►
Description
Between 2002 and 2015, state spending on preschool programs nearly doubled from $3.3 billion to $6.2 billion, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research. While mostly pointing to the positive educational benefits of high-quality preschool, some educational research has found the effects may fade out over time.
This webinar aims to bring consensus answers from top early childhood education researchers to questions such as:
Do preschool effects last?
What does high-quality preschool look like and how much does it cost?
Who benefits most from high-quality preschool?
This is timely information as state policymakers need accurate, unbiased information to make critical decisions on preschool education decisions.
With the generous support of the Heising-Simons Foundation, this hour-long webinar features an overview of the new Brookings Institution policy brief developed by several leading early childhood education researchers to reach consensus on what the preschool effects literature does and does not say. Topics such as fadeout, long-term achievement and return on investment will be discussed, with ample time for audience questions and follow-up.
A
Welcome
to
today's
on
our
preschool
effects
or
the
research
does
and
does
not
say
brought
to
you
by
NPSL.
All
lines
have
been
placed
on
a
listen-only
mode,
survived
favorable,
sound
quality.
During
today's
presentation.
It
is
now
my
pleasure
to
turn
the
floor
over
to
Matthew
wire,
sir
supported
yours.
Thank.
B
You
good
afternoon
a
good
morning
depending
on
where
you're
joining
us
from
and
welcome
to
today's
webinar
entitled
preschool
effects.
What
the
research
does
and
does
not
say.
My
name
is
Matt
wire,
I'm
senior
policy
specialist
covering
early
childhood
education
issues
for
NCSL
and
will
be
facilitating
today's
webinar
before
we
begin
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
the
media
resource
library,
which
includes
the
full
Brookings
report,
the
consensus
statement,
today's
slides
and
the
newly
released
2016
state
of
preschool
yearbook
and
executive
summary
from
the
National
Institute
for
early
education
research.
B
You
can
find
this
by
clicking
the
play
button
at
the
top
of
the
screen
in
the
upper
right
carotid
and
that
will
drop
down
the
media
resources.
I
also
want
to
encourage
our
listeners
to
ask
questions,
so
please
feel
free
at
any
time
to
type
a
question
in
the
chat
box
and
our
presenters
will
have
time
to
address
as
many
questions
as
possible
after
their
presentations.
We've
got
a
great
audience
today
from
across
the
country
with
33
states,
post,
DC
and
Puerto
Rico
registered
and
represented.
B
Today
we
are
lucky
to
have
two
of
the
top
early
childhood
education,
researchers
in
the
country
and
two
of
the
main
contributors
to
the
recent
Brookings
Institution
publication.
Dr.
mark
Libby
is
a
research
professor
in
the
department
of
human
services
and
organizational
development
and
director
of
the
Peabody
Research
Institute
at
Vanderbilt
University,
dr.
blip,
sees
professional
interests
are
in
the
areas
of
public
policy
program,
evaluation,
research,
social
intervention
field,
research
methodology
and
research
synthesis.
He
serves
as
principal
investigator
for
the
Tennessee
voluntary
pre-k
effectiveness
study.
We
also
have
dr.
B
Deborah
Phillips,
professor
of
psychology
and
associated
faculty
in
the
Public
Policy
Institute
at
Georgetown
University,
her
research,
whose
developmental
and
child
psychology
Child
Development
and
public
policy,
the
effects
of
family
and
childcare
environments
on
child
development,
the
developmental
effects
of
poverty
and
children
with
disabilities.
Dr.
Philips
leads
the
evaluation
of
a
Tulsa
Community
Action
project,
Head
Start
preschool
program,
so
without
further
ado,
I'm
going
to
pass
it
over
to
dr.
Phillips
to
begin
today's
presentation.
C
Thank
you
very
much
Matt.
If
I
can
move
the
slide
forward
here.
I
am
really
delighted
to
be
joining
you
this
afternoon
or
morning
to
discuss
our
recent
consensus
report
on
the
current
state
of
scientific
knowledge
on
pre-kindergarten
effects.
States
have
really
been
the
paths
breakers
on
this
issue
for
the
past
two
decades,
and
today,
states
are
the
sites
of
the
most
exciting,
innovative
efforts
to
ensure
that
pre-k
programs
produce
the
strongest
and
most
enduring
impacts
possible.
C
Our
consensus
report
was
issued
on
the
17th
of
April
of
this
year
under
the
auspices
of
the
Brookings
Institution,
with
support
from
the
heisting
Simons
Foundation
and
the
David
and
Lucile
Packard
Foundation.
It
was
the
culmination
of
year
of
very,
very
hard
work,
motivated
by
a
couple
of
goals,
really
the
first
emanated
from
concerns
about
media
and
policy
tension,
a
paid
to
individual
studies
of
pre-k
impacts,
as
theory
were
released,
sort
of
one
by
one
without
any
effort
to
situate
individual
findings
onto
the
broader
landscape
of
evidence
on
pre-k
education.
C
It
was
sort
of
good
news,
bad
news,
good
news,
bad
news,
ping-pong
game
that
was
not
particularly
helpful
to
those
of
you
who
have
to
make
everyday
decisions
about
pre-k
programs
costs,
enrollments,
etc.
We
also
thought
to
place
evidence
on
pre-k
impacts
in
their
developmental
context,
recognizing
that
child
development
is
cumulative
and
that
any
single
year
in
a
child's
life
needs
to
be
placed
in
the
context
of
what
came
before.
