Garcia, J. L., Heckman, J. J., Leaf, D. E., & Prados, M. J. (December 2016). HCEO Working Paper 2016-035. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Global Working Group.
Reviewed: April 2017
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attended Vocational/Technical/Community College |
Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual |
30 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Four-year college graduation |
Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual |
30 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
High school graduation |
Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual |
30 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Employment status |
Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual |
30 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Labor income |
Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual |
30 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Labor income |
Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual |
21 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Public income |
Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual |
30 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ever had special education |
Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual |
21 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Total years in special education |
Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual |
21 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Years of education |
Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual |
30 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total years retained |
Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual |
21 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Ever retained |
Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC) and the Carolina Approach to Responsive Education (CARE) vs. Business as usual |
21 Years |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study examines the impacts of North Carolina early childhood education programs - ABC and CARE. Both programs, launched in the 1970s, started serving children at 8 weeks of age and extended to 5 years of age in the first phase of the intervention.
Both ABC and CARE, launched in the 1970s, started serving children at 8 weeks of age and extended to 5 years of age in the first phase of the intervention. (The second phase of each program, consisting of home visits and support after the age of 5, is not examined in this study.) During the intervention phase examined, children attended the centers from 7:45 am to 5:30 pm, 5 days per week and 50 weeks per year. The programs targeted disadvantaged, predominantly African-American children in the Chapel Hill/Durham area with the goal of enhancing early life skills. The programs provided individualized intervention, recording progress, and adjusting learning activities every 2-3 weeks. Both programs supported language, motor, and cognitive development, as well as socio-emotional competencies. All classroom staff participated in extensive training and were closely observed by FPGC’s academic staff, as part of a broad variety of ongoing clinical and social research related to early childhood education, psychology, and health. In ABC, child-caregiver ratios varied by age: 3:1 for infants up to 13 to 15 months of age; 4:1 for toddlers up to 36 months; and 5:1 or 6:1 for children aged 3 to 5 years, depending on cohort size. Child-caregiver ratios were similar in CARE. Preschool rooms featured intentionally organized environments to promote pre-literacy and access to a rich set of learning tools. The full-day curriculum emphasized active learning experiences, dramatic play, and pre-academics. Frequent 1:1 or 2:1 child-adult interactions prioritized language development for social competence. For ages 3 through 5, as the cohorts approached public school entry, classroom experiences were increasingly structured towards the development of pre-academic skills and “socio-linguistic and communicative competence.” FPGC offered a summer program before the start of kindergarten designed to target specific skills to ensure success in a kindergarten classroom (e.g., lining up when exiting the classroom). This program was available to subjects in both the center-based childcare and family education group and the family education group. ABC’s and CARE’s learning programs were influenced by key developmental theorists. All four ABC cohorts and two CARE cohorts participated in curriculum developers Sparling and Lewis’ “LearningGames for the First Three Years.” The “LearningGames” approach was implemented daily by infant and toddler caregivers in 1:1 child-adult interactions. Each “LearningGames” activity has a developmentally-appropriate objective, the necessary materials, directions for teacher behavior, and expected child outcome. The activities were designed for use both indoors and outdoors, while dressing, eating, bathing, or during play. ABC and CARE provided comprehensive on-site medical care because it was conducted in conjunction with a longitudinal medical research study on infectious respiratory diseases in group environments. Intervention group children were monitored daily for signs of illness. All treated children received medical care while attending center-based childcare.
Most students in the comparison group enrolled in alternative center-based care and alternative regulated, federally-subsidized preschool. In ABC, the families of 75% of the comparison-group subjects enrolled their children in alternative center-based childcare. In CARE, 74% of families in the comparison group and enrolled their children in alternative center-based childcare.
All classroom staff participated in extensive training and were closely observed by FPGC’s academic staff, as part of a broad variety of ongoing clinical and social research related to early childhood education, psychology, and health. All classroom staff were supervised daily, received weekly mentoring, and professional development from outside consultants.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube