No abstract

No abstract

Previous research has demonstrated that attending center care is associated with cognitive benefits for young children. However, little is known about the ideal age for children to enter such care or the "right" amount of time, both weekly and yearly, for children to attend center programs. Using national data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS-K), this paper asks whether there are optimal levels of center care duration and intensity and whether these levels vary by race or income. We consider pre-reading and math skills as measured by assessments administered at the beginning of kindergarten, as well as teacher-reported social-behavioral measures. We find that on average attending center care is associated with positive gains in pre-reading and math skills, but negative social behavior. Across economic levels, children who start center care between ages two and three see greater gains than those who start centers earlier or later. Further, starting earlier than age 2 is related to more pronounced negative social effects. Results for center intensity vary by income levels and race. For instance, poor and middle-income children see academic gains from attending center intensively (more than 30 hours a week), but wealthier children do not; and while intense center negatively impacts Black and White's social development, it does not have any negative impact for Hispanic children.

No abstract

The Williams vs the State of California class action suit on behalf of poor children in that state argues that California provides a fundamentally inequitable education to students based on wealth and language status. This article, an earlier version of which was prepared as background to that case, reviews the conditions of schooling for English learners in the state with the largest population of such students, totaling nearly 1.6 million in 2003, and comprising about 40 percent of nation’s English learners. We argue, with evidence, that there are seven aspects of the schooling of English language learners where students receive an education that is demonstrably inferior to that of English speakers. For example, these students are assigned to less qualified teachers, are provided with inferior curriculum and less time to cover it, are housed in inferior facilities where they are often segregated from English speaking peers, and are assessed by invalid instruments that provide little, if any, information about their actual achievement. We end with suggestions for ways in which teachers, administrators, and policymakers can begin to address these inequities, even while legal remedies may remain in the distant future.