School Readiness Initiatives: Assessing Their Yield

1. School Readiness Initiatives:Assessing Their Yield Craig T. Ramey, Ph.D. & Sharon L. Ramey, Ph.D. Georgetown University Center on Health and Education National Governors Association Orlando, FL December 16, 2003 www.che.georgetown.edu

2. Why states have a stake in early childhood education • Children’s school readiness and academic performance are strongly predicted by school entry skills (language, pre-literacy, math) • Majority of children experience non-parental care prior to K (majority of which is non-optimal) • Evidence that high quality early childhood education can increase school readiness skills of “at risk” children • Independent economic analyses confirm positive return on investments (from 1:4 to 1:7)

3. Defining features of high quality, early childhood education programs • Adults who are highly responsive and interactive with children • Age-appropriate ratios of adults:children • Adults who stimulate children’s language development and actively teach new skills • Frequent monitoring and assessment of adults and children used to inform program decisions

4. The Abecedarian (ABC) Program(1971 – 2003) • Designed to test whether a high quality, early education program could significantly improve school readiness and achievement • Provided to families with extremely low economic and educational resources • Provided continuously from infancy through kindergarten via a randomized controlled trial (RCT)

5. Comparison Families & Children received: Nutritional Supplements Quality Pediatric Care Social Services Referral & Treatment for Developmental Problems ABC Families & Children received: Nutritional Supplements Quality Pediatric Care Social Services Referral & Treatment for Developmental Problems Center-based Childhood Education: Full day, Year round for 5 years PlusParent Program Supports and Services for the Abecedarian (ABC) Program

6. Quality Assurance Proceduresincluded in the ABC Program • Intensive Pre-Service and In-Service Training for Teachers, Assistants, and Education Directors • Structured Curriculum with Lesson Plans and Individualization for Each Child • “Open classrooms” with Videotape Monitoring and Frequent Classroom Observations • Daily Documentation of Educational Curriculum Activities for Each Child • Individual Child Assessments (linked to curriculum) by Teachers every 2 weeks to Inform Individualized Educational Plans (plus independent assessments by trained assessors to evaluate program impact)

7. Key Findings from Child Assessments in the ABC Program: 18 mos. – 21 yrs. • Higher performance on standardized tests of intelligence and cognition at all ages • Superior learning in experimental settings • More advanced language skills (receptive and expressive) at all ages • Higher reading achievement at all ages • Higher math achievement at all ages • Improved social responsiveness

8. Documented Benefits of Increased Skills for Children in ABC Program • Grade Repetition declined 46.5% (from 56% to 30% by age 15) • Special Education Placement reduced 75% (from 48% to 12%) • 4-Year College Attendance increased 300% (from 12% to 36%) • Age at Birth of First Child significantly delayed • Tobacco and Drug Use (self-report) decreased • Adult Academic Skills for Work Force increased

9. Findings from ABC Program Replicated in Other RCT* Studies • Project CARE: for very low income, multi-risk children, using same ABC program Note: an intensive, 5 yr. home visiting program using the same curriculum did not yield child benefits • The Infant Health and Development Program: for low birthweight, premature infants in 8 cities, using adaptation of the ABC early childhood education curriculum from infancy – 3 years *Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

10. Example of Recent Success in a State-led Early Childhood Education Initiative • Louisiana Pre-K Program – legislative initiative with administrative authority in Dept. of Education • Launched in 2000 with free tuition to children below poverty • All teachers have certification in Early Childhood Education • Assessments of classroom environment (very high: 5.7 out of 7) and children on Developmental Skills Checklist (major gains from fall to spring, with largest benefits to children from families with lowest parental education) Fall Scores: 82%, 82%, and 90% scored in the lowest quartile (national norms) in language, print awareness, and math Spring Scores: only 17%, 16%, and 25% respectively scored in the lowest quartile

12. Why Direct Assessment of Children and Programs is Essential for States • To demonstrate accountability for public investments • To link program objectives to measurable gains • To protect children and families from poor quality and/or ineffective programs • For monitoring and individualization of educational activities for children • For estimating cost:benefit ratios and conducting comparative cost:efficiency analyses

13. Safeguards for Responsible Direct Assessment of Children and Programs • Outcomes to be measured are clearly linked to important program goals • Assessment procedures (tests, tools, observations) are reliable and valid indicators; sources of bias minimized • Purpose of assessment and data analysis plans are made public in advance • Independent, ongoing checks on accuracy of data collection, entry, and analyses • Recognition of limits of assessment and ongoing plans for quality improvement in assessment

14. Recommendations • Engage multiple, diverse stakeholders in timely, comprehensive, and open review of current efforts and evidence for quality and benefits • Build upon scientific findings of what produces positive, large gains for “at risk” children • Consider innovative ways to coordinate, consolidate, and/or enhance multiple early childhood initiatives to realize immediate benefits for children and their families

15. For information and references about effective early childhood education • Go to www.che.georgetown.edu • Contact us at 202-687-2874 (Georgetown University Center on Health and Education) • See Ramey & Ramey, 2000, Securing the Future • See Ramey et al, 2000, Applied Developmental Science • Campbell et al, 2002, Applied Developmental Science