C
What
comes
after
and
you'll
hear
that
theme
repeatedly
as
I
walk
you
through
our
consensus
statements,
dr.
lips
and
I,
as
the
original
parents
of
this
initiative
assembled
an
amazing
team
of
scientists
to
hammer
out
the
series
of
consensus
statements
that
will
that
we'll
be
sharing
with
you
today
and
that
capture
the
most
up-to-date
scientific
knowledge
on
pre-k
impacts.
So
here
is
a
list
of
the
team
members
representing
many
of
your
states
and
again
just
to
recognize
our
all-important
funders
for
this
effort.
C
This
team
undertook
the
arduous
work
of
forging
consensus
out
of
a
very
complex
evidence
base
in
the
high
stakes
context
of
intense
public
scrutiny
of
pre-k
education.
We
came
together
on
behalf
of
this
project
with
deep,
long-standing
mutual
respect
and
with
a
shared
commitment
to
the
use
of
science
for
public
purposes,
but
also
with
different
disciplinary
lenses
and
different
experiences
with
studying
pre-k
education
that
have
produced
different
results,
call
it
Tennessee
to
Tulsa,
if
you
will-
and
therein
lies
both
the
challenge
of
reaching
consensus
and
the
power
of
having
done
so.
C
We
held
two
meetings
during
which
we
discussed
an
exhaustive
review
of
the
evidence
on
short
and
longer-term
state
and
district
pre-k
impacts
that
was
assembled
by
dr.
Lipsy,
and
then
we
all
reviewed
multiple
drafts
of
the
report
on
route
to
the
aversion
that
we
are
presenting
today.
So
why
is
this
statement?
C
Important
and
timely
legislators
know
that
one
of
the
best
ways
to
build
a
productive
and
prosperous
society
is
to
start
early
in
building
children's
foundation
for
learning
health
and
positive
behavior
with
now
43
states
just
announced
today,
and
the
district
columbia
having
introduced
and
innovated
with
scaled
up
state
and
district
funded
pre-k
programs.
It's
a
perfect
time
to
take
stock
of
how
well
we're
doing
optimize
the
contribution
of
pre-k
to
these
societal
goals.
C
The
authors
of
this
consensus
statement
have
engaged
with
local
state
and
federal
policymakers
and
practitioners
to
conduct
and
translate
research
about
pre-k
programs.
So,
together
we
are
striving
to
understand
the
role
the
pre-k
can
play
in
the
larger
educational
enterprise
that
prepares
our
future
workers,
citizens
and
parents,
and
how
to
identify
and
replicate
the
most
important
features
of
successful
programs.
In
order
to
optimize
this
potential.
C
We
set
out
to
address
these
pressing
challenges
so
that
people
like
yourselves
legislators,
educators,
could
reflect
on
progress
to
date.
Identify
good
bet,
effectiveness,
factors
that
distinguish
programs
that
have
produced
larger,
more
enduring
impacts
from
those
that
have
not
and
to
take
constructive
action
to
better
meet
our
country's
goals
for
pre-k
education.
An
overarching
message
of
our
statement,
based
in
the
developmental
and
learning
sciences
and
reflected
in
one
of
our
consensus
statement
written
out
for
you
here,
is
that
pre-k
is
not
an
end
in
and
of
itself.
Pre-K
education
does
not
happen
in
a
vacuum.
C
C
Effective,
pre-k
education
depends
on
attending
to
what
happens
before
pre-k
what
happens
during
pre-k
and
what
happens
after
pre-k
as
children
enter
elementary
school.
Just
as
we
do
not
ask
what
second-grade
accomplishes
in
isolation
from
what
happened
in
first
grade
and
what
happens
in
third
grade
and
fourth
grade
or
hold
this
single
year
accountable
for
middle
school,
achievement,
test
scores,
high
school,
graduation
and
adult
earnings.
It
is
time
to
re-examine
how
we
consider
the
pre-k
year
oppressing
and
most
useful
question
today
is
how
can
we
ensure
that
we
have
an
effective
pre-k
through
elementary
system?
C
We
titled
our
statement
puzzling
it
out
because
identifying
the
conditions
that
best
promote
young
children's
learning
has
many
pieces.
If
you
focus
on
only
one
piece
at
a
time.
One
study
in
one
place
one
finding
about
one
outcome.
Even
one
year
in
a
child's
life,
you
run
the
risk
of
missing
the
bigger
picture
in
order
to
place
our
current
evidence
about
pre-k.
In
context,
we
considered
the
characteristics
of
the
children
walking
through
the
pre-k
door,
what
happens
inside
pre-k
classrooms
and
what
happens
next
in
the
early
elementary
grades.
C
So
our
report
is
really
about
how
learning
gets
charged
up
and
recharged,
sequentially
and
cumulatively,
starting
with
what
young
children
bring
into
their
pre-k
classrooms.
Then
how
pre-k
can
provide
strong
initial
charge
or
boost
in
early
learning,
followed
by
how
subsequent
educational
environments
can
sustain,
deepen
an
ADD
or
not
to
the
initial
base
of
skills
and
knowledge?
The
pre-k
has
provided
so
I
want
to
turn
to
a
key
finding
from
one
of
our
consensus
statements
and
this
one
I'll
read
along
with
you.
C
Convincing
evidence
shows
that
children
attending
a
diverse
array
of
State
and
School
District
programs
are
more
ready
for
school.
At
the
end
of
their
pre-k
year,
then
children
who
do
not
attend
pre-k
improvements
in
academic
areas
such
as
literacy
and
numeracy,
are
most
common.
