 0.3% of their budget to security. Red Oak spent about 0.8% last year, down from a high of 0.9% in 2002-03. Duncanville has budgeed increasing shares since 2000, going from a Texas-typical share of 0.6% in 2000 to a local record-high percentage of 1.0% in 2005-06.

In Lancaster the district began the AEIS reporting era, in 1996, with 1.1% of the budget devoted to security. That compared to a state average of 0.4% the same year. The share climbed slowly thru 2002. Then for the year ending 2003 the security budget in LISD jumped to 1.7% of all expenses.

Looking at it another way, state wide averages showed most Texas districts spending just over $20 per enrolled student on security in 1996 and doubling that to nearly $50 dollars in 2006. DeSoto went from $9/student to $16/s. Duncanville from $17 to $69/student.

Lancaster was spending $45/student in 1996. By the peak in 2003, the LISD was spending $103/student on "security" - consistantly over twice the state average for the same years.

But after Dr Lewis arrived, the budget turned around. In the 2004-05 year, budgeted spending for security dropped, back down to 1.5% and down to $99 per student in 05 and $87 /student in '06.

This might mean more money in the classroom for teaching, books and that stuff.

This might actually be an accomplishment for Dr Lewis.

Or.

It could be that by turning a blind eye to known security needs and issues, and cutting vital funds to critical programs, LISD relaxed attitude and loss of focus on proper security has resulted in the recent spate of thefts reported in local media.

You might spin this either way.

I'm actually inclined to think this might be one of Dr Lewis's accomplishments. I'm not a fan of any school systems having a distinct police force. (1) Or, if they DO, why not a separate fire department and water treatment plant, too? There's something so wrong with the regular city cops that we can't allow them into the schools? When the district has a ten-year history of OVERspending (in comparison to the state and other local districts) on a budget line, and it's slowly turning around, I am somewhat predisposed to hope it's an indication of progress.

On the other hand, that assumes that fights, vandalism and truancy are held to at least a no-worse level of misery.

This would be easier to determine if the district followed state laws regarding record keeping, and public disclosure of such records, on fights, truancy, etc.

But anyway, as a start, the focus on reducing unnecessary expenses is encouraging.

Is security unnecessary?

You tell me.


(1) Ditto DART. You tell me we must employ a gun-toting uniformed officer of the law to keep people from riding the light rail between the VA and Reunion Arena without paying full fare, okay fine. But he is MORE necessary in that capacity than in having the same cop on the city payroll to enforce laws against, oh I dunno, rape or sumthin'? I'm missing some subtle part of the economic reasoning, there.

TRS updates.

Well, I promised to keep you posted on the TRS situation.

I haven't posted anything recently.


Maybe I've had some e-mail from Austin about the superintendent of LISD, but I'm keeping it all secret for reasons of my own, which are ALSO secret.


Or maybe the guy in Austin in charge of TRS hasn't responded.

Maybe I'm a lazy incompetent hack who boasts about what I know but am just too bored with my hometown to share my information with others.


Or maybe something else is going on.


I guess you'll have to guess.