Inputs in the Production of Early Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from Head Start
Inputs in the Production of Early Childhood Human Capital: Evidence from Head Start
复制标题
DOI：
10.1257/app.20140184
复制
发表时间：
2014-10
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Christopher R. Walters
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Christopher R. Walters
对小规模“示范”幼儿计划的研究表明，高质量的学前教育可以对人力资本和经济成果产生变革性影响。关于启蒙计划的证据更为复杂。然而，Head Start 中心的投入和实践差异很大，而且人们对 Head Start 内的有效性差异知之甚少。本文使用多地点随机评估的数据来量化和解释 Head Start 托儿中心有效性的差异。我回答两个问题：(1) 不同启蒙中心的短期效应有多大差异？ (2) 输入、实践和儿童特征在多大程度上解释了这种差异？为了回答第一个问题，我使用带有随机系数的选择模型来量化先行效应的异质性，并考虑到不遵守实验分配的情况。该模型的估计表明，认知效果的跨中心标准差为 0.18 个测试分数标准差，这比对教师或学校效能变化的典型估计要大。接下来，我评估观察到的输入、实践和儿童特征在产生这种变化中的作用，重点关注通常被认为是示范项目成功的核心的输入。我的结果表明，提供全日制服务的启蒙中心比其他中心更能提高认知技能，而提供频繁家访的启蒙中心在提高非认知技能方面尤其有效。对于母亲受教育程度较低的孩子来说，启蒙教育也更有效。从中心学前班吸引更多儿童的中心效果较小，这表明跨中心效果差异可能部分归因于反事实学前班选择的差异。其他关键投入，包括高/范围课程、教师教育和班级规模，与 Head Start 有效性的提高无关。总之，观察到的输入解释了实验地点之间启蒙有效性差异的大约三分之一。
Studies of small-scale "model" early-childhood programs show that high-quality preschool can have transformative effects on human capital and economic outcomes. Evidence on the Head Start program is more mixed. Inputs and practices vary widely across Head Start centers, however, and little is known about variation in effectiveness within Head Start. This paper uses data from a multi-site randomized evaluation to quantify and explain variation in effectiveness across Head Start childcare centers. I answer two questions: (1) How much do short-run effects vary across Head Start centers? and (2) To what extent do inputs, practices, and child characteristics explain this variation? To answer the first question, I use a selection model with random coefficients to quantify heterogeneity in Head Start effects, accounting for non-compliance with experimental assignments. Estimates of the model show that the cross-center standard deviation of cognitive effects is 0.18 test score standard deviations, which is larger than typical estimates of variation in teacher or school effectiveness. Next, I assess the role of observed inputs, practices and child characteristics in generating this variation, focusing on inputs commonly cited as central to the success of model programs. My results show that Head Start centers offering full-day service boost cognitive skills more than other centers, while Head Start centers offering frequent home visiting are especially effective at raising non-cognitive skills. Head Start is also more effective for children with less-educated mothers. Centers that draw more children from center-based preschool have smaller effects, suggesting that cross-center differences in effects may be partially due to differences in counterfactual preschool options. Other key inputs, including the High/Scope curriculum, teacher education, and class size, are not associated with increased effectiveness in Head Start. Together, observed inputs explain about one-third of the variation in Head Start effectiveness across experimental sites.