49.full

Article

Psychological Science in the
Public Interest
The Effects of Preschool Education: 10(2) 49–88
ª The Author(s) 2009
What We Know, How Public Policy Is or Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Is Not Aligned With the Evidence Base, DOI: 10.1177/1529100610381908
http://psi.sagepub.com

and What We Need to Know

Robert C. Pianta1, W. Steven Barnett2, Margaret Burchinal3, and
Kathy R. Thornburg4
1
University of Virginia, 2National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
3
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and 4University of Missouri

Summary
Early childhood education is at the nexus of basic developmental Demographic shifts will place tremendous pressure on early
science, policy research and analysis, and the applied disci- education and child care in the United States in the coming
plines of education and prevention science. The field has become decades—a trend that is well under way in many states. The
one of the most vibrant areas of scientific activity in terms of the consequences for preschool program eligibility and
connections among scientific advances and theory, program enrollment, available slots, preparation and support of staff,
design, policy, and classroom practices. But despite the potential and program resources such as curricula are enormous. It is
links between research and evaluation on the one hand and pro- abundantly evident that the features of the preschool
gram development, practices, and public policy on the other, landscape—connections among child care, preschool, and
there are too many key areas in which public policy and practice schools; links between families and the adults who teach their
are not well aligned with the knowledge base. These misalign- children; capacities of the ‘‘system’’ for fostering positive
ments, as well as a host of questions emerging from new areas development in children who increasingly vary by race, culture,
of scientific development (e.g., connections between physiologi- language, and economic background—will undergo tremendous
cal or genetic processes and behavioral development) and strain. The pressures imposed on this context and these relation-
practice-based realities (e.g., the need for focused, intensive, ships by the sheer variability present in the children and families
and effective professional development of teachers), point to will itself be a considerable threat to the viability of the capacity
areas in which new research is needed. The aim of this mono- of preschool to promote positive developmental change.
graph is to provide an analysis of the research evidence in four Compelling evidence from well-controlled research shows
major domains of work in early childhood education, identifying that preschool programs have lasting positive effects on young
points at which evidence is not well aligned with public policy or children’s cognitive and social development. The evidence
practice, and a set of questions to guide the next wave of comes from studies of child care, Head Start, and public
research in this rapidly growing field. school programs using a wide range of research methods,
Overall features of the preschool landscape, including those including experiments. Lasting positive impacts have been
tightly regulated by policy (such as entry age or eligibility) and found for large-scale public programs as well as for intensive
those more directly related to child outcomes (such as quality programs implemented on a small scale, but even some of the
of classroom interactions), are stunningly variable across set- intensive small-scale interventions were public school pro-
tings and across time. Reasonable evidence suggests that these grams. Some evidence has shown negative effects on social
features also vary as a function of family background factors. behavior, but the negative effects have not been confirmed by
The resulting picture is one of too many children and families experimental studies. Cost–benefit analyses have shown that
falling through too many cracks and seams at too many levels.
Thus, even in a policy and program development environment
in which early education is valued and prominent and recogni-
Corresponding Author:
tion of the need to close gaps and seal seams is growing, the Robert C. Pianta, Curry School of Education, P.O. Box 400260, University of
realities point to a fragile and vulnerable nonsystem through Virginia, Charlottesville VA 22904-4260
which many of our most fragile and vulnerable citizens pass. E-mail: pianta@virginia.edu

49

50 Pianta et al.

the value of benefits is very large relative to costs, even for very be considerable—on the order of a half a standard deviation
costly intensive preschool programs—at the high end, starting on average, and as much as a full standard deviation.
at age 3, roughly $300,000 per child enrolled for a program. Unfortunately, preschool teachers are rarely exposed to multi-
The estimated economic value of program impacts on child ple field-based examples of objectively defined high-quality
development can be substantial relative to cost, but this practice, and they receive few if any opportunities to receive
depends on adequate levels of program effectiveness. The eco- feedback about the extent to which their classroom interactions
nomic benefits of child care for parental earnings add even and instruction promote these skill domains. At present, there is
more to the return. Children from lower-income families tend very little evidence that the policy frameworks and resources
to gain more from good preschool education than do more that should guide and encourage professional development
advantaged children. However, the educational achievement and training of the early childhood workforce are aligned
gains for nondisadvantaged children are substantial, perhaps with the most promising, evidence-based forms of effective
75% as large as the gains for low-income children. professional development. Thus, it is not surprising that
However, there is no evidence whatsoever that the average teachers with a 4-year degree or 2-year degree do not differ
preschool program produces benefits in line with what the best from one another substantially in either their practice or their
programs produce. On average, the nonsystem that is pre- students’ learning gains, and it is not surprising that invest-
school in the United States narrows the achievement gap by ments in courses and professional development appear to
perhaps only 5% rather than the 30% to 50% that research sug- return so little to children’s learning.
gests might be possible on a large scale if we had high-quality Our conclusions are fairly straightforward and include four
programs. From the standpoint of policy alignment with major points. First, preschool, which we have defined as pub-
research findings, it is abundantly evident that the wide varia- licly supported programs (child care, Head Start, state-funded
tion in program design, models, curriculum, staffing, auspices, pre-K), encompasses such a wide range of funding streams and
funding, and level of educational aims plays a major role in the targets, program models, staffing patterns and qualifications,
disappointing, albeit statistically significant and in that sense and even basic aims (maternal employment or education) that
meaningful, impacts of preschool on child development. it cannot be understood as a uniform or singular aspect of the
Effective teaching in early childhood education requires skill- public system of support for children. Moreover, the fragmen-
ful combinations of explicit instruction, sensitive and warm inter- tation in this educational space greatly impedes policy levers
actions, responsive feedback, and verbal engagement or that could drive improvement and coherence in the actual mod-
stimulation intentionally directed to ensure children’s learning els that children experience. Second, despite this stunning
while embedding these interactions in a classroom environment variability and fragmentation, there is compelling evidence
that is not overly structured or regimented. This approach to early from well-controlled studies that attending preschool can boost
childhood teaching is endorsed by those who advocate tougher development and school readiness skills and can have longer-
standards and more instruction and by those who argue for term benefits to children and communities. Unfortunately, the
child-centered approaches, and it has strong parallels in the types effects of various program models are quite varied, with some
of instruction and teacher-child interactions that have been being rather weak and ineffective while other scaled-up pro-
shown to contribute to student achievement growth in K–12 grams narrow the achievement gap by almost half. It is quite
value-added studies. Furthermore, quality of instruction within clear that programs that are more educationally focused and
a specific content area appears closely linked to improvements well defined produce larger effects on child development.
in language, math, and reading. These studies suggest that chil- Third, for children enrolled in preschool, features of their expe-
dren may achieve larger gains when they receive higher-quality rience in those settings are important—particularly, the ways
instruction that specifically teaches target skills in a manner that in which adults interact with them to deliver developmentally
matches children’s skill levels and provides instruction through stimulating opportunities. The aspects most often discussed
positive, responsive interactions with the teacher. as features of program quality regulated by policy (such as
The best approaches to professional development focus teacher qualifications or curriculum) have much less influence
on providing teachers with (a) developmentally relevant infor- on children than is desired. Fourth, teacher-child interaction
mation on skill targets and progressions and (b) support for and teachers’ effective implementation of educational and
learning to skillfully use instructional interactions and to effec- developmental curricula, as features of program quality, are
tively implement curricula. Such professional development central ingredients responsible for program effects but do not
approaches enable teachers to provide children with domain- appear to be produced in a reliable manner by typical teacher
specific stimulation supports in real-time, dynamic interactions preparation. It is important to note that such aspects of pre-
that foster children’s developing skills by engaging these chil- school quality and children’s experience can be improved with
dren with available instructional materials or activities. Effec- specific and focused training and support and this will have
tive professional development supports allow for a direct expected effects on children’s learning.
tracing of the path (and putative effects) of inputs to teachers, Current public policies for child care, Head Start, and state
to inputs to children, to children’s skill gains. pre-K fail to ensure that most American children attend highly
Evidence is very promising that when such targeted, aligned effective preschool education programs. Some attend no pro-
supports are available to teachers, children’s skill gains can gram at all. Others attend educationally weak programs.

50

The Effects of Preschool Education 51

Children in families from the middle of the income distribution The argument made in many circles—including policy-
have the least access, but coverage is far from universal even for makers at state and federal levels, advocacy, program planning,
children in poverty. This state of affairs can have marked and and development—is that early childhood education is a means
deleterious effects on children, families, and communities. It is to address concerns that an unacceptably large number of
not easily solved by more subsidies or more of the same types children are already, by 5 years of age, lacking in competencies
of programs. Increased provision of child care subsidies under fundamental to their school success—notably in the areas
current federal and state policies is particularly unlikely to pro- of spoken language and literacy (Duncan et al., 2007),
duce any meaningful improvements in children’s learning and self-regulation (Raver, 2008; Zaslow et al., 2003), social-
development and could have mild negative consequences. relational competence (Fantuzzo et al., 2007), and early math
Increased public investment in effective preschool education (Cross, Woods, & Schweingruber, 2009). The long-term
programs for all children can produce substantial educational, effects of early gaps in achievement and social functioning are
social, and economic benefits, but only if the investments are in so pronounced that effective and efficient interventions tar-
programs in which teaching is highly effective. geted toward these gaps in the preschool period are essential,
not only to the developmental success of children but also to
the economic and social health of communities (Barnett,
2008; Barnett & Masse, 2007; Heckman, 2006; Heckman &
Introduction
Masterov, 2007; Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2007a,
The widespread belief that early childhood education is one of 2007b). Early childhood education is viewed as a means by
the best mechanisms for providing educational and develop- which policymakers can address these issues, as both small
mental opportunities for all children regardless of race or social experimental studies and quasi-experimental studies of large-
class (Heckman & Masterov, 2007) has transformed research, scale programs have shown consistently positive effects of
program development, and policymaking in the field during the exposure to preschool (Gormley & Phillips, 2003; Howes
past 20 years. As a field of scientific inquiry, early childhood et al., 2008; Magnuson et al., 2007a, 2007b; C.T. Ramey &
education is at the nexus of basic developmental science, policy Ramey, 2004; Wong, Cook, Barnett, & Jung, 2008).
research and analysis, and the applied disciplines of education Because this argument is supported by evidence and has
and prevention science. The field has become one of the most been widely accepted, there has been a rapid expansion of pre-
vibrant areas of scientific activity in terms of the connections school services for young children, mostly at ages 3 and 4 and
among scientific advances and theory, program design, policy, mostly targeted toward low socioeconomic groups (Barnett,
and classroom practices. Moreover, the quality of scientific Hustedt, Friedman, Boyd, & Ainsworth, 2007). The most
inquiry has improved at all levels, and the research now recent information indicates that 22% of all 4-year-olds are
includes descriptive population-level studies and rigorous con- enrolled in state-funded pre-kindergarten (pre-K), with 30
trolled evaluations of innovative programs, as well as highly states planning to increase enrollment through specific efforts
controlled analyses of scaled-up interventions and smaller to raise the percentage of low-income children enrolled in
scale laboratory-based work that fuels conceptual advances and preschool (Barnett et al., 2007). Thus, research evidence has
new applications. In the process, the field has matured as an been linked to policy.
area of scientific inquiry that has a direct link to the public However, despite significant investments over the past
interest. Policymaking related to the care and education of decade in the expansion and improvement of programs, the
young children is extraordinarily active, engaging a wide range promise of early education as a scaled-up asset for fostering
of interest groups, foundations, politicians, and professional learning and development of young children in the United
organizations (Finn, 2009) in debates about program quality, States is not yet being realized—too many children, particu-
impacts, expansions, and investments of public and private larly poor children, continue to enter kindergarten education-
funds. Early care and education programs for young children ally far behind their peers (Jacobson-Chernoff, Flanagan,
require evidence about the best strategies for fostering and McPhee, & Park, 2007; Johnson, 2002; National Center for
assessing learning and developmental gains. Education Statistics, 2000). Jacobson-Chernoff et al. (2007)
Research demonstrating that early childhood education can reported results from the first follow-up of the nationally repre-
promote the development of young children (Heckman & sentative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort
Masterov, 2007) has influenced both policy and practice. Per- showing a gap of roughly one standard deviation on school
haps in no context have the connections among public policy, readiness skills for children below the 20th percentile on family
early childhood practices, and research been more evident than socioeconomic status. Because the wide-ranging and diverse
in recent presidential and gubernatorial elections; candidates set of experiences in preschools are not, in aggregate, produc-
have relied on available evidence to make arguments for ing the level and rate of skill gains required for children to be
expansion and refinement of early education programs as a ready for school (see Howes et al., 2008; Layzer & Price,
means of addressing serious concerns about achievement and 2008), some have argued that simply enrolling more children
learning in the early grades and inequities in society at large. in more programs, although helpful, will not close, or even nar-
In most instances, the argument is based on research on the role row in noticeable ways, the skills gap at school entry. Instead,
of early education in enhancing children’s competencies. investments (in research, program development, and policy

51

52 Pianta et al.

initiatives) are urgently needed to substantially enhance the might also then engage in employment opportunities. However,
positive effects of existing and expanding educational offerings in some instances, such as when early education opportunities
on the very child outcomes in which skills gaps are so evident are scarce or do not provide for learning and development of
(see Moorehouse, Webb, Wolf, & Knitzer, 2008). We believe children in ways that demonstrably add value, the convergence
that key challenges to heightening the impact of programs are of family and social interests is not as evident. For the past 20 to
to align policy with research, to identify gaps in the science, 30 years, scholars in the United States and across the world
and then to close these gaps in the knowledge base while acting have studied the opportunities for the care and education of
on points of alignment. young children and their implications for the interests of par-
In short, despite the potential links between research and ents, children, and society. These opportunities range from
evaluation on the one hand and program development, prac- informal care in a relative’s home to enrollment in a formal
tices, and public policy on the other, there are too many key school-like program and span the range of ages from birth to
areas in which public policy and practice are not well aligned kindergarten. Many advocates believe that early education and
with the knowledge base. These misalignments, as well as a care opportunities have effects that extend into the early ele-
host of questions emerging from new areas of scientific devel- mentary grades. Overall, preschool in the United States is a
opment (e.g., connections between physiological or genetic stunningly complex, wide-ranging, and highly varied assort-
processes and behavioral development) and practice-based ment of early care and educational offerings that take place
realities (e.g., the need for focused, intensive, and effective pro- in very diverse settings and with often inadequate resources
fessional development of teachers), point to areas in which new that are also constrained in how they may be used. For the pur-
research is needed. The aim of this monograph is to provide (a) poses of our discussion in this monograph, we focus on early
an analysis of the research evidence in four major domains of education opportunities offered to young children between
work in early childhood education, identifying points at which roughly 3 years of age and entry into formal schooling, whether
evidence is not well aligned with public policy or practice and that takes place at kindergarten or first grade; we call this the
(b) a set of questions to guide the next wave of research in this preschool period.
rapidly growing field.
The monograph is organized into five sections. In the first
four sections, we provide brief summaries of evidence and
Preschool programs and experiences
policy-practice misalignment in four domains in which the The term preschool encompasses a diverse array of programs,
greatest amount of research activity has taken place in the past under a variety of names, for children who have not yet entered
20 years and about which reasonable conclusions can be drawn: kindergarten. One way of organizing the data on enrollment of
(a) the landscape and architecture of early childhood education children in such programs is to focus on three broad types of
programs and experiences; (b) the effects of such programs and programs serving children during the 2 years prior to kindergar-
associated experiences on children’s learning and develop- ten (ages 3 to 5): private nonprofit and for-profit child care
ment; (c) the nature, measurement, and effects of program centers, Head Start, and pre-K programs linked to public edu-
quality; and (d) improvement of program effects on child out- cation. We offer three reasons for considering only these three
comes through professional development of the workforce. In program types (and not others such as family child care homes
the concluding section, we present a set of emerging and com- or informal child care settings). First, although there is some
pelling questions that require the attention of scholars and overlap between these categories, they are reasonably distinct
investigators to generate knowledge to support greater impacts and can be discussed as separate subsectors of the policy field.
and sustainability of the type of early childhood programs now Second, these are settings that serve most of the 3- to 5-year-old
being implemented or planned on a widespread basis. children in child care (Magnuson et al., 2007a), and there are
far more and better data describing these settings than there
are for other settings such as family child care homes. Third,
The Landscape of Early Childhood these three sectors receive considerable public financial sup-
Education: What We Know About port and thus are quite relevant to public policy. We recognize
that policy development requires a broader view of early care
Programs, Children Served, and
and education prior to age 3 and after kindergarten entry. How-
Connections to Public Policy and Practice ever, for review purposes, we focus on this one manageable
Early education serves at least two primary interests: those of slice of children’s early experiences.
parents seeking opportunities for development enhancement Over the past 4 decades, the federal government and most
for their children or child care to support their own employment states have invested heavily in providing public preschool pro-
and those of society at large in relation to the development of grams for 3- and 4-year-old children. The percentage of pre-
human capital. In many instances, these interests are mutual schoolers in child care increased from 17% in 1965 to about
and overlapping: Society likely benefits when parents enroll 80% in 2008 (Barnett & Yarosz, 2007; Barnett, Epstein, Fried-
their children in early education opportunities that promote man, Boyd, & Hustedt, 2008). A marked increase in publicly
learning and development of skills that might not be provided funded programs accompanied this overall increase; Head Start
or fostered by parents, and when children are enrolled, parents was established in 1965 and by 2007–2008 served nearly

52


900,000 children in this age range (Barnett, Epstein, et al., younger children and because funds may be spent on home-
2008). State-funded public pre-K programs greatly expanded based child care. In 2008, Head Start programs received
during the past 20 years. Now, 38 states offer these programs, around $6 billion from the federal government to serve 3- and
which served approximately 1.1 million children across the 4-year-old children. Public pre-K spent more than $5 billion in
nation in 2007–2008 (Barnett, Epstein, et al., 2008). By 2008 in funds administered by the states for regular education,
2008, about 75% of American children attended a center- exclusive of special education funds for children with disabil-
based preschool program in the year prior to kindergarten, ities, to serve mostly 4-year-olds in the year before kindergar-
many in private programs. Nearly half attended a center- ten. In 2009, the federal government increased annual funding
based program in the year before that (at age 3), with two out for child care assistance and Head Start by $1 billion each
of three of these in a private program. The combination of through the economic stimulus legislation, but efforts to set
increased enrollment, expansion of publicly funded preschool aside added Title I funding for pre-K failed in Congress
programs, and recognition of the unique role of early education (Barnett & Frede, 2009).
experiences in the establishment of education success has led to The most complicated set of major public expenditures
the current situation in which, for the vast majority of children for early care and education services is for child care. As noted
in the United States, school essentially starts at age 4, and for earlier, child care assistance can support children from birth to
many, at age 3 (Pianta, 2005). 13 years and may go to home-based caregivers, including rela-
Preschool-aged Latino children are the least likely of tives, as well as to child care centers. The largest public child
any ethnic-racial group to enroll in preschool or child care in care assistance efforts are the federal Child Care Development
the United States (Espinosa, 2007). There is evidence that this Fund (CCDF), which provides block grants and triggers addi-
does not reflect a difference in cultural attitudes or preferences tional required and optional state spending (about $12 billion);
but rather a lack of information and unequal access (Barnett & the Child Care Food Program ($2.2 billion); and tax credits
Yarosz, 2007). Across all racial groups, close to half of from the federal and state governments (about $3.5 billion; all
California’s 3- to 5-year-olds are enrolled in preschool or child estimates from Barnett & Frede, 2009). The CCDF provides
care (47%), whereas only 37% of 3- to 5-year-old Latinos are block grants to the states and territories and requires state con-
similarly enrolled (Lopez & de Cos, 2004)—if they live in a tributions to obtain federal funds. The CCDF also permits
household where no one over the age of 14 speaks English flu- states to transfer up to 30% of Temporary Assistance to Needy
ently, the enrollment rate drops further. Not surprisingly, pre-K Families funds to the CCDF and to spend those funds directly
and kindergarten children are much more likely to be African on child care. Funding for CCDF has more than tripled since
American or Latino than are their teachers (Clifford et al., 1996, and states have great flexibility in its administration.
2005; National Center for Education Statistics, 1999), and Most CCDF funds are distributed through vouchers, and about
Latino children are far more likely than are other children to 60% of the children funded attend centers, with the remainder
speak a language different than their teachers (Clifford et al., in home-based and informal care. In addition, expenditures of
2005). Thus, although in many ways preschool programs are private funds (primarily parents paying fees) are substantial
explicitly intended to foster the early school success of children and virtually impossible to estimate accurately.
from highly diverse (culturally, economically, linguistically) The three major public funding categories—child care,
backgrounds and reduce the transition stress and strain that Head Start, and pre-K—have important differences, beginning
children and families experience, such programs are not widely with their goals. They all share an emphasis on increasing
available and often do not reach these constituencies. As we access to services for children from low-income families (only
show later in this section, the growth rate of these groups will a few states have universal, rather than targeted, pre-K pro-
place considerable pressure on early education programs and is grams). Child care funding tends to emphasize facilitating
a major challenge to be addressed. parental employment, even though it is recognized that child
development is also a goal. It is important to note that only
about 5% of CCDF funds are set aside for quality enhance-
Funding, scope, and administrative
ments. About a quarter of children receiving child care
support structures assistance are in unregulated care, and in any case, state child
These three major types of center-based preschool programs care regulations tend to focus on ensuring child safety rather
differ in their governance and administration, funding, and than support for optimal learning and development (Zigler,
program standards, largely because of differences in the major Marsland, & Lord, 2009). Thus, public funds that flow to child
government programs that fund them. To understand this care are only very loosely coupled with assets that could
situation, it is useful to have some sense of the magnitudes of improve child development, and when coupled, the linkage is
funding involved. Federal funding for child care assistance often passive and unintentional. Head Start has a broad array
exceeded $8 billion in 2008, and states contributed additional of goals, including child development, family-parent engage-
funds, making this the largest source of public funds for early ment and education, and to some extent community develop-
care and education. Precise figures are not available, but pri- ment. Head Start has tended to pay little attention to its
vate child care centers for 3- to 5-year-olds likely received potential role as promoting parental employment by providing
less than half that total because funds support both older and child care and, in recent years, has focused more strongly on its

