Early Childhood Education
Getting it Right from the Beginning
2012 Community Indicators
Symposium
Human Capital Development and Education:
Early Childhood, K-12, Workforce Preparedness
February 10, 2012
Early Childhood Education (ECE)
Overview of Presentation
Why is this Important?
What makes up the ECE
System?
Early Childhood
Education (ECE)
How do you measure
Quality and Impact?
ECE Community Indicators
and Policy
Recommendations
Why is this Important?
Why is this Important?
Number of Children in Region Growing Rapidly
Brazoria
Chambers
Fort Bend
Galveston
Harris
Liberty
Montgomery
Waller
553,414
600,000
500,000
383,397
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Source: Annie E. Casey Kids Count Data Book,
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
0
Why is this Important?
Increase in Women in Workforce
100%
90%
80%
52% 51%
70%
60% 59% 57% 56% 55% 54%
61%
62%
63%
67%
72%
60%
50%
40%
30%
46% 48% 49%
45%
44%
43%
41%
20%
40%
37% 38% 39%
28% 33%
10%
0%
1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Women
Men
Why is this Important?
Over Half of Young Children in Care of
Other Adults while Parents Working
Children
at Home
43%
237,968
young children
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community
Survey, 2005-2009 average
Children
in Care of
Others
(Working
Parents)
57%
315,446
young children
Why is this Important?
Science, Research, ROI
Infant Brain
Development
ROI on
Children,
Families
Longitudinal
Research on
Impact of High
Quality ECE
ROI on
Community
Science and Research
Nature 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 Research
Nature and Nurture: Disparities in vocabulary
begin at 18 months, significant by 36 months
Cumulative Vocabulary (Words)
1400
1200
1000
College Educated
800
600
Working Class Parents
400
200
Low Income Parents
0
0
16
20
24
Child’s Age (Months)
Source: Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences
in the everyday experiences of young American children.
28
32
36
Longitudinal Research
Abecedarian Project provided high quality child care
in early years, tracked children through adulthood
80%
70%
67%
66%
60%
51%
50%
40%
36%
34%
30%
20%
13%
10%
0%
Never Repeated Grade
High School Graduation
by age 19
Students in High Quality ECE
College Attendance
Control Group
Return on Investment
Lifetime Effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool Study
Through Age 40 Showed 16 to 1 ROI
28%
IQ of 90+ at 5 years
67%
60%
Graduated HS
77%
40%
Earned $20K/yr. at 40
60%
55%
Arrested 5+ times by 40
36%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Control Group
Source: HighScope Perry Preschool Study: Lifetime Effects: The
HighScope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40 (2005)
Program Group
Return on Investment
60-80% of long-term benefits of quality
early education go to society
Benefits to Individual
Increased earnings
20%
40%
80%
60%
Benefits to Society
Abecedarian
Study
Crime-cost Savings
Reduced Special Education
and Welfare
Increased Income Taxes
Perry
Preschool
Study
Return on Investment
Higher ROI for Early Investments
Source: James J. Heckman, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate in Economics,
University of Chicago, 2008
Return on Investment
Higher ROI for Early Investments
“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.”
Source: James J. Heckman, Ph.D., Nobel Laureate in Economics,
University of Chicago, 2008
Return on Investment
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cumulative Percent of Public
Spending on Children 0 - 18
% of Brain growth per year, 0 – 18 years
Public Expenditures Compared to Brain Development
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Age
% of Total Brain Growth
% of Public Expenditure
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.
What makes up the Early
Childhood Education
System?
The ECE System: 5 Components
Home Care, Informal Care, Child Care,
Pre-K and Head Start
Cared for by
Early
Relatives, Friends,
0.0%
Family Members
21.6%
Cared for by
Parents*
43.4%
Prekindergarten
9.8%
Early Childhood
Education System
35.0%
Child Care (center/
home-based)
23.6%
Pre-kindergarten
9.8%
Head Start
1.6%
* This could also be another family member or other person
who has custody and primary responsibility for a child.
Unregulated Care
Parents, Relatives, Neighbors, Friends – 65%
Regulated ECE
35%of all Children, 0-5, in Texas Gulf Coast
participate in regulated ECE System
Systems
# of
within ECE
Children*
Child Care
(center/
home-based)
132,143
Prekindergarten
54,037
Head Start
Total in
Region
8,822
195,002
*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.
Within Regulated System. . .
