Wisc Longtudial study Chicago pub. Schools Child Parent Cntrs (CPC[1] 08_08.pdf

7/30/2019 Wisc Longtudial study Chicago pub. Schools Child Parent Cntrs (CPC[1] 08_08.pdf

1/16

1

Issue 1

The Chicago Longitudinal Study (CLS) investigatesthe educational and social development of 1,539 low-income children (93% of whom are African American)who grew up in high-poverty neighborhoods inChicago. Born in 1980, they graduated fromkindergarten programs in the Chicago Public Schools

in 1986.The original sample included all 1,150 children whoattended or received services from 20 Child-ParentCenters in preschool in 1983-85 and/or kindergarten in1985-1986. The remaining 389 children of the sameage participated in an alternative full-day kindergartenprogram in 5 Chicago public schools in similarneighborhoods.

Followed since kindergarten, most youth completedtheir senior year of high school in the spring of 1998 or1999. Currently, study participants are 20 years of age.Extensive tracking is being undertaken to determinehow many went on to higher education, how many areemployed, how many returned to get their GED, as

well as other areas of well-being. Future datacollection in this on-going 15-year study isplanned when these young adults are age 22.

The CLS is guided by four major goals:

1. To document patterns of school and socialcompetence over time.

2. To evaluate the effects of the Child-ParentCenter Program on child, youth, and familydevelopment.

3. To better understand how early childhood ex-periences affect later school performance, so-cial behavior, and career plans.

4. To investigate the contributions to childrenssuccess of personal, family, school, and com-munity factors, especially those that are alter-able.

THE CHICAGO LONGITUDINAL STUDY

Table of Contents

Chicago Longitudinal Study ........................... 1Child-Parent Center Program ........................ 3Short-Term Effects of the

CPC Program ................................................ 5Long-Term Effects of the

CPC Program ................................................ 6What Factors Promote Resilience? ................ 8Factors Contributing to

Educational Attainment............................... 10Family Influences ............................................ 12Cost-Benefit Analysis ...................................... 14Implications .................................................... 14Suggested Readings ........................................ 15Contact for More Information ....................... 16

August 2000


2/16

2

Figure 1


3/16

3

first to third grades; and four centers have providedservices in preschool and in first and second grades.Since 1977, the primary-grade portion of the program(also called the Expansion program) has been funded

by Chapter I through the State of Illinois Departmentof Education. Eighteen centers are in separatebuildings proximate to the elementary school and 6 arein wings of the parent elementary school.

The major rationale of the program is that thefoundation for school success is facilitated by thepresence of a stable and enriched learningenvironment during the entire early childhood period

The Child-Parent Center (CPC) Program is acenter-based early intervention that providescomprehensive educational and family-supportservices to low-income children and their parents

from preschool to early elementary school (fromages 3 to 9). The program was founded by Dr.Lorraine Sullivan, the Superintendent of District 8 inthe Chicago Public Schools, in response to the edu-cational needs of families in the district. Fundingcame from the landmark Elementary and SecondaryEducation Act of 1965.

The CPC program opened in May 1967 in foursites on Chicagos west side. They were namedCole, Dickens, Hansberry, and Olive Child-ParentEducation Centers. The residential population in the

East Garfield Park, West Garfield Park, and NorthLawndale community areas surrounding the centerswas nearly 100% African American; 30% of the resi-dents had incomes below the federal poverty level.The program is the second oldest (after Head Start)federally-funded preschool program in the U. S. andthe oldest extended early childhood program.

Currently, the CPC program operates in 24 centersthroughout the Chicago Public Schools (see Figure 1on page 2). Twenty centers have offered services inpreschool and kindergarten plus first to second or

Sample Characteristics

Number of children 1,539

CPC preschool and kinder-garten participation

989

No CPC preschool butfull-day kindergarten

550

Percent in CPC preschool 64.3

Percent in CPC primary-gradecomponent

55.2

Percent African American 92.9

Percent girls 50.0

Percent eligible for federallunch program

92.4

Percent from high-povertyneighborhoods (60% or more inlow-income families)

76.1

Percent in Chicago 6 years ormore by age 14

82.5

Percent of parents who com-pleted high school

64.0

Table 1

Characteristics of the CLS Sample

Mean age at kindergarten entryin months (fall 1985)