53

54 Pianta et al.

role in promoting child development. State-funded public Fragmented policies create fragmented experience. A
pre-K is most often defined as a part-day program focused on widely understood example of policy fragmentation and its
education and school readiness. Recent years have seen some impact on experience is the set of regulations regarding access
movement toward greater integration of the child care and to kindergarten–Grade 12 (K–12) opportunities. The age for
education aims and functions of these programs, particularly compulsory school attendance in the United States ranges from
in universal pre-K programs in which children are served by 5 to 8, and kindergarten attendance is mandatory in some states
private child care centers or in wrap-around programs that con- and optional in others (Vecchiotti, 2003). Kindergarten lasts
nect part-time public programs with child care subsidies for 2.5 hours in some states and a full day (6–7 hours) in others
whole-day enrollment. For the most part, public funding (Vecchiotti, 2003), and state-funded pre-K programs range
streams have led programs to ignore the reality that, in the pre- from as short as 2.5 hours per day to as long as 10 hours per day
school years, education and child care are inextricably tied (D. Bryant et al., 2004).
together; attention to one and not the other results in a lost Programs for younger children are even more balkanized
opportunity to optimize and intensify support for children and and fragmented. As we described previously, the term pre-
families and to promote child development and learning. school encompasses a diverse array of programs under a variety
Efforts to create a more uniform system of early childhood of names and auspices for children who have not yet entered
services or even to increase cooperation among child care, kindergarten. Again, we focus on only three broad types of
Head Start, and pre-K together are hindered by the separate programs serving children at ages 3 and 4 linked to largely sep-
administrative and governance structures for their respective arate public funding streams: private child care centers, Head
public funding streams. In this way, policy misalignments cre- Start, and pre-K programs in public education. However, the
ate serious problems at the program and classroom levels. real landscape of preschool is far broader and more complex.
Child care standards are set through state social services or Enrollment of 4-year-olds is split nearly 50/50 between pub-
health departments. Child care centers may be operated by lic (including special education) and private programs. Private
for-profit, nonprofit, or religiously affiliated organizations. programs serve about 1.6 million 4-year-olds, including chil-
Head Start standards and regulations are set by the U.S. Depart- dren receiving public supports such as subsidies to attend these
ment of Health and Human Services at the federal level, and private programs. Public programs include approximately 1
states have no administrative authority over local Head Start million children in pre-K (regular and special education) and
agencies. Local Head Start agencies are private organizations 450,000 4-year-olds in Head Start. At age 3, private programs
responsible for their own administration, boards, and parent predominate, serving roughly 1.4 million children. State-
councils. Pre-K is administered at the state and local levels. funded pre-K (regular and special education) serves only about
State education departments solely administer pre-K in 26 of 250,000 children at age 3, and Head Start serves about 320,000
38 states with programs. Six other states jointly administer 3-year-olds. The point is that even if we focus only on a narrow
pre-K through Education and Human Services, and the rest use slice of preschool—in this case, opportunities for 3- and
a variety of agencies. If operated by the public schools, pro- 4-year-olds—we see little to no evidence of consistency in
grams are governed by a local Board of Education as well as policy or on programmatic initiatives that create the templates
the state. However, increasingly, state pre-K programs fund for local opportunities for children and families. In thousands
private centers and may do so directly rather than through local of communities across the country, children, particularly the
Boards of Education. Given the variations in federal, state, and most vulnerable, are funneled into one program at 3 and then
local control, program standards and schedules vary greatly shuffled to another at 4, and yet another at 5—or worse, they
across these major program types, as do monitoring and are among those who lack access to any of these opportunities.
accountability. The result is a stunning cacophony of regula- In addition, most of these children have some other sort of child
tion; competing aims; blended funds; and lack of coherence care (subsidized or not) at some point in the day or week. To be
in program design, curriculum, and staffing, with many pro- concrete, if the public schools cannot manage to offer universal
grams spending precious dollars, time, and staff attention on full-day kindergarten, then how does one go about conceptua-
simply managing and processing all the paperwork. There is lizing and designing a system of early education and care that is
no question that policy and funding coherence must be a major aligned with kindergarten?
aim of future efforts to improve access to and quality of effec-
tive early education and child care. Schedules in preschool programs. Child care programs typi-
cally operate for 10–12 hours a day, 250 days a year. Head Start
programs vary their schedules at local discretion despite having
Children, families, and the preschool workforce a uniform federal administration. Some operate less than 5 days
When examining early education opportunities in the preschool per week, and only 40% of children attend for a full school day
period, one will notice that the features of these opportunities 5 days per week during the school year (Barnett, Epstein, et al.,
differ as much as children do. Because of discrepant policies, 2008). Historically, state pre-K programs have provided only
fragmented workforce characteristics, and the resulting uneven part-day programs, but this has been changing, and at least a
quality of early education learning opportunities, there is really quarter of children attend a full school day 5 days per week.
no system for the support of early learning and development. Ten state pre-K programs offer at least a full school day, 10

54


offer only a half day, and the rest leave the decision to local dis- standards for the educational level of its staff, one wonders if
cretion (Barnett, Epstein, et al., 2008). State pre-K services funding will be available to match the market.
perse are limited to the 180 or so days that public schools are For children who do not receive early education services in
open. However, some state pre-K and Head Start programs pre-K or Head Start programs but who are enrolled in the less
coordinate with child care agencies to provide 10 to 12 hours regulated ecology of family- or center-based child care, expo-
per day, 250 days per year, with the extra hours paid for by sure to credentialed or degreed staff is even lower (Helburn,
public child care assistance or parent fees. Children often shift 1995; Phillipsen, Burchinal, Howes, & Cryer, 1997; National
from one program to another, making it highly unlikely that Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD]
they are enrolled full-time in the same program through the Early Child Care Research Network [ECCRN], 2002). The
preschool period. 2007 child care licensing study (National Association for Reg-
ulatory Administration, 2009) was one of the more recent and
Inconsistency in workforce qualifications. The attributes and comprehensive studies of the child care workforce. Data gath-
skills of the adults who staff elementary school and preschool ered from 49 states and the District of Columbia showed that, in
educational settings tend to be very different. At the kindergar- the vast majority of states (42), directors of child care centers
ten level, nearly all states require a bachelor’s degree and some are only required to have some occupational-vocational
level of specialized training in education for adults to be certi- training, some higher education credit hours in early childhood
fied to teach, and more than 95% of the teachers in kindergarten education, or a CDA credential. Only one state required that
classrooms meet both criteria. In contrast, preschool teachers directors of child care centers hold a bachelor’s degree.
vary widely in their level of training and, on average, receive Similarly, for individuals considered as teachers in licensed
less training and education than do their elementary school child care centers, 40 states required some combination of a
counterparts (Early et al., 2007). There are large differences high school degree and experience. Only 10 states required some
even among teachers in state-funded pre-K programs. Mini- vocational program, certificate, or CDA, and 13 states had no
mum requirements range from a Child Development Associate requisite educational qualification for child care teachers.
(CDA) certificate to an associate’s degree to a bachelor’s Clearly, we have not settled on a set of minimal qualifications
degree (D. Bryant et al., 2004). Furthermore, some states for adults serving in the role of teachers of young children,
require that the 2- or 4-year degree be in early childhood edu- whether this teaching takes places in private child care, Head
cation or child development, whereas others do not specify a Start, or public Pre-K. Moreover, there is too little agreement
field of study. This variability was reflected in findings from on the performance standards and metrics for those standards
the National Center for Early Development and Learning that should be applied to this role, and the preparation and
(NCEDL) Multi-State Pre-K study (Clifford et al., 2005), support experiences that should align with such performance
showing that only 70% of pre-K teachers had at least a bache- standards are woefully out of synchrony. In short, to the extent
lor’s degree in their study of six states with mature pre-K pro- that teachers play an essential role in fostering high-quality
grams, whereas 15% had a 2-year degree and 16% had no learning opportunities for young children, children passing
formal degree past high school. Thus, even in the fairly through the preschool period can expect a stunning level of
well-regulated domains of state-funded pre-K programs and variation from year to year and setting to setting in even the most
kindergarten, there is substantial variance in the preparation basic qualifications (e.g., educational level) of these personnel.
and qualifications deemed necessary for the workforce, a
reality that seems indefensible given the developmental needs Access to high-quality preschool experiences is varied and
of 4- and 5-year-olds. How could fostering early literacy for minimal. Children of color or children in poverty have limited
a 4-year-old require such different preparation than fostering access to preschool care, especially higher-quality care.
literacy in a 5-year-old? Furthermore, many children from lower-middle-income fami-
Head Start has national standards for program structure, lies have less access to care than do children from low-
operation, and teacher credentials but does not require all income families (Barnett & Yarosz, 2007). A recent study of
teachers to have college degrees. Head Start is increasing its preschool programs across California found that quality of
educational standards for teachers and educational coordina- child care was less than good for a majority of children even
tors, with aims that by the 2011 school year all Head Start in families with incomes over 500% of the poverty line
teachers will have at least an associate’s degree specialized (Karoly, Ghosh-Dastidar, Zellman, Perlman, & Fernyhough,
in early childhood and all education coordinators will have at 2008). Overall, private child care tends to have the lowest over-
least a bachelor’s degree specialized in early childhood. At all quality, with Head Start and pre-K programs providing
least 50% of the lead teachers in Head Start must have at least somewhat higher and more uniform quality (Administration on
a bachelor’s degree by 2013. However, salaries are not com- Children and Families, 2006; Karoly et al., 2008; Zigler et al.,
mensurate with education in Head Start. Head Start teachers 2009), although there is considerable variability between and
with bachelor’s degrees were paid less than $26,000 on average within all child care, pre-K, and Head Start preschool programs
in 2004 (Hamm & Ewen, 2006). With salaries far below those and big differences among the states (D. Bryant et al., 2004).
in the public schools, Head Start cannot help but find it difficult In summary, the features of the preschool landscape, includ-
to hire and retain the best teachers, and as the program raises ing those tightly regulated by policy (such as entry age or

55

56 Pianta et al.

eligibility) and those more directly related to child outcomes ameliorate. In a nationally representative study of more than
(such as quality of classroom interactions), are stunningly vari- 22,000 children who entered kindergarten in 1998, the Early
able across settings and across time. Moreover, reasonable evi- Childhood Longitudinal Study of Kindergarten Children,
dence suggests that these features also vary as a function of 68% of the children were classified as English speaking and
family background factors. The resulting picture is one of too 18.1% were classified as language-minority children (Espi-
many children and families falling through too many cracks nosa, Laffey, Whittaker, & Sheng, 2006), with almost 13%
and seams at too many levels. Thus, even in a policy and pro- of the total sample speaking Spanish. More recent estimates
gram development environment in which early education is suggest more rapid growth among language-minority children,
valued and prominent and recognition of the need to close gaps especially among those living in poverty (Hernandez et al.,
and seal seams is growing, the realities point to a fragile and 2007). More than half (52%) of language-minority children and
vulnerable nonsystem through which many of our most fragile 80% of Spanish-speaking children deemed least fluent in Eng-
and vulnerable citizens pass. lish also had socioeconomic status scores that were in the low-
est 20% for the nation (Espinosa et al., 2006). This means that
The changing characteristics of the children and families Spanish-speaking children who are learning English as a sec-
served by early education. The landscape of preschool educa- ond language during the preschool years are the most likely
tion we have described has arisen by default, not design. This of all preschool children to live in poverty with an adult who
fragmented system is now supposed to serve diverse children did not have a high school education. Similarly, other studies
from low-income families, to provide them with the experi- show that non-English-proficient children are about twice as
ences that will accelerate development so they can ‘‘catch likely to live in poverty as are English-proficient children in
up’’ to their more well-buffered peers. Furthermore, this non- kindergarten through fifth grade, and only about 50% have par-
system is being forced to serve more children and families from ents with a high school education (Capps, Fix, Ost, Reardon-
more linguistically and culturally diverse backgrounds than it Anderson, & Passel, 2004). In addition, the proportion of
presently serves. For these children, the chasms between home, young children who are White, non-Hispanic is projected by
preschool, and elementary school are particularly deep as a the U.S. Census Bureau to fall steadily in the future, dropping
result of barriers that arise from cultural and linguistic variation below 50% within 25 years. The corresponding rise of the new
as well as from inadequate family resources. This section out- American majority does not, however, reflect the emergence of
lines just a few of the characteristics of children and families a single numerically dominant group but instead reflects a
who will soon enter this ecology, raising questions about its mosaic of diverse racial and ethnic groups from around the
capacity to sustain and foster their developmental progress. world (see Hernandez et al., 2007, for details). These dramatic
Early childhood education is being investigated as a way to increases in linguistic diversity during the early childhood
address differences in children’s competencies that are linked years are now intersecting, and will continue to intersect, with
to growing up in poor families. Children living in households the features of the preschool nonsystem described earlier.
with poverty-level incomes often lack resources for housing, Perhaps the most difficult demands on the early childhood
food, clothing, books, educational resources, high-quality child education system involve children of immigrants. In 2000, one
care–early education, and health care and consequently tend to of every five children lived in an immigrant family, and this
experience a variety of negative developmental outcomes proportion is increasing. Immigrant parents often have high
(Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Sewell & Hauser, 1975). educational aspirations for their children (Hernandez &
Hernandez, Denton, and Macartney (2007) presented poverty- Charney, 1998; Rumbaut, 1999), but they may have little
rate estimates that were adjusted for inflation and actual cost knowledge about the U.S. educational system, particularly if
of living. Such estimates describe even larger gaps between they have themselves completed only a few years of school and
Whites and most other groups and raise poverty estimates have limited English skills. Parents with limited English skills
considerably. For example, the readjusted rate suggests that are less likely to find well-paid, full-time, year-round employ-
about 31% of young native White children are impoverished, ment than are English-fluent parents, and they may be less able
taking into account the cost of child care–early childhood to help their children with school subjects taught in English.
education and health care, whereas the rates for most native High-quality early childhood education might help both the
race–ethnic minority groups and high-poverty immigrant groups children to acquire school readiness skills and the parents to
are in the range of 48% to 82% (see Hernandez et al., 2007). understand the U.S. educational system, but there are large debates
Racial or ethnic minorities are rapidly becoming the major- about what constitutes high-quality care for these children.
ity population; this will happen first among young children (see Clearly, demographic shifts will place tremendous pres-
Hernandez et al., 2007, for details); these children are much sure on early education and child care in the United States
more likely than Whites to live in poverty and will place even in the coming decades, a trend that is well under way in many
larger demands on the early childhood system. Moreover, states, such as California and Texas. The consequences for
young White children are 2 to 4 times less likely to be poor than preschool program eligibility and enrollment, available slots,
are other young children. Thus, the very groups that are grow- preparation and support of staff, and program resources such
ing demographically in the United States are those in which as curricula are enormous. As one reviews the data describing
achievement gaps are so pronounced and difficult to contemporary realities and forecasting future circumstances,

56


it is abundantly evident that the features of the preschool land- education on children’s cognitive development dropped sub-
scape—connections among child care, preschool, and stantially (from about 0.70 standard deviations, SD, to 0.35
schools; links between families and the adults who teach their SD) as one moved the outcome assessments from the end of the
children; capacities of the ‘‘system’’ for fostering positive program through age 10. Cognitive effects were relatively sta-
development in children who increasingly vary by race, cul- ble thereafter, at about 0.30 SD beyond age 10. Interestingly, no
ture, language, and economic background—will undergo tre- significant decline is found for the impact of preschool enroll-
mendous strain. The pressures imposed on this context and ment on social-emotional outcomes, including delinquency and
these relationships by the sheer variability present in the crime; however, fewer studies have examined these outcomes
children and families will itself be a considerable threat to the and many of the measures are by their nature long term. The
viability of the capacity of preschool to promote positive long-term cognitive effects are large enough to narrow by one
developmental change. third the achievement gap between low-income children and
their more advantaged peers.
Although meta-analysis is useful for summarizing findings
The Effects of Enrollment in Preschool on
and can accommodate individual studies that vary in their
Child Development methodological rigor, representativeness, and sample size,
Over the past few decades, a substantial body of research when ethical and feasible, large-scale randomized trials are the
evidence has accumulated establishing that enrollment in preferred method for addressing well-defined questions about
preschool programs (e.g., child care, Head Start, public the impacts of policy (Feuer, Towne, & Shavelson, 2002). The
pre-K) can improve the learning and development of young reason is that the randomization allows causal inference to be
children. To be clear, in discussing this literature, we attend made from study findings and the large scale facilitates gener-
in this section of the monograph only to results on exposure alization to a larger population. Even small randomized trials
or enrollment in preschool and its influence on child develop- can provide useful estimates, particularly if results can be com-
ment, not to whether the quality of a particular program or piled across multiple small trials with somewhat different pro-
classroom has an influence. With such a large number of grams, populations, and contexts. Such replication is important
available studies, meta-analysis is a useful tool to summarize for understanding how program outcomes depend on what is
findings across this literature. Meta-analysis statistically provided, who is served, and other circumstances (e.g., K–12
summarizes findings by accumulating results across studies, policies or economic conditions).
with an aim to detect an average across them, and estimating Various quasi-experimental methods have been developed
the extent to which features such as study design, program to estimate the effects of policies and programs when rando-
design, and characteristics of the children served may influ- mized trials are not available or may not be possible. Studies
ence the results. using these designs devote considerable effort and attention
With this in mind, the most recent comprehensive meta- to the problem of disentangling family influences from pro-
analysis of preschool enrollment effects revealed a substantial gram influences. The potential to obtain valid estimates
positive effect on cognitive development (Camilli, Vargas, depends to some extent on the richness of the data regarding
Ryan, & Barnett, 2010). The average effect is large enough families and family processes (that operate as selection factors)
to close half, or more, of the achievement gap at school entry and of the data regarding out-of-home preschool program
between lower-income children and their peers. The initial experiences, as well as on the extent to which these data and
effect of preschool education is the equivalent of 7 points on data on child development are available over time (Todd &
an IQ test, or a move from the 30th to the 50th percentile for Wolpin, 2003). At one end of the spectrum, some studies have
achievement test scores. Moreover, this statistical summary followed children and families from infancy, collecting inten-
also finds a somewhat smaller, but nevertheless substantive, sive data on experiences in the home and centers as well as
positive effect on social-emotional development (Camilli on child development from year to year. At the other end, some
et al., 2010). studies have only parental recall about program type and no
Dozens of studies have examined preschool education’s measures of children’s experiences or development prior to
long-term effects, providing information into elementary kindergarten.
school and beyond (Aos, Lieb, Mayfield, Miller, & Pennucci, Given the variations in research design and methods, study
2004; Barnett, 1998; Karoly, Kilburn, & Cannon, 2005). Anal- findings must be carefully weighed. Careful synthesis of find-
yses of multiple studies revealed significant lasting benefits in ings across studies requires that each study is interpreted in the
learning, less grade repetition and special education placement, context of the others and of the rest of the relevant literature,
higher rates of high school graduation, and improved social including research on learning, teaching, and development
behavior (Aos et al., 2004; Camilli et al., 2010). These effects more generally. In general, within the experimental and well-
decline as students move from their immediate experience in controlled quasi-experimental literatures, for the most rigorous
preschool to elementary school, to adolescence, and to adult- studies, the largest effects are obtained for enrollment in pro-
hood follow-up, but they do not disappear. In a comprehensive grams that focused directly on educating the child. Further, the
meta-analysis (Camilli et al., 2010) that controlled for quality literature also suggests that early childhood education effects
of the research design, the estimated effects of preschool may vary depending on child and family characteristics

57

58 Pianta et al.

(Barnett, 2002). Thus, to better understand long-term effective- Child care effects also tend to be small over the long term,
ness, one must closely examine individual studies. with associations between features of care and outcomes
declining as the time period extends into school. However, in
addition to the direct effects of attending child care, children
Enrollment in child care and effects on child
benefit from long-term increases in family income resulting
development and learning from increases in maternal employment (although work could
Most careful studies show that enrollment in typical child care lead mothers to reduce time with their young children, perhaps
(i.e., child care that has the aim of fostering parent employment partially offsetting income benefits). The most rigorous long-
and not child learning) has small effects on children’s learning term studies of child care effects have found that both positive
and development. Child care in centers, particularly at ages and negative effects tend to be smaller in the long term. For
3 and 4, has somewhat larger positive effects on cognitive example, in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth
development than does home-based child care (Bernal & Development, higher child care quality is associated with
Keane, 2006; NICHD ECCRN, 2002). Studies in the United slightly higher vocabulary scores through fifth grade and aca-
States and Canada also have shown that center-based child care demic skills at 15 years of age, more time in child care is asso-
has small negative effects on social-emotional development ciated with slightly more risk taking and impulsivity at 15 years
and behavior (Baker, Gruber, & Milligan, 2008; Magnuson of age, more time in child care beginning at young ages is
et al., 2007a; NICHD ECCRN, 2003); that is, children enrolled related to higher ratings of problem behaviors by teachers in
in more hours of center-based care tend to display somewhat preschool through first grade, and more time in center-based
higher levels of disruptive problem behaviors than those care slightly increases teacher-reported behavior problems
enrolled for fewer or no hours. Negative effects may increase through elementary school (Belsky et al., 2007). The Early
with number of years in care and be lower when children Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort of 1998
attend higher-quality programs (Love et al., 2003; NICHD studies, which have somewhat less capacity to eliminate con-
ECCRN, 2003). founds and assessment of care experiences than the NICHD
Higher-quality child care is associated with larger learning study, revealed that center-based programs have small residual
gains and better social and emotional development (Burchinal benefits for reading and math test scores until the end of third
& Cryer, 2003; McCartney, Dearing, Taylor, & Bub, 2007; grade (Magnuson et al., 2007a, 2007b; Magnuson, Meyers,
NICHD ECCRN & Duncan, 2003; Peisner-Feinberg & Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2004). Other studies provide additional
Burchinal, 1997; Ruopp, Travers, Glantz, & Coelen, 1979; evidence that center care has lasting benefits for academic
Vandell, 2004). In such studies, child care quality is typically achievement in reading and math. Overall, long-term positive
assessed via qualities of the caregivers’ involvement with effects appear to be strengthened by higher quality and to be
children (warmth, language stimulation, responsive care) or larger for children from low-income families and, in some stud-
aspects of the setting itself (fewer children, stimulating and ies, for boys (Huston, Walker, Dowsett, Imes, & Ware, 2008;
age-appropriate materials, safety). Some studies have found Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001; Sylva et al., 2008).
larger benefits for children from low-income families Experimental studies conducted with very high-quality edu-
(Caughy, DiPietro, & Strobino, 1994; NICHD ECCRN & cationally focused child care indicate that better results can be
Duncan, 2003). In most of these studies of either child care produced for the time in which children are enrolled in care.
quantity or quality, children are not assigned randomly to var- The Abecedarian study (Ramey et al., 2000) used a randomized
iations; thus, statistical controls are used to isolate the effects design to evaluate the effects of a full-day (6–8 hours),
of child care features on developmental outcomes. year-round educational program from about 4 months of age
Finally, child care subsidies increase employment for to kindergarten entry. This study followed 111 children from
mothers of young children, although some research suggests program entry through age 21, with a largely intact sample
that child care subsidy policies also can increase use of poor- (Campbell & Ramey, 2007). The Abecedarian program pro-
quality care and decrease the stability of care arrangements, duced large initial gains in IQ that remained statistically signif-
thereby harming both cognitive and social-emotional develop- icant, albeit smaller, over time. There were significant positive
ment (Blau & Currie, 2006; Blau & Tekin, 2007; Herbst & effects on reading and math achievement from ages 8 to 21 that
Tekin, 2008; Lefebvre & Merrigan, 2008; Tekin, 2007). As all persisted, with only a very slight decrease in magnitude over
these studies have significant methodological limitations, they time. This educationally focused child care intervention
must be weighed carefully. Because children cannot be rando- reduced grade retention and placement in special education
mized to conditions, study results may reflect unobserved dif- by 23 percentage points each. Attendance at a 4-year college
ferences between children and families rather than program was significantly different: 36% for the program group versus
effects (Larzelere, Kuhn, & Johnson, 2004; Shadish, Cook, & 14% for the control group (Barnett & Masse, 2007; Campbell
Campbell, 2002). For example, if parents are more likely to & Ramey, 1995; Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling, &
enroll children with higher levels of behavior problems in Miller-Johnson, 2002; McLaughlin, Campbell, Pungello, &
child care centers rather than keep them at home or with rela- Skinner, 2007; C. T. Ramey et al., 2000).
tives, then centers would appear to have negative effects when, The Abecedarian study also found long-term effects beyond
in fact, that may not be the case. schooling and cognitive skills. At the young adult follow-up,