Head
Start
4.6%
Pre-K
28.0%
Child
Care
67.4%*
Regulated ECE
Three systems
Child Care
Head Start
Pre-K
• Most children
• Lowest standards
• Highest cost to
families
• Limited subsidies
• Serves all ages, birth
to after school care
•
•
•
•
• All eligible children
served
• Teachers highly
educated, no standard
for ratios
• No charge to eligible
children
• Serves mainly 4 year
olds, some 3s
Fewest children
High standards
No charge to families
Serves 3-4 year olds
Regulated ECE System
Head 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 System
Head Start – Children Eligible, Children Served
700,000
660,912
601,319
1 of 9 eligible children
served
600,000
500,000
400,000
293,539
303,161
Access based on first
come, first served
300,000
200,000
97,894
100,000
Different than Social
Security, Medicare
67,591
48,013
35,390
0
California
Texas
Eligible
New York
Florida
Served
Source: Head Start Program Fact Sheet, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, 2009 Data; Annie E. Casey Kids
Count, 2009 Data
High level of
accountability
The Regulated ECE System
Public 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 System
Child 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
Regulated ECE System
Child Care System – Cost of Care in Texas
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
Average annual cost of child care centers rival cost of
Texas Public University
$6,450
$5,350
$7,850
$6,600
$7,743
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Home-based Child Center-based Child
Care
Care
Infant
Preschool
Source: “Child Care in America: Fact 2011, National Association
of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies, 2011
Annual Tuition Public University
College
How do you Measure
Quality and Impact in ECE?
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECE
Two Approaches
Process
Environment
Structural
Director,
Teacher
Education
Use of
Curriculum
Teacher to
Child Ratios,
Group Sizes
Professional
Development
Adherence to
State
Regulations
Assessment
of Child
Development
National
Accreditation
• 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 ECE
State 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 ECE
Example: Process Indicator, College Bound from Birth
Assessment of Quality of Classroom Environment
% of Classrooms in Low, Minimal, Good/Excellent Categories Over Time
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
46%
31%
10%
77%
20%
23%
0%
10%
0%
23%
0%
Inadequate
Minimal
Good+
Baseline- 2008
Inadequate
Minimal
2011
Good+
Early Childhood Education
Example: Structural Indicator, Teacher Education
45%
40%
35%
35%
Child Care Programs in
Texas Gulf Coast
30%
40%
25%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Programs with Teachers
at "Excellent" Rating
Source: Collaborative for Children,
QualiFind Database, 2011
Programs with Teachers
at "Good" Rating
Programs with Teachers
at "Minimal" Rating
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECE
Step Toward QRIS
• Research-based
• Oregon Model
• “Consumer
Report” layout
Collect data
• Self-Report
• State and
National data
Established
Indicators
Source: Collaborative for Children,
QualiFind Database, 2011
• Excellent
• Good
• Minimum
Standards
Rate programs
Update
•
•
•
On-line
updating
Confirm
Validate sample
Measuring Quality, Impact in ECE
QualiFind Indicators
Education
or
Specialized
Training of
Staff
Teacher :
Child ratio,
Group
Sizes
Licensing
Compliance
QualiFind
Staff
Tenure
Accreditation Status
Family
Involvement
Early Childhood
Education Indicators
Early Childhood Education
Community Indicators: Teacher Education
# of Programs
N = 1,441 programs
130,132 children
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
N = 95 programs
8,986 children
N = 294 programs
54,347 children
504
93
294
35%
“Excellent”
98%
“Excellent”
100%
“Excellent”
360
576
1
1
Child Care
Head Start
Minimal
Source: Collaborative for Children,
QualiFind Database, 2011
Good
PreK
Excellent
Early Childhood Education
Trend Line – Teacher Education
# of Programs with Teachers
Rated “Excellent”
Teachers Rated “Excellent” Slowly Growing
1,000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
564 programs
31%
891 programs
49%
January 2010 – June 2011 represents time that
Federal Stimulus Funding Invested in Gulf Coast
Region with focus on improving teacher
education and training
Child Care
PreK
Source: Collaborative for Children’s QualiFind Early Childhood Education Database, 2011
Early Childhood Education
Community Indicators: Teacher Education
Standards Matter
Head Start, Pre-K
High
Child Care Low
Access to Resources Matters
Stimulus
Quality Imp.
Indicator Moving in Right Direction
Child Care
Market Forces?
