IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reecon/v72y2018i1p1-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of the Reggio approach to early education

Author

Listed:
  • Biroli, Pietro
  • Del Boca, Daniela
  • Heckman, James J.
  • Heckman, Lynne Pettler
  • Koh, Yu Kyung
  • Kuperman, Sylvi
  • Moktan, Sidharth
  • Pronzato, Chiara D.
  • Ziff, Anna L.

Abstract

We evaluate the Reggio Approach using non-experimental data on individuals from the cities of Reggio Emilia, Parma and Padova belonging to one of five age cohorts: ages 50, 40, 30, 18, and 6 as of 2012. The treated were exposed to municipally offered infant-toddler (ages 0–3) and preschool (ages 3–6) programs in Reggio Emilia. The control group either did not receive formal childcare or were exposed to programs offered by municipal systems (outside of Reggio Emilia), or by state or religious systems (in all three cities). We exploit the city-cohort structure of the data to estimate treatment effects using three strategies: difference-in-differences, matching, and matched-difference-in-differences. Most positive and significant effects are generated from comparisons of the treated with individuals who did not receive formal childcare. Relative to not receiving formal care, the Reggio Approach significantly boosts outcomes related to employment, socio-emotional skills, high school graduation, participation in elections, and obesity. Comparisons with individuals exposed to alternative forms of childcare do not yield strong patterns of positive and significant effects. This suggests that differences between the Reggio Approach and other alternatives are not sufficiently large to result in significant differences in outcomes. This interpretation is supported by a survey we conduct, which documents increasing similarities in the administrative and pedagogical practices of childcare systems in the three cities over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Biroli, Pietro & Del Boca, Daniela & Heckman, James J. & Heckman, Lynne Pettler & Koh, Yu Kyung & Kuperman, Sylvi & Moktan, Sidharth & Pronzato, Chiara D. & Ziff, Anna L., 2018. "Evaluation of the Reggio approach to early education," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 1-32.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:reecon:v:72:y:2018:i:1:p:1-32
    DOI: 10.1016/j.rie.2017.05.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090944317301643
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.rie.2017.05.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Patrick Kline & Christopher R. Walters, 2016. "Evaluating Public Programs with Close Substitutes: The Case of HeadStart," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 131(4), pages 1795-1848.
    2. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    3. James Heckman & Neil Hohmann & Jeffrey Smith & Michael Khoo, 2000. "Substitution and Dropout Bias in Social Experiments: A Study of an Influential Social Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(2), pages 651-694.
    4. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
    5. Joseph P. Romano & Michael Wolf, 2005. "Exact and Approximate Stepdown Methods for Multiple Hypothesis Testing," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 100, pages 94-108, March.
    6. Daniela Del Boca & Chiara Pronzato & Giuseppe Sorrenti, 2016. "When Rationing Plays a Role: Selection Criteria in the Italian Early Childcare System," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 62(4), pages 752-775.
    7. Romano, Joseph P. & Wolf, Michael, 2016. "Efficient computation of adjusted p-values for resampling-based stepdown multiple testing," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 38-40.
    8. Del Boca, Daniela & Pronzato, Chiara & Sorrenti, Giuseppe, 2016. "When rationing plays a Role," CEPR Discussion Papers 11574, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Alberto Abadie & Guido W. Imbens, 2006. "Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(1), pages 235-267, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniela Del Boca & Enrica Maria Martino & Chiara Pronzato, 2022. "Non cognitive skills and childcare attendance," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1059-1085, December.
    2. Maurizio Pugno, 2021. "The economics of eudaimonia," Chapters, in: Luigino Bruni & Alessandra Smerilli & Dalila De Rosa (ed.), A Modern Guide to the Economics of Happiness, chapter 4, pages 46-66, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Nores, Milagros & Bernal, Raquel & Barnett, W. Steven, 2019. "Center-based care for infants and toddlers: The aeioTU randomized trial," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 30-43.
    4. Raquel Bernal & Michele Giannola & Milagros Nores, 2022. "The Effect of Center-Based Early Education on Disadvantaged Children's Developmental Trajectories: Experimental Evidence from Colombia," Working Papers 2022-027, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    5. Daniela Del Boca & Enrica Maria Martino & Elena Claudia Meroni & Daniela Piazzalunga, 2019. "Early Education and Gender Differences," FBK-IRVAPP Working Papers 2019-04, Research Institute for the Evaluation of Public Policies (IRVAPP), Bruno Kessler Foundation.
    6. Jens Dietrichson & Ida Lykke Kristiansen & Bjørn A. Viinholt, 2020. "Universal Preschool Programs And Long‐Term Child Outcomes: A Systematic Review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(5), pages 1007-1043, December.