The
smaller
number
studies,
number
of
studies
of
social,
emotional
and
self
regulatory
environment
development
generally
show
more
modest
improvements
in
those
areas.
In
short,
most
evaluation
studies
show
that
pre-k
works.
C
Moreover,
many
pre-k
programs
are
delivering
greater
improvements
in
learning
the
into
the
creek
a
year
for
children
growing
up
under
conditions
of
economic
disadvantage
and
instability
and
for
dual
language
learners
and
for
others,
precisely
the
children
most
at
risk
for
getting
left
behind
their
more
advantage
and
their
english-speaking
peers,
a
gap
that
has
already
opened
up
by
the
time.
Children
are
three
years
old
in
some
pre-k
is
delivering
on
its
promise
to
charge
up
learning
to
prepare
children
for
kindergarten.
This
is
a
considerable
victory
in
which
legislators
and
educators
should
take
pride.
C
But
our
work
is
far
from
done.
Not
all
pre-k
programs
are
equally
effective
and
there
are
many
reasons
to
believe
that
pre-k
can
do
more
to
power
up
early
learning.
Scientists,
Pauling,
policymakers
and
educators
are
like
our
highly
motivated
to
ensure
that
all
young
children
have
access
to
pre-k
settings
that
genuinely
broaden
and
deepen
their
learning.
This
means
they're
supporting
their
ability
to
talk
about
math
concepts
like
cardinality
and
measurement
and
to
problem-solve
not
just
to
count.
C
It
involves
helping
them
acquire
a
rich
vocabulary
and
capacity
to
tell
an
organized
story,
not
just
teaching
them
to
recite
the
alphabet
and
also
building
their
capacity
to
work
collaboratively
and
enjoy
collaborative
work
not
just
to
take
turns
all
young
children
also
deserve
access
to
pre-k
settings
that
will
foster
capacity
to
focus
attention
and
remember
and
follow
directions
to
develop
a
strong
motivation
to
learn
and
positive
views
of
themselves.
As
learners,
we
offer
some
good
bits
for
next
stage.
Efforts
to
further
strengthen
the
nation's
exist
in
pre-k
programs
that
are
outlined
in
this
consensus
statement.
C
They
are.
It
focuses
on
ensuring
that
pre-k
teachers
are
well-prepared
and
supported
through
professional
development
and
coaching
to
implement
curricula
that
are
proven
to
foster
and
be
been
critical,
early
skills
and
concepts,
and
to
provide
well-organized,
positive
classroom
environments
in
which
active
engaged
learning
can
occur,
including
not
only
academic
skills,
but
also
essential
skills
in
social
interaction
and
self-regulation.
C
Even
with
an
initial
strong
charge,
however,
learning
can
stagnate
if
children's
developing
knowledge
and
skills
are
not
recharged
when
they
enter
elementary
school.
Sustaining
pre-k
impacts
requires
that
we
pay
far
more
attention
to
what
happens
once
children
arrive
at
the
kindergarten
door.
This
is
the
newest
frontier
of
pre-k,
research
and
I.
Repeat:
learning
like
physical
growth
is
cumulative
and
continuous
and
requires
ongoing,
nurturing,
there's
no
point
at
which
learning
proceeds
on
automatic
pilot.
This
is
why
we
explicitly
direct
attention
to
the
elementary
grades
in
this
pre-k
consensus
statement.
C
Perhaps
the
greatest
challenge
facing
all
of
us
is
how
to
keep
every
child
moving
forward
on
his
or
her
learning
trajectory
as
she
enters
formal
schooling.
This
is
the
fundamental
task
of
every
elementary
teacher.
It
entails
understanding
each
child
starting
place
where
he
or
she
needs
to
go
next
and
how
to
get
her
there
and
how
best
to
scaffold
this
forward
movement
for
each
child
in
a
classroom.
C
Early
education
is
rocket
science.
This
challenge
see
here.
There
we
go.
This
challenge
is
made
all
the
more
urgent
by
current
policy
discussions
of
pre-k
education.
In
addition
to
school
readiness,
our
society
has
harbored
the
hope
that
pre-k
would
deliver
long
lasting
effects.
Here.
The
current
state
of
evidence
leaves
us
with
less
to
report
and
we
conclude
convincing
evidence
on
the
longer-term
impacts
of
scaled-up
pre-k
programs
on
academic
outcomes
and
school
progress
is
sparse,
precluding
broad
conclusions.
C
The
evidence
that
does
exist
often
shows
that
pre-k
induced
improvements
in
learning
are
detectable
during
elementary
school,
but
studies
also
reveal
null
or
negative
impacts
for
some
programs.
The
jury
is
still
out,
and
why
might
this
be
so?
Dr.
Lipsy
will
offer
his
observations
about
this
pressing
and
important
question
drawing
on
his
experience
as
a
pre-k
evaluator
in
Tennessee.
In
the
consensus
statement,
we
ponder
how
much
we
can
draw
on
lessons
from
the
existing
research
base
on
an
earlier
generation
of
programs
to
guide
the
development
of
today's
pre-k
programs
that
are
far
from
monolithic.
C
Instead,
there
are
different
pre-k
delivery
systems
in
different
states
with
widely
varying
program
features,
teacher
requirements,
performance
standards,
target
child
populations
and
funding
levels,
all
of
which
need
to
be
taken
into
account
again.
This
is
why
we
refer
to
this
report
as
puzzling
it
out,
because
it
is
indeed
a
very
complex
puzzle.