63.1

CHILD-PARENT CENTER PROGRAM


4/16

4

CHILD-PARENT CENTERPreschool/Kindergarten

(Wing or Building)

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Grades 1 to 3

Curriculum Parent-Resources TeacherHead Teacher

Outreach

Services

Parent

Component

Curriculum

Component

Health

Services

Parent

Component

Curriculum

Component

School-Wide

Services

School-CommunityRepresentative

Resource MobilizationHome VisitationParent Conferences

Parent Resource TeacherParent Room ActivitiesClassroom VolunteeringSchool ActivitiesHome Support

Language FocusSmall Class Sizes

Inservice Training

Health ScreeningNursing ServicesFree + Reduced-Price meals

Parent Room ActivitiesClassroom VolunteeringSchool ActivitiesHome Support

Reduced Class SizeTeacher AidesInstructional Materials

Individualized instructionInservices

Health ServicesSchool-CommunityRepresentative

Free + Reduced-Price meals

Resource Mobilization

Age 3 To Age 9

Principal

(ages 3 to 9) and when parents are activeparticipants in their children's education.

The centers provide comprehensive services,require parents to participate, and implement child-centered approaches to literacy, social, andcognitive development. Children participate for ahalf-day in preschool, full-day or half-day in kinder-garten, and full-day in first and second grade or firstto third grade in the elementary school. There is nouniform curriculum but classroom activities aredesigned to promote basic language and reading

skills as well as social and psychologicaldevelopment. An instructional guide called the Chi-cago EARLY has suggested learning activities.Field trips are common.

Ratios of children to teachers and aides are 17 to2 in preschool and 25 to 2 in kindergarten and theprimary grades. In the primary grades, at least 50%of the children in each classroom are from theCPCs. The CPCs typically require at least a half-

day a week of parent involvement, including avariety of activities from classroom involvement toenrollment in adult education classes. A separateparent resource room is staffed by a parent resourceteacher and each CPC has a school-communityrepresentative.

Figure 2 shows the organization of the Child-Parent Center program. Each center is directed by ahead teacher who is responsible for all aspects ofprogram delivery. The program is implemented ina separate building in close proximity to the feeder

elementary school or in a wing of the elementaryschool. The head teacher coordinates the programin the center and reports directly to the principal ofthe feeder elementary school.

In addition to the parent resource teacher, theschool-community representative conducts outreachactivities in the neighborhood, helps to enroll chil-dren most in need, and makes home visits.

Figure 2

Child-Parent Center Program


5/16

5

In analyses that compared childrenwho participated in the CPC preschoolprogram (either 1 or 2 years) with acomparison group of children who didnot, we found that children who attendedpreschool significantly outperformedthose in the comparison group.Specifically, preschool had the largesteffect on cognitive readiness at schoolentry, with children gainingapproximately 3 months performance.In addition, preschool participants wereretained less often and had lower ratesof special education placement throughage 13.

By the end of grade 3, only 7.1% ofthe preschool group received specialeducation services compared to 11.5%of the no preschool group.

When examining later effects,meaningful differences were found inreading and math achievement in grades4 - 6, with the children attendingpreschool scoring significantly better.Parents of the preschool group alsoremained more involved in theirchildrens schooling through the 6th

grade. Again, the largest effects were inreduced grade retention and specialeducation placement through grade 6 for

ITBS = Iowa Test of Basic Skills; All values take into account sex of child, risk status, and program sites

children who attended preschool.When examining the effects of extended participation (4-6

years of intervention) versus less extended intervention (2-3years or preschool plus kindergarten only), our results indicatethat 15.3% of children who had extended intervention wereretained in grade compared to 30.1% in the less extended group.

For special education placement, 10.0% of children whoreceived extended intervention compared to 15.7% of children

in the less extended intervention group received specialservices. These results are based on the children at the end of6th grade.