    7. Daniela Del Boca & Enrica Maria Martino & Chiara Pronzato, 2017. "Early Childcare and Child Non-Cognitive Outcomes," CHILD Working Papers Series 58 JEL Classification: J1, Centre for Household, Income, Labour and Demographic Economics (CHILD) - CCA.
    8. Elisa Failache & Noemí Katzkowicz, 2019. "Desarrollo infantil en Uruguay: una aproximación a sus determinantes (Childhood development: An approach to its determinants)," Revista Desarrollo y Sociedad, Universidad de los Andes,Facultad de Economía, CEDE, vol. 83(2), pages 55-104, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jeffrey Smith & Arthur Sweetman, 2016. "Viewpoint: Estimating the causal effects of policies and programs," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 49(3), pages 871-905, August.
    2. Jorge Luis García & James J. Heckman & Duncan Ermini Leaf & María José Prados, 2020. "Quantifying the Life-Cycle Benefits of an Influential Early-Childhood Program," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 128(7), pages 2502-2541.
    3. Peter R. Mueser & Kenneth R. Troske & Alexey Gorislavsky, 2007. "Using State Administrative Data to Measure Program Performance," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(4), pages 761-783, November.
    4. Gueorgui Kambourov & Iourii Manovskii & Miana Plesca, 2020. "Occupational mobility and the returns to training," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 174-211, February.
    5. Black, Dan A. & Joo, Joonhwi & LaLonde, Robert & Smith, Jeffrey A. & Taylor, Evan J., 2022. "Simple Tests for Selection: Learning More from Instrumental Variables," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    6. James J. Heckman, 1991. "Randomization and Social Policy Evaluation Revisited," NBER Technical Working Papers 0107, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Richard K. Crump & V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2006. "Moving the Goalposts: Addressing Limited Overlap in the Estimation of Average Treatment Effects by Changing the Estimand," NBER Technical Working Papers 0330, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. David McKenzie & John Gibson & Steven Stillman, 2010. "How Important Is Selection? Experimental vs. Non-Experimental Measures of the Income Gains from Migration," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 8(4), pages 913-945, June.
    9. McKenzie, David & Gibson, John & Stillman, Steven, 2006. "How important is selection ? Experimental versus non-experimental measures of the income gains from migration," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3906, The World Bank.
    10. Gonzalo Nunez-Chaim & Henry G. Overman & Capucine Riom, 2024. "Does subsidising business advice improve firm performance? Evidence from a large RCT," CEP Discussion Papers dp1977, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    11. Davis, K. & Nkonya, E. & Kato, E. & Mekonnen, D.A. & Odendo, M. & Miiro, R. & Nkuba, J., 2012. "Impact of Farmer Field Schools on Agricultural Productivity and Poverty in East Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 402-413.
    12. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    13. Jan Stede, 2019. "Do Energy Efficiency Networks Save Energy? Evidence from German Plant-Level Data," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1813, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    14. Liane Faltermeier & Awudu Abdulai, 2009. "The impact of water conservation and intensification technologies: empirical evidence for rice farmers in Ghana," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 365-379, May.
    15. García, Jorge Luis & Heckman, James J. & Ziff, Anna L., 2018. "Gender differences in the benefits of an influential early childhood program," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 9-22.
    16. Jorge Luis García & James J. Heckman & Duncan Ermini Leaf & María José Prados, 2017. "Quantifying the Life-cycle Benefits of a Prototypical Early Childhood Program," NBER Working Papers 23479, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    17. Ferraro, Paul J. & Miranda, Juan José, 2014. "The performance of non-experimental designs in the evaluation of environmental programs: A design-replication study using a large-scale randomized experiment as a benchmark," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 344-365.
    18. V. Joseph Hotz & Guido W. Imbens & Jacob A. Klerman, 2006. "Evaluating the Differential Effects of Alternative Welfare-to-Work Training Components: A Reanalysis of the California GAIN Program," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(3), pages 521-566, July.
    19. Giuseppe PORRO & Stefano Maria IACUS, 2004. "Average treatment effect estimation via random recursive partitioning," Departmental Working Papers 2004-28, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    20. Kamdem, Cyrille Bergaly & Melachio Tameko, André & Nembot Ndeffo, Luc & Gockwoski, James, 2013. "Impact of Collective Marketing by Cocoa Farmers’ Organizations in Cameroon," 2013 Fourth International Conference, September 22-25, 2013, Hammamet, Tunisia 160482, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Reggio approach; Early childhood education; Childcare; Evaluation; Italian education;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • I26 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Returns to Education
    • I28 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Government Policy
    • J13 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Fertility; Family Planning; Child Care; Children; Youth

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:reecon:v:72:y:2018:i:1:p:1-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.