The Effects of the The Effects of the T T Tennessee Voluntary Pre Tennessee Voluntary Pre- V l V l t t P P - Kindergarten Program: Kindergarten Program: Initial Results Initial Results Initial Results Initial Results Mark Lipsey Mark Lipsey Dale Farran Dale Farran Kerry Hofer Carol Bilbrey Kerry Hofer Carol Bilbrey Nianbo Dong Nianbo Dong Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness March 2011 Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness March 2011 Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, March 2011 Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, March 2011
In partnership with the Tennessee Dept. of Education, In partnership with the Tennessee Dept. of Education, Division of School Readiness and Early Learning Division of School Readiness and Early Learning Bobbi Lussier, Assistant Commissioner Bobbi Lussier, Assistant Commissioner C Connie Casha, Director of Early Childhood Programs Connie Casha, Director of Early Childhood Programs C i i C C h h Di Di t t f E f E l Childh l Childh d P d P Robert Taylor, Consultant Robert Taylor, Consultant With the invaluable assistance of our fine research team: With the invaluable assistance of our fine research team: Patricia Abelson Patricia Abelson Kurt Scheib Kurt Scheib Richard Feldser Ri h Richard Feldser Ri h d F ld d F ld Ilk Ilk Ilknur Sekmen Ilknur Sekmen S k S k Janie Hughart Janie Hughart Travis Wimsett Travis Wimsett And many more And many more And many more … And many more … Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Ed Education, Institute of Education Science (R305E090009) Ed Education, Institute of Education Science (R305E090009) ti ti I I tit t tit t f Ed f Ed ti ti S i S i (R305E090009) (R305E090009)
Background � Tennessee invests over $85 million a year in its statewide Pre-K program � 934 state-funded Pre-K classrooms serve 18,000+ 934 t t f d d P K l 18 000 economically disadvantaged children across all 95 Tennessee counties � Support for Pre-K is based on the belief that high quality Pre-K: � Improves at-risk children’s readiness for kindergarten � Improves achievement test scores and decreases retention rates, special education placements, and drop outs � In adulthood, increases employment rates and earnings, and In adulthood increases employment rates and earnings and reduces welfare needs and criminal behavior
Political Controversy and Limited y Research Support � Many Tennessee legislators question the value of Pre-K, some calling it “expensive babysitting,” and whether it warrants funding given the current budget constraints warrants funding given the current budget constraints � The evidence for long-term Pre-K effects is from small intensive programs that are not typical of state programs � The national Head Start study provides little support for the view that large scale preschool programs are especially effective for boosting academic performance especially effective for boosting academic performance � No research using a randomized control trial design has studied the benefits of typical public Pre-K programs and studied the benefits of typical public Pre K programs and their effects beyond the beginning of kindergarten
Phase 1 RCT Intensive Substudy � Phase 1 in 2009 Phase 1 in 2009- -10 school year (Phase 2 10 school year (Phase 2 underway for 2010 underway for 2010- -11 school year) 11 school year) � Randomized admissions in 23 schools in Randomized admissions in 23 schools in 14 TN school districts 14 TN school districts � 907 children in full randomization (will be 907 children in full randomization (will be tracked in state EIS database) tracked in state EIS database) � 303 consented children with assessment 303 consented children with assessment data, 73 no pre data, 73 no pre- , , p p -k controls and 230 pre k controls and 230 pre- p -k k