SHORT-TERM EFFECTS OF THE CPC PROGRAM :FINDINGS FROM AGE 513

Table 2

Extensive Participation in the CPC Programand School Achievement

Extended 4-6 Years Not Extended

GradeEquivalent

NationalPercentile

GradeEquivalent

NationaPercenti

Age 9 - ReadingAchievement

3.4 38 2.9 24

Age 9 - Math Total 3.6 43 3.2 26

Age 13 - ReadingAchievement

6.9 34 6.5 24

7.0 32 6.4 19Age 13 - Math Total

Table 3

Preschool Participation in the CPC Program and School Achievement

School PerformanceCPC Preschool Participation Comparison Group

(Full-day kindergarten)

Grade Equivalent National Percentile Grade Equivalent National Percentile

Age 5 Kindergarten ReadinessITBS Basic Composite

K.2 47 P.9 28

End of KindergartenITBS Word Analysis

1.1 63 K.8 48

K.8 50 K.5 35End of KindergartenITBS Math Achievement


6/16

6

Grade Retention by Age 14

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 2 3 4 5 6

Years of CPC Intervention

Percentag

eofSample

National Average

Chicago Longitudinal Study

group to be retained during the elementarygrades. Preschool participants had a 31% lowerrate of grade retention (24% vs. 35%; see Figure4 below).

Q: Were adolescents who participated in theCPC program less likely to be placed in specialeducation?

Yes. By age 15, 16% of preschool partici-pants received special education services com-

pared with 21.3% of the comparison group.Only 12% of children with extended programparticipation received special education services.These differences increased over time. By age18, program participants spent, on average, .5 to1.0 fewer years in special education than thecomparison group.

Q: Was the duration of participationassociated with educational success?

Yes. Years of program participation was

significantly associated with all outcomemeasures at ages 14 and 15 in the expecteddirection. School performance increasednoticeably after 4 years of intervention. Five orsix years of participation yielded the bestperformance, and the six-year group was abovethe Chicago public school average in readingachievement. Most impressively, the cumulative

These findings examined whether the CPCprogram from preschool to the early gradescontinued to have an impact on academicachievement and development at ages 14 to 20.

Q: Did youth who participated in the CPCprogram do better academically than those whodid not participate in the program?

Yes. Youth who participated in the CPCprogram (regardless of the amount of time) hadhigher reading and math scores at age 15 thanthe comparison group. Specifically, youth whoparticipated in the preschool program hadapproximately a 4-month gain in performance inboth reading and math achievement at age 15.

Former graduates of the CPC program alsopassed the life-skills competency test (MinimumProficiency Skills Test) at a higher rate thannon-participants (62% to 50%). This test isadministered in 8th grade and students need topass it before graduating from high school (nolonger required).

Q: Were youth who participated in the CPCprogram less likely to get retained?

Yes. By age 15 (grade 9), both CPC pre-

school participants and CPC primary-grade par-ticipants were less likely than the comparison

0 1-2

Percent Ever Retained/Fail Skills Test

24

3835

50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Grade Retention Fail Life Skills

PercentageofSample

Preschool Comparison

Figure 3

Figure 4

LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF THE CPC PROGRAM:FINDINGS FROM AGE 1420

Percent Ever Retained/Failed Skills Test


7/16

7


rate of grade retention for the five-year andsix-year groups was below the nationalaverage of 18% (See Figure 3 on page 6).Participation for 4, 5, or 6 years yieldedsignificantly higher math achievement, life

skills competence, and lower rates of graderetention and special education placementthan less extensive participation and noparticipation.

Q: Who benefits most from participation?Overall, the effects of the CPC program

appeared to benefit boys in early schoolachievement and in educational attainment.Girls appeared to benefit more than boysfrom participation in the follow-on program

in reading and math achievement.Children who attended programs in the

highest poverty neighborhoods (> 60% low-income) benefited more on school achievementand educational attainment than children who

attended programs in lower poverty neighbor-hoods. In addition, children who attendedCPCs with a relatively greater focus onteacher-directed activities had higher schoolachievement and a lower rate of grade reten-tion than children who attended centers thatprovided less structured activities. The effectsof the program did not differ by level of parenteducation or family income.

Q:Did the early intervention program re-duce delinquency?

Yes. CPC preschool participation wasassociated with lower rates of official juvenilearrests as measured by petitions to the juvenilecourt (see Figure 6 above). Specifically, pre-school participants had a 37% lower rate(16.4% vs. 25.9%) of juvenile arrest by age 18than the comparison group. Furthermore, this

pattern of lower delinquency continued to favorthe preschool group when examined over thenumber of arrests, for example, 2 or more ar-rests, 3 or more arrests, etc.