58


members of the program group were more likely to have a the comprehensive services and family-oriented nature of Head
skilled job, less likely to have become teen parents, and less Start, access to dental care was improved, and child health, as
likely to smoke marijuana. Effects were not found on social reported by parents, was modestly improved for 3-year-olds.
development or behavior during the program or in later Subsequent follow-up found that the modest initial cognitive
delinquency and crime. However, control group involvement advantages from a year of Head Start disappear by the end of
in crime and delinquency was low, making it difficult to kindergarten, and the control children catch up (U.S. Depart-
improve on an already relatively good outcome. Finally, the ment of Health and Human Services, Administration for Chil-
free child care significantly improved mothers’ long-term dren and Families, 2010). Although some researchers have
employment opportunities and earnings, a valuable outcome expressed concerns related to the study design (specifically the
not likely to be produced by part-day, part-year programs. existence of ‘‘crossovers,’’ i.e., children whose experience did
The Abecedarian study does not stand alone as evidence of not actually correlate with the study design because they
the long-term effects of very-high-quality care from the first crossed from one study group to the other), the general pattern
year of life to age 5. Other randomized trials replicate key find- and magnitude of effects remain the same when adjustments
ings of the Abecedarian study regarding effects on children are made for crossovers (Ludwig & Phillips, 2007).
(Campbell et al., 2008; Garber, 1988; McCormick et al., To put the results of the NIS in a broader context for inter-
2008; Wasik, Ramey, Bryant, & Sparling, 1990). The Abece- pretation, one must first recall that the NIS reflects a national
darian program’s effects on maternal earnings also are broadly sampling strategy and thus is an evaluation in the broadest
confirmed by the evidence from studies of the effects of child sense of Head Start impact across a very wide range of varia-
care on employment referred to earlier. Considering all of the tion in children, communities, and programs. With this in mind,
studies of child care together, substantially enhanced child care on the broadest measures of cognitive abilities, the largest esti-
could have large positive effects and economic benefits even mated effects are only 20% to 33% of the average effects in the
though current programs do not. preschool effects literature. More specifically, programs pro-
This gap between ‘‘what could be’’ and ‘‘what is’’ in terms ducing effects of this magnitude would close no more than
of the nature and impact of child care is an essential take-away 10% to 20% of the achievement gap, and as effects decline
message from any review of the literature on child care impacts later, the long-term impact of Head Start enrollment on the
and policy. With the Abecedarian study having demonstrated achievement gap could be no more than a 5% reduction in the
marked gains in school readiness and school-age outcomes for achievement gap, on average.
high-risk children more than 25 years ago, perhaps the funda- Studies of specific Head Start programs have found larger
mental question facing policy is whether highly effective pro- impacts. For example, a small, randomized trial of Head Start
grams can be scaled up. These experimental, educationally for 4-year-olds in one program found cognitive gains that were
focused programs very clearly indicate that achievement and substantially higher than those in the NIS. That study also
developmental gaps for poor children can be greatly narrowed, found a very large effect on dental care, as well as positive
if not eliminated, yet the failure to replicate such effects at effects on health care (Abbott-Shim, Lambert, & McCarty,
larger scale or even in modestly scaled parallels is notable. 2003). A rigorous quasi-experimental study of Head Start’s
Interestingly, literature on effects of child care in other coun- initial effects was conducted in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where Head
tries suggests a somewhat more positive set of benefits for pro- Start teachers have 4-year college degrees and early childhood
grams operating at scale; in nearly every case, such programs teacher certification and are paid public school salaries
are intensive, full-day opportunities with care providers that and benefits (Gormley, Phillips, & Gayer, 2008). This study
focus on promoting learning and development and that operate found effects on literacy and math that were considerably
in a much more coherent policy and funding context. larger than those in other Head Start studies, including
comparable estimates from the NIS. By contrasting these
Head Start and its impacts on child development results for specific programs with the NIS results, it is possible
to shed some light on what factors may account for more and
and learning less effective programs. For example, Head Start’s national
The strongest Head Start study to date, in terms of the rigor of policies that lead to low teacher qualifications and compensa-
the design and depth of assessment, is the National Impact tion may well limit the program’s educational effectiveness,
Study (NIS) of a large sample of children across the country when contrasted with the program in Tulsa, whereas in other
randomly assigned to attend Head Start or not at ages 3 and circumstances, it could be that more effective programs have
4. As reported, the estimated positive effects on cognitive stronger, more educationally focused curricula and profes-
learning after 9 months of Head Start were fairly small overall. sional development, all of which are masked in the larger NIS.
Positive effects were smallest for broad cognitive measures and A few nonexperimental studies have used approaches
somewhat larger (still small overall) for more limited sets of lit- designed to reduce or eliminate the kind of selection bias that
eracy skills easily taught and mastered in a brief time (Puma afflicts studies of Head Start impacts, such as those conducted
et al., 2005). No negative effects were found on socioemotional using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study of Kindergarten
development, and behavior problems and hyperactivity were Children sample. These rigorous nonexperimental studies
significantly lower for the Head Start 3-year-olds. Reflecting found positive Head Start effects on achievement, with

59

60 Pianta et al.

estimates of initial impacts similar to those from the rando- have been the focus of this discussion thus far. In New Jersey,
mized trials noted earlier (Currie & Thomas, 1995, 1999), and for example, most children are served in private child care cen-
some have also looked at longer term effects. The studies found ters that contract with public schools and operate with the
lasting effects on achievement test scores and grade retention same standards, regulations, and funding as public schools.
for White and Hispanic children but not for Black children. Nevertheless, it is useful to review the findings of individual
Grade repetition for Hispanic children age 10 and older was studies of preschool programs that were funded by research
found to be substantially reduced (Currie & Thomas, 1995, or public funds and pre-K programs funded by state and local
1999). In addition, the studies found that Head Start increased government to determine what is known about them.
high school graduation rates by 22 percentage points for White Two longitudinal studies of preschool education stand out
children and decreased arrest rates by 12 percentage points for because they are well-implemented, randomized trials of
African American children (Garces, Thomas, & Currie, 2002). public school pre-K programs (Consortium for Longitudinal
Note that comparisons to more rigorous studies suggest that the Studies, 1983). Although they were implemented with higher
differences in results by ethnicity could reflect limitations of program standards than many state pre-K programs, they also
the methods and data rather than real differences in outcomes share important characteristics with some of today’s better state
(Barnett & Camilli, 2002; Ludwig & Phillips, 2008). programs. Both studies employed public school teachers who
One particularly rigorous nonexperimental study relies on received intensive coaching and supervision, with regular in-
variations in historical patterns of Head Start funding across depth discussion and feedback regarding teaching practices.
counties to estimate Head Start’s effects on child health and Other preschool programs with strong evidence of effective-
educational attainment (Ludwig & Miller, 2007). This study ness have also had such teacher support, and it has been sug-
found that Head Start decreased mortality among children ages gested that strong teacher support is likely to be important to
5 to 9 from causes plausibly affected by Head Start health ser- replicating positive results (Frede, 1998). Teachers in both pro-
vices; in addition, Head Start was associated with increased grams also conducted home visits.
high school graduation and college attendance. Positive effects The High/Scope Perry Preschool program randomly
were found for boys and girls and for Blacks as well as Whites. assigned 128 disadvantaged minority children to either a
Although effects were not clearly found on eighth-grade test half-day preschool program with home visits by the teachers
scores, the estimated range of possible effects on test scores or a control group (Schweinhart et al., 2005). Children attended
is wide enough to encompass the modest positive effects of the preschool program for two school years beginning at age 3
Head Start on achievement that have been found in other stud- (except for a few who entered at age 4). Ratios were much bet-
ies. However, these effects refer to a time prior to the availabil- ter than is typical of most public programs: six or seven chil-
ity of the state children’s health programs and other services dren to each teacher (assistant teachers were not used). This
that are available today. staffing made the Perry program considerably more expensive
In summary, controlled evaluations of Head Start impacts than the typical state-funded pre-K program. Initial positive
generally show modest effects, on average, for child learning effects on broad cognitive abilities after 2 years for the children
and developmental outcomes. Effects are larger for programs attending Perry Preschool were large enough to close the entire
that are more educationally intensive and for outcomes more Black-White and poor-nonpoor test score gaps at school entry.
closely tied to the kind of inputs being offered, whether they The initial cognitive advantage from the Perry program
be access to dental care or learning letters. In some sense, the declined over time, in part because public school helped the
lesson from this work again reflects the staggering variation control group catch up once the children entered kindergarten
in program design and delivery—this variation swamps the (Berrueta-Clement, Schweinhart, Barnett, Epstein, & Weikart,
impacts of successful programs when aggregated together, but 1984). There was no persistent effect on IQ, but the positive
indeed there are pockets of effective programs evident within effects on achievement tests continued through school and
the broader population of Head Start programs, and the attri- were substantial. For reading at age 14 and at age 19, the effects
butes of those programs may be important ‘‘concept proofs’’ were equivalent to 40% of the achievement gap. In addition,
for what could be modeled at a larger scale. the preschool group had better classroom and personal beha-
vior as reported by teachers, less involvement in youth miscon-
duct and crime, fewer special education placements, and a
Effects of preschool programs higher high school graduation rate (Berrueta-Clement et al.,
Similar to Head Start and child care, state and local pre-K 1984; Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993). Through age
programs vary tremendously in their funding, structure, and 40, the program was associated with increased employment and
practices, which limits the usefulness of generalizations about earnings, decreased welfare dependency, and reduced arrests.
their average effectiveness. Also, keep in mind that state and High school graduation increased from one half to two thirds,
local pre-K programs are not necessarily delivered in the public the number of arrests by age 27 fell by half, and employment
schools. In fact, most state pre-K programs deliver services at age 40 showed an increase of 14 percentage points (Karoly
through Head Start and private providers in addition to the pub- et al., 2005; Schweinhart et al., 2005). The Perry program joins
lic schools—thus as a sector of early education and care, state- the Abecedarian project as an example of a model program
funded pre-K really represents all three forms of preschool that with considerable impact that has yet to be replicated at scale,

60


with benefits approaching those reported for the initial imple- et al., 2005; Gormley et al., 2008). The magnitude of the pos-
mentation. Whether this failure to replicate is due to the nature itive effects reported in this study is quite variable, ranging
of the participants (it has been argued that poverty is more toxic from about the same size as was reported for the meta-
in 2000 than it was in 1970), the educational focus of the analysis discussed earlier to three times that size, notably for
program, or challenges in translating model programs to scale, outcomes tied to the specific curriculum used in the program.
the pattern of diminished returns of scaling holds. Several features of the Tulsa pre-K program are important when
A study of public school preschool education was conducted interpreting these effects, notably teacher qualifications and the
by the Institute for Developmental Studies (IDS). The study educational focus of the program. Both public school pre-K and
included 402 children who were randomly assigned to a pre- Head Start classrooms in Tulsa employ fully qualified public
K program or to a control group (Deutsch, Deutsch, Jordan, school teachers paid public school salaries and produce effects
& Grallow, 1983; Deutsch, Taleporos, & Victor, 1974). Chil- that are two or more times larger than those found by the NIS for
dren attended for 1 year at age 4 and afterward entered an IDS Head Start in literacy and math. In addition, the literacy effects
kindergarten program. A teacher and an aide staffed each pre- of Tulsa’s public school pre-K are about double those of Tulsa
school classroom of 17 children. Estimated positive effects at Head Start, whereas math effects are essentially identical for the
the end of pre-K were substantial for cognitive abilities. The two programs, reflecting the use of a standard literacy curricu-
positive effects on cognition remained at about half that level, lum accompanied by focused professional development.
closing a quarter of the achievement gap through at least third The same rigorous quasi-experimental approach has been
grade. The IDS study also provided follow-up analyses that used to estimate the initial effects of 1 year of state pre-K on
indicate persistent effects to adulthood on achievement, educa- children’s cognitive abilities statewide in Arkansas, California,
tional attainment, and employment. However, the study suffers Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South
from severe attrition in its sample, which limits the confidence Carolina, and West Virginia (Barnett, Howes, & Jung, 2008;
that can be placed in those very long-term findings (Deutsch Hustedt, Barnett, Jung, & Figueras, 2008; Hustedt, Barnett,
et al., 1983; Jordan, Grallo, Deutsch, & Deutsch, 1985). Jung, & Thomas, 2007; Wong et al., 2008). Average effects
Another randomized trial studied the effects of attending a across these eight states were positive for general cognitive
half-day, university-based preschool education program at age ability, for math, and for print awareness (skills in identifying
4 for 291 children whose parents were mostly students at Brig- letters and other forms of print). Effects on general cognitive
ham Young University. This study had fairly high levels of abilities can be directly compared with those in the Perry and
attrition, with only 196 (67%) of the original group found at IDS studies. The average initial effects for 1 year in these state
second- and third-grade follow-up. Attrition rates in treatment pre-K programs is about half that of IDS and one quarter that of
and control groups were unaffected by gender, IQ, or social Perry. The top-performing state pre-K programs (New Jersey
competence. The average IQ of children in the study was a very and Oklahoma) approach the size of the IDS effect on general
high 130, the 97th percentile. No statistically significant pro- cognitive ability. Although these eight state programs are not
gram effects were found on IQ, but significant effects were representative of all state pre-K programs, they are a broad
found on measures of social competence and school readiness sample and demonstrate the modest, but positive, effects that
(Larsen, Hite, & Hart, 1983). In second and third grade, the state pre-K programs can produce on a large scale when they
study found statistically significant gains on achievement tests have reasonably high standards.
for boys, but not girls (Larsen & Robinson, 1989). The NCEDL evaluated impacts of pre-K in the 11 states
There are no randomized trials of large-scale, state-funded with the most mature pre-K programs in 2001–2002. The study
pre-K programs. However, recent studies have used a rigorous tracked changes over the pre-K year in children’s language,
quasi-experimental design that emulates the results of a rando- academic, and social skills and examined the extent to which
mized trial under reasonable assumptions (Cook, 2008; Cook, those changes were related to child care quality. Examining
Shadish, & Wong, 2008; Hahn, Todd, & van der Klaauw, change over time provides some, but not complete, adjust-
2001). These studies made use of the birthdate cutoff for school ment for potential family and child characteristics that could
entry to generate two groups of children who both entered the confound observed associations between child care experi-
program and who were likely to be identical except for birth- ences and child outcomes (NICHD ECCRN & Duncan,
date. One group received the program a full year before the 2003). Results demonstrated (a) that children showed
other, despite the fact that at the margin they differed in age moderate-sized gains during their pre-K year in language and
by only 1 day (Wong et al., 2008). For example, the study of academic skills that were larger than would have been
universal pre-K in Tulsa, Oklahoma, showed substantial posi- expected by age alone (Howes et al., 2008) and (b) that the
tive effects on math and literacy test scores at kindergarten gains were significantly, albeit modestly, related to both the
entry (Gormley et al., 2008; Gormley, Gayer, Phillips, & Daw- quality of instruction and time spent in specific types of
son, 2005). Positive effects were found for boys and girls; for instructional activities (Howes et al., 2008; Mashburn et al.,
White, Black, Hispanic, and Native American children; and for 2008). These gains relating to the quality of the pre-K experi-
children who did and did not qualify for free and reduced-price ences (but not quantity of exposure) were maintained through
lunches (Gormley et al., 2005; Gormley et al., 2008). Positive kindergarten (Burchinal, Howes, et al., 2008), the last age at
effects were somewhat larger for minority children (Gormley which the children were assessed.

61

62 Pianta et al.

Several studies have estimated the effects of universal pre-K scores. Many studies compare children in the control group
on children from nondisadvantaged families to determine with children receiving pre-K education within each grade
whether children from all socioeconomic backgrounds benefit. level; such comparisons, however, do not take into account the
Relatively large samples allow for separate estimates of chil- absence of low-performing children from the control group
dren who qualify for a free lunch (below 130% of the poverty who were retained in an earlier grade or moved into special
line), reduced-price lunch (below 185% of the poverty line or education (Barnett, 1998, 2002). Few studies have examined
$39,220 in 2008–2009), or neither (all families with incomes long-term effects of statewide programs on behavior, but two
above 185% of poverty). The Tulsa study found positive effects separate evaluations of Florida’s targeted pre-K program in the
for all three income groups. Effects for the highest income 1990s found that it reduced disciplinary problems in the early
group were on average 87% as large as those for the lowest grades, as determined from official records (Figlio & Roth,
income group. A statewide study of Oklahoma pre-K found 2007; King, Cappellini, & Gravens, 1995).
that effects averaged 74% as large for those who qualified for The most comprehensive long-term study of large-scale
neither program as those who qualified for at least a reduced- public school pre-K is the Child Parent Center (CPC) study
price lunch. A similar study of New Jersey’s Abbott pre-K pro- (Reynolds, 2000). Chicago’s public schools operated the CPC
gram, which is available to all children in 31 cities with large program beginning in the late 1960s. The CPC provided low-
low-income populations, found that effects averaged 81% as income children with a half-day preschool, kindergarten, and
large for those who qualified for neither a free nor a reduced a follow-on elementary school component. Some 55% of CPC
lunch. The NCEDL study also found somewhat larger gains study students attended CPC preschool for 2 years beginning at
among children from homes with income of 150% or less of the age 3 (the remaining students attended the preschool for 1 year
poverty line (Howes et al., 2008). beginning at age 4). The preschool program had a licensed
As with Head Start, we must rely on nonexperimental stud- teacher and an assistant in each classroom of 18 children and
ies for direct estimates of the long-term effects of state and a relatively strong parent outreach and support component.
local pre-K programs on a large scale. Direct comparisons indi- This program design is similar to the best state programs in
cate that these less-rigorous designs may have underestimated terms of basic design (i.e., staffing, qualifications, hours
the initial effects of pre-K, sometimes by as much as half enrolled, educationally focused) and cost. Estimated effects
(Camilli et al., 2010; Frede, Jung, Barnett, Lamy, & Figueras, on test scores at kindergarten entry were above the average size
2007; Hustedt et al., 2007). With this in mind, it is notable that reported in the meta-analysis, with effects of just 1 year of CPC
the most rigorous of these studies have found that significant attendance equal to between 25% and 85% of the achievement
effects persist through second grade, although the effects may gap at school entry (Reynolds, 2000).
decline over time (Frede et al., 2007; Hustedt et al., 2007). The half-day CPC preschool program is sufficiently similar
Also, gains for broader domains of learning decline through to the Perry Preschool program that CPC could be viewed as a
second grade (Frede et al., 2007; Hustedt et al., 2007). The large-scale, though less intensive, replication. Therefore, the
nonexperimental studies with the most serious limitations extent to which the CPC study confirms the long-term findings
have yielded results similar to those of the least rigorous Head of the Perry Preschool study is important. The CPC study found
Start studies, but note that some have found that pre-K reduces positive effects on the following outcomes: test scores through
grade retention and marginally increases test scores in third at least middle school, arrests for delinquency and crime, spe-
grade (Fitzpatrick, 2008; Grissmer, Flanagan, Kawata, & cial education, and high school graduation. The estimated
Williamson, 2000; Magnuson et al., 2004; Magnuson et al., effects are remarkably similar to those in the Perry Preschool
2007a, 2007b). Finally, studies using data from the National study, although sometimes smaller. In addition, the CPC study
Assessment of Educational Progress found small positive revealed a significant reduction in grade retention. This pattern
impacts of state pre-K on test scores and grade repetition is what one would expect from a somewhat less intense dose of
(Fitzpatrick, 2008; Grissmer et al., 2000). the same ‘‘treatment,’’ but note that differences in curriculum,
Other longitudinal studies of specific state and local pre-K population, and location might also contribute to differences in
programs provide additional long-term evidence (Gilliam & outcomes. As in the Perry Preschool study, effects on cognitive
Zigler, 2001, 2004). Two of the methodologically stronger state abilities declined over time, but as late as eighth grade, they
evaluations (New York and South Carolina) showed that posi- were still equal to a third or more of the achievement gap. The
tive effects on cognitive abilities persisted into elementary effects on schooling outcomes are substantial: a 15 percentage
school. The New York study also found that pre-K reduced point reduction in grade retention, a 10 percentage point reduc-
retention in grade. Studies using quasi-experimental methods tion in special education placements, and an 11 percentage
showed a mixed pattern of positive and null findings on point increase in high school graduation.
achievement tests but a more uniform pattern of significant Studies of the educational effects of pre-K in other countries
reductions in special education and grade retention (Aos yield findings that are consistent with findings in the United
et al., 2004; Barnett, 1998; Gilliam & Zigler, 2001). The sub- States. A randomized trial with long-term follow-up of high-
stantially lower rates of grade retention and special education quality, half-day pre-K in Mauritius found short-term improve-
for children attending pre-K reported by several studies actu- ments in children’s learning and behavior followed by reduced
ally explains some of the null findings for achievement test rates of conduct disorder at age 17 and reduced crime rates at

62


age 23 (Raine, Mellingen, Liu, Venables, & Mednick, 2003). with the modest effects noted earlier, benefits exceed costs by a
Rigorous quasi-experimental studies in Latin America showed substantial margin, and all three concluded that preschool pro-
that preschool education increased test scores; decreased grams are sound public investments (Barnett, 2007). Important
school failure; increased educational attainment; and improved sources of economic benefits in all of the studies are reductions
attention, class participation, and discipline (Berlinski, Galiani, in subsequent schooling costs (as a result of reduced needs for
& Gertler, 2006; Berlinski, Galiani, & Manacorda, 2008). Stud- special education and grade repetition) and increases in adult
ies in the United Kingdom found modest positive effects of earnings. The two preschool programs also yielded substantial
early education on cognitive and social development that per- benefits from reductions in costs associated with crime and
sisted at least through the primary grades for children from all delinquency. The Abecedarian and Perry Preschool studies also
socioeconomic backgrounds (Melhuish et al., 2008; Osborne & found evidence that the preschool program reduced risky beha-
Milbank, 1987; Sammons et al., 2005; Sylva, Melhuish, viors such as unprotected sex and smoking, which suggests that
Sammons, Siraj-Blatchford, & Taggart, 2004). International later health costs might be lowered, but note that this benefit was
comparisons found that more preschool education is associ- estimated only for the Abecedarian program. Finally, only the
ated with higher achievement test scores, and high participa- Abecedarian program had substantial child care benefits in the
tion rates are associated with less within-country inequality in form of long-term increases in earnings for the mothers of
test scores (Fuchs & Wossmann, 2006; Rindermann & Ceci, children who attended the program.
2008; Schutz, Ursprung, & Wossman, 2008; Waldfogel & Comparisons across these three studies can be informative,
Zhai, 2008). The replication of major findings across coun- but they must be done cautiously, particularly because differ-
tries that differ a great deal in their economic, social, and ences in benefits could be due to differences in the programs,
political circumstances suggests that they are very broadly populations, or contexts. The two preschool programs are less
generalizable. expensive because they are part day and serve children for only
Perhaps because many preschool education programs have 2 years prior to kindergarten, whereas the Abecedarian pro-
been half day, few studies have estimated their effects on gram offers full-day, year-round child care beginning in the
maternal employment. One study found that public preschool first year of life. One striking difference in benefits is readily
programs and less expensive private programs increased employ- explained. Only the Abecedarian program sought to provide
ment of single and married mothers of 3- and 4-year-olds child care that would enable parents to work, and that differ-
and that public kindergarten increased employment of single ence yielded substantial benefits. A case can be made that the
and married mothers of 5-year-olds (Gelbach, 2002). The extra hours required to turn a preschool program into effective
estimated increases were 6% to 15% for employment, hours, full-time child care essentially pay for themselves in increased
and earnings for mothers of 5-year-olds and more than 20% maternal earnings.
for mothers of younger children. Another study of the effects Another difference in estimated differences raises more
of public kindergarten on maternal employment revealed perplexing issues. The Perry and Chicago CPC programs
smaller effects for single mothers and no effects for married reduced crime. The Abecedarian program did not. Differences
mothers (Cascio, 2006). Neither study took into account in population and neighborhoods might explain these results;
whether the programs were part day or full day, a potential however, program differences also could be the reason. It is
problem because half-day kindergarten could have little evident that curriculum is important for a program’s effects
effect on employment. A study of single mothers who had on self-regulation and socioemotional development (Barnett,
received public assistance in Massachusetts found that both Jung, et al., 2008; Schweinhart, Weikart, & Larner, 1986)—
the availability of Head Start and state funding for preschool to improve those outcomes, programs need to have curricular
education for low-income children increased maternal emphases, teacher support, and a focus on those areas. There
employment (Lemke, Witt, & Witte, 2007). Studies of pre- were early indications that Abecedarian had negative impacts
school education in other nations have also found positive on social and emotional development (Haskins, 1985), and oth-
effects on maternal employment (Berlinski & Galiani, ers have suggested that long hours of child care beginning at an
2007; Schlosser, 2006). early age might harm social and emotional development
(Belsky et al., 2007). It is plausible that curriculum and hours
in care might interact such that children enrolled for longer
Economic analysis of the effects of preschool hours require the support of a well-delivered curriculum in
Three of the studies reviewed earlier provide sufficient social development to counter the apparent challenges associ-
methodological rigor, breadth of measurement, and length of ated with exposure for longer time periods. These results sug-
follow-up to support comprehensive benefit-cost analyses that gest the value of research on how to secure both child care and
compare the economic value of the benefits from investing in socioemotional development benefits.
preschool programs to their costs. These are the Perry Preschool Rather than rely on these three studies alone, we use them as
(Barnett, 1996; Belfield, Nores, Barnett, & Schweinhart, 2006), a kind of Rosetta stone to work with the literature as a whole to
Abecedarian (Barnett & Masse, 2007), and Chicago CPC draw conclusions about the economic returns of preschool pro-
(Temple & Reynolds, 2007) studies. Features of these three grams and the development of policies that yield large benefits
studies are presented in Table 1. All three studies found that even relative to costs. The programs evaluated in these studies are

63

64 Pianta et al.

Table 1. Three Benefit–Cost Analyses: Study, Program Design, and Major Findings

Variable Carolina Abecedarian Project Chicago Child–Parent Centers High/Scope Perry Preschool

