Search

To understand the use of early care and education (ECE) programs in New Jersey, the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) conducted a representative survey of parents of children under age 5 (not yet in kindergarten) about their use of (non-parental) child care. The survey was conducted between May 25th and June 13rd, 2022, with 1,251 parents. This report summarizes the use of child care arrangements by parents of infants, toddlers, and preschool-age children in New Jersey in spring/summer 2022. These include center-based programs (child care, pre-k, and Head start) and non-center-based (family child care, other non-parental) ECE programs. This report also describes parents' reasons for selecting their ECE program as well as reasons for not using any ECE arrangement. [Data for this report was collected under a larger project funded by the NJ Department of Health and Human Services.]

In 2020 preschool participation rates substantially declined. A recent NIEER survey found that the Fall 2022 preschool participation rates had nearly returned to pre-pandemic 2019 levels. The NIEER survey asked parents of young children who were still not in preschool in the Fall of 2022 to report why they did not enroll their children. The top responses included having one parent home (82%), cost and lack of affordable options (41%), and continuing concerns about the pandemic (35%). In NIEER's Spring 2021 PLA survey, 81 percent of parents of age-eligible children said they would very likely or somewhat likely send their child to a free, universal pre-K program if it became available. In addition, parents with annual incomes below $25,000 more often reported being very likely to participate than those with higher incomes. [For "Impacts of the Pandemic on Young Children and Their Parents: Initial Findings from NIEER's May-June 2021 Preschool Learning Activities Survey. Research Report," see ED616245.]

The "State of Preschool 2022" annual report covers the 2021-2022 school year and is NIEER's 20th report tracking preschool enrollment, funding, and policies state-by-state. This report focuses on the recovery since the 2020-2021 school year, where we are compared to before the pandemic, where we've come over the last two decades, and what needs to come next. Across the 44 states, DC, and Guam that funded a preschool program in 2021-2022, 32% of 4-year-olds and 6% of 3-year-olds were enrolled, an increase if 13% from the prior year, but still 8% below the pre-pandemic high. This pattern was seen in nearly every state. States spent $9.51 billion on preschool and also used $393 million in COVID-19 relief funding, without which inflation-adjusted spending would have declined. A big concern is the preschool workforce where we found unprecedented teacher shortages as well as waivers to education and specialized training requirements resulting in fewer qualified teachers in preschool classrooms. Yet few states provided incentives for teacher retention or recruitment. Over the last 20 years, preschool enrollment has more than doubled and so has inflation-adjusted spending. Spending per child in 2021-2022 was $6,571, essentially the same as it was 20 years ago after adjusting for inflation. Most children continue to lack access to high quality preschool. Though seven states currently working towards universal preschool offer a glimmer of hope - California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and New Mexico. Success in these states could dramatically alter the early childhood education (ECE) landscape nationally. In the report, NIEER calls on states to take stock of their state's ECE system and calls on the federal government to provide more support to states. [For "The State of Preschool 2021: State Preschool Yearbook," see ED620548.]

For state-funded preschool programs the compensation of teachers is a critical issue for program quality and effectiveness. If preschool programs are to attract and retain teachers comparable to those in primary schools, preschool teachers must receive comparable pay and benefits. This brief assesses compensation parity between state-funded preschool lead teachers and public school K-12 teachers. As state-funded preschool programs typically use mixed public-private delivery systems we separately examine compensation for preschool teachers in the public schools and in other (nonpublic) organizations (including for-profits and non-profits some of which also offer Head Start). Data for this report are from the 2020-21 school year survey for the State of Preschool Yearbook. [For "The State of Preschool 2021: State Preschool Yearbook," see ED620548.]

To learn about the pandemic's impacts on young children's learning and development the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) developed a parent survey regarding children's home learning activities and preschool participation during the pandemic. This report presents key lessons from the spring 2021 preschool learning activities survey. [For "Seven Impacts of the Pandemic on Young Children and Their Parents: Initial Findings from NIEER's December 2020 Preschool Learning Activities Survey. Research Report," see ED613105.]

Early learning experiences at home and in classrooms build the foundations for children's later success in school and life. The pandemic has upended home life and preschool programs, making it more challenging for both parents and communities to provide optimal learning experiences for young children. These changes are likely to have important consequences for young children's learning and development (social, emotional, and physical as well as cognitive) and mental health. To learn about the pandemic's impacts on young children's learning and development the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) developed a parent survey regarding children's home learning activities and preschool participation during the pandemic. The first survey was conducted in Spring 2020. NIEER followed this up with a second survey in December 2020 with a national survey of parents of children ages 3 to 5 and not yet in kindergarten. As with the first survey, the second includes some questions from previous national surveys such as the National Household Education Survey to compare current circumstances with those prior to the pandemic. It also included a standardized measure of children's social and emotional development and well-being. Overall, it was found that the pandemic resulted in significant loss of important learning opportunities for young children through the fall into December. Participation in preschool programs declined sharply from pre-pandemic levels. Although most who attended preschool programs did so in-person, this was not true for young children in poverty who had less than 1/3 the access to in-person education of children in higher income families. Parent supports for learning through booking reading and teaching basic skills also declined sharply. So children lost learning opportunities both at home and in preschool programs. Not surprisingly, parents reported unusually high rates of social-emotional or mental health problems for their young children. In this report the authors summarize key findings and then present charts with detailed information on seven impacts the pandemic has had on young children and their parents.

