II Workshop Internacional - Selecting measures longitudinal ECD reasearch

transcript

The Early Head Start Research

and Evaluation Project and Beyond:

Lessons Learned and Implications

for Longitudinal ECD Research

Kimberly Boller

The Maria Cecilia Souto Vidigal Foundation’s

Second International Workshop on ECD

Sao Paulo, October 3, 2008

Overview

Review of Early Head Start, the national

evaluation findings, the Survey of EHS

programs, and Baby FACES

Impacts of EHS on pre-k program participation

and quality

Impacts of EHS on school readiness and family

functioning when children were at pre-k

The special stories of subgroups

How programs evolved

The newest study: Baby FACES

Lessons learned

The Early Head Start Program

More than 650 programs serving more

than 65,000 children

Various originating agencies

About 10% of the Head Start budget

Follows the Head Start Program

Performance Standards

Early Head Start Is an Intensive,

Two-Generation Program

Self-Sufficiency and

Healthy Families

Parenting

Development

Services Among Early Head Start

Programs Are Diverse

FOUR PROGRAM MODELS:

Home-only: programs provide home based services to

all families

Center-only: programs provide center-based services to

all families

Multiple: programs provide center-based services to

some families and home-based to others, some may get

Combination: programs provide center-based services

and frequent home visits to all families

Readiness for School and Life

Ed Zigler’s definition of social competence,

“the child’s everyday effectiveness in dealing with his

environment and later responsibilities in school and life.

Social competence takes into account the interrelatedness of

cognitive and intellectual development, physical and mental

health, nutritional needs, and other factors that enable a

child to function optimally.”

Quoted in Raizen and Bobrow (1974)

Policy and Economic

Context

Welfare reform enacted July 1996, as

research programs began enrolling

families

Strong economy with low

unemployment rates

Increase in needs for child care

Some programs changed their

approach based on family child care

The Early Head Start Research

and Evaluation Study

♦ Began in 1995

♦ 3,001 children and families randomly assigned

to EHS program or control group in impact

study with experimental design:

♦ Followup: (1) age 14, 24, and 36 months; (2)

when children in prekindergarten

♦ Fifth grade followup in progress

♦ Response rates are a challenge

Early Head Start Group Control Group

Early Head Start Research

Brattleboro,

Pittsburgh,

Sumter, SC

Jackson,

Russellville,

Kansas City,

Marshalltown,

Kansas

City, KS

Logan,

UTDenver, CO

(2 programs)

Kent, WA

Sunnyside,

Alexandria,

Venice,

McKenzie,

Research Conducted by Early

Head Start Research Consortium

Representatives from 17 programs participating

in the evaluation, 15 local research teams, the

evaluation contractors, and ACF/ACYF

Research institutions in the Consortium (and principal researchers) include ACF (Rachel Chazan

Cohen, Judith Jerald, Esther Kresh, Helen Raikes, and Louisa Tarullo); Catholic University of America

(Michaela Farber, Lynn Milgram Mayer, Harriet Liebow, Christine Sabatino, Nancy Taylor, Elizabeth

Timberlake, and Shavaun Wall); Columbia University (Lisa Berlin, Christy Brady-Smith, Jeanne

Brooks-Gunn, and Alison Sidle Fuligni); Harvard University (Catherine Ayoub, Barbara Alexander Pan,

and Catherine Snow); Iowa State University (Dee Draper, Gayle Luze, Susan McBride, Carla

Peterson); Mathematica Policy Research (Kimberly Boller, Ellen Eliason Kisker, John M. Love, Diane

Paulsell, Christine Ross, Peter Schochet, Susan Sprachman, Cheri Vogel, and Welmoet van

Kammen); Medical University of South Carolina (Richard Faldowski, Gui-Young Hong, and Susan

Pickrel); Michigan State University (Hiram Fitzgerald, Tom Reischl, and Rachel Schiffman); New York

University (Mark Spellmann and Catherine Tamis-LeMonda); University of Arkansas (Robert Bradley,

Mark Swanson, and Leanne Whiteside-Mansell); University of California, Los Angeles (Carollee

Howes and Claire Hamilton); University of Colorado Health Sciences Center (Robert Emde, Jon

Korfmacher, JoAnn Robinson, Paul Spicer, and Norman Watt); University of Kansas (Jane Atwater,

Judith Carta, and Jean Ann Summers); University of Missouri-Columbia (Mark Fine, Jean Ispa, and

Kathy Thornburg); University of Pittsburgh (Carol McAllister, Beth Green, and Robert McCall);

University of Washington School of Education (Eduardo Armijo and Joseph Stowitschek); University of

Washington School of Nursing (Kathryn Barnard and Susan Spieker); and Utah State University (Lisa

Boyce and Lori Roggman).