C
Moreover,
different
state
programs
have
been
studied
with
different
designs
and
measures,
so
it's
really
hard
in
this
context
to
pull
out
one
piece
of
this
complex
puzzle
and
say:
aha,
that
explains
the
mixed
evidence
on
long
term
impacts
and
to
return
to
the
overarching
message
of
our
statement.
Children
enter
pre-k
with
Virgen
prior
early
care
and
education
and
home
experiences,
and
they
move
from
pre-k
into
a
vast
range
of
elementary
schools
across
the
nation.
C
If
we
ignore
this
variability
and
what
happens
before
during
and
after
the
pre-k
year,
we
run
the
risk
of
missing
information
that
can
help
us
understand
how
to
design
and
re-engineer
pre-k
in
specific
locales
to
get
the
best
results,
but
importantly,
contradictory
findings.
Puzzle
pieces
that
don't
fit
together
very
well
are
precisely
what
propels
science
forward.
We
can
draw
some
conclusions
with
confidence.
We
can
offer
good
bets
for
next
stage:
pre-k
innovation.
C
This
is
the
shared
goal
and
commitment
of
the
team
of
scientists
who
produced
this
consensus
statement,
and
this
brings
me
to
our
final
consensus
point,
which
calls
for
ongoing
innovation
and
evaluation
to
ensure
continued
improvement
in
creating
and
sustaining
children's
learning
gains
through
research
practice,
partnerships
and
I'm
not
going
to
read
this
one,
because
I
want
to
make
sure
to
give
others
plenty
of
time.
But
we
close
the
report
with
the
following
statement.
C
We
have
a
national
platform
on
which
to
build
next
stage,
increasingly
effective
and
longer-lasting
pre-k
programs,
the
hard
work
of
refining
and
improving
these
programs,
so
that
they
can
fully
support
the
intellectual
and
social
skills
the
nation
will
need
in
the
future
has
just
begun.
Nonetheless,
the
sign
of
aggression,
al
the
uniformly
positive
evidence
of
impact
on
kindergarten
readiness
and
the
nascent
body
of
ongoing
inquiry
about
long-term
impacts
lead
us
to
conclude.
D
Thank
You
Deborah
and
the
day
folks
I'd
like
to
zoom
in
on
the
research
on
state
pre-k.
For
to
brief
you
a
little
bit
on
the
the
view
that
the
consensus
group
took
on
this
and
I
think
it's
important
to
get
some
sense
of
the
texture
of
this
research,
because
there's
a
lot
of
misunderstanding
out
there.
If
you
listen
only
if
you
look
only
at
the
media
and
listen
to
the
advocacy
group
and,
frankly,
a
certain
amount
of
misrepresentation,
so
I
want
to
start
with
some
critical
distinctions
that
we
need
to
make.
D
When
we
look
at
the
body
of
research
with
regard
to
pre-kindergarten
programs.
First,
we
need
to
distinguish
small
demonstration
programs
that
are
managed
and
implemented
by
the
researchers
from
programs
that
are
implemented
at
scale,
the
scaled
up,
ograms,
our
Head
Start
and
the
various
state,
pre-k
programs,
Head
Start,
of
course,
as
a
federal
program
and
in
some
ways
is
different
than
many
of
the
state.
Pre-K
programs
scaling
up
is
an
important
concept
here,
because
we
have
experience
in
many
areas
where
small
demonstration
programs
show
positive
effects.
D
But
when
the
programs
are
scaled
up,
we
do
not
get
those
same
effects.
So
if
we
want
to
understand
the
research
on
state
pre-k,
we
have
to
recognize
that
we're
talking
about
scaled
up
programs
and
not
small
demonstration
programs.
It's
also
important
to
distinguish
in
temporary
work
from
historical
programs.
There
are
very
promising
studies,
the
Perry
preschool
and
the
abecedarian
study
your
problem
studies
you're,
probably
familiar
with
and
are
well
known
that
we're
done
long
ago,
but
have
the
advantages
of
long
term
follow-ups
and
showed
Airy
positive
effects
through
high
school
and
beyond.
D
Those
studies
were
done
at
a
different
time
different
context.
The
programs
are
different.
The
target
populations
are
different.
The
circumstances
that
the
studies
are
different.
They
offer
some
promising
hands
as
to
what
might
be
effective
in
preschool,
but
it's
not
a
simple
step
to
go
from
studies
that
were
done
historically
in
that
era
to
what
we
can
expect
from
contemporary
programs.
D
Also,
it's
worth
thinking
about
the
intended
goals
of
preschool,
and
you
actually
see
quite
a
number
of
saying
cited
by
those
who
are
supportive
of
pre-k
and
have
appropriately
high
expectations.
There's
school
readiness
outcomes
which
basically
shows
up
as
children
enter
kindergarten
with
no
automatic
expectation
that
there
would
be
any
effects
beyond
that.
But,
of
course
much
of
the
promise
of
pre-k
is
that
indeed,
there
will
be
longer
term
effects
that
follow
from
the
pre-k
experience.
D
Much
of
the
research
focuses
on
academic
effects:
achievement
retention
in
grade
graduation
special
education
placements
through
the
end
of
high
school,
most
of
the
research
focusing
on
earlier
periods.
The
the
historical
studies
provide
some
promise
that
there
will
be
life
outcomes
after
high
school
employment,
higher
education,
crime
reductions,
reduced
teen
pregnancy.
Not
surprisingly,
we
do
not
have
long
term
outcomes
for
contemporary
programs.
