-
Should the United States
Have Pre-K for All? Duke University, Durham NC
October 22, 2013
Steve Barnett, PhD
-
Why Offer Universal High-Quality Public Pre-K?
1. High-quality pre-K can produce large
benefits to society
2. Positive benefits can be produced on a large
scale--depends crucially on implementation
3. Targeting is ineffective and inefficient
4. Need not limited to those in or near poverty
5. UPK can be effective and benefits poor most
6. Pre-K for all has a larger net benefit
-
Potential Gains from Pre-K Investments
Educational Success and Economic Productivity
Achievement test scores
Special education and grade repetition
High school graduation
Behavior problems, delinquency, and crime
Employment, earnings, and welfare dependency
Smoking, drug use, depression
Decreased Costs to Government
Schooling costs
Social services costs
Crime costs
Health care costs (teen pregnancy and smoking)
-
Preschool programs 0-5 in the US:
Impacts in 123 studies since 1960
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Treatment End Ages 5-10 Age >10
Eff
ects
(1
sd
)= p
erc
etn
of
ac
h. g
ap
Age at Follow-Up
All Designs HQ Designs HQ Programs
-
What did we learn from meta-analysis besides
average effect sizes?
1. Intentional teaching matters
2. Individualization & small groups increase
gains
3. Comprehensive services decrease effects
– Why?
4. No other robust relationships except time
and quality
-
Perry Preschool Education Effects
60%
45%
66%
15%
40%
28%
77%
66%
85%
49%
68%
67%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
HS Graduate
Graduated HS on Time
No Special Education
(Cog.)
Age 14 Achievement at
10th %ile +
Age 14 Homework
Age 5 IQ>90
Program group No-program group
-
Perry Preschool Crime Effects
34%
48%
55%
29%
27%
14%
33%
36%
7%
14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Drug Crime by 40
Violent Crime by 40
Arrested >5X by 40
Arrested >5X by 27
Discipline Problems ages 6-12
Program No Program
-
Perry Preschool Economic Effects
50%
60%
13%
62%
40%
7%
76%
82%
36%
76%
60%
29%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Had savings Account at 40
Own Car at 40
Own Home at 27
Employed at 40
Earned >$20K at 40
Earned >$20K at 27
No Program Program
-
Chicago CPC: Academic and
Social Benefits at School Exit
Temple, J. A., & Reynolds, A. J. (2007). Benefits and costs of investments in preschool education: Evidence from the Child-Parent Centers and related programs.
Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 126-144
-
Economic Returns to Pre-K
for Disadvantaged Children
(In 2006 dollars, 3% discount rate) Cost Benefits B/C
Perry Pre-K $17,599 $284,086 16
Abecedarian $70,697 $176,284 2.5
Chicago $ 8,224 $ 83,511 10
Barnett, W. S., & Masse, L. N. (2007). Early childhood program design and economic returns: Comparative benefit-cost analysis of the Abecedarian program and
policy implications, Economics of Education Review, 26, 113-125; Belfield, C., Nores, M., Barnett, W.S., & Schweinhart, L.J. (2006). The High/Scope Perry
Preschool Program. Journal of Human Resources, 41(1), 162-190; Temple, J. A., & Reynolds, A. J. (2007). Benefits and costs of investments in preschool
education: Evidence from the Child-Parent Centers and related programs. Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 126-144.
-
But don’t the effects fade-out
in large scale public programs?
Sometimes yes
Head Start and other “comprehensive programs”
Other “weak” public programs
Weak initial results
Few, if any, detectable lasting gains
These are intent-to-treat (under)estimates
They do not follow the models found to produce
large gains
-
Perry Preschool Cognitive Effects over Time
-
Good Preschool is Rare (ECLS-B)
-
Program Effectiveness Varies Greatly
(effect of 1 year at age 4)
CPC Tulsa 8 St Head St
Language NA NA .26 .13
Math .33 .36 .32 .18
Literacy NA .99 .80 .34
Effects in standard deviations. Head Start adjusted for crossovers in randomized trial.
-
• Teacher with BA & Cert. + asst. in each class;
• Full-day (6 hour educational day), 180-day program, plus extended day/full year;
• Access to all 3 and 4 yr. olds in 31 school systems
• Maximum class size of 15 students;
• Evidence-based curricula;
• Early learning standards and program guidelines;
• Support for potential learning difficulties;
• Professional development for key staff;
• Part of systemic reform P-12
NJ’s Counterexample
-
3.9
19.9
34.6
27.7
12.1
1.70.0 0.24.2
32.2
47.4
16.0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1.00-1.99 2.00-2.99 3.00-3.99 4.00-4.99 5.00-5.99 6.00-7.00
Perc
enta
ge o
f C
lassro
om
s
ECERS-R Score (1=minimal, 3=poor 5= good 7=excellent)
00 Total (N = 232) 08 Total (N = 407)
NJ Raised Quality in Public and Private
-
Abbott Pre-K Effects on NJASK by Years of Participation
.12
.18 .17
.14
.17
.26
.22
.37
.29
.37
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
LAL 4th LAL 5th Math 4th Math 5th Science 4 th
1 year Abbott pre-k 2 year Abbott pre-k
-
12% 12%
19% 17%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Retention Special edcuation
Abbott pre-K no Abbott pre-K
Abbott Pre-K Effects on Retention and Special Education
-
• The US still does not serve most children in poverty
– Capacity is too limited
– Some parents do not want to send their children to a program that is just for the poor
• Major programs provided to children in poverty have smaller effects than “expected”
• Many children in targeted programs are not poor
– Poverty is a moving target
– There is great incentive to “cheat” for both families and programs
Targeting: 50 years of evidence
-
Cognitive Development Gap
Lost Potential Growth
Median Abilities of Entering Kindergarteners by Family Income
40.00
45.00
50.00
55.00
60.00
Lowest 20% 4th Quintile Middle 20% 2nd Quintile Highest 20%
Reading
Math
General
Know ledge
Lost Potential Growth
Barnett, W. S. (2007). Original analysis of data from the US Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, ECLS-K Base Year Data files
and Electronic Codebook (2002).
