Distribution of High-Quality Pre-K

• In Event: Segregation in New York City Schools and Ongoing Challenges to the American Schooling Dream

Abstract

The 2014-2015 school year marked the first year of Mayor de Blasio’s signature Pre-K for All initiative, as enrollment in full-day pre-kindergarten increased from roughly 19,500 in 2013-2014 up to more than 52,400 in 2014-2015. Pre-k was provided by the Department of Education (DOE) or by new or existing community-based organizations (CBOs). While the Universal Pre-Kindergarten (UPK) initiative focused mostly on increasing quantity, some critics worried about the quality of those programs (Fuller et al 2014). The academic benefits of high-quality pre-kindergarten, especially for low-income students, have been well-documented by researchers (Heckman et al., 2010; Reynolds et al., 2011). This study looks at the quality of UPK programs in New York City, and the availability of programs by provider and income level of the community where programs are located.
This study relies on quality ratings for the full-day pre-k programs (DOE or CBO) participating in the UPK initiative in 2014-2015. Pre-k ratings are based on the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale – Revised (ECERS-R). Ratings are observation-based and are intended to measure what children experience in their programs which ultimately affects their learning and development; they do not, however, assess individual student performance. We categorized programs as low, medium, or high (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 2000). We explore if ratings of DOE UPK programs differed from ratings of CBO UPK programs.
This study also examines how ratings vary based on the income level of the communities in which they are located, and whether there are differences based on provider. Locations of pre-k programs were obtained from NYC Open Data, and were matched by census tract to the 2014 5-year U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey to look at median household income. Census tracts were divided into quintiles by median household income.
Preliminary analysis indicates that while the vast majority of pre-k programs were rated as medium quality, a larger share of pre-k programs run by the DOE was rated as low quality (25%) compared with CBO-run pre-k programs (7%). Most of the pre-k programs in 2014-2015 were located in the lowest-income communities (35%), which was true for DOE and CBO pre-k programs. However, programs located in communities in the bottom three income quintiles were more likely to be rated low versus high, while programs located in communities in the top two income quintiles were more or equally as likely to be rated high. The disparity in quality by community income was greater among DOE pre-k programs than it was for CBO pre-k programs.
This study shows that Pre-K for All does provide more options in low-income communities, however the quality of programs in low-income communities are significantly different than those offered in high-income communities. Furthermore, the disparity between high and low-rated programs is greatest for DOE programs compared with CBOs. Since research has shown that pre-k is most effective for students from low-income communities, it is critical to maximize the impact of pre-k initiatives by providing high quality pre-k in low-income communities.

Author

• Sarita Subramanian, New York City Independent Budget Office