Investing in Effective Universal Pre-K:
West Virginia’s Path to Success
Steve Barnett, PhD
Why invest in Universal Pre-K?
 First 5 years lay foundations for later success:
 Language and academic abilities
 Social development and character
 The window for change does not close after age 5,
but “catch up” is costly
 Universal Pre-K reaches all children to enhance
long-term learning and yield high economic returns
Potential Gains from ECE Investments
Educational Success and Economic Productivity
 Achievement test scores
 Special education and grade repetition
 High school graduation
 Behavior problems, delinquency, and crime
 Employment, earnings, and welfare dependency
 Smoking, drug use, depression
Decreased Costs to Government
 Schooling costs
 Social services costs
 Crime costs
 Health care costs (teen pregnancy and smoking)
Economic Returns to Pre-K
for Disadvantaged Children
(In 2006 dollars, 3% discount rate)
Cost
Benefits
B/C
 Perry Pre-K
$17,599
$284,086
16
 Abecedarian
$70,697
$176,284
2.5
 Chicago
$ 8,224
$ 83,511
10
Barnett, W. S., & Masse, L. N. (2007). Early childhood program design and economic returns: Comparative benefit-cost analysis of the Abecedarian program and
policy implications, Economics of Education Review, 26, 113-125; Belfield, C., Nores, M., Barnett, W.S., & Schweinhart, L.J. (2006). The High/Scope Perry
Preschool Program. Journal of Human Resources, 41(1), 162-190; Temple, J. A., & Reynolds, A. J. (2007). Benefits and costs of investments in preschool
education: Evidence from the Child-Parent Centers and related programs. Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 126-144.
Understanding Effect Sizes (ES)
•Comparing achievement effects across studies
requires conversion to a common effect size
•ES of 1.0 roughly equals the achievement gap, so
•Effect size of .50 closes ½ the achievement gap
•For long-term achievement even effect sizes of
.20 yield high economic returns
ECE Programs 0-5 in the US:
Impacts in 123 studies since 1960
Effects (1sd)= percetn of ach. gap
All Designs
HQ Designs
HQ Programs
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Treatment End
Ages 5-10
Age at Follow-Up
Age >10
What determines cognitive gains?
Time of Follow-Up
Research Design Quality
Negative
Positive
Intentional Teaching
Individualization
Positive
Positive
(small groups and 1 on 1)
Comprehensive Services
n= 123 Studies
Negative
Effectiveness follows quality:
Pre-K achievement gains
CPC
Language na
Tulsa 8 St
na
.26
Head Start
.09 (.13)
Math
.33
.36
.32
.12 (.18)
Literacy
na
.99
.80
.25 (.34)
Effects in standard deviations. Figures in parentheses are adjusted for
noncompliance.
Results from the Newest Studies
• Tennessee: Positive gains in randomized trial as well
• Rhode Island: Positive gains for all, larger gains for poor
• Boston Pre-K—strong effects on language, literacy,
math, and executive function
• Arkansas: reading and math grade 2, reading at grade 3
• Oklahoma: Grade 3 gains on attention and math; more
former pre-K take tests so underestimate effects on tests.
• New Jersey: Grade 5 effects on reading, math, grade ret.
• Chicago full-day larger effects on language and math
West Virginia Pre-K Enrollment Trends
(62% in 2012)
West Virginia Pre-K Expenditure Trends
How Does West Virginia Compare (2011)?
•
•
•
•
5th for enrollment at age 4
3rd for 4s with Head Start (> 80%)
7th for 3s with Head Start (20%)
8th for state funding per child
– Considerably above average
• 8 of 10 benchmarks for quality standards
• 2013 all new teachers required to have BA
Keys to Education Quality
•
•
•
•
•
•
High standards and sufficient funding
Balanced—Cognitive, social, emotional
Implemented as designed
Well-trained, adequately paid staff
Strong supervision and monitoring
Use data to inform practice
Building Pre-K Quality: NJ’s example
• Serves all 3 and 4 yr. olds in 31 high-poverty cities
• Certified Teachers paid public school salaries whether
public or private
• 6 hour educational day plus wrap-around full day/year
• Maximum class size of 15 students
• State funding per child for a full school day
• Evidence-based curricula
• Most served by private providers under contract
• State Dept. of Ed. continuous improvement system
Continuous Improvement Cycle
First Develop Standards
Measure and
Assess Progress
Analyze and Plan
Implement –
Professional
Development and
Technical
Assistance
NJ Raised Quality in Public and Private
60
47.4
50
40
34.6
32.2
27.7
30
Percentage of Classrooms
19.9
16.0
20
10
12.1
4.2
3.9
0.0
1.7
0.2
0
1.00-1.99
2.00-2.99
3.00-3.99
00 Total (N = 232)
4.00-4.99
5.00-5.99
6.00-7.00
08 Total (N = 407)
ECERS-R Score (1=minimal, 3=poor 5= good 7=excellent)
Results of Increased Quality in NJ Pre-K
•
•
•
•
•
Gains in language, literacy, math
2 years have twice the effect of 1
2 years closed 40% of the readiness gap
Effects sustained through 2nd grade
Grade repetition cut in half at 2nd grade
How Should West Virginia Move Forward?
 Continuously Improve Quality
 Measure teaching effectiveness and child progress
 Implement professional development based on results
 Partner with all Head Starts to raise quality to same standards
 Increase Intensity and Duration
 Full-day of engaged time, 2nd half not just lunch & nap
 Start more children at age 3
 Increase Quality K-3 with Continuous Improvement Sys
 Ensure State and District Capacity for Coaching and TA
Conclusions
 Quality Pre-K can be a good public investment
 Increased productivity and decreased social problems
 High-quality state pre-K is producing strong results
 Quality requires high standards, adequate funding
and a relentless focus on continuous improvement
 Quantity—full-day—matters too
 Include K-3 in a continuous improvement system
 West Virginia can expect high economic returns to
its continued investment in quality pre-K
References
1. Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333, 975-978.
2. Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education
interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579-620.
3. Frede, E. C., & Barnett, W. S. (2011). New Jersey’s Abbott pre-k program: A model for the nation. In E. Zigler,
W. Gilliam, & W. S. Barnett (Eds.), The pre-k debates: current controversies and issues (pp. 191-196). Baltimore:
Brookes Publishing.
4. Gormley, W., Phillips, D., Newmark, K., Welti, K., & Adelstein, S. (2012). Social-emotional effects of early
childhood education programs in Tulsa. Child Development, 82, 2095-2109.
5. Hill, C., Gormley, W., & Adelstein, S. (2012). Do the short-term effects of a strong preschool program persist?
Working Paper No. 18. Washington, DC: Georgetown Unversity, CROCUS.
6. Lipsey, M., Farran, D., Bilbrey, C., Hofer, K., & Dong, N. (2011). Initial results of the evaluation of the
Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K Program. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.
7. Neidell, M., & Waldfogel, J. (2010). Cognitive and noncognitive peer effects in early education. The Review of
Economics and Statistics, 92(3), 562-576.
8. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B. (2004). The final report: Effective preschool education. Technical paper 12. London: Institute of Education, University of London.