Demographics
Year began 1972 1983 1962
Location Chapel Hill, NC Chicago, IL Ypsilanti, MI
Sample size 111 1,539 123
Research design Randomized Matched neighborhood Random assign
Ages 6 weeks to 5 years 3–4 years 3–4 years
Program schedule Full day, year round Half day, school year Half day, school year
Findings
Increased IQ, short term Yes Not collected Yes
Increased IQ, long term Yes Not collected No
Increased achievement, long term Yes Yes Yes
Special education 25% vs. 48% 14% vs. 25% 37% vs. 50%
Retained in grade 31% vs. 55% 23% vs. 38% 35% vs. 40%
High school graduation 67% vs. 51% 62% vs. 51% 65% vs. 45%
Ever arrested as juvenile 45% vs. 41% 17% vs. 25% 16% vs. 25%
Mean number of adult arrests 1.7 vs. 1.5 (age 21) Not applicable 2.3 vs. 4.6 (age 27)
Adult smoker 39% vs. 55% (age 21) 42% vs. 55% (age 40)
Cost-benefit results (2008 dollars, discounted at 3%)
Cost $75,568 $8,830 $18,481
Child care $32,883 $2,177 $1,104
Maternal earnings $81,821 $0 $0
K–12 cost savings $10,519 $6,401 $9,690
Postsecondary education cost –$9,676 –$732 –$825
Abuse and neglect cost savings Not estimated $988 Not estimated
Crime cost savings $0 $43,932 $208,956
Welfare cost savings $233 Not estimated $897
Health cost savings $21,168 Not estimated Not estimated
Earnings $44,681 $36,475 $78,631
Second generation earnings $6,812 Not estimated Not estimated
Total benefits $188,441 $89,698 $298,453
Benefit-cost ratio 2.5 10.2 16.2

hardly typical of those experienced by young children today; may exceed costs (Currie & Thomas, 1995; Deming, 2009;
they are more intensive and expensive than is common. They Ludwig & Phillips, 2008). However, the lackluster follow-up
had well-paid, highly qualified teachers with strong supervision. results from the national randomized trial suggest that little
Staffing ranged from the Perry Preschool’s one teacher for every certainty can be attached to this conclusion.
6 children to Chicago’s teacher and aide for every 16 children.
However, all three served disadvantaged children, two of them
in the public schools, and the Chicago CPC program is quite Summary
similar to the better state pre-K programs in cost, intensity, and Compelling evidence from well-controlled research shows
design. The initial effects of the Chicago CPC program were of that preschool programs have lasting positive effects on young
the same size as effects found for state pre-K programs in children’s cognitive and social development. The evidence
Oklahoma, New Jersey, and other states with programs. comes from studies of child care, Head Start, and public
All three programs served disadvantaged children, and pro- school programs using a wide range of research methods,
grams serving general populations might be expected to have including experiments. Lasting positive impacts have been
somewhat smaller benefits. However, the difference is not so found for large-scale public programs as well as for intensive
large as to suggest that programs serving a broader population programs implemented on a small scale, but even some of the
would not pass a benefit-cost test. In addition, larger benefits intensive small-scale interventions were public school pro-
might be expected for some children not included in these grams. Some evidence has shown negative effects on social
studies, particularly children from non-English-speaking behavior, but the negative effects have not been confirmed
backgrounds (Gormley et al., 2005). Conclusions are more dif- by experimental studies. Among the three sectors of preschool,
ficult to draw about Head Start, which is relatively expensive subsidized child care today has, at best, small positive effects
compared with other programs and yet has been found to have on early learning and development, and current policies are
relatively small effects in the national randomized trial. Calcu- such that some care has small negative effects on children—
lations of likely economic benefits based on the evidence on the reducing school readiness, perhaps largely because some child
very long-term effects of Head Start suggest that its benefits care may contribute to a rise in problem behavior. To the extent

64


that there is a potential problem, raising quality and using an However, we must be very clear about the magnitude of
appropriate curriculum may avoid it. Findings of long-term effects, whether short or long term. Any of the evaluations cited
effects in the United States have been replicated by studies in previously indicate preschool programs produce modest effect
a wide range of other countries around the globe, indicating sizes overall, with somewhat greater effects for low-income
that in broad terms the results are highly generalizable. children, and some evidence that gains last through the early
Positive long-term effects of preschool education include grades. Typical child care has considerably smaller short- and
increased achievement test scores, decreased grade repetition long-term effects than more educationally focused programs
and special education rates, increased educational attainment, such as selected Head Start programs or higher-quality pre-
higher adult earnings, and improvements in social and emo- school programs linked to public education. Across studies and
tional development and behavior, including delinquency and program models and/or features, effects range from near zero to
crime. Obviously, if programs provide child care, they also ben- almost a standard deviation on achievement tests (the size of
efit parents and can increase earnings in both the short and long the achievement gap for poor children). There is no evidence
term. Increased income that results from providing families with whatsoever that the average preschool program produces ben-
free or subsidized child care also has positive benefits for young efits in line with what the best programs produce. Thus, on
children’s development, but these are likely small relative to the average, the nonsystem that is preschool in the United States
direct benefits of high-quality preschool programs for children. narrows the achievement gap by perhaps only 5% rather than
How important are long-term effects? One way to address this the 30% to 50% that research suggests might be possible on
question is to ask how large the effects are relative to the achieve- a large scale if we had high-quality programs. From the stand-
ment gap between children in poverty and their more advantaged point of policy alignment with research findings, it is abun-
peers. Programs commonly produce long-term effects equal to dantly evident that the wide variation in program design,
10% to 20% of the achievement gap, with more intensive and lon- models, curriculum, staffing, auspices, funding, and level of
ger lasting programs producing larger, at times much larger, educational aims plays a major role in the disappointing, albeit
effects. Cost-benefit analyses provide an indicator of program statistically significant and in that sense meaningful, impacts of
impacts that reflect the value of a program across a range of pos- preschool on child development.
sible outcomes. These analyses have shown that the value of ben-
efits is very large relative to costs, even for very costly intensive Impacts of Program Quality on Child
preschool programs—at the high end, starting at age 3, roughly
$300,000 per child enrolled for a program. The less costly CPC
Development and Learning
program was found to have benefits that are an order of magnitude There are countless features of preschool programs bundled
greater than its cost, in the ballpark of $90,000 per child. Stronger within the concept of ‘‘quality,’’ such as who is eligible to
state pre-K programs produce essentially the same size effects as attend, group size, adult-child ratios, minimum qualifications
did CPC. Head Start’s benefits must be judged uncertain given the of teachers, additional services available to children or fami-
latest findings on effects after school entry, but it might still pass a lies, length of the day, curriculum and approaches to fostering
cost-benefit test. In summary, the estimated economic value of child development, salaries, the amount or type of teacher pro-
program impacts on child development can be substantial relative fessional development, and whether and how child learning is
to cost, but this depends on adequate levels of program effective- assessed. These features vary widely within and across pro-
ness. The economic benefits of child care for parental earnings grams or types of programs, as we suggested in the first section.
add even more to the return. Policymakers, program directors, teachers, teacher educators,
Who can benefit from educationally effective preschool and parents each face challenging decisions regarding the
programs? All children have been found to benefit from selecting of features for programs for children. As we have dis-
high-quality preschool education. Claims that preschool pro- cussed, despite the very large number of possible combinations
grams only benefit boys or girls, one particular ethnic group, of features that, in part, define the preschool experience, enroll-
or just children in poverty do not hold across the research litera- ment in preschool (and all that it means) appears to provide
ture as a whole. Children from lower-income families tend to developmental benefits to children (Cross et al., 2009). As
gain more from good preschool education than do more advan- we show in this section, quality matters.
taged children. However, the educational achievement gains for When policymakers look to the research literature to design
non-disadvantaged children are substantial, perhaps 75% as large publicly funded preschool programs, questions about quality
as the gains for low-income children. Some policymakers con- are often framed in terms of which features should be regulated
cerned with reducing the achievement gap between children in and what levels for those features will be considered accepta-
poverty and those who are nondisadvantaged might conclude that ble. Such questions have implications for the cost of providing
preschool programs should target only children in poverty. Such programs and the benefits for children who attend, so relying
an approach ignores evidence that disadvantaged children appear on evidence is important. But the research evidence varies
to learn more when they attend preschool programs with more greatly in terms of its quality and ability to provide clear
advantaged peers, and they also benefit from peer effects on answers to questions about program design and quality. The
learning in kindergarten and in the early elementary grades when most definitive answers come from experiments, but these
their classmates have attended high-quality preschool programs. studies often address only questions regarding the efficacy of

65

66 Pianta et al.

a particular treatment, as we have presented earlier in this children and their peers, and the availability of certain types of
monograph. Recently, experimental controlled evaluations of activities. Features of process quality are inherently dynamic
treatments to improve preschool have shown that changing and may in part depend on the needs or preferences of a given
specific features of child care or preschool also improve child child: whether a certain puzzle stimulates cognition depends on
outcomes. However, most studies of child care quality features whether and how the child interacts with it, whether the teacher
tend to be observational, and samples tend to be larger and is encouraging and able to assist the child if he or she is strug-
more diverse, but the ability to draw causal conclusions is more gling, and whether the teacher uses the opportunity to engage the
limited. We organize this discussion about effects of various child in conversation depends in part on the child’s behavior.
program features on child outcomes within the framework of These direct, dynamic interchanges between the child and
research on program quality and its impacts; that is, we draw resources in the preschool setting are often described as proximal
mostly from the large-scale, nonexperimental literature. In this processes, and it has been argued that these are the features of
context we are assuming that children already are enrolled in programs and aspects of program quality that are the mechan-
preschool, and the focus of study is the set of program features isms responsible for the effects of preschool on child outcomes
that could (and do) vary so widely and may have wide-ranging (Lamb, 1998; NICHD ECCRN, 2002; Vandell, 2004). In a sim-
impacts on child development; these features, for purposes of ilar vein, Cassidy and colleagues (2005) articulated one clear
our discussion, are bundled within the concept of quality. distinction between definitions of process quality and structural
quality: Process quality concerns interactions among individuals
(e.g., emotional and instructional), whereas structural quality
Defining program quality concerns features of programs that do not directly involve inter-
As we have discussed, numerous research studies have actions between teachers and children (e.g., teacher qualifica-
documented short-term and long-term benefits of attending tions, materials and equipment, class size and ratios).
preschool, and this has led to the creation and expansion of Policymakers interested in ensuring high levels of preschool
public programs nationwide (Barnett, 1993; Gormley et al., quality typically base their decisions about which features of
2005; Lazar, Darlington, Murray, Royce, & Snipper, 1982; quality to promote on empirical evidence that identifies pro-
Magnuson et al., 2004; Puma et al., 2005; Reynolds, 2000; gram attributes that are associated with, or better yet causal
Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 2002; Schweinhart to, children’s adjustment and learning. With that as the aim,
et al., 2005). Once programs are established, policymakers and across numerous studies of children’s development that
program administrators must then establish policies that regu- included structural quality and/or process quality, there is
late the design and structure of these programs so they maxi- mixed evidence concerning the extent to which various features
mize the benefits for children who attend. Nearly every state of preschool quality are directly associated with, or cause, chil-
regulation pertaining to pre-K programs emphasizes the impor- dren’s developmental progress, either singularly or in combina-
tance of providing high-quality services. However, despite the tion. What is clear, however, is that the majority of evidence in
attention directed toward high-quality pre-K, there is no single favor of positive effects attributes such effects to elements of
or uniform approach to defining or measuring pre-K quality. process quality (e.g., D. Bryant, Burchinal, Lau, & Sparling,
Definitions of pre-K program quality generally describe 1994; D. Bryant, Peisner-Feinberg, & Clifford, 1993; Burchinal,
two broad classes of program features: those that pertain to Peisner-Feinberg, Bryant, & Clifford, 2000; Burchinal, Ramey,
structural elements of a program and those that have to do with Reid, & Jaccard, 1995; Dunn, 1993; Hagekull & Bohlin, 1995;
processes (Lamb, 1998; Phillips & Howes, 1987; Vandell & Howes, 1997; Howes et al., 2008; Mashburn et al., 2008;
Wolfe, 2000). Structural quality concerns those aspects of pro- NICHD ECCRN, 2002; Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997;
grams that describe the caregiver’s background, curriculum, Phillips, Howes, & Whitebook, 1992; Pianta et al., 2005).
or easily observed or reported characteristics of the classroom In addition to identifying the direct effects of quality on chil-
or program. They have typically been targeted by regulation or dren’s outcomes, research has also examined how structural
financing and include the nature and level of teacher training and process quality work together to influence children’s
and experience, adoption of certain curricula, class size, development. It is commonly assumed that structural quality
child-teacher ratio, and whether the program offers additional may not have a direct effect on children’s outcomes; instead,
services to children and their families. Structural features of structural features affect the process quality that children
programs are typically quite static—they often reflect one- directly experience in classes that in turn influences their devel-
time decisions or features that do not vary within a given expo- opment (Burchinal, Roberts, et al., 2000; Howes, Phillips, &
sure. These features are often viewed as necessary for creating Whitebook, 1992; NICHD ECCRN, 2002). In fact, regulations
the opportunity for the caregiver to create a high-quality pre- that mandate higher standards for features of structural quality
school classroom, but their provision does not guarantee that (e.g., all teachers must have a bachelor’s degree) rest on the
children will receive high-quality care. likelihood that programs that meet these standards also produce
Process quality refers to children’s direct experiences with high process quality that will enable children to benefit from
people and objects in the child care setting, for example, the enrollment. This proposed mediated path—structural quality
ways teachers implement activities and lessons, the nature and influences process quality, which in turn influences children’s
qualities of interactions between adults and children or between outcomes—is only modestly supported by evidence in the

66


literature (NICHD ECCRN, 2002). It is also plausible that considered by the NIEER to be minimum standards for educa-
structural features of quality moderate effects of process qual- tionally effective preschool programs (Barnett et al., 2004).
ity, such that the effects of a teacher who is skilled at interact- The 10 benchmarks for program structure, advanced by the
ing with children (process quality) are higher when that teacher NIEER and based on their synthesis of the available scientific
has a level of training that enables better implementation or evidence, suggest programs should have the following:
works in a classroom with a low ratio. Also, for example, when
implementing a literacy curriculum, a teacher’s interaction 1. Teachers with bachelor’s degrees;
skills (process quality) could be counteracted by the demands 2. Teachers who have received specialized training in early
of a classroom filled with too many children (e.g., group size, childhood education, such as licensure or endorsement in
an indicator of structural quality, is too high) or a very large the pre-K area or a degree or credential, such as a CDA, in
number of children from poor households. Policymakers face early childhood;
pressing decisions about features in which to invest resources, 3. At least 15 hr/year in-service training for teachers;
and many rely on recommendations of professional organiza- 4. Assistant teachers with a CDA or equivalent;
tions that promote the well-being and appropriate education 5. A comprehensive curriculum that covers domains of lan-
of young children by describing minimum standards of quality. guage and literacy, math, science, social-emotional skills,
For example, the American Public Health Association and the cognitive development, health, physical development,
American Academy of Pediatrics (1992), the National Associ- and social studies;
ation for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC; 2005), 6. A maximum class size that is less than or equal to 20
and the National Institute for Early Education Research children;
(NIEER; Barnett et al., 2007; Barnett, Hustedt, Robin, & 7. A child teacher ratio of 10:1 or better;
Schulman, 2004) each advance a set of recommended standards 8. At least one meal served each day;
for structural and/or process features of preschool programs, 9. Vision, hearing, and health screening and referral for chil-
and they have informed policymakers’ and program adminis- dren; and
trators’ decisions about how to invest program resources to 10. At least one family support service, which may include
design high-quality programs. The NAEYC recommends a parent conferences, home visits, parenting support or
comprehensive set of standards related to both process and training, referral to social services, and information relat-
structural features of child care and preschool programs. These ing to nutrition.
standards include descriptions of necessary classroom charac-
teristics such as positive relationships in classrooms, a wide In the 2004 state preschool yearbook published by NIEER
repertoire of teaching practices, developmentally appropriate (Barnett et al., 2004), the authors combined Benchmarks 9 and
assessment practices, and learning environments rich with 10 into ‘‘required screen referral and support services’’ and
physical resources. The NAEYC also recommends minimum added a standard benchmark regarding whether the state moni-
standards related to teacher preparation, curricula, class size, tored program quality. All of these quality benchmarks are sup-
and child-teacher ratio. Specifically, attaining accreditation ported by a mixture of evidence and professional consensus, and
from NAEYC requires all teachers participate in professional they are often used as policy-shaping tools for state legislatures
development training; assistant teachers have at least a high deciding how to expand or construct a high-quality pre-K educa-
school diploma or general equivalency diploma; and programs tional system. In 2008, Alabama and North Carolina were the
meet increased standards for teachers’ levels of education, only states to meet or exceed each of the 10 benchmarks for
which is being phased in between 2006 and 2020 (NAEYC, quality standards, and Arizona, California, Florida, and Texas
2005). In addition, for classes serving 3-year-olds, the maxi- met only 4; however, not all policies are of equal importance,
mum class size is 18 children and the maximum child-teacher so these 4 are not judged to be equally poor (Barnett, Epstein,
ratio is 9:1, and for classes serving 4-year-olds, the maximum et al., 2008). The authors concluded that most states lack ade-
class size is 20 children and the maximum child-teacher ratio quate quality standards for their children and that states need
is 10:1 (NAEYC, 2005). The view within the profession is that to improve policies that enact higher-quality standards (Barnett,
such standards contribute to better experiences and outcomes Epstein, et al., 2008; Barnett et al., 2004; Barnett et al., 2007).
for children (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Recent studies (e.g., Mashburn et al., 2008) have shown only
A recent addition to these recommended standards comes modest empirical support for links between aggregate indices
from the NIEER, a nonprofit organization with a goal of pro- that compile structural features of programs and child outcomes.
viding policymakers with information that promotes good edu- In the next section, we describe in more detail research con-
cation for 3- and 4-year-olds. The NIEER-published The State ducted on specific structural features of preschool.
of Preschool yearbooks for 2002 through 2008 (e.g., Barnett,
Epstein, et al., 2008; Barnett et al., 2004; Barnett, Hustedt,
Structural features of programs as predictors
et al., 2007) provide an overall summary of the status of state
pre-K initiatives regarding accessibility, funding, and quality.
of process quality and child outcomes
State policies regarding program structure are rated according Teacher education. Teachers’ educational level (degrees, cer-
to whether they meet 10 structural benchmarks that are tificates, coursework, formal training, and preparation) is the

67

68 Pianta et al.

structural feature to which policymakers, scholars, and is itself stunningly variable and has been largely unevaluated
program personnel most commonly attend. This focus is in part in terms of effectiveness. In short, its potential is unknown and
due to prior research findings suggesting a correlation between perhaps overestimated. What the data on teachers’ education
teacher education and improved child outcomes in child care levels do make clear is the compelling need to develop, imple-
(Vandell, 2004). The recently enacted Improving Head Start ment, and evaluate effective professional development models
for School Readiness Act of 2007 (see Barnett & Frede, for preschool teachers, whether in the context of higher educa-
2009), based mainly on assumptions of a link between teach- tion or in-service training.
ers’ education and processes that improve child outcomes (for
which the available evidence is thin), requires that in the near Adult-child ratio. After teacher education and credentials, the
term, at least 50% of Head Start teachers in center-based pro- ratio of children to adults in the child care setting is the other
grams nationwide have a bachelor’s degree. As of 2005, 17 structural feature that has been most often studied and regu-
of the 38 states with public pre-K programs required that all lated. There are studies on group size (i.e., number of children
lead teachers hold a bachelor’s degree, and another 12 states in the setting, number of teachers, presence of aides) as well
required a bachelor’s degree of some pre-K teachers. Similarly, as the adult-child ratio. Clearly, the rationale for limiting
states are spending considerable sums to improve the education group size or increasing the number of adults involves both
of child care providers in the hope of improving quality of care. concerns for the basic supervision and safety of all the chil-
These policy decisions require enormous investments of time dren and concerns that there are enough adults to ensure that
and financial capital in educating existing teachers and provid- all children frequently receive the sophisticated interactions
ing wages that will keep such teachers in the workforce. For the with their teachers necessary to promote social and cognitive
most part there is no strong evidence that education or degrees development. Therefore, it is not surprising that of all struc-
per se will produce better outcomes for children. tural features of preschool programs, the adult-child ratio is
Early evidence suggested that increasing caregiver educa- probably the most consistent predictor of both the quality of
tion could provide a means for increasing quality of care on the teachers’ instruction and their interactions with children,
the basis of associations between education and quality in as well as of child outcomes for infants, toddlers, and pre-
large child care studies (Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, et al., schoolers (Blau, 1999; NICHD ECCRN, 2000, 2002, 2004;
2000; Howes, Whitebook, & Phillips, 1992; Kontos & Phillipsen et al., 1997).
Wilcox-Herzog, 1997; NICHD ECCRN, 2000, 2002; Phillip- Finally, some evidence indicates that applying recommen-
sen et al., 1997; Scarr, Eisenberg, & Deater-Deckard, 1994) dations offered by professional organizations, such as NAEYC,
and in smaller studies (e.g., Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg the American Public Health Association, and the American
et al., 2000). However, more recent evidence questions this Academy of Pediatrics, to the full range of child care and early
link between caregiver education and quality. For example, education programs is related to improved developmental out-
associations between teacher education and both observed comes for children. For example, in the NICHD Study of Early
quality and child outcomes were examined, using data from Childcare and Youth Development (NICHD ECCRN, 1999),
seven large studies of the early care and education of children at 6 months, 15 months, 24 months, and 36 months
4-year-olds (Early et al., 2007). The data sets included three of age who were enrolled in child care centers that met more
studies of public pre-K programs, three studies that either standards recommended by the American Public Health
exclusively or primarily examined Head Start classes, and one Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics (1992)
study that primarily focused on community child care. No regarding child-staff ratio, group size, caregiver training, and
consistent pattern of association was found between any index caregiver level of education performed better on cognitive, lan-
of teacher education and either observed classroom quality guage, and social competence measures compared with chil-
(e.g., teacher-child interactions or features of the classroom dren enrolled in classes that met fewer of these standards. In
setting) or child outcomes. a similar study, Howes (1990) reported evidence that a compo-
A recent survey of programs providing early childhood site measure of structural quality in pre-K that included child-
degrees provides some insight into why teacher education staff ratio, group size, caregiver training, and physical space
did not predict either quality or child outcomes (Hyson, was positively associated with children’s adjustment in kinder-
Tomlinson, & Morris, 2009). According to this survey of garten. Thus, structural features of programs can be important
teacher educators, teacher preparation programs are under- components of a regulatory system aimed at providing class-
staffed and overwhelmed by the number of students seeking room capacities that contribute to improvement in children’s
early childhood education degrees, thus suggesting that the learning and social adjustment. There is some indication that
intensity and quality of preparation may be poor, on average. structural features, particularly caregiver and teacher qualifica-
There is some indication that what happens within a degree tions, could have a greater impact on child outcomes or at least
program might be important, such that teachers with more on observed quality of more informal settings, such as child
training in early childhood education tend to interact more care, and with younger children (D. Bryant & Taylor, 2009).
effectively with young children (Pianta et al., 2005). However, Clearly, meeting structural standards is not a guarantee of
what is clear is that formal educational training, although it high or even adequate process quality or a guarantee of
might be a potential avenue for improving program impacts, improved outcomes for children. For example, ample evidence

