Early childhood development and social mobility

Steven Barnett and Clive Belfield examine the effects of preschool education on social mobility in the United States. They note that under current policy three- and four-year-old children from economically and educationally disadvantaged families have higher preschool attendance rates than other children. But current programs fail to enroll even half of poor three-and four-year olds. Hispanics and children of mothers who drop out of school also participate at relatively low rates. The programs also do little to improve learning and development. Barnett and Belfield point out that preschool programs raise academic skills on average, but do not appear to have notably different effects for different groups of children, and so do not strongly enhance social mobility. In such areas as crime, welfare, and teen parenting, however, preschool seems more able to break links between parental behaviors and child outcomes. Increased investment in preschool, conclude Barnett and Belfield, could raise social mombility. Program expansions targeted to disadvantaged children would help them move up the ladder, as would a more universal set of policies from which disadvantaged children gained disproportionately. Increasing the educational effectiveness of early childhood programs would provide for greater gains in social mobility than increasing participation rates alone. The authors observe that if future expansions of preschool programs end up serving all children, not just the poorest, society as a whole would gain. Benefits would exceed costs and there would be more economic growth, but relative gains for disadvantaged children would be smaller than absolute gains because there would be some (smaller) benefits to other children.early childhood education; social mobility; benefit/cost analyses; income disparity; disadvantaged children

How Much Can High-Quality Universal Pre-K Reduce Achievement Gaps?

Many children of color and children from low-income families enter kindergarten without the academic skills they need to succeed. Compared to their white peers, African American and Hispanic children are anywhere from 9 to 10 months behind in math and 7 to 12 months behind in reading when they enter kindergarten. These achievement gaps are concerning: Math and reading abilities at kindergarten entry are powerful predictors of later school success, and children who enter kindergarten already behind are unlikely to catch up. Moreover, in the past 50 years, minimal progress has been made toward reducing these achievement gaps. Ensuring that all children are entering kindergarten with the foundational academic skills they need to succeed is a major priority for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners alike. Early childhood education programs show promise toward this goal. Research suggests that participation in a high-quality early childhood education program can enhance children's development, reduce achievement gaps at kindergarten entry, and even have long-term benefits for children's school trajectories. However, access to high-quality pre-K in the United States remains quite low and highly unequal due to two problems. First, although pre-K attendance has increased in the past two decades, rates of access to early education vary widely as a function of children's socioeconomic backgrounds: African American, Hispanic, and low-income children are less likely to access center-based early childhood education than their white and more affluent peers. Second, the quality of most early education programs -- particularly those attended by low-income children of color -- is not high enough to substantially improve academic readiness. Recognizing the tremendous potential for high-quality preschool to improve children's outcomes, this report considers how a universal publicly funded prekindergarten program in the United States could decrease both disparities in access to early learning and achievement gaps at kindergarten entry. Data from two nationally representative datasets and prior results from evaluations of high-quality universal pre-kindergarten were analyzed to estimate the extent to which a national high-quality universal pre-K, or UPK, program would reduce achievement gaps at kindergarten entry based on children's race/ethnicity and income

DEVELOPING AND PRICING PRECIPITATION INSURANCE

Production agriculture and agribusiness are exposed to many weather-related risks. Recent years have seen the emergence of an increased interest in weather-based derivatives as mechanisms for sharing risks due to weather phenomena. In this study, a unique precipitation derivative is proposed that allows the purchaser to specify the parameters of the idemnity function. Pricing methods are presented in the context of a cotton harvest example from Mississippi. Our findings show a potential for weather derivatives to serve niche markets within U.S. agriculture.Risk and Uncertainty,

The State of Preschool 2007

Provides data on state-funded pre-K programs for the 2006-2007 school year, such as percentages of children enrolled at different ages, spending per child, and the number of quality standard benchmarks met. Includes state rankings and profiles

State(s) of Head Start

The National Institute for Early Education Research's (NIEER) State(s) of Head Start report is the first report to describe and analyze in detail Head Start enrollment, funding, quality, and duration, state-by-state. The report focuses on the 2014-2015 program year but also provides longitudinal data beginning with the 2006-2007 program year. Despite the fact that Head Start is a federally funded, national program, the report reveals that access to Head Start programs, funding per child, teacher education, quality of teaching, and duration of services all vary widely by state. Although in some states Head Start meets evidence-based quality standards and serves a high percentage of low-income children statewide, in other states Head Start reaches fewer of those in need, often with low-quality instruction, and insufficient hours. Despite bipartisan support, Head Start suffers from federal funding that restricts the number of vulnerable children who can benefit from Head Start. As a result, some vulnerable children benefit less than others from Head Start participation. Yet we can think of no reason children living in poverty in one state are less deserving of a high-quality education in Head Start than those in another.Revised and streamlined Head Start standards, released in September 20161 , address several of the concerns spotlighted in the report, and demonstrate the Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) commitment to continuous quality improvement and supporting poor children. But without Congress allocating adequate funding, Head Start programs will continue to be forced to choose between providing high-quality or school-day programs; hiring quality teachers (and paying them adequately); or enrolling more children. To be effective, Head Start must be funded sufficiently so that it can provide high-quality learning experiences to more children for longer periods of time per day and per year. This report's findings underscore the need for greater coordination between Head Start and state and local government agencies to build high-quality early learning programs with widespread reach and adequate funding. The authors call for an independent bipartisan national commission to study the issues raised in this report and develop an action plan to ensure every eligible child in every state has an equal opportunity to benefit from Head Start

