Jade Marcus Jenkins

Head Start at Ages 3 and 4 Versus Head Start Followed by State Pre-K: Which Is More Effective?

As policymakers contemplate expanding preschool opportunities for low-income children, one possibility is to fund 2, rather than 1 year of Head Start for children at ages 3 and 4. Another option is to offer 1 year of Head Start followed by 1 year of pre-K. We ask which of these options is more effective. We use data from the Oklahoma pre-K study to examine these two “pathways” into kindergarten using regression discontinuity to estimate the effects of each age 4 program, and propensity score weighting to address selection. We find that children attending Head Start at age 3 develop stronger prereading skills in a high-quality pre-kindergarten at age 4 compared with attending Head Start at age 4. Pre-K and Head Start were not differentially linked to improvements in children’s prewriting skills or premath skills. This suggests that some impacts of early learning programs may be related to the sequencing of learning experiences to more academic programming.

Early Childhood Development as Economic Development Considerations for State-Level Policy Innovation and Experimentation

Research from numerous disciplines provides support for the critical importance of early childhood development in economic development. The long-term individual and societal benefits of investing resources during early childhood make it an unrivaled opportunity for policy. Over the past 30 years, states have gained increasing control over the major policies for families with young children through the devolution of federal programs to states. States have also expanded their innovation and adoption of early childhood education programs during this time, such as prekindergarten. Policy makers need to understand how the differences in these policies across states affect policy effectiveness and child well-being, yet there is limited research, especially during early childhood. This article outlines the federally-devolved and state-developed policies for families with young children and the dimensions and characteristics that vary between states, and concludes with implications for research in the experimental arena of state-level policy.

Fadeout in an early mathematics intervention: Constraining content or preexisting differences?

A robust finding across research on early childhood educational interventions is that the treatment effect diminishes over time, with children not receiving the intervention eventually catching up to children who did. One popular explanation for fadeout of early mathematics interventions is that elementary school teachers may not teach the kind of advanced content that children are prepared for after receiving the intervention, so lower-achieving children in the control groups of early mathematics interventions catch up to the higher-achieving children in the treatment groups. An alternative explanation is that persistent individual differences in childrens long-term mathematical development result more from relatively stable preexisting differences in their skills and environments than from the direct effects of previous knowledge on later knowledge. We tested these 2 hypotheses using data from an effective preschool mathematics intervention previously known to show a diminishing treatment effect over time. We compared the intervention group to a matched subset of the control group with a similar mean and variance of scores at the end of treatment. We then tested the relative contributions of factors that similarly constrain learning in children from treatment and control groups with the same level of posttreatment achievement and preexisting differences between these 2 groups to the fadeout of the treatment effect over time. We found approximately 72% of the fadeout effect to be attributable to preexisting differences between children in treatment and control groups with the same level of achievement at posttest. These differences were fully statistically attenuated by childrens prior academic achievement. (PsycINFO Database Record

Do High-Quality Kindergarten and First-Grade Classrooms Mitigate Preschool Fadeout?

ABSTRACT Prior research shows that short-term effects from preschool may disappear, but little research has considered which environmental conditions might sustain academic advantages from preschool into elementary school. Using secondary data from two preschool experiments, we investigate whether features of elementary schools, particularly advanced content and high-quality instruction in kindergarten and first grade, as well as professional supports to coordinate curricular instruction, reduce fadeout. Across both studies, our measures of instruction did not moderate fadeout. However, results indicated that targeted teacher professional supports substantially mitigated fadeout between kindergarten and first grade but that this was not mediated through classroom quality. Future research should investigate the specific mechanisms through which aligned preschool-elementary school curricular approaches can sustain the benefits of preschool programs for low-income children.

Are Content-Specific Curricula Differentially Effective in Head Start or State Prekindergarten Classrooms?

Head Start and state prekindergarten (pre-K) programs can boost the school readiness of low-income children through the use of effective preschool curricula. Encouraging results from some studies suggest that children who receive targeted or content-specific curricular supplements (e.g., literacy or math) during preschool show moderate to large improvements in that targeted content domain, but recent research also suggests differences in children’s school readiness among different preschool program settings. We examine whether children in Head Start or public pre-K classrooms differentially benefit from the use of randomly assigned classroom curricula targeting specific academic domains. Our results indicate that children in both Head Start and public pre-K classrooms benefit from targeted, content-specific curricula. Future research is needed to examine the specific mechanisms and classroom processes through which curricula help improve children’s outcomes.