New Committee for Economic Development Report on Early Childhood Education

CED’s latest paper, The Benefits of High-Quality Early Childhood Education Programs: What Makes the Difference?, by Ellen Galinsky, President of the Families and Work Institute, a New York City based research organization, examines the factors associated with high-quality early education programs.

Ms. Galinsky examined three well-known, high-quality early education programs – the High/Scope Perry Preschool project, the Carolina Abcedarian Project and Chicago’s Child Parent Centers (CPC) – and for one of the first times, has examined what those programs did to have such lasting impact decades later, relying, in part, on interviews with the principal investigators of those programs.

“The Galinsky paper reinforces that high-quality programs are a prerequisite if we expect early childhood education programs to generate future economic returns,” said Charles E.M. Kolb, President of CED. “Determining key characteristics of quality Pre-Kindergarten education is an important piece of the argument for investments in early education programs in this country, and this research does just that. Other studies show public benefits of around seven dollars and more for every dollar invested in early childhood education and the Galinsky research shows what common factors can be found in these quality programs.”

Findings of The Benefits of High-Quality Early Childhood Education Programs: What Makes the Difference? include: All three programs studied had common factors that contributed to remarkable and enduring effects and return on investment. Some of those basic factors are known:

• They began early (one began in infancy; the other two at age 3).
• They had well-educated, well-trained and well-compensated teachers – with resulting low-turnover.
• They maintained small class sizes and high teacher-child ratios.
• They had intensive contact hours with the children.
• Two of the programs extended into the early elementary years.
• Parents were strongly involved in the programs.

Where this paper makes its greatest contribution is that it goes beyond the basics to explain the programs’ long-term success:

• The programs had clear goals that were responsive to the children and families they served, and built support for these goals.
• They focused on the whole child – the child’s intellectual, social and emotional learning, physical growth and well-being –not just on the child’s intellectual development.
• The relationship between the teacher and the child was seen as central to the child’s learning.
• The children in these programs were viewed as active and experiential learners.
• There was a mixture between responsive teaching that extended and elaborated on what the children were already learning and direct teaching in all three programs. The direct teaching was also designed to be engaging and to extend children’s learning.
• There was a focus on the teachers’ ongoing learning.

Read the full paper here.