Participation in preschool programs has been associated with a number of positive outcomes. Evaluating data from the 40-year follow-up to the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program Study, Belfield and his colleagues show how preschool participation by low income children relates to significant economic benefits both to the children by the time they are in their 40s and to society more generally (Belfield et al. 2006). Summarizing over 160 studies conducted from 1960 through 2000, Camilli et al. found that preschool had a range of shorter and longer term positive relationships to cognitive gains, progression through school, and social-emotional development (Camilli et al. 2010). This report provides an overview of state supported preschool enrollment and state funding of preschool programs. Information provided here is based primarily on data collected from state agencies that manage preschool programs through the State of Preschool 2012-13 data collection. Officials in states with state preschool programs were the respondents to the data collection effort. Data collection occurred between November 2013 and March 2014. Forty states and the District of Columbia operated 53 programs in 2012-13 (see Carolan et al. forthcoming). Two additional data sources are utilized in the report. Comparisons are made to data collected through the State of Preschool 2011-12 data collection. Population counts for determining the percentage of 3- and 4-year-olds in each state that are enrolled in state supported preschool programs were obtained from U.S. Census Population Estimates, State Population Datasets. The Census Bureau's Population Estimates Program (PEP) uses data on births, deaths, and migration to calculate population change since the most recent decennial census. Details about the data sources used in the report are provided in the appendices. Three appendices provide: (1) Technical Notes; (2) Glossary; and (3) Support Tables. [This report was prepared in part under Contract No. ED-IES-13-C-0055 with the National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University.]

Because pre-academic and social-emotional capabilities at kindergarten entry predict later academic and social success, there has been great concern with the level of "readiness" at kindergarten entry. Many states require a kindergarten readiness assessment (KRA). However, how readiness is defined, who or what entity is doing the defining, and how this information is used varies greatly. Differences in prevailing theories about how young children learn have led to variations in definitions over time, as well. This brief explores the existing definitions of readiness and the uses of readiness assessment data. The strengths and limitations of each of these approaches is closely examined. Suggestions for defining and measuring readiness and using KRAs follow.

While the link between schooling and health has been well established, the direct and indirect effects of early childhood education programs on health have recently become a more substantial focus of research. This brief summarizes the research evidence, organized by three theoretical models that explain how early childhood education and development (ECED) programs can affect health, in both the long and short term (See Figure 1).2 These models are sufficiently general that they apply to children and families in both developed and developing nations. The authors then apply these models and the empirical evidence to derive broad recommendations for early childhood policy. They include: (1) Increase access to high quality early care and education programs for all children, prioritizing the most economically and educationally disadvantaged children; (2) Beginning parenting education early in pregnancy with the degree of support based on risk of poor health and developmental outcomes; (3) Providing screenings and referrals for health, dental, mental health, developmental, vision, and hearing in early care and education programs or facilitate access to these services through other means; (4) Inclusion of health, physical activity, and development of healthy eating habits in early education curriculum, as such habits are formed at an early age; (5) Including supports for children's social-emotional development, including self-regulation, preschool curriculum in order to reduce future risky behavior;and (6) Support of more health-related early education research.

North Carolina's preschool program has solid evidence that it produces long-term benefits, but most children eligible for NC Pre-K are unable to enroll due to inadequate state funding, according to an analysis by the National Institute for Early Education Research. "Barriers to Expansion of NC Pre-K: Problems and Potential Solutions" highlights three interrelated issues critical to expanding the NC Pre-K program: accurately determining how many children are eligible for NC Pre-K but lack access; analyzing whether county "waiting lists" reflect the need for NC Pre-K, and barriers to expanding NC Pre-K to fully meet the actual need. The NC Pre-K program was launched in 2001 to provide to high-quality early learning opportunities to at-risk children. Research by Duke University has found NC Pre-K boosted math and reading test scores and reduced special education placements and grade repetition through the end of primary school. However, NC Pre-K now reaches less than half (47 percent) the children it was designed to serve. Significant numbers of young children--almost 33,000--across all races and ethnicities, in both rural and urban areas, are losing the opportunity to develop foundational skills needed to succeed in school and beyond. In fact, 40 counties are serving less than half of eligible children. While children may be attending other early education programs, those programs do not provide all the quality components of NC Pre-K--so those vulnerable children are less likely to gain the lasting benefits provided by NC Pre-K. The new NIEER report identifies financial barriers undermining the promise of NC Pre-K, and recommends policy changes to overcome them. [This report was written with assistance from Richard Kasmin.]