NEPC Review: Off Track: An Assessment of Wisconsin’s Early Care and Learning System for Young Children (Badger Institute, September 2023)

A report presents data on early care and education trends in Wisconsin and concludes that government regulations have had the effects of limiting supply, decreasing parental choice in providers, and increasing costs. The report recommends increasing regulatory freedom, consolidating state agencies, and increasing parental rights over use of government childcare subsidies. The report should be applauded for continuing to spotlight the need for quality childcare and education. But because of significant methodological flaws and omission of important literature, its recommendations should be treated with extreme caution, if not avoided altogether.</p

NEPC Review: Do We Already Have Universal Preschool?

A recent report published by a new project at Brookings called &ldquo;Evidence Speaks&rdquo; claims that advocates exaggerate unmet need as well as the cost of universal pre-kindergarten (UPK). It estimates that 69 percent of all four-year-olds already attend preschool and that universal access tops out at 80 percent enrollment. To close this modest gap, the report proposes a means-tested subsidy for half-day preschool that fully funds only those in poverty. The estimated cost is $2 to$4 billion per year. Unfortunately, the report vastly underestimates unmet need and costs; both estimates are based on serious factual errors and unfounded assumptions. Access to high-quality preschool (as opposed to attendance in any preschool classroom) for four-year-olds is under 25 percent, not 69 percent. High-quality UPK could enroll more than 90 percent, not 80 percent, of children. Enrollment rates go up with better policy design. Also, the Brookings plan would leave one in five children in low-income families with no access to any preschool education and, since the plan ignores dosage and quality, would leave many more in weak or ineffective programs. The report&rsquo;s conclusions regarding needs and the costs to meet them are invalid and misleading, and it should not be used as a basis for policymaking.</p

NEPC Review: The Drawbacks of Universal Pre-K: A Review of the Evidence (Manhattan Institute, February 2021)

With universal pre-K and child care back on the national political agenda, increased scruti-ny of these proposals is expected and welcome. A Manhattan Institute policy brief reviewsevidence relating to both means-tested and universal early childhood care and educationprograms. It concludes that both means-tested and universal programs may harm long-term child development, especially, but not only, for more advantaged children. The briefrecommends rolling back the coverage of existing preschool education programs, increasingthe intensity of services provided to the most deeply disadvantaged, and expanding child taxcredits. The brief raises warnings about potential unintended negative consequences thatare warranted, but omissions of research and unjustified assumptions make it a misleadingand inadequate policy guide. The complexity of early care and education does not lend itselfto simple policy prescriptions. A more meticulous review of the literature relying on fewerpreconceptions might have led to more nuanced conclusions.</p

Early childhood development and social mobility

Steven Barnett and Clive Belfield examine the effects of preschool education on social mobility in the United States. They note that under current policy three- and four-year-old children from economically and educationally disadvantaged families have higher preschool attendance rates than other children. But current programs fail to enroll even half of poor three-and four-year olds. Hispanics and children of mothers who drop out of school also participate at relatively low rates. The programs also do little to improve learning and development. Barnett and Belfield point out that preschool programs raise academic skills on average, but do not appear to have notably different effects for different groups of children, and so do not strongly enhance social mobility. In such areas as crime, welfare, and teen parenting, however, preschool seems more able to break links between parental behaviors and child outcomes. Increased investment in preschool, conclude Barnett and Belfield, could raise social mombility. Program expansions targeted to disadvantaged children would help them move up the ladder, as would a more universal set of policies from which disadvantaged children gained disproportionately. Increasing the educational effectiveness of early childhood programs would provide for greater gains in social mobility than increasing participation rates alone. The authors observe that if future expansions of preschool programs end up serving all children, not just the poorest, society as a whole would gain. Benefits would exceed costs and there would be more economic growth, but relative gains for disadvantaged children would be smaller than absolute gains because there would be some (smaller) benefits to other children

Early childhood development and social mobility

Steven Barnett and Clive Belfield examine the effects of preschool education on social mobility in the United States. They note that under current policy three- and four-year-old children from economically and educationally disadvantaged families have higher preschool attendance rates than other children. But current programs fail to enroll even half of poor three-and four-year olds. Hispanics and children of mothers who drop out of school also participate at relatively low rates. The programs also do little to improve learning and development. Barnett and Belfield point out that preschool programs raise academic skills on average, but do not appear to have notably different effects for different groups of children, and so do not strongly enhance social mobility. In such areas as crime, welfare, and teen parenting, however, preschool seems more able to break links between parental behaviors and child outcomes. Increased investment in preschool, conclude Barnett and Belfield, could raise social mombility. Program expansions targeted to disadvantaged children would help them move up the ladder, as would a more universal set of policies from which disadvantaged children gained disproportionately. Increasing the educational effectiveness of early childhood programs would provide for greater gains in social mobility than increasing participation rates alone. The authors observe that if future expansions of preschool programs end up serving all children, not just the poorest, society as a whole would gain. Benefits would exceed costs and there would be more economic growth, but relative gains for disadvantaged children would be smaller than absolute gains because there would be some (smaller) benefits to other children