 |
|
|
Minnesota spends millions of dollars on early childhood programs; find out what they actually produce
by Joe Nathan
Some claims being made for early childhood education don’t stand up to careful scrutiny. So when you hear some advocates insisting it’s a great investment, be cautious.
That’s not just my advice. It comes from Art Rolnick, Senior Vice President and Director of Research at the Federal Reserve Bank in Minneapolis.
“Wait a minute,” some readers are saying. “Isn’t Rolnick touting the benefits of early childhood education??”
Yes. But during an interview last week, Rolnick was quick to differentiate among various early childhood education (ECE) programs, explaining, “When I describe a return of $8 for every dollar spent, I’m talking ONLY about programs that are intensive, high quality, and that focus on at-risk youngsters.”
Rolnick has a lot of support. Late last year, Susan Neuman, a professor of education studies at the University of Michigan and former Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, wrote an important article entitled “From Rhetoric to Reality: The Case for High Quality Compensatory Prekindergarten Programs.”
Citing some of the same research that Rolnick uses, Neuman pointed out that “the best return” on investment in early childhood comes from programs with these features:
1. Sufficient time: Neuman questions programs that are offered daily for less than three hours a day, for a period of about 40 weeks a year. (Some Minnesota ECE programs meet just once a week.)
2. Precise targeting: Neuman suggests, “all children should be able to attend high quality preschool programs,” (But) “compensatory programs should be targeted toward the children most at risk.” Again, Rolnick agrees.
3. Thoughtful focus: Neuman describes some ECE programs as “unfocused and fragmented, with no clear priorities.”
4. Accountability for results: Neuman notes, “Traditionally teaching has been defined by the teacher’s performance, rather than by the children’s progress. However, if we are to make a case for the critical role that compensatory programs can play in developing children’s school readiness, we need to measure ongoing progress toward this goal using valid, reliable and accessible tools.” She suggests measuring things like academic skills, and behavior.
But most of the research advocates cite has been done in other states, frequently with programs much more targeted and intensive than many in Minnesota.
One Minnesota study trained Early Childhood Family Educator (ECFE) teachers to interview parents. Having people who work in a program interview parents about its strengths and weaknesses may provide interesting information. But it does not meet normal standards for unbiased researchers. Another study interviewed parents, but did not examine the ECFE impact on students.
It’s time to examine the returns for students, of the millions of dollars Minnesota has invested in early childhood programs. This spring some Humphrey Institute graduate students and I are creating an evaluation design. We’re working with Todd Otis, director of the advocacy group, “Ready4K.”
Minnesota spends millions of dollars each year on early childhood programs. It’s time to get beyond the rhetoric, and look at the reality. What do Minnesota’s various early childhood programs produce?
Joe Nathan is director of the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. He can be reached at jnathan@hhh.umn.edu.
Columns by Joe Nathan
© ECM Publishers, Inc.
|
|
 |
|
ABOUT JOE NATHAN
Joe Nathan, a senior fellow at the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, directs the Center for School Change, which seeks to help transform public education and to produce significant improvements in student achievement. Nathan has been a public school teacher and administrator and coordinated the National Governors Association education reform project, Time for Results. His most recent work involves strengthening rural communities to help increase student achievement and reduce violence. His specialty areas include parent and community involvement, school choice, charter schools, and youth community service.
Nathan has testified before twenty state legislatures and the U.S. Congress. He regularly publishes commentaries in major U.S. newspapers and has appeared on several hundred radio and television programs. The American School Boards Journal named his most recent book, Charter Schools: Creating Hope and Opportunity for American Education, one of the seven best books written about education in 1997. Nathan holds a doctorate in educational administration from the University of Minnesota.
|
|