68


from observational studies of pre-K, kindergarten, and first- largest effect sizes were obtained in the most intensive inter-
grade classrooms has shown that even when classrooms meet ventions in assessments of children after the age of 2 years.
all structural standards for quality, the extent of variation in As described earlier, the Abecedarian project, a single-site
observed process quality is considerable (NICHD ECCRN, experimental intervention that delivered 5 years of full-time,
2002; Pianta et al., 2005; Pianta, La Paro, Payne, Cox, & high-quality child care, had effect sizes of 125% of an SD at
Bradley, 2002). Furthermore, as discussed earlier, recent 36 months and more modest but long-term effects on employ-
research has raised questions about the pathways from struc- ment and schooling outcomes at 21 years of age (Campbell,
tural features to either process quality or child outcomes. At Pungello, Miller-Johnson, Burchinal, & Ramey, 2001). How-
the same time, recognition of the methodological limitations ever, these effects cannot be attributed to exposures to any spe-
of the existing research suggests that it is too early to conclude cific aspect of the early childhood education program per se.
that structural features cannot facilitate learning and highly The Perry Preschool Project, a single-site preschool program
effective teaching, even if they are not sufficient to ensure that included a home-visiting/parenting-education component,
such practices. As a result, the literature does not give policy- yielded effect sizes of almost a standard deviation (d ¼ 0.83)
makers a clear direction for choosing among the different ave- on a cognitive test at 3 years of age. In contrast, the less intensive
nues for designing and structuring programs that will improve intervention programs resulted in much smaller effects.
child outcomes. Nelson, Westhues, and MacLeod (2003) estimated effect
Inconsistencies in findings across studies may, in part, be sizes for the 34 preschool intervention programs with at least
explained by the different ways that studies have been designed one follow-up assessment. Moderately large effects for cogni-
to detect effects, the varying sizes and compositions of the sam- tive outcomes during preschool (d ¼ 0.52) were still detectable
ples, and how preschool quality was defined and measured at eighth grade (d ¼ 0.30). Similarly, smaller effects for social-
(Mashburn et al., 2008; NICHD ECCRN & Duncan, 2003). emotional outcomes during preschool (d ¼ 0.27) were still
Thus, when the debate has focused on quality, including effects detected at the end of high school (d ¼ 0.33). To the extent that
and how to improve and/or ensure it, the level of specificity or Nelson et al. were able to decompose program attributes and
precision required to specify the elements of programs (either isolate impacts, larger effects on cognition and achievement
process or structural) that are either the focus of the discussion were observed when programs had an intentional instruction
or the aim of investments has not been met. The characteriza- component. Overall, programs that started at younger ages and
tion of quality as a global, unitary feature of a program is most provided more years of intervention had the largest effects;
likely a misnomer or mistake and is not really supported by the both starting age and years of intervention are features of quan-
evidence. As we demonstrate in the following discussion, it tity of exposure to a high-quality program and not to features of
probably makes more sense to focus debate, research, and program quality per se.
investment on specific program features. Descriptive or quasi-experimental studies (i.e., studies that
did not involve random assignment to early childhood educa-
tion conditions) have provided further support for an associa-
Process quality and child outcomes tion between higher-quality early childhood education and
As noted earlier in the section on effects of program enrollment positive child outcomes, with these studies involving larger,
on child outcomes, a cluster of experimental studies has more representative samples and tending to have a stronger
demonstrated that preschool experiences characterized as high approach to measuring process elements of program experi-
quality also produced stronger cognitive and academic skills at ences (Gormley et al., 2005; Howes et al., 2008; NICHD
entry to school; in turn, these translate into better adolescent ECCRN, 2005; Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2001; Reynolds et al.,
and adult outcomes (Campbell et al., 2002; Lazar et al., 2002). As described earlier, however, these studies vary widely
1982; Nores, Belfield, & Barnett, 2005; Reynolds et al., in terms of the degree to which they account for possible selec-
2002). For the purposes of this discussion, it is important to tion biases. Overall, studies have tended to report associations
note that the programs included in these studies each represent between child care quality and cognitive, language, and aca-
a package of quality benchmarks, combining the putative best demic outcomes and, less consistently, between child care
of structural and process features of programs—well-trained quality and social-emotional outcomes (Vandell, 2004).
staff, favorable ratios, effective curricula, ongoing professional Burchinal et al. (2009), drawing from quasi-experimental
development for positive adult-child interactions; however, studies of quality effects in large, contemporary samples,
these studies do not decompose effects for specific quality recently conducted a meta-analysis of program quality features
parameters. In each of these studies, children were assigned and their impacts. In this analysis, which involved only
randomly to either the early childhood education program or published studies with 10 or more classrooms that reported
to a comparison group. Effect sizes, reported in terms of the associations between widely used measures of program quality
difference between the means for the treatment and control and child outcomes, associations were converted to partial cor-
groups divided by an index of variability, the standard devia- relations for the meta-analysis. A partial correlation of .10 is
tion, ranged from small to quite large; in fact, some were large considered modest, .30 is considered moderate, and .50 is con-
enough to fully close the achievement gap at school entry (d ¼ sidered large (Cohen, 1988), but note that these conventions are
0.13 to d ¼ 1.23; see Burchinal et al., 2009, for details). The somewhat arbitrary. The meta-analysis also estimated the

69

70 Pianta et al.

effect size describing the association between program quality Average correlations between program quality and child out-
and child outcome overall and by age and type of outcome— comes, as has been summarized above, were modest in magni-
language-cognitive, academic, and socioemotional. Children’s tude: For language outcomes the average was .14 (SD ¼ .06,
ages were categorized as 2–3, 3–4, and 4–6 years. In sum- range ¼ .02–.26); for academic achievement, .06 (SD ¼ .09,
mary, the meta-analysis indicated that widely used broad- range ¼ –.06–.26); and for social-emotional development,
aggregate measures of early childhood education quality .06 (SD ¼ .07, range ¼ –.08–.16). Thus, these findings indicate
(i.e., those that mix process and structural features) were sta- that even for children from low-income family backgrounds,
tistically related to children’s outcomes, but these associa- benefits of quality in contemporary programs of the type avail-
tions were modest and notably smaller in magnitude than able in a typical community were quite modest, albeit positive.
effects derived from random assignment tests of model pro- In fact, these results show that contemporary, typical preschool
gram impacts. For example, across all associations of quality programs consistently show capacity to provide a modest boost
and outcomes, partial correlations ranged from very low to to child development.
modest (.05 < rp < .17). Stronger associations were observed A particular issue in the estimation of program quality
for younger children than for older children and for academic effects is the level of specificity and nature of the process qual-
and language outcomes than for social outcomes. In other ity metrics being used. Pianta (2003) and others have argued,
words, these program effects were narrowing somewhat the for example, that some global quality metrics (such as the Early
achievement gap but had only about a quarter of the impact Childhood Environment Rating Scale) may underestimate
of the experimental studies of model programs. impacts because these comprehensive assessments not only
Because preschool programs play such a prominent role in include aspects of adult-child interaction but also aggregate
the policy debate on closing achievement gaps for children across a host of attributes of the physical environment. Pianta
from poor families, Burchinal et al. (2009) also examined the made the point that process measures should be more narrowly
association between program quality (again using broad- focused on the dynamic features of the classroom setting that
aggregate indicators that mix structure and process) and child are expected to confer benefits for children’s learning and
outcomes among low-income children. Again focusing on development—in this case, actual interactions of adults and
large, contemporary programs operating at some level of scale, children. Moreover, Burchinal and colleagues (2009) raised a
in contrast to specialized model programs, Burchinal and col- different aspect of process quality-outcome associations by
leagues selected five data sets that included child care quality examining the extent to which more specific quality measures
and child outcome assessments for at least 100 children predict outcomes that should be conceptually aligned with
observed in at least 50 classrooms. The five studies included those quality measures. These refinements of the connection
the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development between program process inputs and child outcomes, with spe-
(NICHD ECCRN, 2003); the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes cific attention to adult-child interactions and input-outcome
Study (Peisner-Feinberg & Burchinal, 1997); the NCEDL 11- alignment, were examined in two separate studies (Burchinal
state Pre-Kindergarten Evaluation (Howes et al., 2008); and the et al., 2009; Mashburn et al., 2008).
Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) In Mashburn et al.’s (2008) study, pre-K program quality
from 1997 and 2000. All studies included multiple sites and effects were examined using change scores as the dependent
were designed to reflect variation in preschool program experi- measure for child outcomes at the end of the pre-K year. This
ences in the United States. Data from five measures of program study directly contrasted three forms of program quality
process quality were collected across the studies, and data metrics and features—global metrics based on structural fea-
from the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (Harms tures, global metrics based on observed process and aspects
& Clifford, 1980) or the Early Childhood Environment Rating of the physical environment, and domains of observed interac-
Scale—Revised (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998) were col- tions between adults and children. In these models, using an
lected in all studies but the Study of Early Child Care and 11-state database, observed teacher-child interactions—
Youth Development. particularly instructionally focused interactions that stimulate
One set of analyses involved computing partial correlations cognition and language as assessed by the Classroom Assess-
between measures of process quality and fall-spring gains in ment Scoring System (CLASS; Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre,
child outcomes measured in the spring for each study, using 2008) observational metrics—were consistently significant
available covariates for family background. The partial correla- predictors of change scores in achievement outcomes.
tions for program benefits were again rather modest (ranging Structural indicators, either singly or in combination (such as
from rp ¼ .00 to rp ¼ .23, with most partial correlations less the NIEER or NAEYC indices), showed no relation to child
than .10). Some projects and some quality measures appear outcomes, nor were the global metrics based on the physical
to have yielded stronger associations, but even those tended and process environment. It should be noted that Mashburn
to be quite modest. Computing zero-order correlations between et al. estimated the effects of structural features at the
program quality and child outcome change scores (the most classroom level after controlling for state ‘‘fixed effects,’’
conservative, because they adjust for prior experiences and the which capture state policy differences, including the effects
change scores will have more error resulting from the manner of minimum program standards. Nevertheless, Mashburn
in which they are computed) still yielded modest associations. et al.’s study is one of the only direct comparisons of various

70


process metrics in relation to academic and social gains in the evidence shows that growth in child outcomes is stimulated
preschool year. An additional finding from this study was that through cognitive- and language-focused interactions with
instructional features of teachers’ interactions were most teachers. This growth occurs only when such interactions start
strongly predictive of achievement gains, whereas emotional to exceed a certain very minimal level of stimulation, and when
features were most strongly related to gains in socioemotional effects do appear as a result of teacher-child interactions that
and behavioral outcomes. Finally, it is important to note that exceed threshold levels, the effects increase somewhat in
the gains in achievement attributable to teachers’ instruction- magnitude.
ally focused interactions on the CLASS measures held through-
out the kindergarten year (Burchinal, Howes, et al., 2008) and
were larger in terms of magnitude (by more than twofold) than
Summary of quality effects
those reported for other measures of quality noted earlier. We have summarized results from ‘‘treatment on the treated’’
The Burchinal et al. (2009) analysis focused on whether studies (i.e., studies that examine associations between features
stronger associations were obtained when aligned quality and of preschool programs on children’s outcomes for children
child outcome measures were correlated. Associations were already enrolled in those programs and not in comparison to
again stronger than those reported using global measures but non-enrolled control groups) in an effort to examine the extent
were still modest. The associations between language and these to which factors associated with the implementation of pre-
more specific quality measures ranged from –.01 to .21, with school programs (e.g., structural and process elements) are
about half of the partial correlations exceeding .10. associated with child outcomes. Meta-analyses and secondary
Finally, in a series of analyses in two separate studies, data analysis consistently show that greater teacher-child
Burchinal and colleagues (2009; Burchinal, Vandergrift, interaction is clearly and persistently associated with higher
Pianta, & Mashburn, in press) asked (a) whether the reason that language, academic, and social skills and fewer behavior prob-
the associations between observed quality and child outcomes lems, but associations are quite modest. This conclusion seems
were so modest is because the association is nonlinear and to contradict the findings from randomized studies in which
(b) whether there may be threshold effects such that features low-income children were randomly assigned to high-quality,
of quality may affect child outcomes only when they exceed center-based programs like the Abecedarian Project (Campbell
a certain level. Burchinal et al. (2009) tested this hypothesis et al., 2002), Perry Preschool (Nores et al., 2005), or Infant
with regression analyses that included quality as both linear Health and Development Program (McCormick et al., 2008).
and quadratic terms (i.e., Quality Â Quality) and site, maternal Those programs produced moderate to large effects on lan-
education, ethnicity, and gender as covariates. Quadratic asso- guage, academic, and social outcomes while the children were
ciations obtained in the analyses of the data provide a hint that enrolled, and the findings were maintained, albeit diminished,
process quality may be more strongly related to outcomes when into early adulthood. Similarly, evaluations of carefully imple-
features of process are in the higher range for the specific mented pre-K programs such as the Tulsa (Gormley et al.,
metric. In one study, FACES 1997, Early Childhood Environ- 2005) and Miami pre-K programs (Winsler et al., 2008) have
ment Rating Scale scores were positively related to language also yielded large effects. However, the contrast between the
scores when quality was in the good to high range. In three nature of the program inputs across these clusters of studies
studies—the NCEDL, the Study of Early Child Care and Youth is notable: In most experimental studies, the children were
Development, and FACES 1997—quality was more strongly enrolled in a small, model program designed to maximize pro-
related to math skills when quality was in the good to high gram impacts, and they were enrolled for more than 1 year
range. In one study, the NCEDL, the two quality measures were (sometimes up to 5 years), rather than attending a program
more strongly related to reading skills when they were in the and/or classroom operated as part of a large-scale implementa-
good to high range. tion. In the larger scale Tulsa and Miami studies (which yielded
More recently, Burchinal et al. (in press) examined this larger impacts), the program had a very highly structured focus
same question more specifically for observations of adult-child on learning and on effective implementation. Thus, the modest
interactions relying on the CLASS (Pianta, Laparo, & Hamre, estimates for program quality reported earlier, accruing primar-
2008), using a spline regression technique to determine thresh- ily as a result of the nature and quality of adult-child interac-
olds. This analysis indicated rather clearly that for the CLASS tions in classroom settings, may reflect a lower bound for
metric of Instructional Support, effects on achievement gains impacts of typically operated, loosely regulated preschool.
appear only when the observed quality of teacher-child interac- Indeed, evidence suggests that when teachers display features
tion (in pre-K) exceeds a level of 2 on the 7-point scale, indi- and levels of interactions with children that are above certain
cating the emergence of a focus on stimulating child threshold levels, benefits accrue in escalating fashion. In sum-
cognition. The CLASS Emotional Support scale was related mary, quality is important, but it appears that the active ingre-
to more positive social-emotional adjustment when the score dient in quality is what a teacher does, and how he or she does
on that CLASS scale exceeded a 5 on the 7-point scale. In addi- it, when interacting with a child.
tion, the magnitude of effects observed when interactions Effective teaching in early childhood education requires
exceed these thresholds is greater than that reported across the skillful combinations of explicit instruction, sensitive and warm
entire distribution. In short, emerging and rather consistent interactions, responsive feedback, and verbal engagement or

71

72 Pianta et al.

stimulation intentionally directed to ensure children’s learning under way through the auspices of the National Center for
while embedding these interactions in a classroom environment Research on Early Childhood Education and through interven-
that is not overly structured or regimented (Burchinal et al., tions being studied by Landry, Swank, Smith, Assel, and Gun-
2008). This approach to early childhood teaching is endorsed newig (2006) and Powell, Diamond, Burchinal, and Koehler (in
by those who advocate tougher standards and more instruction press). All these efforts target children’s early literacy and lan-
and by those who argue for child-centered approaches and has guage development. Other investigators’ work has focused on
strong parallels in the types of instruction and teacher-child effective professional development for teachers that improve
interactions that have been shown to contribute to student children’s early understanding of and skills in mathematics
achievement growth in K–12 value-added studies (see Hart, (Clements & Sarama, 2008; Ginsburg et al., 2005).
Stroot, Yinger, & Smith, 2005; National Council on Teacher
Quality, 2005). Furthermore, quality of instruction within a
specific content area appears closely linked to improvements
Workforce needs for professional development
in language (Dickinson & Caswell, 2007; Justice & Ezell, With enrollment of 3- and 4-year-olds in early education
2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998), math (Clements & Sarama, programs approaching 70% of the population and growing
2008), and reading (National Early Literacy Panel [NELP], (Barnett et al., 2007; West, Denton, & Germino-Hausken,
2009). These studies suggest that children may achieve larger 2000), expansion of early childhood programs is placing nota-
gains when they receive higher-quality instruction that specifi- ble demands on the supply chain for early childhood educators
cally teaches target skills in a manner that matches children’s and for evidence-based in-service training (Hyson et al., 2009).
skill levels and provides instruction through positive, responsive Some surveys estimate that 200,000 teachers are needed to staff
interactions with the teacher. universal enrollment programs and 50,000 new teachers will be
needed by 2020 (Clifford & Maxwell, 2002). The projected
demand on training systems for more teachers is enormous.
Improving Preschool Impacts on Child Many states rely on teachers with elementary grade certifica-
tions and teachers with 2-year degrees ‘‘grandfathered’’ into
Outcomes Through Professional
certification (Clifford, Early, & Hills, 1999). Many early child-
Development and Workforce Training hood teachers take courses while already employed and use
For the early childhood education system to move toward the worksites for student teaching (Howes, James, & Ritchie,
goal of active and marked advancement of children’s skills and 2003). Several states address the staffing and qualification cri-
competencies, the quality and impacts of programs must be sis by improving salaries and benefits for pre-K teachers,
improved through a vertically and horizontally integrated sys- whereas others encourage child care and preschool providers
tem of focused professional development (Cross et al., 2009) to seek additional training without addressing issues of retain-
and program designs and models that are educationally focused ing more qualified teachers when salaries tend to be low (see
(as described earlier). In short, programs need to be realigned Peters & Bristow, 2005; Pianta, 2005). Thus, it is not surprising
around educational aims (in key developmental domains and that although the overall education level of society is increas-
appropriately articulated), and teachers must receive prepara- ing, data from within the early childhood field indicate the qua-
tion and support to deliver classroom experiences that foster lifications of the workforce are steadily declining (Herzenberg,
those aims more directly. Teaching would entail providing Price, & Bradley, 2005).
teacher-student interactions that promote the acquisition Efforts to meet the demand for trained teachers are moving
of new skills; deliver curricula effectively; and individualize ahead rapidly without any systematic evaluation of their impact
instruction and interaction on the basis of children’s current on the nature and quality of instruction in classrooms and on
skill level, background, and behavior. Programs require child outcomes (Clifford et al., 1999; Hart et al., 2005; S. L.
(and policy should encourage the use of) proven-effective Ramey & Ramey, 2005). Adding to the urgency, there is little
professional development supports through which teachers evidence that accumulating course credits, advancing in terms
would acquire skills for effective teacher-child interactions and of degree status (e.g., from an associate’s degree to a bachelor’s
implementation of curricula and assessment in developmen- degree), or attending workshops improve teaching or child out-
tally synchronous ways (Howes et al., 2008; Klein & Gomby, comes (e.g., Early et al., 2007; National Council on Teacher
2008; Raver et al., 2008). Improvement of program impacts in Quality, 2005). Accordingly, focus has turned to identifying
early childhood rests on aligning professional development and professional development that effectively imparts to teachers
classroom practices with desired child outcomes. In particular, skills that improve children’s outcomes. As discussed earlier,
the field needs a menu of professional development inputs to a comprehensive analysis of data from seven large child care
teachers (preservice or in-service) that are known conceptually studies indicated that the teacher’s degree, field of study, and
and through empirical evidence to produce classroom practices certification status were unrelated to classroom quality or child
(e.g., teacher-child interactions) that result in the acquisition of outcomes (Early et al., 2007). Having a degree and credential
desired skills among children (e.g., literacy skills). Efforts to did not increase the likelihood that children experienced
develop such a system of aligned, focused, and effective pro- high-quality care in the NCEDL study of six states with mature
fessional development for the early childhood workforce are pre-K programs (Pianta et al., 2005). Similar to nearly every

72


other form of teacher training, including for K–12, there is vir- pertaining to cognitive development, social development, or
tually no evidence linking preservice or in-service training physical growth and development, with each one of these areas
experiences or teacher credentials per se to child outcomes or then broken down into specific information (e.g., ‘‘understands
to observed classroom quality (National Council on Teacher pathways of syntactic development’’ or ‘‘understands role of
Quality, 2005; NICHD ECCRN, 2002, 2005; Pianta et al., attachment in emotional development’’). Similarly, in broad
2002). In short, the early childhood education system is skill domains (e.g., working with families), one might find a
expanding rapidly in response to great demand, but without cluster of skills around transition planning with families that
any direction based on scientific evidence—a recipe for con- could then be defined in terms of ‘‘plans and implements
tinued mediocrity and inequity that ultimately undermines the effective transition plans with parents.’’ Thus, a key aspect of
promise of early education to close the achievement gap. If competency systems and lists is this multilayer organization
early education programs are going to achieve high quality of knowledge and skill and the very large range and number
at scale (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2005), then new mechanisms of units within each layer. Their very complexity often is an
of training teachers must be developed and tested both in pre- impediment to their utility.
service teacher training and in alternate certification and Interestingly, unlike K–12, for which all states have lists of
retraining routes used by large school districts or alternative teacher competencies for knowledge and skill, only 26 states
suppliers (Birman, Desimone, Garet, & Porter, 2000; Borko, have competency standards for early childhood educators. For
2004; Clifford & Maxwell, 2002; Cochran-Smith & Zeichner, those states with competencies specified, there is wide varia-
2005; Hart et al., 2005; Pianta, 2005; Whitebook, Bellm, Lee, tion across states in the number of levels and content of each
& Sakai, 2005). level. Most states map these competencies onto various forms
In-service training is another popular approach to improving of certification, licensure, and role within the early childhood
quality. A recent meta-analysis suggests that specialized train- education workforce, and again there is considerable variation
ing improves the competency of child care providers (d ¼ .45, in this mapping. Some states organize competencies by titles
SE ¼ 0.10) and children’s outcomes (d ¼ 0.55, SE ¼ 0.30) but (Director, Teacher, Aide), some by degree (CDA, associate’s
that training is most effective when there is a fixed curriculum degree, bachelor’s degree, master’s degree), and some by levels
content and it is delivered in a single or small number of set- on a career ladder. For the most part, very little evidence to
tings (Fukkink, 2007). Several recent studies provide further inform this mapping process exists, and what evidence does
indications that some aspects of effective professional develop- exist can seem quite arbitrary. There is little evidence to drive
ment may occur outside of a bachelor’s degree program in decisions about what a teacher needs to know and do that is dis-
higher education. Much of the recent work focuses on the pro- tinct from that of a teachers’ aide, for example, and there is
vision of feedback on early childhood educators’ interactions even less evidence tying specific knowledge or skills to a spe-
with children by supplying technical assistance or coaching. cific degree, in terms of how that combination of knowledge or
A process that involves reviewing videotapes of the teacher skill and degree or role is critical for advancing the quality of
interacting with children while delivering a fixed curriculum the early childhood educator programming offered in a state
may be especially promising in helping teachers become both and child outcomes.
more sensitive and more effective in providing stimulating
instruction (Dickinson & Caswell, 2007; Pianta, Mashburn,
Early childhood educator professional
Downer, Hamre, & Justice, 2008; Whitehurst & Lonigan,
1998, 2002). Providing training to entire preschool programs
development systems (PDSs)
also seems to be more effective than training selected teachers. A PDS can be defined as having several core components, most
Ensuring that everyone, including the administrator, is being common of which are higher education programs that prepare
trained in the same curricula or approaches increases the like- teachers, state and local resources that provide in-service sup-
lihood that the training results in real changes in the classroom. port to teachers through workshops or courses, and a system of
licensure and certification through which states use higher edu-
cation programs and in-service training as a means of certifying
Early childhood educator competencies: What
teachers as qualified to teach in that state. By this definition,
do teachers need to know and do? administrative data show that in 2008 the vast majority of states
Clearly, a host of knowledge domains as well as skills could be had some form of a PDS operating to regulate the workforce in
included in the lists of competencies needed to effectively edu- the early education and child care sectors.
cate and care for young children, and often there are multiple However, these same administrative data suggest that there
layers of organization in such lists. Early childhood educator is highly uneven implementation of PDSs across states. Specif-
competencies typically start with broad concepts or domains ically, states differentially regulate different teaching staff and
of knowledge and skill (e.g., knowledge about child develop- different forms of care; that is, they have different qualifica-
ment, working with families), and within those broad domains tions for these roles. For example, in 2006, 78% of the states
are clusters of specific knowledge areas and skills. For exam- had preservice higher education qualifications for center direc-
ple, the domain of Knowledge About Human Growth and tors, whereas only 25% of states had higher education require-
Development could include clusters of knowledge areas ments for center teachers or for large family child care home