Consumer Skills by Years of CPC

Participation

28

38

48

58

1 2 3 4 5 6

Years of CPC Participation

Num

berofItemsAnswered

Correctly

0 1-2

Figure 5

Juvenile Arrests for Preschool Groups by Age 18

25.9

14.6

16.4

8.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 or More Arrests 2 or More Arrests

PercentageofSample

Comparison Preschool

Juvenile Arrests for Preschool Groups by Age 18

Figure 6

Passing Score


8/16

8


Approximately half of the respondents detailedstruggles that they had to overcome. Having theability to overcome adversity was a common theme inthe students essays.

I would want to show all the good things and badthings that happened in my life. I want people to seethe tragedy that accrued so they would know my life

wasn't just fun and games. I want them to see all thestumbling blocks I hurdled over and all thetemptations I was almost tempted to do. To show thatthe things that you go through in life are just obstaclesand they cant hold you back.

Individual Factors - Approximately 48% of therespondents reported having an optimistic outlook onlife. About 56% had either vague or explicitaspirations for the future and 33% were motivated toachieve these aspirations. Family members,especially mothers, school teachers, and personaloutlook or attitude were important influences thatshaped the self perceptions, optimism and future

expectations of youth. Many of the essaysemphasized the need for endurance, perseverance anddetermination. When youth face a lot of risk, the roleof personal optimism is valuable.

Life is a wonderful gift and you should make thebest out of life. Always finish what you start andnever leave anything unfinished. If you really want toyou will receive. All you have to do is just try hard.

Never let any one tell you what you cant do. If youdont believe in yourself who will? Basically just goout and give it all you got.

Family Factors - 87% of youth described positiverelationships to their families. Youth reporting closeties to their families tended to mention fewerenvironmental risks such as gangs, drugs, anddropping out of high school in their surroundings.This decrease in risk combined with closerelationships with family demonstrates the importanceof family as a protective factor.

With barriers to successful adolescent adjustment mounting, it isimportant to understand how children overcome adversities andwhat resources they may use to help them remain optimistic abouttheir future.

Previous research has shown that there are certain factors thathelp kids cope with the risks and stressful life events they face.These are called protective factors. Some of these includeindividual factors such as good problem solving skills, intellectualskills, social competence, a sense of humor and the belief that youhave some control over your life.

Family factors have also been shown to be protective. In fact,social relationships are one of the best indicators of childrens

behavior. Having a good relationship that consists of someone whois warm and caring and not overly critical has been shown to have asubstantial protective effect and contributes to resiliency amongchildren.

The school environment can also be a protective factor. Favorite

teachers were among the most frequently cited positive role modelsin the lives of children. Successful school environments include anacademic focus, clear expectations and regulations, a high level ofstudent participation, caring personnel and an array of resources forstudents to choose from. Finally, community, friends, and

neighborhoods can be protective factors. Communities withresources, friends who are dependable and trustworthy andneighborhoods that have strong networks of support can help serveas protective factors.

The Chicago Longitudinal Study interviewed a subsample of 95students when they were in the 10th grade about their social andacademic experiences. Adolescents were asked what success meantto them and who had influenced them most in their life. They alsowrote an essay that asked them to picture themselves in a movieabout their life. They were asked to write about what this moviewould look like: what were some of the important events and

persons they would include, what was important to them, how theygot to where they are today, and where their life is heading in thefuture. The quotes that follow come from these interviews andessays.

The movie about my li fe would be about how a

family that has little but a lot of love and would do

anything to make the other succeed. The theme of the

movie would be I dont want you to end up like me but

better than me. F ranklin D. Roosevelt said Theres

nothing to fear but fear itself. I live by those words. I

dont let any thing get me down...M y movie would show

that every family has problems and eventual ly it would

work out. M aybe its not what you wanted but if you try

hard, it would be O.K .

In 10th grade, students were asked:Q: If you attended a Child-Parent Center, what do

you remember most about it?

Top 10 Responses1 Fun

2 Teacher3 Friends / kids4 Playing5 Trips6 ABCs7 Learning / educational8 Work / taking tests9 Arts & Crafts10 Coloring / Painting

WHAT FACTORS PROMOTE RESILIENCE?


9/16

9


In this movie about my life I would first have myparents. If it wasnt for their overprotectiveness I might notbe where I am. They love me and have always taught me todo right. I know a lot of kids who dont have that and arenow in gangs and always in the streets. I would also includemy siblings, close relatives and friends for all their support.

