Effects of Extended Early Childhood Intervention: Early Adult Findings from the ChildParent Centers

1
Effects of Extended Early Childhood Intervention
Early Adult Findings from the Child-Parent
CentersArthur J. Reynolds, Judy A. Temple,
Suh-Ruu Ou, University of MinnesotaSociety
for Research in Child DevelopmentMarch 30, 2007,
Boston, MA.
2
What is PK-3 Education?

• Programs
• Planned interventions and services beginning
  during any of the first 5 years of life and
  continue up to third grade
• Practices
• Elements of PK-3 programs such as preschool,
  full-day kindergarten, class sizes, parent
  involvement.

3
Rationale for PK-3

• Help sustain effects of preschool and
  kindergarten programs
• Promote better early transitions
• Improve continuity of development
• Greater dosage will help children at risk

4
Key Principles of PK-3 Programs

• Continuity
• Promoting consistency
• Organization
• Staffing, leadership, services
• Instruction
• Aligning curriculum, encouraging communication
• Family support services

5
PK-3 Programs

• Head Start/Follow Through
• Key Home-school resource teacher
• Child-Parent Centers
• Key organization and services
• Abecedarian Project
• Key Home-school resource teacher
• Head Start-Public School Transition
• Key Family service coordinator, services

6

• Child-Parent Centers Foci
• Basic Skills Language, Numeracy, Listening
• Structured Learning Activities
• Language and literacy emphasis
• Field Trips Zoos, Museums, Libraries
• Parent Involvement
• Classroom volunteering
• Parent room activities
• Educational workshops and training
• Home visits and activities
• Organizational Structure
• Staffing patterns and Coordination
• Class size reductions

7
Staffing at Each Site

• Head Teacher
• Parent Resource Teacher
• School-Community Representative
• Teachers and aides
• School nurse, psychologist, social worker
• Preschool class size was 17 to 2
• Kindergarten, school age was 25 to 2
• School-age program had coordinator called
  curriculum-parent resource teacher

8
Child-Parent Centers
9
Johnson Child-Parent Center
10
Characteristics of Study Groups
11
(No Transcript)
12
Remedial and Child Welfare Services for Extended
Intervention Groups
13
Research Questions

• Is Participation in the Child-Parent Centers
  Extended Intervention Program Associated with
  Greater Adult Well-Being?
• Do the Estimated Effects Vary by Child, Family,
  and Program Characteristics?

14
Major Data Sources

• Teacher ratings yearly from K-Grade 7.
• Parent ratings, Grades 2, 6, 11.
• Child ratings yearly from Grades 3-6, 10, 12, and
  at age 22-24.
• Interviews/essays with selected children at
  Grades 6 and 10.
• ITBS test scores yearly starting in K.
• Administrative records from schools, social
  services, child welfare, public health, justice
  system, employers, and higher ed.
• Community attributes from Census data.

15
Major Outcome Measures

• Educational Attainment (by age 23)
• High school completion, years of education,
  college attendance
• Economic Well Being (22-24)
• Quarterly income, employment, in school or
  working, public aid
• Criminal Behavior (18-24)
• Arrests, Convictions, Incarceration
• Health Status Behavior (up to 24)
• Substance use, teen parenthood, health
  insurance, child abuse/neglect, health insurance
• Mental health (22-24)
• Depressive symptoms

16
Sample Sizes and Recovery Rates for Adult Follow
Up
17
Basic Impact Model

• 1. 4 to 6 years of CPC starting in preschool
• vs
• 2a. All others with 0 to 4 years (Contrast 1)
• or
• 2b. CPC preschool/kindergarten only (Contrast 2)
• Covariates (age 0 to 3)
• A. Sex of child, race/ethnicity, 8 family risk
  indicators, child maltreatment report
• B. Kindergarten word analysis (Contrast 2)

18
Educational Attainment

• E-Prog Comp Diff
• HS completion 73.9 65.5 8.4
• Years of ed 11.82 11.51 0.31
• Attend 4-year 16.7 13.1 3.6
• College
• No Group Differences using Contrast 2 Model

19
Economic Status

• E-Prog Comp Diff
• Q income gt 3000 38.3 34.6 3.7
• Full-time employment 42.7 36.4 6.3
• Any public aid 58.8 64.1 -5.3t
• Contrast 2 Program group had gt Full-time
  employment and lt Months of Public Aid

20
Alternative SES Indicators

• E-Prog Comp Diff
• Occu. prestige 30.3 25.9 4.4
• (4 on scale)
• Occu. prestige 2.87 2.61 0.26
• (1-8 scale)
• SES index 5.10 4.75 0.35
• (2-10 scale)

21
Adult Crime

• E-Prog Comp Diff
• Felony arrest 18.4 20.6 -2.2
• Violence arrest 13.9 17.9 -4.0
• Violence convict. 5.5 8. -2.5
• Incarceration/jail 21.7 24.7 -3.0
• No Group Differences using Contrast 2 Model

22
Health Status/Behavior

• E-Prog Comp Diff
• Daily Tobacco 18.4 20.0 -1.6
• Health insurance 69.7 65.8 -3.9
• Depressive symp. 12.4 15.6 -3.2
• Disability status 4.4 7.0 -2.6
• Contrast 2 Program group showed lt disability

23
PK-3 Effects from ECLS-K Cohort

• Selected children with these attributes
• Preschool
• Full-day kindergarten
• School stable K-3
• High parent involvement
• Instructional time in reading
• Teacher certification

24
Rates of Grade Retention by Third Grade in ECLS-K
Cohort

• Total Low-
• sample income
• 1. No PK-3 13 22
• 2. Pre-KADK 7 11
• Stable
• 3. HiPICert 4 9
• HiInst

25
PK-3 Practices (Elements) Hierarchy of Effects
on Child Development

• Preschool participation
• School mobility/stability
• Instructional practices/Teacher quality
• Parent involvement
• Reduced class sizes
• Full-day kindergarten

26
Benefit-Cost Ratios for CPC Program Components
27
Conclusions and Implications

• 1. CPC PK-3 Model Demonstrated Positive Impacts
  on Some Indicators of Adult Well-Being.
• Findings Varied by Comparison Group Approach.
• Impact on Full-Time Employment, Public Aid, and
  Disability Status were most Consistent.
• The CPC Model of PK-3 has Demonstrated relatively
  High Economic Returns.

28
Recommendations

• 1. Disseminate PK-3 Programs and Practices based
  on Key Principles of Effectiveness.
• 2. Use Evidence on Cost-effectiveness to Better
  Prioritize Funding of PK-3 Programs Practices.
• Different Models of PK-3 should be Investigated
  across Contexts.
• 4. More Evidence is Needed on the Relative
  Contributions of PK-3 Practices/Elements.

29
For more information about the Chicago
Longitudinal Study, contact

• Arthur Reynolds, Institute of Child Development
  (ajr_at_umn.edu)
• Judy Temple, Humphrey Institute and Dept. of
  Applied Economics (jtemple_at_umn.edu)
• Suh-Ruu Ou, Institute of Child Development
  (sou_at_umn.edu)
• Funding support provided by
• Foundation for Child Development
• NICHD
• Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
• Web Site www.education.umn.edu/icd/reynoldslab/
• www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/