This new report from the Lexington Institute, "How sound an investment? An analysis of federal prekindergarten proposals," considers current proposals for federal involvement in prekindergarten (pre-K). It is misleading, however, with respect to both the provisions and likely consequences of those proposals. The report attempts to disparage the potential benefits of pre-K by presenting inaccurate information about public pre-K programs and their effects. Although the report provides some useful cautions about these programs, it exaggerates the relative importance of those cautions. The report's conclusions are grounded in a failure to consider other relevant research on pre-K's effectiveness and the relative merits of targeted and universal approaches to preschool education. (Contains 33 notes and references.)

Although the benefits to academic achievement and cognitive development experienced by children participating in the Carolina Abecedarian Project have been well documented, there is little information available on the cost effectiveness of programs based on the Abecedarian preschool model. This study involved a benefit-cost analysis of the Abecedarian preschool program. Participating in the experimental study were 104 of the 112 at-risk children born 1972 and 1977, who were randomly assigned to either a preschool program or a control group; follow-up data were collected when the children were 21 years old. Treatment was comprised of a center-based preschool program emphasizing language development and provision of medical and nutritional services, with medical and nutritional services also provided to the control group. Outcomes were measured in terms of participant earnings, earnings of future generations, elementary and secondary education costs, smoking and health costs, maternal productivity and earnings, and receipt of welfare payments. Findings of the benefit-cost analysis revealed that the program "pays for itself" when all benefits and costs are included in the analysis. The rate of return to the Abecedarian project ranged from 3 to 7 percent, depending on the benefit considered. However, it is unlikely that results could be replicated perfectly in all settings and for all populations. (Contains 79 references.) (KB)

Although the phrase "compensation parity policy" for preschool teachers may seem clear at first, the term is used in a variety of ways and refers to a range of different policies. All of these policies seek to improve the financial rewards for teaching preschool relative to teaching older children, but they differ in how far they go toward true equality. Policies vary in precisely what is covered by "parity." In this paper, the authors employ a framework that distinguishes between full compensation parity and other forms of compensation improvement, which are commonly labeled parity but are subtly different. For simplicity, they distinguish between three levels, or tiers, of compensation improvement: parity, partial parity, and sub-parity. Moreover, they identify three components of parity: salary, benefits, and payment for professional responsibilities. This paper also provides insight into the current efficacy of parity policy. In practice, a number of states have some form of parity policy, generally focused on salary. Although these states' salary parity policies differ in aims and scope, the authors find clear associations between having a state parity policy and pre-K teacher pay. [This report is part of a series of materials on pre-K compensation parity, developed in partnership between the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment (CSCCE) and the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER). For another report in this series, "Strategies in Pursuit of Pre-K Teacher Compensation Parity: Lessons From Seven States and Cities," see ED591985.]

This report explores the extent to which states (and several large cities) are positioned to provide high quality preschool education on a large scale. States and cities that are already doing so or that could do so with modest improvements offer opportunities for advocacy to advance access to high quality early education as well as for rigorous research on the outcomes of these programs. Research in such states and cities also could help to identify with more specificity the policies and conditions associated with strong educational outcomes for children. The framework for this assessment of state capacity consists of "15 essential elements" of high-quality pre-K identified by Jim Minervino based on a research review and case studies. Minervino concluded that all of these elements must be present to a considerable extent for high quality pre-K to be implemented at scale. From this perspective, each element should not be expected to contribute independently to pre-K effectiveness. These authors believe that their assessments of the extent to which each element is present in each state will be useful to those concerned with pre-K whether or not they fully agree with this perspective. Forty-one states, D.C. and three other large cities with established pre-kindergarten programs were assessed. For each state (or program within a state) the report presents an overview of the state, a table listing the conclusions regarding each element, and the evidence that was the basis for the authors' judgment on each element. The 15 elements are organized into three sections. The first is the "enabling environment," which includes two elements that were among the most difficult to assess: political will and the capacity of preschool's administering agency to provide vision and strong leadership. The second is "rigorous, articulated early learning policies," and it has eight elements, most of which were relatively straightforward to judge. The third is "strong program practices" and contains 5 elements. This last group of elements was the most difficult to assess, as they are rated based on actual implementation, and this requires information that is not always available. The 15 essential elements are: (1) Political will including support from political leadership and, more rarely, judicial mandates; (2) A compelling vision and strong leadership from early learning leaders; (3) Well-educated (BA & ECE expertise) and well-compensated teachers (K-12 pay parity); (4) Adult-child ratio of at least 1:11; (5) At least a full school day is provided to ensure adequate dosage; (6) Two (or more) adult teaching staff in each classroom; (7) Appropriate early learning standards for preschoolers; (8) Effective curriculum that has systemic support; (9) Strong supports for education of special needs children in inclusive settings; (10) Strong supports for dual language learners; (11) High quality teaching; (12) Child assessments that are appropriate and used to inform instruction; (13) Data-driven decision-making and independent evaluation; (14) Professional development (PD) to improve individual teacher performance; and (15) Integrated systems of standards, curriculum, assessment, PD, and evaluation.