73

74 Pianta et al.

providers. In short, states often see these roles as very different, licensure, and certification status and their knowledge and skill
when in fact each of these individuals is likely to be the primary in the classroom. Instead, states certify higher education and in-
‘‘teacher’’ in a ‘‘classroom’’ setting serving 3- and 4-year-olds; service programs on the basis of mapping coursework and
not surprisingly, these requirements also differ from state to fieldwork onto state competencies, hoping that individuals
state. who progress through these training and preparation experi-
Even when states require some level of preservice prepara- ences have the knowledge and skills required to be effective.
tion in higher education for entry into a professional role as a Credentialing does not depend on the demonstration of actual
teacher, there are quite varied requirements for preservice qua- skill or effectiveness.
lification required for licensure or certification in early child- A final and particularly important consideration concerns
hood. For example, CDA certificates are the most common the type and intensity of professional development that may
preservice requirement for directors and master teachers in be necessary to create and sustain changes in teachers’ prac-
early childhood education programs, whereas experience alone tice. Thus, although the vast majority of PDSs focus on
or with a high school diploma is the most common minimum coursework and workshops as the primary vehicles for pre-
preservice requirement for teachers. Only 40% of state PDSs paration and training, we now know that the daily interactions
require a preservice course on working with children with dis- that teachers have with children are critical to children’s
abilities, and only 10% required a course on working with chil- social and academic development, and we are just learning
dren learning English as a second language. Thus, apart from how to go about changing these interactions. We need more
the background of variability in entry qualifications into vari- research in this area to most effectively support teachers and
ous roles, there is also a rather low level of entry qualifications improve student outcomes.
compared with K–12. Recent research suggests that targeted intervention to
improve teacher interactions with children and instruction in
State PDSs tend to put more emphasis on in-service training academic skills such as the My Teaching Partner work by
rather than preservice qualifications for continued licen- Pianta and colleagues (Hamre, Pianta, Downer, Mashburn,
sure, with 46% of states requiring ongoing training for cen- in press; Pianta, Mashburn, et al., 2008) increases effective
ter teachers, 40% for center directors, and 36% for small teaching and children’s social and academic gains. Other
family child care providers. Any emphasis on on-the-job research groups have demonstrated similar results—that coach-
training (in contrast to preservice training as noted earlier) ing teachers in interactions linked to instructional supports for
places the burden of workforce quality on state and local learning and good implementation of curriculum can have sig-
systems of in-service support rather than on state institu- nificant benefits for children (Koh Neuman, 2009; Landry
tions of higher education and its well-established infra- et al., 2006; Powell et al., in press). Similarly, evidence from
structure and capacity. However, other factors also a professional development intervention project by D. Bryant
influence the workforce and professional development. and Taylor (2009) suggests that ongoing mentoring and consul-
To a degree, these factors are clearly summarized by the tation increase effective teaching. Mentoring and training are
U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008 employment summary (see very difficult to measure and to bring to scale, but they are rel-
Barnett, Epstein, et al., 2008): About 42% of all child atively easy to prescribe as the professional development
care workers have a high school degree or less, reflecting answer. One critical component of bringing mentoring to scale
the minimal training requirements for most jobs. concerns the ability of systems to prepare and regulate mentors;
More than a quarter of all employees work part-time, and however, only three states have defined core competencies for
nearly 18% of full-time employees in the industry work technical assistant providers.
more than 40 hr/week.
Job openings should be numerous because dissatisfaction
with benefits, pay, and stressful working conditions causes
Quality rating and improvement systems
many to leave the industry. Quality rating and improvement systems are fundamentally
mechanisms for defining the optimal conditions for caring for
For the most part, states do not collect the type of informa- and preparing children for school and for encouraging and
tion needed to examine the connection between exposure to rewarding improvement to higher levels. They provide a way
features of the PDS and child outcomes. It is widely believed to open the system of early childhood programs to market-
that this is a major reason for the widely noted lack of associ- based forces (e.g., consumers of child care have information
ation between a bachelor’s degree and classroom quality. State on quality), and they offer a variety of mechanisms for states
administrative data collected as a part of PDSs typically docu- to define levels of quality and desirable outcomes for the pro-
ment how many early childhood program staff have partici- grams in which they invest, which in turn become markers for
pated in various sanctioned training activities (e.g., courses) monitoring and resource allocation. Mitchell (2009) has written
and at what level (e.g., associate’s or bachelor’s degree). How- extensively about quality rating and improvement systems, and
ever, we know little about how PDSs are working or what they are featured in the Pew Early Childhood Accountability
impact they have had on early childhood education systems. framework (Kagan Garcia, 2007). In many ways, quality rat-
Most states do not have information on individuals’ training, ing and improvement systems, in theory, should function as a

74


mechanism for linking PDSs and states’ lists of competencies school-age decoding (average r ¼ .38; NELP, 2004) and reading
for early childhood educators. In theory, the quality rating and comprehension (average r ¼ .39; NELP, 2004). Vocabulary is
improvement system would include valid measures of compe- an area of language weakness for children reared in poverty
tencies that would also be reflected in the coursework and train- (Justice, Meier, Walpole, 2005; Whitehurst Lonigan,
ing offered to teachers through higher education and local and 1998) that can be accelerated using structured interventions
state in-service offerings. that feature ongoing exposure to new words, as occurs
The Maine Roads to Quality Registry is an example of a through adult-child shared storybook reading (e.g., Hargrave
statewide effort to link teacher qualifications and training to Senechal, 2000; Lonigan, Anthony, Bloomfield, Dyer,
´ ´
early childhood competencies (Mayfield, Mauzy, Foulkes, Samwel, 1999; Penno, Wilkinson, Moore, 2002; Reese Cox,
Foulkes, Dean, 2007). Teachers who join the registry 1999; Whitehurst et al., 1988). For each target, a curriculum can
receive a registry certificate, registry transcript, career coun- then map ordered instructional objectives and activities (e.g.,
seling, and eligibility for other programs, including scholar- Bunce, 1995; Lonigan, Anthony, et al., 1999; Lonigan, Bloom-
ships. The Maine Roads Core Knowledge Training Program field, et al., 1999; Notari-Syverson, O’Connor, Vadasy,
is an affiliated 180-hour training program that is aligned with 1998/2006).
Maine’s K–12 Learning Results, with accrediting and legisla- Clements and Sarama (2008) and Ginsburg and colleagues
tive requirements, and it prepares teachers to work with chil- (2005) have also produced evidence for the importance of
dren according to the competency priorities of the state. teacher knowledge in certain facets of mathematics develop-
Maine is one of several states including Missouri, Montana, ment. Although the evidence base, particularly for the predic-
and Wisconsin that joined the National Registry Alliance to tive importance of these domains, is not as strong in
develop best practices for data collection systems that are mathematics as it is in reading, it is clear that increasing teach-
exemplars of designing mechanisms for documenting and ers’ knowledge of developmentally relevant mathematics skill
encouraging improvement and defining the optimal practices progressions can be a key aspect of improving instruction and
for preparing children for school. child outcomes (Clements Sarama, 2008).

Teacher knowledge Curriculum, implementation, and improving
Professional development approaches should optimally be teacher-child interactions
designed for high-priority skill targets, such as preschool lan- Recently, extensive attention has been given to the importance
guage and literacy or math, and they should start by defining of using proven-effective manualized curricula or instructional
these targets and ensuring that there is a curriculum in place approaches as a means of improving program impacts on chil-
that reflects them. Teachers’ knowledge of these skills targets dren’s skills (e.g., Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research
and the associated developmental progressions then become a Consortium, 2008). Research on these curricula often use mea-
key focus for professional development. sures of procedural fidelity to ensure they are implemented as
A high-priority target for preschool literacy instruction intended (e.g., Justice Ezell, 2002; Lonigan, Anthony, et al.,
(Lonigan, 2004) is one that (a) is consistently and at least mod- 1999; Reid Lienemann, 2006; Wasik, Bond, Hindman,
erately linked to school-age reading and language achievement, 2006); inclusion of procedural fidelity measures is considered
(b) is amenable to change through intervention, and (c) is likely an essential quality for intervention research (Gersten et al.,
to be underdeveloped among at-risk pupils. Meta-analyses (e.g., 2005). In practice, procedural fidelity measures are increas-
Hammill, 2004; NELP, 2004) and longitudinal studies on ingly used to determine whether teachers are using adopted
whether early language and literacy predict later reading and lan- programs as intended, particularly those that are considered
guage skills (e.g., P. Bryant, MacLean, Bradley, 1990; Catts, scientifically based and for which procedural fidelity might
Fey, Zhang, Tomblin, 2001; Chaney, 1998; Christensen, be a key moderator of pupil outcomes (see Glenn, 2006).
1997; Gallagher, Frith, Snowling, 2000; Schatschneider, As important as procedural fidelity is to ensuring that curri-
Fletcher, Francis, Carlson, Foorman, 2004; Storch cula are implemented as intended, it must be distinguished
Whitehurst, 2002) have consistently shown the importance of six from quality of implementation, which is decidedly more diffi-
skill targets. The first three targets (phonological awareness, cult to capture (Sylva et al., 2006) than the teacher’s adherence
alphabet knowledge, print awareness) are literacy skills that con- to procedures or scripts; quality of implementation reflects the
sistently predict (average r ¼ .40) school-age decoding (NELP, real-time dynamic and interactive nature of classroom pro-
2004), are amenable to change via interventions (e.g., Justice cesses and the teacher’s ability to work flexibly with students
Ezell, 2002; Ukrainetz, Cooney, Dyer, Kysar, Harris, to individualize their instruction and respond sensitively—that
2000; van Kleeck, Gillam, McFadden, 1998; Whitehurst, is, to exhibit skilled performance within dynamic interactions
Epstein, Angell, Crone, Fischel, 1994), and are under- with children in learning activities that unfold over time in a
developed in at-risk pupils (e.g., Bowey, 1995; Lonigan, Bloom- given instructional episode or ‘‘teachable moment.’’ Note that
field, et al., 1999; Snowling, Gallagher, Frith, 2003). The whereas measurement of procedural aspects of implementation
other targets (vocabulary-linguistic concepts, narrative, social typically examines whether teachers can ‘‘go through the
communication-pragmatics) are moderately associated with motions’’ in following step-by-step aspects of a novel

75

76 Pianta et al.

curriculum or approach, measurement of quality of instruction explicit and direct instruction that systematically teaches chil-
looks globally at relational processes between teachers and dren about the code-based characteristics of written language
children across an entire learning episode. and includes both phonological and print structures.
The extent to which measurement of a teacher’s procedural Ratings of the quality of implementation and instructional
fidelity in implementing a structured curriculum may serve as a interactions are low to mid-range for teachers’ use of more
proxy for his or her instructional quality is a timely question, as explicit techniques that may promote children’s concept and
the availability and implementation of preschool language and language development (Girolametto Weitzman, 2002;
literacy curricula are flourishing in response to national and Girolametto, Weitzman, van Lieshout, Duff, 2000; La Paro,
local initiatives focused on improving the quality of language Pianta, Stuhlman, 2004). There is growing evidence on the
and literacy instruction in preschool programs. These improve- effectiveness of specific curricula in these learning domains
ments include both comprehensive curricula that organize (e.g., Byrne Fielding-Barnsley, 1993, 1995; Girolametto,
classroom activities and experiences for the entire classroom Pearce, Weitzman, 1996; Girolametto, Weitzman,
day (e.g., Opening the World of Learning; Schickedanz Clements-Baartman, 1998; Justice Ezell, 2002; Penno
Dickinson, 2004) and more focal supplements that are et al., 2002; Wasik Bond, 2001; Whitehurst et al., 1994).
embedded into a general curricular framework to provide However, observational studies have shown that even these
encapsulated lessons explicitly focused on language and lit- demonstrably effective literacy interventions have no effect
eracy (e.g., Doors to Discovery; Wright Group, 2004). Both on child outcomes when the overall quality of teaching prac-
types of curricula typically provide a detailed scope and tices is low (Dickinson Brady, 2005; Howes et al., 2008).
sequence for language and literacy instruction for the entire In short, the availability of a demonstrably effective curriculum
academic year, weekly lesson plans specifying a set of lan- and procedural fidelity with respect to delivery of that curricu-
guage and literacy objectives and corresponding activities, lum are not likely to be sufficient to ensure student learning.
example scripts (and for some, companion Web sites) illustrat- Given the central role of teacher-child interactions in
ing quality implementation of activities, books and other mate- mediating the effects of professional development on skill
rials (e.g., manipulatives like blocks) needed to implement the gains, one approach to professional development rests on evi-
curriculum, informal assessments to monitor children’s prog- dence from methodologically rigorous studies demonstrating
ress in the curriculum, and implementation checklists to mon- that objectively assessed teacher-child interactions are active
itor teachers’ fidelity to the curriculum. agents of developmental change in preschool classrooms
In a recent study, more than 180 pre-K teachers implemen- (Domitrovich et al., 2009; Mashburn et al., 2008; S. L. Ramey
ted a scripted set of lessons in language and early literacy; the Ramey, 2008; Raver et al., 2008). In the sections that follow,
teachers exhibited high levels of procedural fidelity to the we describe approaches to designing and testing professional
prescribed language and literacy curriculum after receiving development interventions that are aligned with interactions
minimal training in its implementation. Adherence to lesson that change both teachers’ classroom behaviors (Raver et al.,
plans and general guidelines for curriculum implementation 2008) and, in classrooms where teachers participate in these
exceeded 90% for most aspects of fidelity measured. Although supports, children’s school readiness (Downer et al., 2008;
this is an interesting finding, it must be considered in light of Hamre, Pianta, Downer, Mashburn, 2008; Mashburn et al.,
additional findings showing that, in large part, exhibiting 2008). Some recent research has focused on producing effec-
fidelity to the curriculum was not associated with the quality tive, high-quality implementation of instruction and interac-
of language and literacy instruction. Fidelity to specific imple- tional support for literacy and language (Landry et al., 2006;
mentation routines (e.g., calling children’s attention to the les- Neuman Cunningham, 2009; Pianta, Mashburn, et al.,
son, preparing all materials needed ahead of time) had no 2008; Powell et al., in press), whereas other research has
predictive value when considering the quality of instruction focused on math (Clements Sarama, 2008; Ginsburg et al.,
(Downer, Pianta, Fan, 2008). 2005). The evidence base is stronger for professional
This finding highlights some of the differences between high- development efforts related to literacy simply because the work
quality language instruction and high-quality literacy instruction. has been under way for a longer time.
Language instruction that is of high quality requires adults to pro- Because effects of organized curricula on children’s skills
vide well-tuned, responsive conversational input to children; it are mediated and/or moderated by teacher-child interactions
needs to feature use of open-ended questions, expansions, (Clements Sarama, 2008; Domitrovich Greenberg,
advanced linguistic models, and recasts (see Girolametto, 2004; Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium,
Weitzman, Greenberg, 2003). Because a key characteristic 2008), these interactions must be a central focus of
of high-quality language instruction is linguistic responsive- professional development interventions aiming to improve
ness of adults to children within dynamic exchanges, high- child outcomes (Bierman et al., 2008; Caswell He, 2008;
quality language instruction is virtually impossible to script Fantuzzo et al., 2007; Pianta, Mashburn, et al., 2008; Raver
procedurally. That is, one cannot possibly script what children et al., 2008). The average pre-K child experiences teacher-
will say or, consequently, how to interact with and respond to child interactions of mediocre to low quality (Pianta et al.,
children in ways that maximize language-learning opportuni- 2005), but small increments in the quality of interactions pro-
ties. By contrast, high-quality literacy instruction features duce skill gains for children (Burchinal et al., 2008).

76


The My Teaching Partner consultation (Pianta, Mashburn, these children with available instructional materials or activi-
et al., 2008) focuses on the three domains of CLASS-defined ties (e.g., Burchinal, Roberts, et al., 2000; Howes et al.,
dimensions of teacher-child interaction. CLASS-assessed inter- 2008; Hyson Biggar, 2005; NICHD ECCRN, 2002). These
actions uniquely account for child skill gains in preschool approaches align (conceptually and empirically) the requisite
(Mashburn et al., 2008; Vu, Jeon, Howes, 2008), and Gazelle knowledge of desired skill targets and developmental skill
(2006) reported that interactions assessed by CLASS moder- progressions in a particular skill domain (e.g., language
ated impacts of poor prior performance on school outcomes. development or early literacy) with extensive opportunities for
Because the majority of teacher interactions fall below the (a) observation of high-quality instructional interaction through
threshold levels identified by Burchinal et al. (in press), most analysis and viewing of multiple video examples; (b) skills
preschool classrooms do not operate in the ‘‘active range’’; training in identifying appropriate (or inappropriate) instruc-
however, small incremental improvements (in any of the three tional, linguistic, and social responses to children’s cues and
domains) are associated with meaningful changes in children’s how teacher responses can contribute to students’ literacy and
skills. In addition, it appears that the My Teaching Partner con- growth of their language skills; and (c) repeated opportunities
sultation is capable of moving teacher-child interactions into for individualized feedback and support for high quality and
(and through) the range in which they improve children’s effectiveness in one’s own instruction, implementation, and
readiness (Burchinal et al., 2008; Hamre et al., 2008; Mash- interactions with children. Conceptually, there is a system of
burn, Downer, Hamre, Justice, Pianta, 2010). professional development supports that allow for a direct tra-
For example, the improvements yielded from the My Teach- cing of the path (and putative effects) of inputs to teachers,
ing Partner program were substantial. For 7 of the 10 CLASS to inputs to children, to children’s skill gains.
dimensions of teacher-child interaction, effects were between Again, evidence is very promising that when such targeted,
.12 and .97, with an average effect size of .56. Effect sizes aligned supports are available to teachers, children’s skill gains
for child outcomes were .27 for receptive vocabulary, .32 can be considerable—on the order of a half a standard deviation
for emergent literacy skills, and .23–.36 for social skills. Con- on average, and as much as a full standard deviation. Unfortu-
sultation was delivered to teachers entirely via the Web; this is nately, preschool teachers are rarely exposed to multiple
perhaps one of the first completely Web-based professional field-based examples of objectively defined high-quality
development approaches that is effective, is individualized, and practice (Pianta, 2005), and they receive few if any opportu-
improves teacher-child interactions across any curriculum. nities to receive feedback about the extent to which their
The use of the Web in this and other novel and effective classroom interactions and instruction promote these skill
approaches to professional development (see Landry et al., domains (Pianta, 2005). At present, there is very little evi-
2006; Powell et al., in press) has the potential for scalability dence that the policy frameworks and resources that should
and cost savings for travel, and location is not a precondition guide and encourage professional development and training
to individualized feedback to teachers. For example, the of the early childhood workforce are aligned with the most
My Teaching Partner consultation is among the least expen- promising, evidence-based forms of effective professional
sive professional development opportunities for which cost development. Thus, it is not surprising that teachers with a
has been documented (Odden, Archibald, Fermanich, 4-year degree or 2-year degree do not differ from one another
Gallagher, 2002), with effects larger than those typically substantially in either their practice or their students’ learning
reported in the literature (Raver, 2008). It costs approximately gains, and it is not surprising that investments in courses and
$3,000 per teacher to deliver the My Teaching Partner consul- professional development appear to return so little to chil-
tation, whereas average per-teacher annual cost for profes- dren’s learning. It truly does depend on the nature and type
sional development ranges between $2,000 and $9,000 of professional development, and future considerations for
(Odden et al., 2002). My Teaching Partner consultation and policy aimed to improve the quality and effects of preschool
other Web-mediated approaches (Landry et al., 2006) can must very clearly address this disconnect; investments in profes-
potentially address the expanding need for effective professional development need to be made far more contingent on
sional development and can be aligned with training, certifi- what we know is beneficial to teachers and children, as opposed
cation, and degree requirements for preschool teachers. to on what is convenient or beneficial to professional
development providers.
Summary
The best approaches to professional development focus on
Directions for Policy and Future Research
providing teachers with (a) developmentally relevant informa- Our conclusions are fairly straightforward and include four
tion on skill targets and progressions and (b) support for major points. First, preschool, which we have defined as pub-
learning to skillfully use instructional interactions and to effec- licly supported programs (child care, Head Start, state-funded
tively implement curricula. Such professional development pre-K), encompasses such a wide range of funding streams and
approaches enable teachers to provide children with targets, program models, staffing patterns and qualifications,
domain-specific stimulation supports in real-time, dynamic and even basic aims (maternal employment or education) that
interactions that foster children’s developing skills by engaging it cannot be understood as a uniform or singular aspect of the

77

78 Pianta et al.

public system of support for children. Moreover, the fragmen- create a more coherent and uniform platform for these
tation in this educational space greatly impedes policy levers important offerings.
that could drive improvement and coherence in the actual mod-
els that children experience. Second, despite this stunning Current public policies for child care, Head Start, and state
variability and fragmentation, there is compelling evidence pre-K fail to ensure that most American children attend highly
from well-controlled studies that attending preschool can boost effective preschool education programs. Some attend no
development and school readiness skills and can have longer program at all. Others attend educationally weak programs.
term benefits to children and communities over time. Unfortu- Children in families from the middle of the income distribution
nately, the effects of various program models are quite varied, have the least access, but coverage is far from universal even
with some being rather weak and ineffective whereas other for children in poverty. This state of affairs can have marked
scaled-up programs narrow the achievement gap by almost and deleterious effects on children, families, and communities.
half. It is quite clear that programs that are more educationally It is not easily solved by more subsidies or more of the same
focused and well defined produce larger effects on child devel- types of programs. Increased provision of child care subsidies
opment. Third, for children enrolled in preschool, features of under current federal and state policies is particularly unlikely
their experience in those settings are important—particularly, to produce any meaningful improvements in children’s learn-
the ways in which adults interact with them to deliver developing and development and could have mild negative conse-
mentally stimulating opportunities. The aspects most often dis- quences. Increased public investment in effective preschool
cussed as features of program quality regulated by policy (such education programs for all children can produce substantial
as teacher qualifications or curriculum) have much less influ- educational, social, and economic benefits, but only if the
ence on children than is desired. Fourth, teacher-child interac- investments are in programs in which teaching is highly effec-
tion and teachers’ effective implementation of educational and tive. Although some state and local pre-K programs appear to
developmental curricula, as features of program quality, are have been the most effective, such programs need not be
central ingredients responsible for program effects but do not provided by the public schools. Child-care and Head Start pro-
appear to be produced in a reliable manner by typical teacher grams with similar standards and resources (including profes-
preparation. It is important to note that such aspects of pre- sional development focused on teaching practices) operating
school quality and children’s experience can be improved with as part of state pre-K produce similar results. It is also abun-
specific and focused training and support and this will have dantly clear that 1 year of effective preschool education is not
expected effects on children’s learning. a panacea. Even with an earlier start and longer duration, pre-
The research on preschool has indeed yielded a rich set of school education is not an inoculation that guarantees complete
results, and both the literature and the field have progressed and permanent elimination of the achievement gap for the
in the complexity of questions and issues being addressed. disadvantaged children who should have priority for such pro-
As we assess the present state of the research literature as it grams because they benefit most.
intersects with policy and look to the future, we see a number There are large disagreements within the field about what
of central themes emerging for work needing attention now and policies should be implemented. Many advocates, policy-
into the years beyond: makers, and scholars believe that improving education and
wages of teachers is necessary to improve care, because it will
(a) Defining and assessing standards for children’s learning, professionalize the workforce. Their focus is on improving the
for preschool programs, and for the teachers staffing them. quality of preservice training and promoting wide efforts to
(b) The amount, nature, and targeting of public investments link teacher qualifications and training to early childhood com-
required to ensure gap-closing gains, including how to petencies; Maine’s registry is an example of such a program.
reposition funds away from unsuccessful or weak pro- Others, however, focus on creating professional development
grams and program models and toward those shown to programs with demonstrated effectiveness in improving teach-
be more effective. ing practices and child outcomes. The latter group argues that
(c) The basic science of child development, particularly in public funds to improve quality and program impacts should
the areas of neuroscience and genetics, and the implica- be targeted only to professional development opportunities
tions this work may or may not have for policy and prac- with known effectiveness. These two positions—one empha-
tice in early education. sizing improving the amount of training and one emphasizing
(d) How to best align preschool with K–12, which is a very effective training—are clearly not mutually exclusive, but each
immediate challenge, perhaps best reflected in recent will be difficult to implement. For example, ensuring that
efforts to create a preschool through grade 3 model of higher-education courses teach effective practices will require
schooling. a different approach to preservice training and certification, an
(e) The ways in which the somewhat less regulated field of area in which there is a considerable need for research and
early childhood education provides a testing ground for development to drive such a policy. Ensuring there are educa-
innovations and ideas relevant to K–12 policy. tional specialists who can provide effective models of profes-
(f) Perhaps most important, how to radically alter the landscape sional development to programs will require a different
of preschool programs, policies, and funding streams to approach to in-service training. Coordinating across preservice