Another student wrote:

My uncles and my mother are the people who influencedmy life the most. They are the ones who were on meeveryday to make something of myself and to be the best atit.

Youth who reported having a positive relationship withtheir mother also reported positive experiences in school andnoted the importance of school to their later success. Theimportance of the parenting role is clearly an importantfactor in fostering the students academic awareness anddrive for achievement.

My mother got me where I am today...and to get whereFriends and Neighborhood - The role of

friends was mixed in this sample. For some,

friends were very supportive and stayed with youthrough thick and thin. For others, friends oftenwerent there when you needed them and, evenworse, could lead you off track into dangerousareas of risk that adolescents were working hard toavoid.

My friends, they are my friends through thickand thin. They stuck by me when I was down andout, so they are like a part of my family.

I really dont have a lot to say about my friends.Because friends are not always friends, they areyour friends only when they need you, but whenyou need them, they are never there. Its hard toknow who is a real friend these days.

These findings highlight the critical role familymembers, teachers, schools, friends, neighborhoodsand community support structures play in fosteringyouth development.

I think that my life story would be a success story. Abouthow children can make it out of poverty and make something ofthemselves in the real world. It would inspire other children to workhard and be all they can be. And it would help adults recognize howmuch guidance their children need from them even though we dont actlike it. The movie would have a lot of the bad things Ive gone through

but it would also have my family and friends and what they helped mego through it all. Then it would also have my accomplishments despiteall the tragedies in my life. The movie would have me go back to myneighborhood and school and try to help the people and children there

by giving them a good influence and someone to look up to (Like whenI was young my only influence was my mom but you need more than

just your disappointments to make you make something of yourself).I think that the movie should have me going through my

tragedies, disappointments and heart breaks. But through it all, itwould have my family and friends help me to keep on my steady trackand see that getting an education is important for the future and todecide what you are going to be.

Im going, I will need my mothers help to keep telling me whats goodand bad about life and dont let my friends talk me into doing things Idont want to do, and dont have any kids while Im in school.

School Factors - The majority of future goals or expectationsentailed continued education. Many adolescents anticipated graduating

from high school, going to college, graduate or even medical or lawschool. Education was clearly seen as a major route out ofimpoverished environments. Two consistent themes emergedconcerning school environment: 1. the power of teachers in providingmentoring, role modeling and overall social support, and 2. certainschool events or experiences that provided students with a feeling ofaccomplishment. I also owe a lot to my teachers. Without them

probably I wouldnt be here. Especially...my freshman Algebra teacher.Even though I dont have him for a teacher this year he still helps me.He is always letting me know how important it is to go to college now-days. Because without a degree my hands I cant go anywhere in life.

Figure 7

How Far in School Do You Think You Will Get?

Age 16

25.9%

36.2%

25.1%

11.1%Graduate School

Finish College

Some College

Finish High School

Some High School (2.0%)


10/16

10


age 20. Relative to the comparison group,preschool participants had a 26% higherrate of high school completion. Boys

benefited more than girls. As shown inFigure 8, boys in the preschool programhad a 41% higher rate of high school com-pletion than boys in the comparison group.

Participation in the extendedintervention to second or third grade wasassociated with higher school achievementand competence. Finally, those childrenwho attended the CPCs for 5 or 6 yearsshowed the highest levels of educationalattainment.

Grade Retention (Repetition)No matter when it occurred, grade

retention was associated with higher ratesof school dropout and with lower rates ofschool completion. After matching onprior school performance, students whowere retained in the elementary grades (Kto grade 8) had a 30% higher rate ofschool dropout than promoted students(59.6% vs. 45.8%) and a 33% lower rateof high school completion than theirpromoted age peers (33.6% vs. 50.4%).(See Figure 9 on page 11).

Children who were retained in firstgrade and who then participated for twoyears in the CPC follow-on program thatincluded reduced class sizes, extrainstructional services and parentinvolvement activities, did not show betterachievement than retained children whodid not participate in the program afterbeing retained. Thus, retention plus

remediation did not enhance childrenseducational success.

School and NeighborhoodCharacteristics

Both school characteristics andneighborhood attributes contributesignificant information to childrens

Graduating from high school is one of the most importantmilestones of adolescence because a diploma or itsequivalent is required for almost all career endeavors.