-
Social Skills Gap Median Social Skills of Entering Kindergarteners by Income
8.40
8.60
8.80
9.00
9.20
9.40
9.60
Lowest 20% 4th Quintile Middle 20% 2nd Quintile Highest 20%
Lost Potential Growth
Barnett, W. S. (2007). Original analysis of data from the US Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, ECLS-K Base Year Data files
and Electronic Codebook (2002).
-
Effects of UPK in the US
• Rhode Island Randomized Trial
– Positive gains for all, larger gains for low income children
• Oklahoma (multiple studies)
– Gains for all, larger gains for the lowest income children
– Grade 3 gains on attention and academic achievement
• Georgia, West Virginia, New Jersey all have studies with
positive effects
• Long-term positive effects in GA and NJ
• BCA in GA, earnings gains alone may exceed cost
-
Effects of UPK Globally
OECD test scores higher and more equal as
access approaches 100%
France: Ecole Maternelle increased income
Norway: universal child care increased earnings
and employment
Arg. Uru. and UK: universal pre-K raised long-
term achievement
Denmark, Quebec: universal child care null or
negative effects on children--quality matters
-
CBA of Targeting vs. Universal
Targeted: Lower cost, fewer benefits Screening and identification is costly and imperfect
Still the population served has greater need on avg.
Many who need the program are not served
Pre-K for all: More benefits but higher cost Reaches all disadvantaged children
Larger gains for disadvantaged children
Benefits children from middle income families too
Smaller average benefit
Sliding fee scale can reduce public cost Source: Barnett (2004). Maximizing returns from pre-kindergarten education. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
Research Conference.
-
Simulated Economic Returns
Cost Benefits NPV
Targeted
50% correct $12.5 $ 79.9 $ 67.4
80% correct $12.5 $ 96.0 $ 83.5
Universal
80% enroll $62.4 $213.2 $150.8
Source: Barnett (2004). Maximizing returns from pre-kindergarten education. Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Research Conference.
-
Conclusions 50 years of means-testing has largely failed
Inadequate coverage, quality, and results
This is not necessary--programs can succeed at scale
UPK has achieved full coverage and higher quality
UPK permits positive peer effects & systemic change
Benefits are not limited to the disadvantaged
UPK benefits all children while reducing inequality
UPK plausibly yields a larger net economic benefit with an adequate (if lower) rate of return
-
References
1. Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333, 975-978.
2. Barnett, W. S. (2011). Four reasons the United States should offer every child a preschool education. In E. Zigler, W. Gilliam, & W.
S. Barnett (Eds.), The pre-k debates: current controversies and issues (pp. 34-39). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
3. Barnett, W. S., & Frede, E. C. (2010). The promise of preschool: Why we need early education for all. American Educator, 34(1),
21-40.
4. Barnett, W. S. (2013). Getting facts right on Pre-K and the President’s Proposal. nieer.og
5. Burger, K. (2010). How does early childhood care and education affect cognitive development? An international review of the
effects of early interventions for children from different social backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 140-165.
6. Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W.S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive
and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579-620.
7. Dumas C. & Lefranc, A. (2010). Early schooling and later outcomes: Evidence from preschool extension in France. THEMA
Working Paper 2010-07. Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
8. Frede, E. C., & Barnett, W. S. (2011). New Jersey’s Abbott pre-k program: A model for the nation. In E. Zigler, W. Gilliam, & W. S.
Barnett (Eds.), The pre-k debates: current controversies and issues (pp. 191-196). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
9. Gormley, W., Phillips, D., Newmark, K., Welti, K., & Adelstein, S. (2012). Social-emotional effects of early childhood education
programs in Tulsa. Child Development, 82, 2095-2109.
10. Havnes, T. & Mogstad, M. (2011). No Child Left Behind: Subsidized Child Care and Children's Long-Run Outcomes. American
Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2): 97–129.
11. Hill, C., Gormley, W., & Adelstein, S. (2012). Do the short-term effects of a strong preschool program persist? Working Paper No.
18. Washington, DC: Georgetown Unversity, CROCUS.
12. Lipsey, M., Farrran, D., Bilbrey, C., Hofer, K., & Dong, N. (2011). Initial results of the evaluation of the Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K
Program. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.
13. Neidell, M., & Waldfogel, J. (2010). Cognitive and noncognitive peer effects in early education. The Review of Economics and
Statistics, 92(3), 562-576.
14. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B. (2004). The final report: Effective pre-school education.
Technical paper 12. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
15. Waldfogel, J., & Zhai, F. (2008). Effects of public preschool expenditures on the test scores of fourth graders: Evidence from
TIMMS. Educational Research and Evaluation, 14, 9–28.