Policy Implication and Research on Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effect

Participation in early care and education (ECE) programs has become the norm for this nation’s three- and four-year olds. Public investments in such programs have been promoted on the grounds that they can produce high rates of return in the form of academic outcomes, greater employment rates, and reduced crime. Yet, potential gains are not always realized, as benefits and costs depend on who is served by the program, the activities provided, and the resources required producing such activities (Blau, 2007). This study reviews the basis for claims related to the costs, benefits, and long-term effects of ECE programs, including effects on children’s learning and development and parental earnings. It also summarizes what is known about the extent to which variations in child and program characteristics and the community context alter the magnitude of benefits from ECE, as well as policy choices that could increase educational gains and other benefits, thereby increasing the return on public investments In 1965, just 5% of three-year olds and 16% of four-year olds were enrolled in some type of early care and education (ECE) program.

Generally, preschool enrollment rates are lowest for children in families whose income is above the poverty line but in the lower half of income distribution. Children who attend preschool programs have widely varying experiences. Public programs education), monitoring and accountability, actual teaching practices, and effects on children’s learning and development. Teacher qualifications in state pre-K programs range from little more than a high school diploma to a four-year college degree with specialized training in early childhood education. Head Start has national standards for program structure and operation. Private programs vary greatly as well (Gorey, 2001). State child care regulations are weak everywhere, but many centers exceed standards, even as others violate them. With programs varying so greatly, widely varied effects on children are to be expected.

stated curriculum was an organized framework that delineated the content children were to learn; it was a process through which children achieved identified curricular goals; it was what teachers did to help children achieve those goals; and it was the context in which teaching and learning occurred. The curriculum of any program should be an important aspect to structure the learning environment. (Guralnick & Bennett, (Eds.), 1987). Stated: “An important contribution to the field of child development and early childhood education was the creation of Guidelines for Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum and Assessment in Programs Serving Children. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association Early of Childhood Specialists in the State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) jointly developed these guidelines to assist teachers and practices; and advocate for more appropriate approaches (White & Casto, 1985).” These national organizations called for schooling to place greater emphasis on: (a) Active, hands-on learning; (b) Conceptual learning that leads to understanding along with acquisition of basic skills; (c) Meaningful, relevant learning experiences; (d) Interactive teaching and cooperative learning; and (e) A broad range of relevant content, integrated across traditional subject matter divisions. Stated the National Research Center examined model programs with long-term effectiveness and the following were found to be present in most programs: 1. Curriculum content and learning processes that cultivated school related knowledge with a heavy focus on language development; 2. Qualified teaching staff that used reflective teaching practices aided by highly qualified supervisors; 3. Low child-teacher ratios and small class sizes; 4. Intense and coherent programming; and 5. Collaborative relationships with parents.

The 2012 report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation shared the latest Kids Count survey that showed 16.4 million children were living in poverty in the United States with 26% of children in Tennessee living in poverty (McKey, et. al., 1985). In the United States the field of education is becoming increasingly attuned to the importance of preschool programs. Educators agree such programs facilitate children’s academic and social adjustment while contributing to their acquisition of the skills and knowledge associated with academic success (Nelson, et. al., 2003). The statistics indicate a continued need for preschool programs for at-risk children. When children begin school already behind they tend to continue to fall further and further behind. High quality early childhood education could help close this gap. One component of America’s Goals 2000 was that every child would come to school ready to learn; unfortunately, that element has not been the case for millions of American children. Many of the nation’s children have

reared in poverty entered school with poor health and nutrition, low self-esteem, attention problems, violent experiences, and low expectations. Consequently many of these children have come to school with their own agenda which has focused on survival and attainment of basic needs (Aos, et. al., 2004).

A substantial body of research is available regarding the effects of preschool education on young children’s learning and development, including long-term outcomes. Much of the evidence is from rigorous studies, and findings have been replicated with considerable variations in program design, populations served, and social context. These studies provide a sound basis for conclusions about the benefits of publicly funded preschool education, and they can help inform key decisions about who to serve and how programs should be designed. Based on a detailed and comprehensive review of the evidence the following conclusions and recommendations are offered many different preschool programs have been shown to produce positive effects on children’s learning and development, but those effects vary in size and persistence by type of program. Increasing public investment in effective preschool education programs for all children can produce substantial educational, social, and economic benefits.

Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., & Pennucci, A. (2004). Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Barnett, W.S., Hustedt, J.T., Friedman, A.H., Boyd, J.S., & Ainsworth, P. (2007). The state of preschool 2007: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, National Institute for Early Education Research. Belfield, C. (2008). Unpublished analyses of enrollment in any type of center-based program for children who turned 4 (or 3) prior to September of the current school year using data from the National Household Survey of Education, 2005. Blau, D. (2007). Unintended consequences of child care regulation. Labour Economics, 14, pp. 513-538. Pianta, R., & Barnett, W.S. (2005). Pre-Kindergarten in Eleven States: NCEDL’s Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten & Study of State-Wide Early Education Programs (SWEEP). Chapel Hill, N.C.: NCEDL. Gorey, K. M. (2001). Early childhood education: A meta-analytic affirmation of the short- and long-term benefits of educational opportunity. School Psychology Quarterly, 16 (1), pp. 9-30. Guralnick, M.J., & Bennett, F.C. (Eds.), (1987). The effectiveness of early intervention for at-risk and handicapped children. New York, NY: Academy Press. Karoly, L.A., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., Zellman, G., Perlman, M., & Fernyhough, L. (2008). Nature and quality of early care and education for California’s preschool-age children: Results from the California Preschool Study. Santa Monica, CA: Rand. McKey, R.H., Condelli, L., Ganson, H., Barrett, B.J., McConkey, C., & Planz, M.C. (1985). The impact of Head Start on children, families, and communities. Washington, DC: Head Start Evaluation Synthesis and Utilization Project. Nelson , G., Westhues, A., & MacLeod, J. (2003). A meta-analysis of longitudinal research on preschool prevention programs for children. Prevention and Treatment, 6, pp. 1-34. Ramey, C.T., Bryant, D.M., & Suarez, T. M. (1985). Preschool compensatory education and the modifiability of intelligence: A critical review. In D. Detterman (Ed.) Current topics in human intelligence (pp.247-296). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. White, K., & Casto, G. (1985). An integrative review of early intervention efficacy studies with at-risk children: Implications for the handicapped. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 5, pp. 7-31.

(Ph.D. Education), Assistant Professor in Commerce, Guru Dronacharya College of Education, Bhuna