It
takes
decades
for
those
to
unfold.
D
Now,
if
we
look
at
research
specifically
on
state-funded
pre-k,
so
we're
now
zeroing
in
on
scaled
up
state-funded
pre-k
programs,
putting
aside
historical
programs,
research
on
Head,
Start,
small
demonstration
program
up
their
studies
and
the
like
I've
missed,
falls
into
the
research
here.
First,
you
make
you
made
surprised
at
the
consensus
statement
that
says
that
the
research
is
sparse
and
inconclusive.
I,
don't
think
one
would
get
that
impression.
From
listening
to
much
of
the
conversation
about
preschool
research,
the
the
sparse
part
applies
primarily
to
longer
term
effects.
D
We
do
have
fairly
convincing
evidence,
as
the
consensus
report
says,
on
short-term
of
pre-k
effects,
particularly
strong
on
early
literacy,
language
and
math
outcomes,
not
so
strong
on
the
Adriel
outcomes
and
social-emotional
outcomes,
so
largely
positive
effects.
Windows
are
studied.
The
research
on
longer
term
effects
specifically
at
state
pre-k
programs,
however,
has
some
serious
limitations
at
the
present
time.
D
First,
there
are
relatively
few
studies
relative
to
the
many
diverse
programs.
We
can't
assume
that
every
state
program
is
the
same
and
produces
comparable
results.
We
have
far
fewer
studies
than
we
have
state
programs,
so
there's
not
good
coverage
of
state
pre-k
programs
in
the
current
research
base.
Many
of
the
studies
that
are
available
are
poorly
controlled
and
open
to
bias.
D
Rarely
do
they
go
past.
The
end
of
elementary
school
and
most
typical
is
third
or
fourth
grade.
So
we're
really
talking
more
about
research
on
medium-term
effects,
not
really
long-term
effects,
certainly
not
the
kind
of
life
outcomes
we
might
hope
for
from
pre-k.
These
studies
also
focus
heavily
on
the
academic
outcomes
and
not
so
much
on
the
soft
skills,
the
social
emotional
outcomes,
the
behavioral
outcomes.
D
Even
though
there's
some
good
reason
to
believe
that
those
soft
skills
of
behavioral
and
social
emotional
outcomes
might
be
the
more
important
bridges
to
long-term
effects,
we
really
need
to
know
more
in
that
area,
and
then
these
studies
show
diverse
effects.
It
would
be
comforting
if
they
all
showed
positive
effects
despite
their
limitations.
That's
not
the
case.
The
mix
of
studies
specifically
on
state
pre-k
shows
some
positive
effects,
often
positive
effects,
but
also
no
effects
no
effects
and,
in
some
cases,
negative
effects.
D
So
this
is
the
context
within
which
the
consensus
group,
here
we
go.
The
consensus
group
judged
that
there
was
sparse
research
that
did
not
support
conclusive,
conclusive
summaries
and
a
conclusive
positive
results.
Let
me
talk
a
little
bit
before
we
close
about
the
Tennessee
pre-k
program.
Many
of
you
I
suspect,
has
heard
about
the
Tennessee
program.
It's
the
research
on
the
Tennessee
program.
It's
quite
become
quite
controversial,
so
the
Tennessee
program
itself
is
actually
fairly
typical
of
many
state
pre-k
programs.
It's
a
well-established
program.
D
It's
been
around
in
full
scale
from
for
somewhat
more
than
10
years
includes.
900
classrooms
serve
more
than
18,000
children.
It's
a
targeted
program
that
focuses
on
low-income
families,
a
cap
on
the
number
of
children
per
classroom,
a
teacher
in
an
aide
in
every
classroom,
full-day
program
school
year
program
and
the
near
the
national
institute
of
early
education.
D
Research
has
a
set
of
10
quality
standards
that
they
recommend
the
tennessee
program
meets
nine
of
those,
and,
in
many
regards
is
quite
similar
to
a
number
of
the
state
pre-k
programs
that
the
study
that
we
did
of
the
tennessee
program
is
a
multi-layered
study.
It
has
some
distinctive
characteristics.
One
is
that
it's
the
only
randomized
control
study
that
has
been
done
to
date
on
this
on
a
state
program.
D
This.
This
was
done
by
offering
admission
in
79
oversubscribed
schools
using
a
lottery
procedure.
These
were
schools
that
could
not
feed
all
of
the
children
who
apply
so
essentially,
a
random
assignment
was
made
so
that
it
was
a
matter
of
chance
whether
children
were
offered
admission
or
not.
This
gave
us
an
apples
to
apples
comparison
between
children
who
participated
in
the
pre-k
program
and
children
who
did
not
and
having
that
kind
of
fair,
comparable
apples
to
apples
comparison
critical
to
drawing
strong
conclusions
about
the
effects
of
the
program.
D
We
collected
that
a
true
baseline
data
from
the
beginning
of
the
pre-k
year
on
both
those
who
attended
and
did
not
attend.
We
followed
these
children
through
third
grade
there.
We
have
measures
of
achievement,
grade
retention,
attendance,
disciplinary,
infraction
special
education
placements
teacher
ratings
of
behavior
in
the
classroom.
The
full
sample
includes
nearly
3,000
children
and
for
a
little
more
than
a
thousand
of
those
children,
we
collected
additional
data
from
the
children
in
families
every
year,
particularly
so
we
could
track
their
progress
in
those
early
years
before
state
achievement.