Failure to complete high school has significant costs to bothsociety and youth. For example, it is estimated that theannual cost to society of school dropout is $250 billiondollars on lost earnings and forgone tax revenues. Youthwho fail to complete high school are more likely to beunemployed, experience health difficulties, and be involvedin the criminal justice system.

Given that the highest rates of school dropout are in largeurban districts, exploring the factors that predict high schoolcompletion, educational attainment and school success inurban settings is important. This is especially the case sincesubstantial investments in education today are at all levelsof society. Moreover, many of the predictors of educationalattainment can be significantly influenced by program andpolicy intervention, and by families and the childrenthemselves. What follows are four alterable predictors ofeducational attainment based on findings from the ChicagoLongitudinal Study.

Participation in the Chicago Child-Parent CentersPreschool participation in the CPC program was

associated with higher rates of high school completion by

Figure 8

Proportion of Youth Completing High School

by Age 20

39.1

29.9

47.749.3

42.3

56.2

26.1

41.4

17.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total Sample Boys Girls

Percen

tageofSample

Comparison Preschool Percent Increase

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT


11/16

11

educational attainment. For example,children who attended magnetelementary schools had highereducational attainment, even after schoolachievement prior to enrollment in mag-net schools was taken into account. Alsorelated to educational attainment were

rates of school-level mobility inelementary and high school,neighborhood family income and thepresence of middle income families inthe neighborhood in high school.Attending schools with greater levels ofrace/ethnic diversity was associated withhigher levels of school completion.Finally, high school type (i.e. technical,career academy, magnet) also predictedhigher rates of high school completion.

Parent Involvement in School andChildrens Education

Parental school involvement in theelementary grades is a significantpredictor of educational attainment. Spe-cifically, the number of years in whichteachers rated parent school involvementas average or better was associated with

Educational Attainment by Age 20 for StudentsRetained or Promoted in Elementary School

59.6

33.6

45.8

50.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

School Dropout High School Completion

PercentageofSample

Retained Promoted

Figure 9

higher rates of high school completion and with lowerrates of school dropout. In addition, teachers ratings ofparent involvement also influenced retention and specialeducation placement (see Figure 10).

Educational A ttainment

by A ge 20

(n = 1261)

A ttend College or

V ocational School 23%

H igh School

Completion 28%

Some H igh School

(Gr ades 9-11) 33.5%

M iddle School

(Gr ades 7-8) 15.5%

Figure 10

Special Education Placement and Grade Retention in

Elementary School by Number of Years of Average or Better

Parent Involvement

24

18

13 1210

15

8

50

37

24

21

15 14

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Number of years of Average or Better Parent Involvement

Percen

tageofSample

Special Education Placement Grades K-8 Grade Retention Grades K-8


12/16

12

Table 4

Percent of Parent-Child Interactions that OccurMore Than Once a Week or Often

Interaction Percent

Help with homework 85

Discuss school progress 79

Cooking 52

Reading 44

Limit TV time 41

Talk to teacher 40

Participate in school activities 14

Go to museum or zoo 22

Go on trips to other cities 16

7Help in classroom

M ost frequently attended

colleges and uni versit ies

Top 12 schools:

1 H arold Washington College

2 N orthern I llinois U niversity

2 Southern I llinois U niversity

2 M alcolm X College

5 U niversity of I llinois at

Champaign

5 Robert M orr is College

5 Olive H arvey College

8 Chicago State U niversity

9 D aley College

10 K ennedy K ing

11 U niversity of I llinois at

Chicago

11 East - West College

Parents had very positive attitudestoward school and their childs educa-tion. When their children were age 12,over 95% reported that school was im-portant to get a good job, that they liked

helping their children with homework,and that they expected their child to gofar in school. Ninety-two percent saidthat they liked going to their childsschool.

Parents also reported several types ofinteractions with their children. For ex-ample, 85% of parents helped their chil-dren with homework and 79% dis-cussed school progress more than oncea week, or often (see Table 4). Less

common were parents helping in theclassroom.Parent involvement in and attitudes

towards school were more associatedwith reading and math achievement andcompetence ratings in 6th grade thanparent-child interactions in the home.Specifically, whether parents liked go-ing to their childs school, their satis-

FAMILY INFLUENCES

faction with school and whether their childs school did agood job informing them of school events were all positivelyrelated to competence.Surprisingly, parent-childinteractions such aswhether parents read totheir child and help withtheir homework were notassociated with school

achievement or compe-tence. Finally, parentscommunity involvementand the frequency of read-ing the newspaper werepositively associatedwith their chil-drens achieve-ment. This in-dicates thatparents time-

use reflects ontheir childsschool adjust-ment andachievement.