Intensive Substudy Sample � Mean age, 4.4 yrs; 56% girls, 44% boys M M Mean age, 4.4 yrs; 56% girls, 44% boys 4 4 4 4 56% 56% i l i l 44% b 44% b � 57% white, 23% African 57% white, 23% African- -American, American, 20% Hi 20% Hi 20% Hispanic 20% Hispanic i i � 31% language other than English in home 31% language other than English in home � Median parent education: High school/GED M di M di Median parent education: High school/GED d d i i Hi h Hi h h h l/GED l/GED � No Pre No Pre- -K control childcare alternatives: K control childcare alternatives: � 11% Head Start 11% Head Start � 22% Private childcare center 22% Private childcare center � 51% Home with parent or other 51% Home with parent or other 51% Home with parent or other 51% Home with parent or other � 16% Unknown 16% Unknown
Intensive Substudy Outcome Measures Woodcock Johnson III Scales Woodcock Johnson III Scales � Literacy: Literacy: Letter Letter- -Word Identification, Spelling Word Identification, Spelling � Language: L L Language: Picture Vocabulary, Oral Comprehension Picture Vocabulary, Oral Comprehension � Math: Math: Applied Problems, Quantitative Concepts Applied Problems, Quantitative Concepts � Overall WJ Composite � Overall WJ Composite Overall WJ Composite Overall WJ Composite Mean W score across all WJ scales (supported by factor analysis) Mean W score across all WJ scales (supported by factor analysis) � Teacher Ratings Teacher Ratings Teacher Ratings Teacher Ratings � Cooper Cooper- -Farran Work Farran Work- -Related & Social scales Related & Social scales � Academic Child Behavior Record: School Readiness, Likes Academic Child Behavior Record: School Readiness, Likes School, & Behavior Problems School, & Behavior Problems
Complications, Part 1 � Indirect process required to approach I di Indirect process required to approach I di t t i i d t d t h h parents for consent to assess children parents for consent to assess children resulted in low and variable consent rate resulted in low and variable consent rate resulted in low and variable consent rate resulted in low and variable consent rate � 37% overall across the 23 schools 37% overall across the 23 schools � Ranged from 7.5% to 82.6% � Ranged from 7.5% to 82.6% Ranged from 7.5% to 82.6% Ranged from 7.5% to 82.6% � Note: Changed procedure for 2010 Note: Changed procedure for 2010- -11 has 11 has produced higher overall rate for Phase 2 produced higher overall rate for Phase 2 � Response: Use the consent rate and its Response: Use the consent rate and its interaction with treatment conditions as a interaction with treatment conditions as a covariate in the analysis covariate in the analysis
Complications, Part 2 � Some baseline differences between conditions Some baseline differences between conditions � Pre Pre- -K children: more African K children: more African- -Americans, lower mean Americans, lower mean parent education parent education parent education parent education � Pretest averaged 9 days later for no Pre Pretest averaged 9 days later for no Pre- -K control K control children; pre children; pre- -post test interval average of 6.5 days shorter post test interval average of 6.5 days shorter � No significant ( N No significant ( p <.10) differences on age, gender, N i i ifi ifi ( ( <.10) differences on age, gender, 10) diff 10) diff d d proportion Hispanic, or parent report of weekend TV, proportion Hispanic, or parent report of weekend TV, home literacy support, or whether language other than home literacy support, or whether language other than English spoken in home (correlates of WJ outcomes) English spoken in home (correlates of WJ outcomes) � Response: Use all these variables as covariates Response: Use all these variables as covariates in the analysis in the analysis
Complications Continued: Pretest p Differences Despite Prior Covariates Control Pre-K Difference Mean Mean as an Outcome Measure (N=73) (N=230) Effect Size p -value Overall Composite p 391.0 396.0 .30* .000 Letter-Word ID 313.6 320.6 .28* .003 Spelling 350.1 355.9 .23* .008 Picture Vocabulary Picture Vocabulary 449.0 449 0 454 9 454.9 .27 27* .002 002 Oral Comprehension 442.5 442.8 .02 .583 Applied Problems 384.4 393.9 .39* .000 Quantitative Concepts 406.3 408.2 .13 .071 � Response: Use the respective pretest as a Response: Use the respective pretest as a Response: Use the respective pretest as a Response: Use the respective pretest as a � covariate in each analysis. covariate in each analysis.
Recommend
More recommend