Families of All Types and

Backgrounds

Positive, Modest Impacts for

Children at Age 3

♦ Higher immunization rate

♦ Fewer emergency room visits for

accidents and injuries

♦ Cognitive development (higher Bayley

scores & fewer in low-functioning group)

♦ Larger receptive vocabularies

♦ Lower levels of aggressive behavior

♦ Greater sustained attention with objects,

engagement of parent, and less

negativity

But, Disparities Begin Early

90.2 88.0 91.4 89.9

83.3 81.1 82.9 81.4

EHS Bayley Age 2 EHS Bayley Age 3 EHS PPVT Age 3 HSIS PPVT Age 3

Treatment Control

Positive, Modest Impacts for

Parents

♦ More positive (and less negative)

parenting observed in parent-child play:

both mothers and fathers

♦ More stimulating home environments,

support for learning

♦ More daily reading

♦ Less spanking: both mother and father

report

♦ More hours in education and job training

♦ Probability of being employed (trend)

Parenting Example: More EHS than

Control Group Parents Read to Children

Read Daily

Program Control

Parenting Example: EHS Parents Were

Less Likely to Spank Their Children

Program Control

Important Subgroup Stories:

Programs

All program approaches had favorable

impacts. Mixed approach had strongest.

Well-implemented programs affected more

outcomes when children were 3:

♦ Child outcomes

♦ Parent-child interactions

♦ Parenting

♦ Mental health

♦ Progress toward economic self-sufficiency

Strongest impacts found in early-

implemented mixed programs

Important Subgroup Stories:

Families

Positive Impacts in 28 of 29 subgroups

Larger impacts in important subgroups:

♦ African American

♦ Enrolled during pregnancy

♦ Moderate demographic risk

No impacts: highest level of demographic

Promising effects: families affected by

maternal depression

Examining EHS Children’s

Experiences After Age 3

♦ 1994 Advisory Committee: continuity

and smooth transitions

♦ While in EHS, families got help

accessing quality child care.

♦ At age 3, 52% of EHS children were in

center child care at least 30 hours per

♦ EHS provided transition services as

children left their program.

♦ Control group families were on their

Three Main Hypotheses

♦ EHS will increase children's enrollment in

formal care and education programs (FPs)

after EHS.

♦ Children’s program participation after EHS will

be moderated by:

♦ Characteristics of the programs they were in

♦ Community characteristics

♦ Family demographics

♦ EHS participation will increase the likelihood

that children will attend good-quality formal

programs after EHS.

What Difference Did Being in

EHS Make on Program

Participation After EHS?

• More likely to be in Head Start at some

time, 3-5 (55% vs. 49%)

• More likely to be in a formal ECE

program both 3-4 and 4-5 (47% vs. 42%)

What Difference Did it Make

for Particular Children?

• White children: more likely ever to be in

Head Start (46% vs. 35%)

• Moderate-risk children: more likely ever

to be in Head Start (60 vs. 51%)

• Low-risk children: more likely to be in

any formal ECE both periods (48 vs. 36%)

What Difference Did EHS make

on Enrollment in Good-Quality

Programs

♦ 60% of EHS children were in a formal

pre-k program with ECERS-R of 5 or

better.

61% of control group children were.

♦ Average quality of centers we observed

was good: ECERS-R of 5.25.

No difference in average quality of programs EHS and control children were in.

♦ Quality of Head Start centers children

attended was higher than quality of

other formal programs (5.6 vs. 5.0).

Context for Understanding

Early Head Start’s

Prekindergarten Impacts

♦ Impacts assessed 2 years after children

and families left the program.

♦ Control group had considerable program

experience after age 3.

♦ Quality of control group’s pre-k program

experience was same as for EHS

children.

♦ Quality of all observed ECE settings

apparently good.

EHS Impacts on Children Two

Years After Early Head Start

♦ Decreased behavior problems

♦ Higher level of positive approaches to

learning

♦ Larger receptive vocabularies for

Spanish-speaking children, but not for

English speakers

♦ No impacts on achievement-related

outcomes: letter-word identification,

applied problem solving

EHS Impacts on Parents and

Home Environment 2 Years

After Early Head Start

♦ Higher percentage read to child daily

♦ Higher scores on HOME total scale and

warmth scale

♦ Higher on summary of 8 teaching

activities

♦ Lower risk for maternal depression

♦ Parent more likely to attend meetings or

open houses at child’s program (if child

was in a program)

Association of Children’s Participation

in Formal Programs from Birth to

Age 5 with Age 5 Outcomes

Formal Programs, 3-5

More-aggressive behavior (negative association)

Higher pre-academic skills (letter-word

identification)

More IEPs

II Workshop Internacional - Selecting measures longitudinal ECD reasearch

Documents