Compared to what? Variation in the impacts of early childhood education by alternative care type

By Avi Feller, Todd Grindal, Luke W. Miratrix, Lindsay C. Page. 2016

125 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Early childhood education research often compares a group of children who receive the intervention of interest to a group of children who receive care in a range of different care settings. In this paper, we estimate differential impacts of an early childhood intervention by alternative care setting, using data from the Head Start Impact Study, a large-scale randomized evaluation. To do so, we utilize a Bayesian principal stratification framework to estimate separate impacts for two types of Compliers: those children who would otherwise be in other center-based care when assigned to control and those who would otherwise be in home-based care. We find strong, positive short-term effects of Head Start on receptive vocabulary for those Compliers who would otherwise be in home-based care. By contrast, we find no meaningful impact of Head Start on vocabulary for those Compliers who would otherwise be in other center-based care. Our findings suggest that alternative care type is a potentially important source of variation in early childhood education interventions.

Subfields: Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c49c3a46a0f98d97255073a8d82fb05a1d3026c9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

1. T. Huizen
2. J. Plantenga
3. Peng Ding
4. Luke W. Miratrix
5. Avi Feller

Citations in the corpus

• Community Colleges and Upward Mobility (2019, unknown): “A small set of papers have developed certain conditions under which margin-specific treatment effects can be identified, including parametric restrictions on unobserved heterogeneity (Heckman and Vytlacil, 2007; Feller et al., 2016; Hull, 2018a); full-support instruments that permit a multidimension”
• Decomposing Treatment Effect Variation (2016, methodology): “ be low-income to be eligible for Head Start, HSIS does not include information on families’ actual income nor other nancial details that could be important predictors of program impact. In addition, Feller et al. (2016) and others argue that that the setting in which a child would otherwise receive”
• The Long-Term Effects of Universal Preschool in Boston (2021, unknown): “, 2005) or are limited to short-term outcomes (Puma et al., 2010, 2012; Bitler et al., 2014; Walters, 2015; Kline and Walters, 2016; Feller et al., 2016; Lipsey et al., 2018; Weiland et al., 2019).”
• Reducing Inequality through Dynamic Complementarity: Evidence from Head Start and Public School Spending (2019, unknown): “36 In the early period of Head Start, most poor children would have received home care, while today, as many as onethird of Head Start participants may have attended some other form of formal childcare (Kline and Walters, 2016; Feller et al., 2016).”
• Do children benefit from universal early childhood education and care? A meta-analysis of evidence from natural experiments (2018, background): “The results from the Head Start Impact Study(7) clearly demonstrate this issue: while effects are weak when not accounting for control contamination effects, effects are relatively strong when comparing Head Start to home care (Feller et al., 2016).”