1

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

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 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.

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

Data: PISA 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

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

Descriptive statistics 8 PSEC participation before universalisation ESCS groupsUKSweden Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Total PSEC participation after universalisation Universal PSECUKSweden Before universalisation Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group 10100

Regression results. 9 UKSweden Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 1Model 2Model 3 PSEC (0.000) ESCS (0.000) ESCS*PSEC (0.046)(0.153)(0.307)(0.577) Male (0.000)(0.080)(0.000) Non-native (0.712)(0.104)(0.000) Grade (0.000) Enjoyment of reading (0.000)..... Constant (0.000) (0.856)(0.000) M N

Predicted performance scores for the UK. 10 ESCS groups0 %10 %20 %30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 % 100 % Chang e Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group UK average Coef of variation

Predicted performance scores for Sweden. 11 ESCS groups0 %10 %20 %30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 %100 % Chang e Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group average Coef of variation

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.

Educational inequalities: coefficient of variation. 13

Is PSEC a universal policy instrument. 14 Australia Canada DenmarkGermany Finland Norway Spain Italy Japan PSEC regression coef Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group Group

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 Thank you for your attention Institute of Education University of London 20 Bedford Way London WC1H 0AL Tel +44 (0) Fax +44 (0) Web LLAKES is an ESRC Funded Research Centre. Tarek MOSTAFA