Early Childhood Education
% of Programs
Community Indicators: Teacher to Child Ratios
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
N=1,652
12%
N=105
N=434
20%
67%
53%
35%
39%
41%
29%
4%
Child Care
Head Start
Minimal
Good
Source: Collaborative for Children’s
QualiFind Early Childhood Education Database, 2011
Excellent
PreK
Early Childhood Education
# of Programs with “Excellent”
Teacher-to-Child Ratios
Community Indicators: Teacher to Child Ratios
Programs with “Excellent” Teacher-to-Child Ratios
Slightly Increasing, then Worsening
500
410 Programs
354 Programs
355 Programs
400
300
200
100
0
Child Care
PreK
Source: Collaborative for Children’s QualiFind Early Childhood Education Database, 2011
Early Childhood Education
Community Indicators: Teacher to Child Ratios
Standards Matter
Head Start High
Child Care, Pre-K Low
Resources Matter
Pre-K cut in funding
Child Care – fewer
resources w/recession
Indicator Moving in Wrong Direction
Economic pressure
toward min. standards
Cuts to ISD budgets –
more children/class
Public Policy
Recommendations
Public Policy Recommendations
Quality Rating
System
• Includes all systems of ECE
• Incorporates observations of programs
Expand Access
to High Quality
ECE Programs
• Many parents have no choice but to choose
low quality programs because it is all that they
can afford.
Strengthen
standards for
child care
• Standards are outdated, reflect “custodial”
care rather than high quality early education
Source: Center for Houston’s Future Early Childhood
Education Advisory Committee
Public Policy Recommendations
Improve
Teacher/Child
Ratios
• Standards are outdated, reflect “custodial”
care rather than high quality early childhood
education
Replace $200M
cut from Pre-K
in 2011
• Funding cuts have impacted the quality of PreK programs, more children in classrooms,
fewer teachers’ aides
Fund federal
programs so all
eligible served
• Expand funding so all children who are eligible
for Head Start and child care subsidies are
served
Source: Center for Houston’s Future Early Childhood
Education Advisory Committee
Extra Slides
Regulated ECE System
Head 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 System
Public 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-K
Impact of Oklahoma’s Universally Available, High Quality
Prekindergarten Program on School Readiness
90%
Evaluation shows significant gains by all
sub-groups for children participating in
program compared to non-participants.
79%
80%
Test Score Gains
70%
60%
54%
53%
50%
40%
30%
20%
52%
49%
35%
21%
6%
10%
0%
Black
Hispanic
Letter Word Identification
Source: 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.
Native American
Applied Problems
White
Regulated ECE System
Evaluation of HISD Pre-K Program, 2011
16,644 Kindergarten Students in HISD in 2010-2011
Only 13% (2,137) Not Eligible for Pre-Kindergarten
Attended
Pre-K, 11,318
Did Not
Attend,
5,326
Source: HISD Research Department, 2011
Not Eligible, 2,137
Eligible, 3,189
Regulated ECE System
Standardized Score (NCE’s)
Evaluation of HISD Pre-K Program, 2011
Results of Stanford in Kindergarten
Assessment in English
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
61
54
45
Reading
HISD PreK
60
51
43
Math
Econ. Disadv - No PreK
Non-Econ. Disadv. - No PreK
Standardized Scores:
Below 34: Below Average 35 – 65: Average Above 65: Above Average
Regulated ECE System
Standardized Score (NCE’s)
Evaluation of HISD Pre-K Program, 2011
Results of Aprenda in Kindergarten
Assessment in Spanish
80
72
65
53
60
53
61
62
40
20
0
Reading
HISD PreK
Math
Econ. Disadv - No PreK
Non-Econ. Disadv. - No PreK
Standardized Scores:
Below 34: Below Average 35 – 65: Average Above 65: Above Average
Regulated ECE System
Child Care represents huge family expense
“No frills” Monthly Budget –
Family of 3 (1 adult, 2 children)
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
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)
Hourly Wage Needed
Annual Income Needed
Income as % of Poverty Level (2008)
Source: Center for Public Policy Priorities,
National Center for Children in Poverty, 2009
Amount
$2,903
$17
$34,836
198%
Regulated ECE System
Child Care System – Subsidy for Low Income Families
Approximately
1 of 6 eligible
families served
due to limited
resources from
child care
block grant
Resources Minus Expenses (annual)
Impact of Subsidy on Net Family Resources: Houston
$15,000
Loss of
subsidy
$10,000
$5,000
$0
($5,000)
Impacts
ability to
hold job
($10,000)
($15,000)
No subsidy
Source: Family Resource Simulator, Houston, Texas, 2008,
National Center for Children in Poverty; www.nccp.org
Subsidy
Breakeven
Regulated ECE System
Child 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 County
Difference in Demographics Depending on Age
80%
70%
69%
60%
54%
50%
42%
40%
25% 27%
30%
20%
10%
22%
18%
11%
18%
6%
2%
6%
0%
Ages 65-95
Anglo
Ages 30-46
Black
Hispanic
Source: Center for Public Policy Priorities, U.S. Census
Bureau, 2010 Census
Ages 0-5
Asian/Other