D
D
The
the
positive
are,
the
most
positive
part
is
like
virtually
all
the
other
studies
of
state
pre-k.
At
the
end
of
the
pre-k
year,
there
were
positive
effects
on
literacy,
language
and
math
measures,
as
well
as
kindergarten
teachers
ratings
of
the
classroom
behavior
of
the
children
as
they
move
into
kindergarten
by
the
end
of
kindergarten.
However,
the
control
children
that
had
not
participated
in
pre-k
had
caught
up
on
all
of
these
measures
and
were,
at
that
point
substantially
similar
to
the
children
who
had
attended
pre-k
I
want
to
emphasize
the
caught
up
phrase
here.
D
You
may
have
heard
about
the
fade-out
problem
in
in
pre-k.
This
is
not
a
matter
of
the
pre-k
gains
fading
out.
This
is
a
matter
of
the
children
who
didn't
attend
pre-k
catching
up
in
a
year
so
that
they
essentially
performed
at
the
same
level
as
the
pre-k
children,
and
this
continued
through
the
second
grade
and
most
of
our
most
surprising
finding
was
by
the
end
of
the
third
grade.
D
The
children
who
had
participated
in
pre-k
in
some
cases
were
showing
somewhat
negative
effects,
that
is,
they
were
not
performing,
as
well
as
the
children
who
had
attended
pre-k
so
across
all
our
measures.
Most
of
them
showed
no
difference
in
3rd
grade
between
the
children
who
had
participated
in
those
who
had
not
participated
in
pre-k.
Those
that
did
show
statistically
significant
differences
were
actually
in
the
negative
direction,
particularly
in
math
on
math
achievement
measures.
This,
as
you
can
imagine,
was
quite
a
surprise
and
a
disappointment.
D
Let
me
just
wrap
up
them
with
some
thoughts
about
why
this
might
have
happened
in
Tennessee
and
I.
Think
at
the
same
time
raises
questions
we
want
to
think
about
for
any
state
pre-k
program
if
we
want
it
to
be
accepted,
successful
I
think
what
we've
heard
the
most
about
the
Tennessee
program
is
that
well,
Tennessee
just
must
have
a
poor
quality
program,
and
these
results,
then,
are
not
typical
of
any
other
program.
D
D
The
estimates
of
the
effects
at
the
end
of
week
after
the
children
have
participated
can
be
compared
directly
on
the
same
measures
with
about
a
dozen
other
state
programs
who
then
the
pre-k
with
effects
have
been
reported
and
the
Tennessee
program
has
produced
at
the
end
of
pre-k
effects
is
larger,
larger
than
those
of
most
other
state
programs.
Other
indicators
like
the
near
ratings
and
classroom
observation
scores
are
also
comparable,
so
we
don't
think
the
explanation
here
is
that
the
Tennessee
program
is
just
especially
poor
quality
compared
to
other
programs.
D
Accounting
alphabet,
simple
word,
recognition
and,
and
so
on.
Our
concerns
is
we've.
Looked
at
our
data
is
the
limited
focus
on
deeper
language
skills,
learning
to
learn,
skills,
things
that
might
sustain
these
children
in
the
long
run
and
that
might
be
distinctive
contributions
of
pre-k,
that
wouldn't
for
which
children
who
didn't
go
to
pre-k,
wouldn't
overtake
the
pre-k
children
quite
as
quickly.
This
bears
on
the
point
dr.
D
Phillips
was
making
about
the
nature
of
the
pre-k
curriculum
and
the
the
quality
of
the
teaching
and
the
focus
of
the
teaching
that
goes
on
in
those
classrooms,
and
then,
lastly,
but
particularly
important,
is
the
question
of
sustaining
environments
or
sustaining
instruction
after
pre-k
there's
some
evidence.
We
see
that
in
Tennessee,
and
we
see
that
in
studies,
our
colleagues
have
done
a
redundant
content
in
kindergarten.
Children
who
have
been
in
pre-k
find
themselves
in
kindergarten,
often
being
exposed
to
the
same
topics.
D
The
same
lessons,
the
same
content
and
possibly
even
some
overlap
again
in
1st
grade.
It
may
not
be
too
surprising
under
those
circumstances
that
these
children
begin
to
disengage
when
they're,
not
they're,
more
advanced
skills
are
not
being
carried
forward
with
momentum
in
the
later
grades.
It's
also
the
case.
We
see
this
clearly
in
Tennessee
I
think
it's
likely
true
in
other
state
pre-k
programs.
D
Partnerships
between
researchers
and
state
programs
and
learn
together
how
best
to
configure
these
programs
and
support
these
young
children
so
that
we
do
get
more
out
of
the
pre-k
program
achieve
more
of
the
potential
that
we
think
is
there.
I
think
that
brings
us
to
the
question:
are
the
program
here,
yeah
yeah,
and
that
you
want.
B
D
B
D
Let
me
ask
Debra
to
chime
in
as
well,
because
I
know
she
has
talked
about.
This
we
do
know
is
one
of
the
consensus
statements
indicate
that
that
pre-k
at
least
the
consistent
short-term
effects
we
see
is
more
effective
for
disadvantaged
children,
dual
language,
learners
and
low-income
children,
so
that
that
verb
for
many
reasons,
is
a
reasonable
target.
Ovulation
the
need
is
there
and
there
are
differential,
positive
effects,
at
least
in
the
short-term,
that
for
that
population,
that
does
not
mean
necessarily,
however,
at
only
including
those
children.
D
Only
targeting
those
children
in
pre-k
is
is
automatically
a
good
idea.
