Jane Waldfogel is a professor of social work and public affairs at Columbia University School of Social Work. She has written extensively on early childhood education and the impact of public policies on child and family well-being. In this interview, she discusses President Obama's recent proposal to expand access to preschool.
Q: In response to President Obama's preschool plan, many opinion writers pointed skeptically to Head Start, the major federal early education program. It seems to be settled fact in Washington that Head Start, to quote TIME's Joe Klein, "simply does not work." Others argue that most of the other research on early education comes from targeted, intensive programs, such as the Perry Project, whose quality will probably not be replicated in scaled-up efforts. So let me ask you -- do you think that available research supports higher investments in early education programs? Is there evidence or unanswered questions that gives you pause about expanding preschool access?
A: While policymakers in Washington have been debating the merits of Head Start, and the generalizability of the early model programs such as Perry, state lawmakers have been quietly moving forward with universal pre-kindergarten (pre-K). These pre-K programs, which now serve more than 20% of 4-year olds, differ from Head Start, and the early model programs, in some very important ways. First, they are universal – they are open to all children in the community (although when resources are limited, states do try to serve disadvantaged children and communities first). And second, they are administered and supervised by the schools (even if not always located at schools – in some states, community-based providers can be approved as pre-K providers as long as they meet the pre-K requirements, which include highly qualified teaching staff and approved curricula). This quiet pre-K expansion has been going on for some time, and we now have quite a bit of evidence about its effects (see review in Ruhm & Waldfogel, 2012). That evidence is clear – children who have the opportunity to attend pre-K enter school with better reading and math skills, and these effects tend to be largest for the children who would otherwise be the furthest behind. These results come from studies in several states, using rigorous methods such as regression discontinuity analyses. Governors and state legislators are familiar with this research evidence, and they have been eager to expand pre-K programs. But it’s tough to do this with limited state funds. So that’s why the Obama initiative to make federal funds available is so welcome.
Q: Early education is often discussed as a long-term investment in improving the skills of the future workforce. But your research suggests that high-quality early education could also potentially reduce inequality. Could you discuss your work on the gap in academic readiness between children from high- and low-income families, and how early education could address this divide?
A: The work I’ve done through the RSF inequality program documents substantial gaps in school readiness between children from low vs. high socioeconomic status (SES) families (Bradbury, Corak, Waldfogel, & Washbrook, 2012; Waldfogel & Washbrook, 2011). In fact, it appears that much of the SES gap in later school achievement is already present at school entry (Magnuson, Waldfogel, & Washbrook, 2012). This makes it all the more important to try to address this gap in early childhood, so that children start school on more of an equal footing.
How does high-quality early education fit in? In the absence of public programs, not all children receive high-quality early education, and low-income children are the least likely to be enrolled (Meyers, Rosenbaum, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2004). If it were the case that early education raised skills by an equal amount for all children, then expanding it would be good for the average level of skills – but would not do anything to reduce inequality. However, the evidence we have on early education suggests that the effects are not the same for all children. Children who are at greatest risk of entering school with low skill levels – children from low-SES families, children from immigrant families where English is not spoken at home – are the least likely to be enrolled without public programs but they also are the ones who tend to gain the most from early education (Magnuson & Waldfogel, 2005; Ruhm & Waldfogel, 2012 ). This is an important finding, because it means that expanding access to high-quality early education could help close school readiness gaps.
Q: In your book Britain's War on Poverty, you looked at the U.K.'s introduction in the late 1990s of universal preschool for three- and four-year-olds. Are there lessons for American policymakers from the British experiment? What worked, and what didn't?
A: Before the New Labour government took office in 1997, Britain’s child care landscape looked a lot like the one in the US, with provision mostly paid for by parents and with a great deal of inequality in quality and access. The striking lesson from Britain is how easy it is to change that. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown decided to provide universal preschool for 4-year olds, and then 3-year olds, and they did so. The result is that in Britain now, close to 100% of 4-year olds are enrolled in publicly funded preschool, and with enrollment levels of 3-year olds not far behind. So the situation in Britain now looks like the rest of Europe, where preschool in the year or two before school entry is pretty much universal, recognized as part of what the education system should provide.
Of course, there are still challenges. The quality of preschool in Britain is still not what it should be, and Britain, like other countries, still has work to do to figure out how to provide quality care and education for younger children (infants and toddlers). But the move to universal preschool has been widely seen as a success. Indeed, even in the recent wave of austerity budgets and spending cuts, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government has not touched the funding for universal preschool. In fact, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government is so convinced of the value of preschool that it is expanding the program – with the goal of reaching the 40% most disadvantaged 2-year olds.
References
Bradbury, Bruce, Miles Corak, Jane Waldfogel, and Elizabeth Washbrook (2012). “Inequality during the Early Years: Child Outcomes and Readiness to Learn in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, and United States.” In John Ermisch, Markus Jantti, and Timothy Smeeding (eds). From Parents to Children: The Intergenerational Transmission of Advantage. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Magnuson, Katherine and Jane Waldfogel (2005). “Child Care, Early Education, and Racial/Ethnic Test Score Gaps at the Beginning of School”. The Future of Children 15(1): 169-196.
Magnuson, Katherine, Jane Waldfogel, and Elizabeth Washbrook (2012). “The Development of SES Gradients in Skills during the School Years: Evidence from the United States and England.” In John Ermisch, Markus Jantti, and Timothy Smeeding (eds). From Parents to Children: The Intergenerational Transmission of Advantage. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Meyers, Marcia, Dan Rosenbaum, Christopher Ruhm, and Jane Waldfogel (2004). “Inequality in Early Childhood Education and Care: What do We Know?” In Kathy Neckerman (ed). Social Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ruhm, Christopher and Jane Waldfogel (2012). “Long-Term Effects of Early Childhood Care and Education.” Nordic Economic Policy Review 1: 23-51.
Waldfogel, Jane (2010). Britain’s War on Poverty. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Waldfogel, Jane and Elizabeth Washbrook (2011). “Income-Related Gaps in School Readiness in the United States and United Kingdom.” In Timothy Smeeding, Robert Erikson, and Markus Jantti (eds). Persistence, Privilege, and Parenting: The Comparative Study of Intergenerational Mobility. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Recent Books