78


and in-service in achieving these goals and paying close atten- References
tion to evaluation of impacts will be essential. Abbott-Shim, M., Lambert, R., McCarty, F. (2003). A comparison
Furthermore, balancing between those policies that promote of school readiness outcomes for children randomly assigned to a
access to care to encourage parental employment and those pol- Head Start program and program’s waiting list. Journal of Educa-
icies that promote high-quality, educationally focused care to tion for Students Placed at Risk, 8, 191–214.
enhance school readiness skills will be the focus of many Administration on Children and Families. (2006). FACES findings:
debates. Although not discussed extensively in this review, New research on Head Start outcomes and program quality.
most of the public funds for child care are spent on child Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 4, 2009, from
care subsidies that permit a parent (usually the mother) to http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/faces/reports/faces_
work and that often are capped so that it is difficult to pur-
findings_06/faces_findings_bw.pdf
chase high-quality care. Pre-K programs are typically targeted
American Public Health Association and the American Academy of
toward low-income children to improve school readiness
Pediatrics. (1992). Caring for our children: National health and
skills and often are half-day programs so that as many chil-
safety performance standards: Standards for out of home child
dren as possible can have access to them. Such programs do
care programs. Ann Arbor, MI: Author.
not tend to provide care for the entire time mothers are likely
Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., Pennucci, A. (2004). Ben-
to be employed. More careful discussion of these two some-
efits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for
what discrepant goals is needed.
youth. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
There is general agreement that we need more rigorous test-
Baker, M., Gruber, J., Milligan, K. (2008). Universal childcare,
ing of programs if we are to reach goals of improving practice
maternal labor supply, and family well-being. Journal of Political
and child outcomes. For example, too often professional
Economy, 116, 709–745.
development or instructional programs are adopted on the basis
Barnett, W.S. (1993). Benefit-cost analysis of preschool education:
of evidence from studies with limited methodological rigor or
Findings from a 25-year follow-up. American Journal of Orthopsy-
that were conducted under less-than-ideal circumstances. Con-
chiatry, 63, 500–508.
siderably more research money is needed to ensure that we can
Barnett, W.S. (1996). Lives in the balance: Age-27 benefit-cost
develop and adequately field test programs before we assume
they can be successfully implemented. Before asking systems analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program (High/Scope
to implement various models with teachers or with young chil- Educational Research Foundation Monograph No. 11). Ypsilanti,
dren, we need to be sure that their purchase is warranted and MI: High/Scope Press.
that we are not wasting opportunities to provide children with Barnett, W.S. (1998). Long-term effects on cognitive development
much-needed support and instruction. and school success. In W.S. Barnett S.S. Boocock (Eds.), Early
Policy innovations, such as quality-rating systems, were care and education for children in poverty: Promises, programs,
implemented to assist parents in identifying high-quality child and long-term results (pp. 11–44). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
care and in improving the quality of existing programs. These Barnett, W.S. (2002). Early childhood education. In A. Molnar (Ed.),
systems could have tremendous potential but are in some School reform proposals: The research evidence (pp. 1–26).
ways predicated on somewhat dubious assumptions regarding Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
the role that teacher education and other structural and pro- Barnett, W.S. (2007). Benefits and costs of quality early childhood
cess quality measures have on promoting child outcomes. education. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 27, 7–23.
Although the programs are well intended, more evaluation Barnett, W.S. (2008). Why governments should invest in early educa-
is clearly warranted. tion. CESifo DICE Report, 6(2), 9–14.
Finally, our discussion focused on preschool—programs for Barnett, W.S., Camilli, G. (2002). Compensatory preschool educa-
children ages 3 and 4. Most of those children received care as tion, cognitive development, and ‘‘race.’’ In J.M. Fish (Ed.), Race
infants and toddlers in other, even less well-regulated settings, and intelligence: Separating science from myth (pp. 369–406).
and many preschoolers themselves receive care in one of these Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
other settings. Less is known about these settings, especially Barnett, W.S., Epstein, D.J., Friedman, A.H., Boyd, J.S.,
unregulated settings, but existing evidence indicates that qual- Hustedt, J.T. (2008). The state of preschool 2008: State preschool
ity of care, especially for low-income children, is poor. More yearbook. New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New
broadly, preschool education policy should be developed in the Jersey, National Institute for Early Education Research.
context of public policies and programs to effectively support Barnett, W.S., Frede, E.C. (2009). Federal early childhood policy
child development from birth to age 5 and beyond. guide for the first 100 days. Policy matters. Washington, DC:
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, National Institute
Funding for Early Education Research.
This article was supported in part by the National Center for Research Barnett, W.S., Howes, C., Jung, K. (2008). California’s state pre-
in Early Childhood Education, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. school program: Quality and effects on children’s cognitive abil-
Department of Education, through Grant R305A060021 to the Univer- ities at kindergarten entry. New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State
sity of Virginia. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and University of New Jersey, National Institute for Early Education
do not represent views of the U.S. Department of Education. Research.

79

80 Pianta et al.

Barnett, W.S., Hustedt, J.T., Friedman, A.H., Boyd, J.S., Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 2, pp. 1163–1277).
Ainsworth, P. (2007). The state of preschool 2007: State preschool New York, NY: North-Holland.
yearbook. New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Blau, D., Tekin, E. (2007). The determinants and consequences of
Jersey, National Institute for Early Education Research. child care subsidies for single mothers in the USA. Journal of Pop-
Barnett, W.S., Hustedt, J.T., Robin, K.B., Schulman, K.L. (2004). ulation Economics, 20, 719–741.
The state of preschool 2004: State preschool yearbook. New Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning:
Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
National Institute for Early Education Research. Bowey, J. (1995). Socioeconomic status differences in preschool pho-
Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Yarosz, D.J., Thomas, J., Hornbeck, A., nological sensitivity and first-grade reading achievement. Journal
Stechuk, R., Burns, S. (2008). Educational effects of the Tools of Educational Psychology, 87, 476–487.
of the Mind Curriculum: A randomized trial. Early Childhood Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Lau, L., Sparling, J. (1994). Family and
Research Quarterly, 23, 299–313. classroom correlates of Head Start children’s developmental out-
Barnett, W.S., Masse, L.N. (2007). Early childhood program design comes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 289–309.
and economic returns: Comparative benefit-cost analysis of the Bryant, D., Clifford, R., Saluga, G., Pianta, R., Early, D., Barbarin, O.,
Abecedarian program and policy implications. Economics of Edu- et al. (2004). Diversity and directions in state pre-kindergarten
cation Review, 26, 113–125. programs. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Barnett, W.S., Yarosz, D. (2007). Who goes to preschool and why Bryant, D., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Clifford, R. (1993). Evaluation of
does it matter? (Preschool Policy Matters, Issue 15). New public preschool programs in North Carolina. Chapel Hill:
Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child
National Institute for Early Education Research. Development Center.
Belfield, C.R., Nores, M., Barnett, W.S., Schweinhart, L. (2006). Bryant, D., Taylor, K. (2009). Demonstrating effective child care
The High/Scope Perry Preschool Program: Cost-benefit analysis quality improvement. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina,
using data from the age-40 follow-up. Journal of Human Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.
Resources, 41, 162–190. Bryant, P., MacLean, M., Bradley, L. (1990). Rhyme, language, and
Belsky, J., Vandell, D.L., Burchinal, M., Clarke-Stewart, K.A., children’s reading. Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 237–252.
McCartney, K., Owen, M.T., the NICHD Early Child Care Bunce, B.H. (1995). Building a language-focused curriculum for the
Research Network. (2007). Are there long-term effects of early preschool classroom. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
child care? Child Development, 78, 681–701. Burchinal, M., Cryer, D. (2003). Diversity, child care quality, and
Berlinski, S., Galiani, S. (2007). The effect of a large expansion of developmental outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
pre-primary school facilities on preschool attendance and maternal 18, 401–426.
employment. Labour Economics, 14, 665–680. Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D.,
Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., Gertler, P. (2006). The effect of pre- Clifford, R., et al. (2008). Predicting child outcomes at the end
primary on primary school performance (Working Paper W06/ of kindergarten from the quality of pre-kindergarten teacher-
04). London: Institute for Fiscal Studies, University of London. child interactions and instruction. Applied Developmental Science,
Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., Manacorda, M. (2008). Giving children a 12, 140–153.
better start: Preschool attendance and school-age profiles. Journal Burchinal, M., Kainz, K., Cai, K., Tout, K., Zaslow, M., Martinez-
of Public Economics, 92, 1416–1440. Beck, I., Rathgrab, C. (2009). Early care and education quality
Bernal, R., Keane, M.P. (2006). Child care choices and children’s and child outcomes. Washington, DC: Office of Planning,
cognitive achievement: The case of single mothers (Working Paper Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and
06-09). Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern Families, U.S. DHHS, and Child Trends.
University. Burchinal, M., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Bryant, D., Clifford, R. (2000).
Berrueta-Clement, J.R., Scwheinhart, L.L., Barnett, W.S., Children’s social and cognitive development and child care qual-
Epstein, A.S., Weikart, D.P. (1984). Changed lives: The effects ity: Testing for differential associations related to poverty, gender,
of the Perry Preschool program on youths through age 19. or ethnicity. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 149–165.
Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. Burchinal, M., Ramey, S., Reid, M., Jaccard, J. (1995). Early child
Bierman, K.L., Domitrovich, C.E., Nix, R., Gest, S., Welsh, J.A., care experiences and their association with family and child char-
Greenberg, M.T., et al. (2008). Promoting academic and social- acteristics during middle childhood. Early Childhood Research
emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI program. Child Quarterly, 10, 33–61.
Development, 79, 1802–1817. Burchinal, M., Roberts, J., Riggins, R., Zeisel, S., Neebe, E.,
Birman, B., Desimone, L., Garet, M., Porter, A. (2000). Designing Bryant, D. (2000). Relating quality of center-based child care to
professional development that works. Educational Leadership, early cognitive and language development longitudinally. Child
57(8), 28–33. Development, 71, 339–357.
Blau, D. (1999). The effects of child care characteristics on child Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., Mashburn, A. (in press).
development. Journal of Human Resources, 34, 786–822. Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and
Blau, D., Currie, J. (2006). Pre-school, day care, and after-school child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergarten
care: Who’s minding the kids? In E. Hanushek F. Welch (Eds.), programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly.

80


Byrne, B., Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of a program to Christensen, C.A. (1997). Onset, rhymes, and phonemes in learning to
teach phonemic awareness to young children: A one-year follow- read. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 341–358.
up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 104–111. Clements, D.H., Sarama, J. (2008). Experimental evaluation of the
Byrne, B., Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a program to effects of a research-based preschool mathematics curriculum.
teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 2- and 3-year American Educational Research Journal, 45, 443–494.
follow-up and a new preschool trial. Journal of Educational Psy- Clifford, R., Barbarin, O., Chang, F., Early, D., Bryant, D., Howes, C.,
chology, 87, 488–503. et al. (2005). What is pre-kindergarten? Trends in the development
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., Barnett, W.S. (2010). Meta- of a public system of pre-kindergarten services. Applied Develop-
analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive mental Science, 9, 126–143.
and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), Article Clifford, R., Early, D., Hills, T. (1999). Almost a million children in
15440. Retrieved March 23, 2010, from http://www.tcrecord.org/ school before kindergarten: Who is responsible for early childhood
content.asp?contentid¼15440 services? Young Children, 54(5), 48–51.
Campbell, F.A., Pungello, E.P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M.R., Clifford, R., Maxwell, K. (2002, April). The need for highly
Ramey, C. (2001). The development of cognitive and academic qualified prekindergarten teachers. Paper presented at the Pre-
abilities: Growth curves from an early intervention educational paring Highly Qualified Prekindergarten Teachers Symposium,
experiment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 231–242. University of North Carolina Child Development Institute, Cha-
Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T. (1995). Cognitive and school pel Hill, NC.
outcomes for high-risk African-American students at middle adoles- Cochran-Smith, M., Zeichner, K.M. (Eds.). (2005). Studying teacher
cence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher
Research Journal, 34, 743–772. Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T. (2007, December). Carolina Abecedar- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis of the behavioral sciences
ian Project. Paper presented at the Conference on Critical Issues in (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cost Effectiveness in Children’s First Decade, Minneapolis, MN. Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. (Ed.). (1983). As the twig is bent:
Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E.P., Sparling, J.J., Miller- Lasting effects of preschool programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult out- Cook, T.D. (2008). Waiting for life to arrive: A history of the
comes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Sci- regression-discontinuity design in psychology, statistics and eco-
ence, 6, 42–57. nomics. Journal of Econometrics, 14, 636–654.
Campbell, F.A., Wasik, B.H., Pungello, E.P., Burchinal, M., Cook, T.D., Shadish, W.R., Wong, V.C. (2008). Three conditions
Barbarin, O., Kainz, K., et al. (2008). Young adult outcomes from under which experiments and observational studies produce
the Abecedarian and CARE early childhood educational interven- comparable causal estimates: New findings from within-study com-
tions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 452–466. parisons. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27, 724–750.
Capps, R., Fix, M.E., Ost, J., Reardon-Anderson, L., Passel, J.S. Cross, C.T., Woods, T.A., Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2009).
(2004). The health and well-being of young children of immigrants. Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence
Retrieved May 2009, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/ and equity. Washington, DC: Committee on Early Childhood
311139_ChildrenImmigrants.pdf Mathematics; National Research Council and National Academy
Cascio, E. (2006). Public preschool and maternal labor supply: Evi- of Sciences.
dence from the introduction of kindergartens into American public Currie, J., Thomas, D. (1995). Does Head Start make a difference?
schools (NBER Working Paper 12179). Cambridge, MA: National American Economic Review, 85, 341–364.
Bureau of Economic Research. Currie, J., Thomas, D. (1999). Does Head Start help Hispanic chil-
Cassidy, D.J., Hestenes, L.L., Hansen, J.K., Hegde, A., Shim, J., dren? Journal of Public Economics, 74, 235–262.
Hestenes, S. (2005). Revisiting the two faces of child care quality: Deming, D. (2009). Early childhood intervention and life-cycle skill
Structure and process. Early Education Development, 16, development: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic
505–520. Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3), 111–134.
Caswell, L., He, Y. (2008). Promoting children’s early language Deutsch, M., Deutsch, C.P., Jordan, T.J., Grallow, R. (1983). The
and literacy development in contexts of early educational interven- IDS program: An experiment in early and sustained enrichment.
tion and care: A review of the impact of federally funded research In Consortium for Longitudinal Studies (Ed.), As the twig is bent:
initiatives on young children’s school readiness. Washington, DC: Lasting effects of preschool programs (pp. 377–410). Hillsdale,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NJ: Erlbaum.
Catts, H.W., Fey, M.E., Zhang, X., Tomblin, J.B. (2001). Language Deutsch, M., Taleporos, E., Victor, J. (1974). A brief synopsis of an
basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudi- initial enrichment program in early childhood. In S. Ryan (Ed.), A
nal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361. report on longitudinal evaluations of preschool programs. Vol. 1:
Caughy, M.O., DiPietro, J.A., Strobino, D.M. (1994). Day-care Longitudinal evaluations (pp. 49–60). Washington, DC: Office of
participation as a protective factor in the cognitive development Child Development, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
of low-income children. Child Development, 65, 457–471. Welfare.
Chaney, C. (1998). Preschool language and metalinguistic skills are Dickinson, D.K., Brady, J. (2005). Toward effective support for lan-
links to reading success. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 433–446. guage and literacy through professional development: A decade of

81

82 Pianta et al.

experiences and data. In M. Zaslow I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Frede, E.C. (1998). Preschool program quality in programs for chil-
Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. dren in poverty. In W.S. Barnett S.S. Boocock (Eds.), Early care
141–170). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. and education for children in poverty (pp. 77–98). Albany, NY:
Dickinson, D.K., Caswell, L.C. (2007). Building support for SUNY Press.
language and early literacy in preschool classrooms through Frede, E.C., Jung, K., Barnett, W.S., Lamy, C.E., Figueras, A.
in-service professional development: Effects of the Literacy (2007). The Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study.
Environment Enrichment Program (LEEP). Early Childhood Report to the New Jersey Department of Education. New
Research Quarterly, 22, 243–260. Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
Domitrovich, C., Gest, S., Gill, S., Bierman, K., Welsh, J., Jones, D. National Institute for Early Education Research.
(2009). Fostering high-quality teaching with an enriched and pro- Fuchs, T., Wossmann, L. (2006). Governance and primary school
fessional development support: The Head Start REDI Program. performance: International evidence. Munich, Germany: Ifo
American Educational Research Journal, 46, 567–597. Institute for Economic Research, University of Munich.
Domitrovich, C.E., Greenberg, M.T. (2004). Preventive interven- Fukkink, R.G. (2007). Does training matter? A meta-analysis and
tions with young children: Building on the foundation of early inter- review of caregiver training studies. Early Childhood Research
vention programs. Early Education and Development, 15, 365–370. Quarterly, 22, 294–311.
Downer, J., Pianta, R., Fan, X. (2008). Effects of Web-mediated Gallagher, A., Frith, U., Snowling, M.J. (2000). Precursors of
teacher professional development on children’s language and literacy-delay among children at genetic risk of dyslexia. Journal
literacy development. Manuscript submitted for publication. of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 203–213.
Duncan, G.J., Brooks-Gunn, J. (Eds.). (1997). Consequences of Garber, H.L. (1988). The Milwaukee Project: Preventing mental
growing up poor. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. retardation in children at risk. Washington, DC: American
Duncan, G., Dowsett, C., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A., Association on Mental Retardation.
Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achieve- Garces, E., Thomas, D., Currie, J. (2002). Longer term effects of
ment. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446. Head Start. American Economic Review, 92, 999–1012.
Dunn, L. (1993). Ratio and group size in day care programs. Child Gazelle, H. (2006). Class climate moderates peer relations and emo-
Youth Care Forum, 2, 193–226. tional adjustment in children with an early childhood history of
Early, D., Maxwell, K., Burchinal, M., Alva, S., Bender, R., anxious solitude: A child-by-environment model. Developmental
Bryant, D., et al. (2007). Teachers’ education, classroom quality, Psychology, 42, 1179–1192.
and young children’s academic skills: Results from seven studies Gelbach, J. (2002). Public schooling for young children and maternal
of preschool programs. Child Development, 78, 558–580. labor supply. American Economic Review, 92, 307–322.
Espinosa, L.M. (2007). English-language learners as they enter Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C.,
school. In R. Pianta, M. Cox, K. Snow (Eds.), School readiness Innocenti, M. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental
the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability (pp. and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional
175–196). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Children, 71, 149–164.
Espinosa, L., Laffey, J., Whittaker, T., Sheng, Y. (2006). Technol- Gilliam, W.S., Zigler, E.F. (2001). A critical meta-analysis of all
ogy in the home and the achievement of young children: Findings impact evaluations of state-funded preschool from 1977 to 1998:
from the early childhood longitudinal study. Early Education Implications for policy, service delivery and program evaluation.
Development, 17, 421–441. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 441–473.
Fantuzzo, J., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., McDermott, P.A., McWayne, C., Gilliam, W.S., Zigler, E.F. (2004). State efforts to evaluate the
Frye, D., Perlman, S. (2007). Investigation of dimensions of effects of prekindergarten: 1977 to 2003. Unpublished manuscript,
social-emotional classroom behavior and school readiness for Yale University Child Study Center, New Haven, CT.
low-income urban preschool children. School Psychology Review, Ginsburg, H., Kaplan, R., Cannon, J., Cordero, M., Eisenband, J.,
36, 44–62. Galanter, M., et al. (2005). Helping early childhood educators to
Feuer, M., Towne, L., Shavelson, R.J. (2002). Scientific culture and teach mathematics. In M. Zaslow I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Crit-
educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4–14. ical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 171–
Figlio, D., Roth, J. (2007). The behavioral consequences of pre- 202). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
kindergarten participation for disadvantaged youth. In D. Figlio Girolametto, L., Pearce, P.S., Weitzman, E. (1996). Interactive
J. Roth (Eds.), The problems of disadvantaged youth: An eco- focused stimulation for toddlers with expressive vocabulary
nomic perspective (pp. 15–42). Cambridge, MA: National delays. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 1274–1283.
Bureau of Economic Research. Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E. (2002). Responsiveness of child-
Finn, C.D., Jr. (2009). Reroute the preschool juggernaut. Stanford, care providers in interactions with toddlers and preschoolers.
CA: Education Next Books. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 33,
Fitzpatrick, M. (2008). Starting school at four: The effect of universal 268–282.
pre-kindergarten on children’s academic achievement. The B.E. Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., Clements-Baartman, J. (1998).
Journal of Economic Analysis Policy, 8, Article 46. Retrieved Vocabulary intervention for children with Down syndrome: Parent
August 8, 2009, from http://www.bepress.com/bejeap/vol8/iss1/ training using focused stimulation. Infant Toddler Intervention: A
art46/ Transdisciplinary Journal, 8, 109–126.

82


Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., Greenberg, J. (2003). Training day Heckman, J., Masterov, D. (2007). The productivity argument for
care staff to facilitate children’s language. American Journal of investing in young children. Review of Agricultural Economics,
Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 299–311. 29, 446–493.
Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., van Lieshout, R., Duff, D. (2000). Helburn, S.W. (1995). Center structure: Staff policies and characteris-
Directiveness in teachers’ language input to toddlers and preschoo- tics. In S.W. Helburn (Ed.), Cost, quality, and child outcomes in
lers in day care. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing child care centers: Technical report (pp. 91–124). Denver:
Research, 43, 1101–1114. Economics Department, University of Colorado at Denver.
Glenn, D. (2006, July 14). Weighing the ‘‘scale-up’’ study. The Herbst, C.M., Tekin, E. (2008). Child care subsidies and child
Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(45), A12. development (NBER Working Paper No. 14474). Retrieved from
Gormley, W.T., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., Dawson, B. (2005). The http://www.nber.org/papers/w14474
effects of universal pre-K on cognitive development. Developmen- Hernandez, D., Charney, E. (1998). From generation to generation:
tal Psychology, 41, 872–884. The health and well being of children in immigrant families.
Gormley, W.T., Phillips, D. (2003). The effects of universal pre-K in Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Oklahoma: Research highlights and policy implications (Working Hernandez, D.J., Denton, N.A., Macartney, S.E. (2007). Demo-
Paper No. 2). Washington, DC: Public Policy Institute, Georgetown graphic trends and the transition years. In R. Pianta, M. Cox,
University. K. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten
Gormley, W.T., Phillips, D., Gayer, T. (2008). Preschool programs in the era of accountability (pp. 217–282). Baltimore, MD: Brooks.
can boost school readiness. Science, 320, 1723–1724. Herzenberg, S., Price, M., Bradley, D. (2005). Losing ground in
Grissmer, D., Flannagan, A., Kawata, J., Williamson, S. (2000). early childhood education: Declining workforce qualifications in
Improving student achievement: What state NAEP scores tell us. an expanding industry, 1979–2004. Washington, DC: Economic
Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Policy Institute.
Hagekull, B., Bohlin, G. (1995). Day care quality, family, and child Howes, C. (1990). Can the age of entry into child care and the quality
characteristics and socioemotional development. Early Childhood of child care predict adjustment in kindergarten? Developmental
Research Quarterly, 10, 505–526. Psychology, 26, 292–303.
Hahn, H., Todd, P., van der Klaauw, W. (2001). Identification and Howes, C. (1997). Children’s experiences in center-based child care as
estimation of treatment effects with a regression-discontinuity a function of teacher background and adult:child ratio. Merrill-
design. Econometrica, 69, 201–209. Palmer Quarterly, 43, 404–425.
Hamm, K., Ewen, D. (2006). From the beginning: Early Head Start Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D.,
children, families, staff, and programs in 2004 (Policy Brief 7). Clifford, R., Barbarin, O. (2008). Ready to learn? Children’s
Washington, DC: CLASP. pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. Early
Hammill, D.D. (2004). What we know about correlates of reading. Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 27–50.
Exceptional Children, 70, 453–468. Howes, C., James, J., Ritchie, S. (2003). Pathways to effective
Hamre, B.K., Pianta, R.C., Downer, J.T., Mashburn, A.J. (2008). teaching. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 104–120.
Effects of Web-mediated teacher professional development on chil- Howes, C., Phillips, D.A., Whitebook, M. (1992). Thresholds of
dren’s social skills. Manuscript submitted for publication. quality: Implications for child care and children’s social develop-
Hamre, B.K., Pianta, R.C., Downer, J.T., Mashburn, A.J. (in ment. Child Development, 63, 449–460.
press). Promoting young children’s social competence through Howes, C., Whitebook, M., Phillips, D.A. (1992). Teacher charac-
preschool and MTP resources. American Education Research teristics and effective teaching in child care: Findings from the
Journal. National Child Care Staffing Study. Child and Youth Care Forum,
Hargrave, A.C., Senechal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention
´ ´ 21, 399–414.
with preschool children who have limited vocabularies: The bene- Hustedt, J.T., Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Figueras, A. (2008). Impacts
fits of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood of New Mexico PreK on children’s school readiness at kindergar-
Research Quarterly, 15, 75–90. ten entry: Results from the second year of a growing initiative.
Harms, T., Clifford, R.M. (1980). Early childhood environment rat- New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,
ing scale. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. National Institute for Early Education Research.
Harms, T., Clifford, R.M., Cryer, D. (1998). The early childhood Hustedt, J.T., Barnett, W.S., Jung, K., Thomas, J. (2007). The
environment rating scale: Revised edition. New York, NY: effects of the Arkansas Better Chance Program on young chil-
Teachers College Press. dren’s school readiness. New Brunswick: Rutgers, The State
Hart, P., Stroot, S., Yinger, R., Smith, S. (2005). Meeting the University of New Jersey, National Institute for Early Education
teacher education accountability challenge: A focus on novice and Research.
experienced teacher studies. Mount Vernon, OH: Teacher Quality Huston, A.C., Walker, J.T., Dowsett, C.J., Imes, A.E., Ware, A.
Partnership. (2008). Long-term effects of New Hope on children’s academic
Haskins, R. (1985). Public school aggression among children with achievement and achievement motivation (MDRC Working Paper).
varying day-care experience. Child Development, 56, 689–703. New York, NY: MDRC.
Heckman, J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in Hyson, M., Biggar, H. (2005). NAEYC’s standards for early child-
disadvantaged children. Science, 312, 1900–1902. hood professional preparation: Getting from here to there. In