Parent satisfaction with the

CPC Program

V ery Satisfied 86.3 %

Somewhat Satisfied 12.0 %

Somewhat D issatisfi ed 1.1 %V ery D issatisfied .5 %

Grade Students Gave Their High School (12th Grade)

8.2%

48.1%

35.6%

8.2%

D or F

C

B

A

Figure 11


13/16

13

What prevented involvement i n

high school?

Personal P roblems 25.6%

N eeded to get a J ob 23.1%

F amily Problems 15.0%

F eeling U ncomfortable

at School 12.5%

H ealth Problems 11.7%

Taking Car e of Own

Child, Br other , Sister ,

or Relati ve 7.7%

Lack of Tr ansportati on 7.3%

F amily not Supportive 5.1%

Safety P roblems 4.8%

There are several reasons that ex-plain how the CPC program influ-enced childrens later school success.Three of these are shown in Figure11. The thicker the line, the greater

the influence of the respective path-

way. The cognitive-scholastic advantage hypothesis in-dicates that the positive effects of preschool on schoolsuccess come about because children begin school readyto learn, which leads to a positive cycle of performanceand commitment that persists over time. We have strong

evidence in the study supporting this early educationaladvantage.

The family support hypothesis indicates that the effectsof early childhood intervention on long-term success is aconsequence of improved family functioning. In ourstudy, childrens program participation is associated withgreater levels of parent involvement, which leads togreater school and social competence.

Finally, the school support hypothesis has been con-firmed in the study. This hypothesis indicates that thequality of the post-program school environment is crucial

to maintaining the longer-term effects of early interven-tion. Our research has shown that one of the reasons theeffects of early childhood intervention persists over timeis that children are more likely to attend high qualityschools and are less likely to move, thus maintaining thebeneficial effects gained in the program.

Early Childhood

Intervention

Cognitive-Scholastic

Advantage

School

Support

Family

Support

School

Success

Figure 12How Early Intervention Influences Childrens School Success


14/16

14


The benefits of CPC preschoolparticipation in reducing laterremediation and in increasing earningscapacity exceed program costs by asubstantial amount. For every dollarinvested in the preschool program,$4.71 is saved by society at large inreduced costs of remedial educationand justice system expenditures, andin increased earning capacity and taxrevenues. Benefits to society relativeto costs were even larger for one yearof preschool ($7.93) and for boys($6.36). Extended programparticipation for 4 to 6 years (relativeto less extensive participation) andfollow-on participation (relative to noparticipation) more than paid forthemselves, returning from $1.25-1.32for every dollar invested.

-6933

5798

841

11784

3300

6085

4859

-12000 -7000 -2000 3000 8000 13000

Net Present Value in 1998 Dollars

Benefit/Cost Ratio = 4.71

$32667/$6933

Program

Special education

Grade retention

Lifetime earnings

Taxes on earnings

Justice system

Crime victims

Benefits and Costs of CPC Preschool Participation per

Participant

Program Costs Program Benefits

1 Invest greater levels of resources in early childhood programs (e.g., theChild-Parent Centers) beginning in preschool and continuing through theearly primary grades. Returns to schools and society of theseinvestments can far exceed costs.

2 Support early educational programs that provide comprehensive servicesto children and families. Such programs have a great chance to impacteducational and social outcomes.

3 Provide greater opportunities for parental involvement in childrenseducation during the earliest years of school. Parental involvement inschool has long-term benefits.

4 Reexamine the school practice of grade retention as a major element ofschool reform to reduce its impact on school dropout.

5 Determine through systematic investigations why students who areretained are more likely than other similar students to drop out of school.

6 Promote school-community collaborations to encourage greater levels ofschool stability and greater resource investments in the mosteconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods.

The Findings in the Chicago Longitudinal Study support the followingimplications for enhancing childrens educational success

Figure 13COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS


15/16

15

Suggested Readings:

Reynolds, A. J. (2000). Success in early intervention:

The Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln: University

of Nebraska Press.

Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Special Issue: Schooling and

high-risk populations: The Chicago Longitudinal Study.

