American Policy on Early Childhood Education & Development: Many Programs, Great Hopes, Modest Impacts

Q2 Social Sciences Behavioral Science and Policy Pub Date : 2016-04-01 DOI:10.1353/BSP.2016.0001
R. Haskins
{"title":"American Policy on Early Childhood Education & Development: Many Programs, Great Hopes, Modest Impacts","authors":"R. Haskins","doi":"10.1353/BSP.2016.0001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The primary motivation for this Spotlight section on early childhood programs is to assess whether and to what degree they are successful in promoting the development and school readiness of children from poor families. Conflicting claims abound over the effectiveness of public programs such as Head Start and state-funded prekindergarten (pre-K) and whether they are meeting the intended goals of preparing disadvantaged children for school and boosting the overall development of served children and their families. The disappointing results of the federal study of Head Start (the Head Start Impact Study [HSIS], reported in 2010) showing that the immediate positive impacts on children's achievement quickly faded1 added fuel to the evolving debate on what does and does not work in publicly funded early childhood education. Because other pre-K studies, conducted over similar time periods as the HSIS, have demonstrated more promising results, the hope remains that these programs can significantly boost children's development and school readiness. High-quality evaluations of state pre-K programs show that some produce substantial gains in intellectual development,2 yet many programs do not. In addition, few of these studies have shown long-term impacts on children. Another popular approach to advancing family and childhood development is home visiting programs (HVPs). Trained professionals or paraprofessionals work with new mothers, improving their child-rearing skills and assisting with life issues such as perinatal depression and employment. As with Head Start and state pre-K programs, the benefits of HVPs are often modest or overstated. There are also many unresolved issues about both the long-term impacts of these programs and the nagging but pressing question of whether successful interventions can produce good results when implemented at hundreds or even thousands of sites nationwide. Clearly, improvements are needed in setting early education and development policy and in advancing the research that will point the way forward. The articles in this Spotlight address these and other issues faced by Head Start, state pre-K, and HVPs and offer a host of solutions for educational policymakers to consider.","PeriodicalId":36971,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Science and Policy","volume":"2 1","pages":"1 - 8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Science and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/BSP.2016.0001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The primary motivation for this Spotlight section on early childhood programs is to assess whether and to what degree they are successful in promoting the development and school readiness of children from poor families. Conflicting claims abound over the effectiveness of public programs such as Head Start and state-funded prekindergarten (pre-K) and whether they are meeting the intended goals of preparing disadvantaged children for school and boosting the overall development of served children and their families. The disappointing results of the federal study of Head Start (the Head Start Impact Study [HSIS], reported in 2010) showing that the immediate positive impacts on children's achievement quickly faded1 added fuel to the evolving debate on what does and does not work in publicly funded early childhood education. Because other pre-K studies, conducted over similar time periods as the HSIS, have demonstrated more promising results, the hope remains that these programs can significantly boost children's development and school readiness. High-quality evaluations of state pre-K programs show that some produce substantial gains in intellectual development,2 yet many programs do not. In addition, few of these studies have shown long-term impacts on children. Another popular approach to advancing family and childhood development is home visiting programs (HVPs). Trained professionals or paraprofessionals work with new mothers, improving their child-rearing skills and assisting with life issues such as perinatal depression and employment. As with Head Start and state pre-K programs, the benefits of HVPs are often modest or overstated. There are also many unresolved issues about both the long-term impacts of these programs and the nagging but pressing question of whether successful interventions can produce good results when implemented at hundreds or even thousands of sites nationwide. Clearly, improvements are needed in setting early education and development policy and in advancing the research that will point the way forward. The articles in this Spotlight address these and other issues faced by Head Start, state pre-K, and HVPs and offer a host of solutions for educational policymakers to consider.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国儿童早期教育与发展政策:项目多,希望大,影响小
本期重点报道栏目关于早期儿童项目的主要动机是评估这些项目是否以及在多大程度上成功地促进了贫困家庭儿童的发展和入学准备。关于诸如启智计划和国家资助的学前教育(pre-K)等公共项目的有效性,以及它们是否达到了为弱势儿童做好入学准备和促进服务儿童及其家庭整体发展的预期目标,各方的说法相互矛盾。联邦政府对学前教育的研究结果令人失望(2010年报告的学前教育影响研究[HSIS])表明,学前教育对儿童成绩的直接积极影响很快就会消退,这进一步加剧了关于公共资助的幼儿教育中哪些有效,哪些无效的争论。因为其他的学前教育研究,在与HSIS相似的时间段内进行,已经显示出更有希望的结果,希望这些项目仍然可以显著促进儿童的发展和入学准备。对各州学前教育项目的高质量评估表明,一些项目在智力发展方面取得了实质性进展,但许多项目却没有。此外,这些研究中很少显示出对儿童的长期影响。另一种促进家庭和儿童发展的流行方法是家访计划(HVPs)。训练有素的专业人员或辅助专业人员与新妈妈一起工作,提高她们的育儿技能,并协助解决诸如围产期抑郁症和就业等生活问题。与启智计划和州学前教育计划一样,hvp的好处往往是适度的或被夸大了。关于这些项目的长期影响,还有许多悬而未决的问题,以及在全国数百甚至数千个地点实施成功的干预措施是否能产生良好效果这一恼人但紧迫的问题。显然,在制定早期教育和发展政策以及推进将指明前进方向的研究方面需要改进。本期重点报道的文章讨论了学前教育、州学前教育和hvp面临的这些问题和其他问题,并为教育政策制定者提供了一系列解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Behavioral Science and Policy
Behavioral Science and Policy Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hierarchy position & personality predict politicians’ choice of information sources Editor's note Election polls are 95% confident but only 60% accurate Penalties for Going Against Type: How Sexism Shapes Voters’ Perceptions of Candidate Character Leadership & overconfidence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1