There's
certainly
some
reason
to
believe
in
some
evidence
that
being
in
mixed
classrooms,
that
don't
include
only
low-income
children
may
have
advantages
for
all
the
children
who
participate,
but
those
those
more
diverse
interactions
may
have
particular
advantages
for
the
low-income
children.
So
this
is.
This
is
another
area
where
we
need
to
put
a
finer
point
on
our
understanding
of
the
right
population
targeting
to
get
the
most
out
of
pre-k
right
and
ever
I.
Don't
know
if
you
want
to
add
to
that.
D
C
That's
exactly
what
I
would
say
and
the
positive
short-term
impacts
of
pre-k
education
are
found
in
both
Universal
and
targeted
programs
and
again
the
long-term
impacts,
as
as
Mark
and
I
have
both
emphasized.
You
know
the
picture
is
just
a
very
confusing
one
that
that
also
includes
both
targeted
and
Universal
programs.
So
there's
there's
no
magic
one
way
or
the
other.
B
D
C
Debra
do
want
me
to
answer
that,
so
the
most
consistent
pattern
with
regard
to
race
and
ethnicity
and
again
I'm,
going
to
emphasize
the
short-term
impacts,
is
with
regard
to
Latino
children
and
dual
language
learners
in
particular,
so
Latino
children
who
come
from
households
where
the
children
have
not
been
exposed
to
ample
amounts
of
English
language
input,
the
so
so
the
benefits
to
those
children
are
disproportionately
only
positive
compared
to
other
groups
of
children,
including
black
and
african-american
children.
You
don't
see
the
same.
C
You
know
pretty
consistent
pattern
of
very
strong
benefits
that
we
see
for
the
Latino
children
for
black
and
african-american
children.
Now,
of
course,
those
questions
because
of
the
demographics
of
our
country.
Many
of
those
children
are
also
low
income.
So
the
finding
that
mark
mentioned,
where
we
also
see
stronger,
impacts
on
relatively
more
economically
disadvantaged
children
embraces
a
lot
of
children
of
color.
Okay,.
D
Also
fast,
if
I
could
just
add,
we
have,
we
have
recently
done
a
deeper
dive
into
the
characteristics
of
children
in
Tennessee.
That
includes
a
look
at
the
most
economically
disadvantaged
children
growing
up
in
neighborhoods
of
concentrated
poverty,
and
we
are
seeing
particularly
positive
effects,
even
some
longer-term
positive
effects
with
that
deeply
disadvantaged
population,
big.
B
C
Why
don't
I
start
on
that?
One
and
Marc
chime
in
what
I
forget,
but
I
I
think
you
know
this
very
active
discussion
about
alignment
from
the
early
education
system
to
the
formal
kindergarten
elementary
system?
You
know
it's
a
discussion,
that's
been
going
on
for
at
least
a
decade
and
I.
Would
that
only
recently
has
the
discussion
really
moved
to
a
point
where
we
are
getting
a
clear
sense
of
what
we
mean
by
alignment?
C
What
are
the
critical
elements
of
alignment?
How
would
you
even
know
when
you've
done
a
good
job
of
it
and
there
is
minimal
research
on
the
contribution
of
alignment
to
the
kinds
of
outcomes
that
we're
seeing
for
children
in
elementary
school
who
attended
our
not
attended,
preschool
education?
And
so
you
know
that
the
question
really
is
assuming
we
know
what
alignment
is
and
can
measure
it.
Does
it
add
to
the
value
of
a
child
simply
having
a
high
quality
preschool
program
and
then
a
high
quality
kindergarten
and
then
a
high
quality?
C
You
know
first-grade
experience,
so
it
there's
sort
of
a
value
added
question
that
is
really
critical.
There
is
some
excellent
work
now
happening
to
address
exactly
that
question,
which
I
think
will
be
very
helpful
to
those
of
us
who
think
there
is
something
to
this
issue
of
alignment
and
then
specifically
to
address
your
question
of
kind
of
direction.
C
D
Me
just
thanks
David.
Let
me
just
add
that
that
when
we
think
about
alignment,
which
is
a
really
an
important
topic
in
this
context,
we
never
said
it's
a
complex
concept,
and
we
don't
want
to
think
too
globally
about
that.
If
you
think
about
the
children
starting
kindergarten,
some
have
had
pre-k.
Some
have
not
had
pre-k
some
of
the
other
preschool
experiences.
Some
have
come
from
middle-class
families
that
have
supported
the
early
learning
of
the
children
you're
starting
the
alignment
question
with
a
great
deal
of
diversity
in
the
children
who
are
coming
into
the
classrooms.
D
So,
while
you
need
some
trajectories
that
are
appropriate
for
moving
all
the
children
forward
and
quality
educational
experiences,
a
great
deal
of
individuated
instruction
is
going
to
be
necessary
to
deal
effectively
with
that
diversity
and
that
needs
to
be
nested
within
any
kind
of
aligned,
trajectories,
I.
Think,
okay,.
B
Thank
you.
The
next
question,
as
other
certain
features
shared
by
the
pre-k
programs,
with
the
positive
impacts
and
I'm
assuming
this
is
referring
to
you
know
in
your
made
and
your
meta-analysis
of
the
research
that
was
really
showing
the
highest
effects.
If
there
are
any
commonalities
that
was
ever
found.
