The Economics of Early Childhood Programs: Lasting Benefits and Large Returns

Loyola University ChicagoMarch 15, 2013

Milagros Nores, PhDSteve Barnett, PhD

NIEER.ORG

Potential Gains from ECEC InvestmentsEducational 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)

ECEC programs 0-5 in the US produce long-term gains: 123 studies since 1960

Treatment End Ages 5-10 Age >100

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

All Designs HQ Designs HQ Programs

Age at Follow-Up

Eff

ec

ts (

sd

)

Results from the Newest Studies

• Preschool by itself can close half the achievement gap (meta-analysis 123 studies)

• State funded pre-K has effects similar in size to Chicago Child Parent Centers (8 states)

• NJ (5th grade) and AR (3rd grade) long-term effects on achievement (in NJ Abbotts no fade-out) on math and reading

• Chicago RCT of half v. full-day: larger effects of full-day on vocabulary and literacy

…Results from the Newest Studies

• Tennessee: Positive gains in randomized trial as well • Rhode Island: Positive gains for all, larger gains for poor• Boston Pre-K—strong effects on language, literacy, math,

and executive function• Oklahoma: Grade 3 gains on attention and math; more

former pre-K take tests so underestimate effects on tests.

Nores and Barnett, 2009.

Effects of ECD Programs for 4 Outcomes by Type of Program: Global Research

Cognitive Social Schooling Health0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Nutrition Cash Education

What works? • Intentional teaching• Balanced curriculum

–Cognitive and Socio-Emotional• Individualization

–Small-group and one-on-one• Well-educated, adequately paid staff• Strong supervision and monitoring

Key Lessons Immediate impact should be at least twice

the size of desired long-term impact

Some programs are much more effective than others

Multiple approaches to early intervention are effective, but education is a key element

Three Benefit-Cost Analyses with Disadvantaged Children

Abecedarian Chicago High/Scope (Perry)

Year began 1972 1985 1962

Location Chapel Hill, NC Chicago, IL Ypsilanti, MI

Sample size 111 1,539 123

Design RCT Matched neighborhood

RCT

Ages 6 wks-age 5 Ages 3-4 Ages 3-4

Program schedule Full-day, year round

Half-day, school year

Half-day, school year

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; 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; Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40 (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 14). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

High/Scope Perry Preschool: Educational Effects

Berrueta-Clement, J.R., Schweinhart, L.J., Barnett, W.S., Epstein, A.S., & Weikart, D.P. (1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

Perry Preschool: Economic Effects at 40

Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40 (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 14). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

Perry Preschool: Crime Effects at 40

Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40 (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 14). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

Abecedarian : Academic Benefits

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; Campbell, F.A., Ramey, C.T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. ( 2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science, 6(1), 42-57.

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 (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.

Key Lessons

Economic returns to early education are high (7-16:1)

Intensity and duration affect returns

Returns depend on soft skills as well as hard skills

Results Depend on Quality

Large scale public programs have sometimes failed to deliver the promised returns

These large scale public programs have not been designed to duplicate the models successful in research, but to be cheaper

Proper design, high standards, adequate funding, and evaluation can ensure success

Effectiveness follows quality: Pre-K achievement gains

CPC Tulsa 8 St Head StartLanguage na na .26 .09 (.13)

Math .33 .36 .32 .12 (.18)

Literacy na .99 .80 .25 (.34)

Effects in standard deviations. Figures in parentheses are adjusted for noncompliance.

Keys to Education Quality

• High standards and sufficient funding • Balanced—Cognitive, social, emotional• Implemented as designed• Well-trained, adequately paid staff• Strong supervision and monitoring• Use data to inform practice

• Teacher with BA & ECE + 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; and• Professional development for key staff.

NJ’s Urban Pre-K Transformation

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

Per

cent

age

of C

lass

room

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

Increased Quality in NJ Pre-K Improved Education Outcomes

• Gains in language, literacy, math• 2 years have twice the effect of 1 • 2 years closed 40% of the achievement gap • Effects sustained through 2nd grade• Grade repetition cut in half by 2nd grade

Three early education sectors• Private child care and preschool

– Lowest quality– Minimal benefits

• Head Start and Early Head Start– Better quality– Modest benefits

• State Pre-K– Highly variable quality– Highly variable benefits

Preschool Quality in California

Private Head Start Public Pre-K0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Percent Good or Better

Conclusions

ECEC can be a strong public investment

Increased educational achievement and attainment

Decreased economic and educational inequality and fewer social problems

Job and GDP growth (local and national)

Intensity and quality are the keys to high returns

Continuous improvement cycles can assure quality

References1. Barnett, W. S. (2011). Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science, 333, 975-978.2. 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, 113-125.3. Behrman, J. R., Cheng, Y., & Todd, P. E. (2004). Evaluating preschool programs when length of exposure to the program varies: A

nonparametric approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 108-1324. Berlinski, S., Galiani, S., & Gertler, P. (2009). The effect of pre-primary education on primary school performance. Journal of Public

Economics, 93, 219–234. 5. Berlinski, S. Galiani, S., & Manacorda, M. (2008). Giving children a better start: preschool attendance and schoolage profiles.

Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1416-1440. 6. 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, 140-165.7. 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. 8. Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science,

333, 959-964. 9. 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.10. Engle, P. L., Black, M. M., Behrman, J. R., Cabral de Mello, M., Gertler, P. J., Kapiriri, L., et al. (2007). Strategies to avoid the loss

of developmental potential in more than 200 million children in the developing world. The Lancet, 369, 229-242. 11. Engle P.L., Fernald L., Alderman, H., et al, and the Global Child Development Steering Group. (2011). Strategies for reducing

inequalities and improving developmental outcomes for young children in low-income and middle-income countries. The Lancet, 378, 1339-53.

12. Fernald, L. C. H., Gertler, P. J., & Neufeld, L. M. (2008). Role of cash in conditional cash transfer programmes for child health, growth, and development: An analysis of Mexico's Oportunidades. The Lancet, 371, 828-837.

13. 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.

14. McKay, H., Sinisterra, L., McKay, A., Gomez, H., & Lloreda, P. (1978). Improving cognitive ability in chronically deprived children. Science, 200(4339), 270-278.

15. Naudeau, S., Kataoka, N., Valerio, A., Neuman, M., and Elder, L. (2010). Investing in Young Children: An ECD Guide for Policy Dialogue and Project Preparation. Washington, DC: World Bank.

16. Neidell, M., & Waldfogel, J. (2010). Cognitive and noncognitive peer effects in early education. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(3), 562-576.

17. Nores, M., & Barnett, S. (2010). Benefits of early childhood interventions across the world: (Under) Investing in the very young. Economics of Education Review, 29, 271-282.

18. Raine, A., Mellingen, K., Liu, J., Venables, P., Mednick, S. A. (2003). Effects of environmental enrichment at ages 3-5 years on schizotypal personality and antisocial behavior at ages 17 and 23 years. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160(9), 1627-1635.

19. Rindermann, H., & Ceci, S.J. (2008). Education policy and country outcomes in international cognitive competence studies. Graz, Austria: Institute of Psychology, Karl-Franzens-University Graz.

20. Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40 (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 14). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.

21. 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.

22. Temple, J., & Reynolds, A. (2007). Benefits and costs of investments in preschool education: Evidence from the Child-Parent Centers and related programs. Economics of Education Review, 26, 126-144.

23. 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.

24. Walker S.P., Wachs, T.D., Grantham-McGregor, S. et al. (2011). Inequality in early childhood: risk and protective factors for early child development. The Lancet, 378, 1325-35.