83

84 Pianta et al.

M. Zaslow I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early preschool children: Bringing a professional development model
childhood professional development (pp. 283–308). Baltimore, to scale. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 306–324.
MD: Paul H. Brookes. La Paro, K., Pianta, R., Stuhlman, M. (2004). The classroom assess-
Hyson, M., Tomlinson, H.B., Morris, C. (2009). Quality improvement ment scoring system: Findings from the prekindergarten year. The
in early childhood teacher education: Faculty perspectives recom- Elementary School Journal, 104, 409–426.
mendations for the future. Early Childhood Research and Practice, Larsen, J.M., Hite, S.J., Hart, C.H. (1983). The effects of preschool
11(1). Retrieved August 1, 2009, from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v11n1/ on educationally advantaged children: First phases of a longitudi-
hyson.html nal study. Intelligence, 7, 345–352.
Jacobson-Chernoff, J., Flanagan, K.D., McPhee, C., Park, J. (2007). Larsen, J.M., Robinson, C.C. (1989). Later effects of preschool
Preschool: First findings form the third follow-up of the Early on low-risk children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4,
Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) (NCES 133–144.
2008-024). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Larzelere, R.E., Kuhn, B.R., Johnson, B. (2004). The intervention
Statistics. selection bias: An under-recognized confound in intervention
Johnson, R.S. (2002). Using data to close the achievement gap: research. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 289–303.
How to measure equity in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Layzer, J., Price, C. (2008). Closing the gap in the school readiness
Corwin Press. of low-income children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Jordan, T.J., Grallo, R., Deutsch, M., Deutsch, C.P. (1985). Long- Health and Human Services.
term effects of early enrichment: A 20-year perspective on persis- Lazar, I., Darlington, R., Murray, H., Royce, J., Snipper, A. (1982).
tence and change. American Journal of Community Psychology, Lasting effects of early education: A report from the consortium
13, 393–415. for longitudinal studies. Monographs of the Society for Research
Justice, L.M., Ezell, H.K. (2002). Use of storybook reading to in Child Development, 47(2–3, Serial No. 195).
increase print awareness in at-risk children. American Journal of Lefebvre, P., Merrigan, P. (2008). Child-care policy and the labor
Speech-Language Pathology, 85, 388–396. supply of mothers with young children: A natural experiment from
Justice, L.M., Meier, J., Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words Canada. Journal of Labor Economics, 26, 519–548.
from storybooks: Findings from an intervention with at-risk Lemke, R.J., Witt, R., Witte, A.D. (2007). The transition from wel-
kindergarteners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in fare to work. Eastern Economic Journal, 33, 359–373.
Schools, 36, 17–32. Lonigan, C.J. (2004). Emergent literacy skills and family literacy. In
Kagan, S.L., Garcia, E. (2007). Taking stock: Assessing and B. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family literacy (pp. 57–82).
improving early childhood learning and program quality. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. Lonigan, C.J., Anthony, J.L., Bloomfield, B.G., Dyer, S.M.,
Karoly, L.A., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., Zellman, G., Perlman, M., Samwel, C.S. (1999). Effects of two shared-reading interventions
Fernyhough, L. (2008). Prepared to learn: The nature and quality on emergent literacy skills of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Early
of early care and education for preschool-age children in Intervention, 22, 306–322.
California. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Lonigan, C.J., Bloomfield, B.G., Anthony, J.L., Bacon, K.,
Karoly, L.A., Kilburn, M.R., Cannon, J.S. (2005). Early childhood Phillips, B., Samwel, C. (1999). Relations among emergent
interventions: Proven results, future promise, MG-341. Santa literacy skills, behavior problems, and social competence in pre-
Monica, CA: RAND. school children from low- and middle-income backgrounds. Topics
King, F.J., Cappellini, C.H., Gravens, L. (1995). A longitudinal in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 40–53.
study of the Florida Prekindergarten Early Intervention Program, Lopez, E., de Cos, P. (2004). Preschool and child care enroll-
Part III. Tallahassee: Florida State University, Educational ment in California. Sacramento, CA: California Research
Services Program. Bureau.
Klein, L., Gomby, D.S. (2008). A synthesis of federally funded stud- Love, J.M., Harrison, L., Sagi-Schwartz, A., van Ijzendoorn, M.H.,
ies on school readiness: What are we learning about professional Ross, C., Ungerer, J.A., et al. (2003). Child care quality matters:
development? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and How conclusions may vary with context. Child Development, 74,
Human Services. 1021–1033.
Koh, S., Neuman, S.B. (2009). The impact of professional develop- Ludwig, J., Miller, D.L. (2007). Does Head Start improve children’s
ment in family child care. A practice-based approach. Early Edu- life chances? Evidence from a regression discontinuity design.
cation Development, 13, 537–562. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122, 159–208.
Kontos, S., Wilcox-Herzog, A. (1997). Teachers’ interactions with Ludwig, J., Phillips, D. (2007). The benefits and costs of Head Start.
children: Why are they so important? Young Children, 52(2), 4–12. Social Policy Report, 21(3), 3–13.
Lamb, M. (1998). Nonparental child care: Context, quality, correlates, Ludwig, J., Phillips, D.A. (2008). Long term effects of Head Start
and consequences. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) I.E. Spiegel K.A. on low-income children. Annals of the New York Academy of
Renniger (Vol. Eds.), Child psychology in practice: Handbook of Sciences, 40, 1–12.
child psychology (5th ed., pp. 73–134). New York, NY: Wiley. Magnuson, K., Meyers, M.K., Ruhm, C.J., Waldfogel, J. (2004).
Landry, S.H., Swank, P.R., Smith, K.E., Assel, M.A., Inequality in preschool education and school readiness. American
Gunnewig, S.B. (2006). Enhancing early literacy skills for Educational Research Journal, 41, 115–157.

84


Magnuson, K., Ruhm, C., Waldfogel, J. (2007a). Does prekinder- National Early Literacy Panel. (2004, December). The National Early
garden improve school preparation and performance? Economics Literacy Panel: Findings from a synthesis of scientific research on
of Education Review, 26, 33–51. early literacy development. Presentation to the National Reading
Magnuson, K., Ruhm, C., Waldfogel, J. (2007b). The persistence of Conference, San Antonio, TX.
preschool effects: Do subsequent classroom experiences matter? National Early Literacy Panel. (2009). Developing early literacy:
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 18–38. Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Washington, DC:
Mashburn, A.J., Downer, J.T., Hamre, B.K., Justice, L.M., Pianta, National Institute for Literacy.
R.C. (2010). Teaching consultation and children’s language and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early
literacy development during pre-kindergarten. Manuscript sub- Child Care Research Network. (1999). Child outcomes when child
mitted for publication. care center classes meet recommended standards for quality. Amer-
Mashburn, A.J., Pianta, R.C., Hamre, B.K., Downer, J.T., ican Journal of Public Health, 89, 1072–1077.
Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., et al. (2008). Measures of classroom qual- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early
ity in prekindergarten and children’s development of academic, Child Care Research Network. (2000). The relation of child care
language, and social skills. Child Development, 79, 732–749. to cognitive and language development. Child Development, 71,
Mayfield, W.A., Mauzy, D., Foulkes, T., Foulkes, M., Dean, A. 960–980.
(2007). State of the Maine Registry [Policy brief]. Columbia: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early
Center for Family Policy Research, University of Missouri. Child Care Research Network. (2002). Child-care structure pro-
McCartney, K., Dearing, E., Taylor, B.A., Bub, K.L. (2007). Qual- cess outcome: Direct and indirect effects of child care quality on
ity child care supports the achievement of low-income children: young children’s development. Psychological Science, 13,
Direct and indirect pathways through caregiving and the home 199–206.
environment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early
411–426. Child Care Research Network. (2003). Does amount of time spent
McCormick, M.C., Brooks-Gunn, J., Buka, S.L., Goldman, J., in child care predict socioemotional adjustment during the transi-
Yu, J., Salganik, M., et al. (2008). Early intervention in low birth tion to kindergarten? Child Development, 74, 976–1005.
weight premature infants: Results at 18 years of age for the Infant National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child
Health and Development Program. Pediatrics, 117, 771–780. Care Research Network. (2004). Does class size in first grade relate to
McLaughlin, A.E., Campbell, F.A., Pungello, E.P., Skinner, M. changes in child academic and social performance or observed class-
(2007). Depressive symptoms in young adults: The influences of room processes? Developmental Psychology, 40, 651–664.
the early home environment and early educational child care. Child National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early
Development, 78, 746–756. Child Care Research Network. (2005). A day in third grade: A
Melhuish, E.C., Phan, M.B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., Siraj- large-scale study of classroom quality and teacher and student
Blatchford, I., Taggart, B. (2008). Effects of home learning behavior. The Elementary School Journal, 105, 305–323.
environment and preschool center experience upon literacy and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early
numeracy development in early primary school. Journal of Social Child Care Research Network Duncan, G.J. (2003). Modeling
Issues, 64, 95–114. the impacts of child care quality on children’s preschool cognitive
Mitchell, A.W. (2009). Models for financing state-supported prekin- development. Child Development, 74, 1454–1475.
dergarten programs. In R. Pianta C. Howes (Eds.), The promise Nelson, G., Westhues, A., MacLeod, J. (2003). A meta-analysis of
of Pre-K (pp. 51–64). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. longitudinal research on preschool prevention programs for children.
Moorehouse, M., Webb, M.B., Wolf, A., Knitzer, J. (2008). Prevention Treatment, 6. Retrieved from http://journals.apa.org/
Welcoming and opening remarks. In M. Moorehouse, prevention/volume6/pre0060031a.html
M.B. Webb, J. Knitzer (Eds.), A working meeting on recent Neuman, S.B., Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of professional
school readiness research: Guiding synthesis of early childhood development and coaching on early language and literacy instruc-
research. Washington, DC: ASPE, OPRE, Abt, and NCCP. tional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 46,
National Association for Regulatory Administration. (2009). The 2007 532–566.
Child Care Licensing Study. Lexington, KY: Author and National Nores, M., Belfield, C., Barnett, W.S. (2005). Updating the
Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center. economic impacts of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2005). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 245–261.
Position statements of NAEYC. Retrieved November 11, 2005, Notari-Syverson, A., O’Connor, R.E., Vadasy, P.F. (1998/2006).
from http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions.asp Ladders to literacy: A preschool activity book. Baltimore, MD:
National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). America’s kinder- Brookes.
gartners. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Odden, A., Archibald, S., Fermanich, M., Gallagher, H.A. (2002). A
National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). America’s cost framework for professional development. Journal of Educa-
kindergartners. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. tion Finance, 28, 51–74.
National Council on Teacher Quality. (2005). Increasing the odds: Osborne, A.F., Milbank, J.E. (1987). The effects of early education:
How good policies can yield better teachers. Washington, DC: A report from the Child Health and Education Study. Oxford,
Author. England: Clarendon Press.

85

86 Pianta et al.

Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Burchinal, M.R. (1997). Relations between Powell, D.R., Diamond, K.E., Burchinal, M.R., Koehler, M.J. (in
preschool children’s child-care experiences and concurrent devel- press). Effects of an early literacy professional development inter-
opment: The Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study. Merrill-Palmer vention on Head Start teachers and children. Journal of Educa-
Quarterly, 43, 451–477. tional Psychology.
Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Burchinal, M.R., Clifford, R.M., Culkin, M.L, Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium. (2008).
Howes, C., Kagan, S.L., Yazejian, N. (2001). The relation of Effects of preschool curriculum programs on school readiness
preschool child-care quality to children’s cognitive and social (NCER 2008–2009). Washington, DC: National Center for
developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Develop- Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
ment, 72, 1534–1553. Department of Education.
Penno, J.F., Wilkinson, A.G., Moore, D.W. (2002). Vocabulary Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Lopez, M., Zill, N., et al.
acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stor- (2005). Head Start impact study: First year findings.
ies: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Psychology, 94, 22–33. Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Peters, H.E., Bristow, B.J. (2005). Early childhood professional Raine, A., Mellingen, K., Liu, J., Venables, P., Mednick, S.A.
development programs: Accounting for spillover effects and mar- (2003). Effects of environmental enrichment at ages 3–5 years
ket interventions. In M. Zaslow I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Early on schizotypal personality and antisocial behavior at ages 17 and
childhood professional development and training and children’s 23 years. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1627–1635.
successful transition to elementary school (pp. 330–350). Ramey, C.T., Campbell, F.A., Burchinal, M., Skinner, M.L.,
Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Gardner, D.M., Ramey, S.L. (2000). Persistent effects of early
Pew Charitable Trusts. (2005). National Early Childhood Account- childhood education on high-risk children and their mothers.
ability Task Force Briefing. Philadelphia: Author. Applied Developmental Science, 4, 2–14.
Phillips, D., Howes, C. (1987). Indicators of quality in child Ramey, C.T., Ramey, S.L. (2004). Early learning and school readi-
care: Review of the research. In D. Phillips (Ed.), Quality in ness: Can early intervention make a difference? Merrill-Palmer
child care: What does the research tell us? (pp. 1–19). Quarterly, 50, 471–491.
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Ramey, S.L., Ramey, C.T. (2005). Creating and sustaining a high-
Young Children. quality workforce in child care, early intervention, and school
Phillips, D., Howes, C., Whitebook, M. (1992). The social policy readiness programs. In M. Zaslow I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Crit-
context of child care: Effects on quality. American Journal of Com- ical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 355–
munity Psychology, 20, 25–51. 368). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Phillipsen, L., Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Cryer, D. (1997). The pre- Ramey, S.L., Ramey, C.T. (2008). The effects of curriculum and
diction of process quality from structural features of child care. coaching supports on classrooms and literacy skills of prekinder-
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 281–303. garten/Head Start students in Montgomery County Public Schools.
Pianta, R.C. (2003). Standardized observations from pre-K to 3rd Unpublished manuscript, Georgetown University Center on Health
grade: A mechanism for improving classroom quality and practice, and Education, Washington, DC.
consistency of P-3 experiences, and child outcomes [Working Raver, C.C. (2008). Promoting children’s socioemotional develop-
paper]. New York, NY: Foundation for Child Development. ment in contexts of early educational intervention and care: A
Pianta, R.C. (2005). Standardized observation and professional devel- review of the impact of federally-funded research initiatives on
opment: A focus on individualized implementation and practices. young children’s school readiness. Washington, DC: U.S.
In M. Zaslow I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early Department of Health and Human Services.
childhood professional development (pp. 231–254). Baltimore, Raver, C.C., Jones, A.S., Li-Grining, C.P., Metzger, M.,
MD: Paul H. Brookes. Smallwood, K., Sardin, L. (2008). Improving preschool class-
Pianta, R.C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., Clifford, R., room processes: Preliminary findings from a randomized trial
Early, C., Barbarin, O. (2005). Features of pre-kindergarten implemented in Head Start settings. Early Childhood Research
programs, classrooms, and teachers: Do they predict observed Quarterly, 23, 10–26.
classroom quality and child-teacher interactions? Applied Devel- Reese, E., Cox, A. (1999). Quality of adult book reading affects chil-
opmental Science, 9, 144–159. dren’s emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 35, 20–28.
Pianta, R.C., La Paro, K., Hamre, B.K. (2008). Classroom Assess- Reid, R., Lienemann, T. (2006). Strategy instruction for students
ment Scoring System (CLASS). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. with learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford.
Pianta, R.C., La Paro, K.M., Payne, C., Cox, M., Bradley, R. (2002). Reynolds, A. (2000). Success in early intervention: The Chicago
The relation of kindergarten classroom environment to teacher, Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
family, and school characteristics and child outcomes. Elementary Reynolds, A., Temple, J., Robertson, D., Mann, E. (2002). Age 21
School Journal, 102, 225–238. cost-benefit analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers.
Pianta, R., Mashburn, A., Downer, J., Hamre, B., Justice, L. (2008). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 267–303.
Effects of web-mediated professional development resources on Rindermann, H., Ceci, S.J. (2008). Education policy and country
teacher-child interactions in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early outcomes in international cognitive competence studies. Graz,
Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 431–451. Austria: Institute of Psychology, Karl-Franzens-University Graz.

86


Rumbaut, R.G. (1999). Assimilation and its discontents: Ironies and Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B.,
paradoxes. In H. Charles, J.D. Wind, P. Kasinitz (Eds.), The Hunt, S., et al. (2008). Effective pre-school and primary education
handbook of international migration: The American experience 3–11 project. Final report from the primary phase: Pre-school,
(pp. 172–195). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. school and family influences on children’s development during key
Ruopp, R., Travers, R.J., Glantz, F., Coelen, C. (1979). Children at stage 2 (age 7–11) (Research Brief No. 61). Nottingham, England:
the center: Final report of the National Day Care Study (Vol. 1). Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates. Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Sammons, P.,
Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Taggart, B., Melhuish, E., Elliot, K., et al. (2006). Capturing quality in early
Elliot, K. (2005). Investigating the effects of pre-school provision: childhood through environmental rating scales. Early Childhood
Using mixed methods in the EPPE research. International Journal of Research Quarterly, 21, 76–92.
Social Research Methodology, 8, 207–224. Tekin, E. (2007). Child care subsidies, wages, and employment of sin-
Scarr, S., Eisenberg, M., Deater-Deckard, K. (1994). Measurement gle mothers. Journal of Human Resources, 42, 453–487.
of quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quar- Temple, J.A., Reynolds, A.J. (2007). Benefits and costs of invest-
terly, 9, 131–151. ments in preschool education: Evidence from the child-parent cen-
Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Carlson, C., ters and related programs. Economics of Education Review, 26,
Foorman, B.R. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: 126–144.
A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Educational Psy- Todd, P.E., Wolpin, K.I. (2003). On the specification and estima-
chology, 96, 265–282. tion of the production function for cognitive achievement. Eco-
Schickedanz, J., Dickinson, D.K. (with Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC, nomic Journal, 113(485), F3–F33.
Schools). (2004). OWL (Opening the World of Learning): A compre- Ukrainetz, T.A., Cooney, M.H., Dyer, S.K., Kysar, A.J., Harris, T.J.
hensive early literacy program. New York, NY: Pearson Early (2000). An investigation into teaching phonemic awareness
Learning. through shared reading and writing. Early Childhood Research
Schlosser, A. (2006). Public preschool and the labor supply of Arab Quarterly, 15, 331–355.
mothers: Evidence from a natural experiment [Working paper]. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for
Jerusalem, Israel: Economics Department, Hebrew University. Children and Families (2010). Head Start Impact Study. Final
Schutz, G., Ursprung, H.W., Wossmann, L. (2008). Education pol- report. Washington, DC: Author.
icy and equality of opportunity. Kyklos, 61, 279–308. Vandell, D.L. (2004). Early child care: The known and unknown.
Schweinhart, L.J, Barnes, H.V., Weikart, D.P. (1993). Significant Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 387–414.
benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 27. Vandell, D.L., Wolfe, B. (2000). Child care quality: Does it matter
Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. and does it need to be improved? Madison: Institute for Research
Schweinhart, L.J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W.S., Belfield, C.R., on Child Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The High/Scope Perry Pre- van Kleeck, A., Gillam, R.B., McFadden, T.U. (1998). A study of
school study through age 40 (High/Scope Educational Research classroom-based phonological awareness training for preschoolers
Foundation Monograph No. 14). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. with speech and/or language disorders. American Journal of
Schweinhart, L.J., Weikart, D.P., Larner, M.B. (1986). Conse- Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 65–76.
quences of the three preschool curriculum models through age Vecchiotti, S. (2003). Kindergarten: An overlooked educational pol-
15. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 15–45. icy priority. Social Policy Report, 17(2), 3–19.
Sewell, W., Hauser, R. (1975). Education, occupation and earn- Vu, J.A., Jeon, H-J., Howes, C. (2008). Formal education, creden-
ings. New York, NY: Academic Press. tial, or both: Early childhood program classroom practices. Early
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental Education and Development, 19, 479–504.
and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Waldfogel, J., Zhai, F. (2008). Effects of public preschool expendi-
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. tures on the test scores of fourth graders: Evidence from TIMMS.
Shonkoff, J., Phillips, D. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: Educational Research and Evaluation, 14, 9–28.
The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: Wasik, B.A., Bond, M.A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Inter-
National Academies Press. active reading and language development in preschool classrooms.
Snowling, M.J., Gallagher, A., Frith, U. (2003). Family risk of dys- Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 243–250.
lexia is continuous: Individual differences in the precursors of Wasik, B.A., Bond, M.A., Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a lan-
reading skill. Child Development, 74, 358–373. guage and literacy intervention on Head Start children and teach-
Storch, S., Whitehurst, G. (2002). Oral language and code-related ers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 63–74.
precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural Wasik, B.H., Ramey, C.T., Bryant, D.M., Sparling, J.J. (1990).
model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 934–947. A longitudinal study of two early intervention strategies: Project
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., CARE. Child Development, 61, 1682–1696.
Taggart, B. (2004). The final report: Effective pre-school educa- West, J., Denton, K., Germino-Hausken, E. (2000). America’s
tion (Technical Paper No. 12). London: Institute of Education, kindergartners (NCES 2000-070). Washington, DC: National
University of London. Center for Education Statistics.

87

88 Pianta et al.

Whitebook, M., Bellm, D., Lee, Y., Sakai, L. (2005). Time to Winsler, A., Tran, H., Hartman, S.C., Madigan, A.L., Manfra, L.,
revamp and expand: Early childhood teacher preparation pro- Bleiker, C. (2008). School readiness gains made by ethnically
grams in California’s institutions of higher education. Berkeley: diverse children in poverty attending center-based childcare and
Center for the Study of Child Care Employment, University of public school pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood
California at Berkeley. Research Quarterly, 23, 314–329.
Whitehurst, G.J., Epstein, A.L., Angell, A.C., Crone, D.A., Wong, V.C., Cook, T.D., Barnett, W.S., Jung, K. (2008). An
Fischel, J.E. (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention effectiveness-based evaluation of five state pre-kindergarten pro-
in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 542–555. grams. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27,
Whitehurst, G.J., Falco, F.L., Lonigan, C.J., Fischel, J.E., 122–154.
DeBaryshe, B.D., Valdez-Menchaca, M.C., Caulfield, M. Wright Group. (2004). Doors to discovery. DeSoto, TX: Author.
(1988). Accelerating language development through picture book Zaslow, M., Reidy, M., Moorehouse, M., Halle, T., Calkins, J.,
reading. Developmental Psychology, 24, 552–559. Margie, N.G. (2003). Progress and prospects on the development
Whitehurst, G.J., Lonigan, C.J. (1998). Child development and of indicators of school readiness. Child and youth indicators:
emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848–872. Accomplishments and future directions. Bethesda, MD: National
Whitehurst, G.J., Lonigan, C.J. (2002). Emergent literacy: Development Institutes of Health.
from prereaders to readers. In S. Newman D. Dickinson (Eds.), Hand- Zigler, E., Marsland, K., Lord, H. (2009). The tragedy of child care
book of early literacy research (pp. 11–29). New York, NY: Guilford. in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

88

49.full

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (18)

Similar to 49.full (20)

49.full