D
Well,
I
can
say:
I
can
say
in
terms
of
the
research
specifically
on
state
pre-k,
with
the
medium
and
longer-term
outcomes,
there's
not
sufficient
differentiation
to
really
identify
any
program
that
stands
out
or
any
characteristics,
a
particularly
successful
program,
that's
not
by
any
means
to
say
that
there
are
differences
in
programs
and
differences
in
quality
and
quite
possibly
differences
in
medium
and
long
term
outcomes.
We
just
don't
have
the
evidence
to
make
statements
about
that.
There
are
indications
in
the
short-term
outcomes
that
the
pre-k
experiences
in
curricula
themselves
do
make
a
difference.
D
This
is
not
an
area
with
as
much
research
as
we
would
like
to
have,
but,
as
the
consensus
statement
indicated,
the
best
bet
given
what
we
know
now
are
our
use
of
an
evidence-based
curriculum
in
the
hands
of
a
teacher
who
is
trained
and
supported,
particularly
with
ongoing
coaching
to
deliver
that
curriculum
in
Deborah.
You
may
well
want
to
add
to
that
yeah.
C
No,
no
that's
exactly
right
and
much
of
the
evidence
on
this
question.
Coming
from
research,
specifically
on
early
childhood
curricula,
which
we
did
not
review
as
part
of
consensus
report.
There
also
is
a
body
of
evidence
on
what
you
might
call
enhanced
pre-k
interventions,
so
programs
that
really
focus
on
high
quality
literacy
instruction
or
use
an
evident,
evidence-based,
math,
curriculum
or
focus
very
specifically
on
children's
social-emotional
development.
C
And
then
they
compare
children
and
kind
of
the
enhanced
classrooms
with
children
who
are
in
more
typical
pre-k
classrooms
and
the
children
in
the
enhanced
program
can
to
do
better.
So
that's
very
important
research,
which
is
guiding
our
sense
that
you
know
we
really
have
to
pay
attention
in
a
very
detailed
way.
What
are
the
educational
and
social
emotional
transactions
that
are
occurring
between
teachers
and
children
and
among
children
in
these
classrooms?
C
B
D
Is
a
question
about
partnerships
and
our
Tennessee
study
began
with
a
very
close
partnership
with
our
state
Department
of
Education
and
the
Early
Learning
unit
there,
and
we
have
continued
that
through
years,
including
adding
elements
that
address
the
sustaining
instruction
question
that
the
that
the
participants
are
raises
here
and
one
of
the
things
that
that
one
of
my
pal
here
Dale
Ferran
who's.
My
collaborator
on
our
Tennessee
study
is
particularly
involved
in
is
2d
dives
in
the
Nashville
programs
and
the
Memphis
programs.
D
The
researchers
are
getting
from
the
practitioners
and
the
policymakers
about
what
the
critical
issues
are
and
the
available
resources
and
the
limitations,
so
it
so
far,
it's
been
very
productive
and
I
think
if
we
could
get
similar
kinds
of
partnerships
going
in
a
number
of
other
states
and
Deborah
nor
colleagues,
I
certainly
worked
in
partnership
car
with
of
the
Tulsa
and
Oklahoma
programs
and
get
the
benefits
of
that
kind
of
synergy.
I
think
we
could
really
accelerate
our
understanding
of
how
to
achieve
more
of
the
promise
of
pre-k.
B
C
Yes,
I'll:
try
to
address
it,
you're
totally
right
that
that,
of
course,
allenge
here
that
is
just
you
know,
impressing
us
more
and
more.
Is
that
pre-k
teachers,
kindergarten
teacher
first
grade
second
grade,
you
know
all
through
school,
are
confronted
with
this
vast
array
of
children
who
arrived
with
different
levels
of
language
development,
different
levels
of
math
proficiency,
different
social-emotional
skills
and
challenges.
And
that's
why
I
keep
saying
you
know.
C
So,
yes,
there
are
some
children
who
need
to
catch
up,
but
there
are
other
children
who
are
right
at
age
level
and
there
are
other
children
who
are
well
above
age
or
grade
level.
So
it's
it's
not
just
about
catch
up.
It's
about
catch
up
in
the
context
of
these
other
children
who
you
know
don't
need
to
catch
up,
and
how
do
you
make
sure
that
you're
really
meeting
the
needs
of
that
whole
spectrum
of
young
children.
B
Okay,
thank
you,
I'm,
going
to
close
the
questions
for
now
and
I
just
wanted
to
end
by
thanking
our
presenters
today,
but
also
to
highlight
a
couple
upcoming
events
and
webinars
that
are
on
the
docket
for
ncsl.
First
is
our
legislative
summit
that
will
be
in
Boston
August
6th
through
9th.
That
will
also
feature
a
session
and
more
of
a
deep
dive
into
this
issue
on
the
6th.
There
also
two
upcoming
webinars
on
July
20th,
we'll
have
dr.
Steven
Barnett
from
near
to
discuss
the
report
that
they
actually
released
today.
B
That
shares
a
lot
of
parallels
and
work
with
the
researchers
here
and
then
on.
The
24th
of
August,
we'll
have
a
session
featuring
a
few
legislators
from
around
the
country,
discuss
some
policy
options
and
strategies
to
improve
the
education
for
dual
language
learners
and
lastly,
today's
webinar
will
be
archived
within
the
next
week
and
available
on
ESL's
website.
I,
encourage
you
to
share
this
with
colleagues
refer
to
it
for
research
or
anything
else,
and
with
that
I'd
like
to
end
today's
webinar.
By
saying,
thank
you
again
to
our
and
all
of
the
listeners
out
there.