1. 1

2. Measuring the Impact of Universal Preschool Education and Care on Literacy Performance Scores. Tarek Mostafa Institute of Education – University of London

3. 3 Why preschool education and care (PSEC)? Motivation: 1- Inequalities in educational attainments and cognitive development start at a very young age (half of the inequalities are there by the age of 12, Clegg et al, 2010). 2- “If the race is half run before the child begins school, then we clearly need to examine what happens in the early years” Esping-Andersen (2009). 2- Influencing PSEC participation will affect such inequalities. 3- The coalition government in the UK will provide up to 260,000 PSEC places for two year-olds from disadvantaged background.

4. 4 1- What are the returns to PSEC, and do these returns vary according to economic, social and cultural status? 2- Does PSEC universalisation contribute to equalizing educational outcomes within a country at the age of 15? 3- When PSEC is progressively universalized starting with the lowest social groups, what are the average gains in terms of educational outcomes that each group can benefit from? 4- Does PSEC universalisation increase the average educational outcomes of a country and enhance its international ranking? 5- Can the universalisation of PSEC be used as a policy instrument for boosting educational performances and reducing inequalities in all countries or is it country specific? Objectives: simulate the effects of universal PSEC.

5. Research in the UK and the US suggest that PSEC improves children’s cognitive abilities (Waldfagol 2004). OECD study (2010): in most countries PSEC participation is associated with higher literacy scores at the age of 15. Esping-Andersen (2009) speculates that universal PSEC participation contributes to the equalization of inequalities because it compensate unequal cultural capital. Esping Andersen (2009): Declines in inequalities in the Nordic countries coincided with rises in PSEC attendance. 5 Literature

6. Data: PISA 2009. Countries: UK and Sweden. Variables of interest: Dependent variable (literacy performance scores), independent variables (PSEC participation and ESCS). Models: 1.Model 1: Literacy performance scores against PSEC attendance without controls. 2.Model 2: Literacy performance scores against PSEC attendance with ESCS and PSEC*ESCS, gender and immigrant status as controls. 3.Model 3: Literacy performance scores against PSEC attendance with a full range of student and school level controls. Estimation: multilevel level model with school fixed effects and clustered robust standard errors. 6 Estimation strategy

7. Policy simulation After estimating the model we simulate the effects of making PSEC participation universal: More precisely, we progressively universalize PSEC participation starting with the lowest economic, cultural and social status (ESCS) decile and moving up to reach the top decile. At each stage of the universalisation process we compute the average predicted performance scores for each ESCS decile and for each country as well as their dispersion. This allows us to measure the change in average predicted literacy scores and the change in the level of inequality. 7

8. Descriptive statistics 8 PSEC participation before universalisation ESCS groupsUKSweden Group 154.0 Group 258.558.2 Group 361.557.7 Group 462.563.9 Group 564.464.6 Group 666.069.2 Group 767.266.7 Group 867.671.4 Group 970.868.6 Group 1072.675.5 Total64.764.9 PSEC participation after universalisation Universal PSECUKSweden Before universalisation64.764.9 Group 169.169.6 Group 273.173.8 Group 376.878.0 Group 480.381.6 Group 584.085.2 Group 687.388.3 Group 790.691.6 Group 894.094.4 Group 997.297.5 Group 10100

9. Regression results. 9 UKSweden Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3 PSEC24.98820.02919.81627.51516.89814.088 (0.000) ESCS21.04913.04333.84024.351 (0.000) ESCS*PSEC5.36613.7344-3.3423-1.7636 (0.046)(0.153)(0.307)(0.577) Male-23.172-4.2995-45.556-19.867 (0.000)(0.080)(0.000) Non-native1.7961-6.9575-34.875-33.771 (0.712)(0.104)(0.000) Grade41.46284.969 (0.000) Enjoyment of reading33.76834.364 (0.000)..... Constant445.16465.3813.491440.99459.87-259.48 (0.000) (0.856)(0.000) M482 189 N12179 4567

10. Predicted performance scores for the UK. 10 ESCS groups0 %10 %20 %30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 % 100 % Chang e Group 1436.3445.5 9.2 Group 2458.1 466.4 8.3 Group 3467.2 475.0 7.7 Group 4477.6 485.1 7.5 Group 5487.2 494.4 7.1 Group 6496.5 503.3 6.8 Group 7502.7 509.3 6.6 Group 8518.6 525.1 6.5 Group 9532.1 537.9 5.8 Group 10553.2 558.75.5 UK average494.2495.1495.9496.6497.3498.0498.7499.4500.0500.7501.37.1 Coef of variation0.1080.1060.1040.1030.102 0.101 0.102 -0.005

11. Predicted performance scores for Sweden. 11 ESCS groups0 %10 %20 %30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 %100 % Chang e Group 1430.3438.1 7.8 Group 2458.4 465.5 7.1 Group 3473.2 480.3 7.2 Group 4486.1 492.2 6.1 Group 5493.8 499.8 6.0 Group 6503.5 508.7 5.2 Group 7513.0 518.6 5.6 Group 8526.5 531.3 4.8 Group 9538.0 543.3 5.3 Group 10553.7 557.84.1 average497.4498.2498.9499.7500.3500.9501.4502.0502.4503.0503.45.9 Coef of variation0.1120.1100.1080.107 0.106 0.107 0.108-0.004

12. International rankings for the UK and Sweden. 12 CountryAverage Belgium506 Norway503 Estonia501 Switzerland501 Poland500 Iceland500 USA500 Liechtenstein499 Sweden497 Germany497 Ireland496 France496 Chinese Taipei495 Denmark495 UK494 After universalisation the UK moves 12 positions up the OECD league table. Sweden moves 7 positions up the ladder.

13. Educational inequalities: coefficient of variation. 13

14. Is PSEC a universal policy instrument. 14 Australia Canada DenmarkGermany Finland Norway Spain Italy Japan PSEC regression coef5.310.320.610.510.110.531.316.114.2 Group 10.350.330.570.510.500.720.760.790.93 Group 20.400.370.610.650.550.730.820.840.96 Group 30.450.420.660.730.570.810.830.840.95 Group 40.45 0.620.750.640.820.830.850.96 Group 50.490.470.680.770.680.860.85 0.97 Group 60.510.470.660.810.700.86 0.890.97 Group 70.550.490.700.800.690.880.860.870.99 Group 80.540.490.730.830.730.890.900.870.98 Group 90.590.570.740.860.760.890.900.870.97 Group 100.60 0.750.860.760.900.910.880.97

15. Conclusions. Our findings show : 1.All social groups benefit from universalizing PSEC with the lowest groups getting the highest benefits 2.The international ranking of both Sweden and the UK improves after the universalisation of PSEC and the UK moves 12 positions up the OECD league table and Sweden moves 7 positions. 3.We find that inequalities in test scores drop until reaching a minimum when the lower seven ESCS deciles are attending PSEC and then starts to increase again. 4.In conclusion, our findings clearly show that PSEC is an effective policy instrument that boosts educational performances while reducing inequalities in their distribution. 15

16. 16 Thank you for your attention Institute of Education University of London 20 Bedford Way London WC1H 0AL Tel +44 (0)20 7612 5115 Fax +44 (0)20 7612 6126 Email info@ioe.ac.uk Web www.ioe.ac.uk LLAKES is an ESRC Funded Research Centre. WWW.llakes.org Tarek MOSTAFA T.Mostafa@ioe.ac.uk