Journal of School Psychology, 37(4).

Reynolds, A. J., Miedel, W. T., & Mann, E. A. (2000).

Innovation in early intervention for children in families

with low incomesLessons from the Chicago Child-

Parent Centers. Young Children, 55(2), 84-88.

Smokowski, P. R., Reynolds, A. J., & Bezruczko, N.

(1999). Resilience and protective factors in adolescence:

An autobiographical perspective from disadvantaged

youth. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 425-448.

Sullivan, L. S. (1971). Let us not underestimate the

children. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Temple, J. A., Reynolds, A. J., & Miedel, W. T. (2000).

Can early intervention prevent high school dropout? Evi-

dence from the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Urban Edu-

cation, 35(1), 31-56.

A conversation with Grandma Jackie

Jacqueline Slater is a great-grandmother and the matriarch of three generations of Child Parent Center (CPC) students. Shewas involved with the Chicago Child Parent Centers at its inception and prior to the opening of the first CPCs, Jacqueline wasinvolved as a volunteer in the public elementary schools. She began volunteering with other parents in the neighborhood. Sheinvolved herself with the schools, the focal point of her community, not only to be close to her children, but to be an activevoice for all children. Once she began to get involved with the CPC, she was hooked. She interpreted her role as a volunteer inthe school as more than just a job.

Being a volunteer was more than a job. It was a community job. I knew the kids. I knew their parents. I was a lawyer, a

doctor, a counselor. Everybody knew me . . . I worked as a volunteer at Cole and then at Miller. I worked there from 1960 to1988. I liked the Centers and so I decided to put all my children there . . . I had eleven children and nine of them went to theMiller CPC. One child died before he was old enough and one child lived with my Aunt, but all the rest--they went to the CPC.And then my grandchildren enrolled in Miller and now my great grandchildren are there. Three generations.

The CPC is a family affair in the Slater family. While Jacqueline admits to family challenges, she credits much of herchildrens successes on the family centered atmosphere of the CPC. Jacqueline speaks candidly about her family and the manyhardships they endured. She speaks of the drugs and the loss of self-determination, which she attributes to one of her daughters,whose involvement with drugs cost her a grandchild, who died in a house fire in 1982. While the painful memories andcontinuing challenges still haunt the Slater family, Jacqueline does not forget about the successes.

All my grandchildren were advanced [academically] in school because of the CPC. They got a head start . . . What I likeabout the CPC is the way that they teach children how to learn.

Jacqueline states her role as an active parent was fostered by the CPC. She describes many activities that were taught toparents which encouraged reading and communication not only in school, but at home. Jacqueline proudly discusses her skills

as a parent and as an educator. She explains fun techniques for cutting out letters of the alphabet and methods of encouragingyoung children to read.

Jacqueline Slaters involvement in the Child-Parent-Centers lasted more than two decades. Within those years shevolunteered in multiple capacities, picking up new skills and disseminating personal strategies which would be molded togetherfor one purpose, to better the lives of children and their families in the Chicago Public Schools.

UNITY

I dreamed I stood in a studioAnd watched two sculptors there;The clay they used was a young child's mind

And they fashioned it with care.One was a teacher; the tools he usedWere books, music and art;One was a parent, who worked with a guiding handAnd a gentle loving heart.Day after day the teacher toiled,With touch that was deft and sure,While the parent labored by his sideAnd polished and smoothed it o'er.And when at last the task was done,They were proud of the work they had wroughtFor the things they had moulded into the childCould neither be sold nor bought.And each agreed they would have failedIf he had worked alone.For behind the teacher stood the schoolAnd behind the parent, the home.(By Cleo Victoria Swarat)


16/16

16

Waisman CenterUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison1500 Highland Avenue Room 429Madison, WI 53705-2280

For more information:

Chicago Longitudinal StudyArthur Reynolds, DirectorWaisman Center

University of Wisconsin-Madison1500 Highland Avenue Room 429Madison, WI 53705-2280Phone: (608) 263-5498Fax: (608) 263-0529E-mail: [email protected]

Web site address:www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/

Chicago Public SchoolsDepartment of Early Childhood Programs

125 S. Clark Street, 9th FloorChicago, IL 60603(773) 553-2010

Documents

Wisc Longtudial study Chicago pub. Schools Child Parent Cntrs (CPC[1] 08_08.pdf