Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-b58lm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T20:18:10.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Economic Returns of Investments in Preschool Education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Edward Zigler ,
Walter S. Gilliam  and
Stephanie M. Jones
By
Arthur J. Reynolds  and
Judy A. Temple
Edward Zigler
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Walter S. Gilliam
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Stephanie M. Jones
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Arthur J. Reynolds
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Judy A. Temple
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access

Summary

Given our value system, we would like to argue that any demonstrated benefits of intervention are worth the cost…. Unfortunately, for policymakers benefits must be defined in practical terms, and these are always ones of economic feasibility. Only when gains translate into economic savings is the effectiveness of intervention truly conceded.

(Zigler & Berman, 1983, p. 901)

In an era of tight government budgets, it is impractical to consider active investment programmes for all persons. The real question is how to use the available funds wisely. The best evidence supports the policy prescription: invest in the very young and improve basic learning and socialization skills … efficiency would be enhanced if human capital investment were reallocated to the young.

(Heckman, 2000, p. 8)

Early childhood education is receiving widespread attention as one of the most effective ways to promote children's educational success. Preschool programs are a centerpiece of many school and social reforms; in 2002 alone, government expenditures totaled $22 billion for programs targeting children from birth to age five (White House, 2003). The main attraction of early childhood programs is their potential for prevention and cost-effectiveness, especially when compared to the well-known limits of remediation and treatment (Durlak, 1997; Heckman, 2000). In child welfare and juvenile justice, for example, most services are provided to treat families and children after problems have occurred rather than to prevent the need for services or to provide early intervention (Cohen, 1998; MacLeod & Nelson, 2000).

Type
Chapter
Information
A Vision for Universal Preschool Education , pp. 37 - 68
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (2003). On the success of failure: A reassessment of the effects of retention in the primary grades (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Avruch, S., & Cackley, A. P. (1995). Savings achieved by giving WIC benefits to women prenatally. Public Health Reports, 110, 27–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children, 5(3), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, W. S. (1996). Lives in the balance: Age 27 benefit–cost analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.Google Scholar
Berreuta-Clement, J. R., Schweinhart, L., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A., & Weikart, D. (1984). Changed lives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 19. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation.Google Scholar
Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., & Ramey, C. T. (2001). The development of cognitive and academic abilities: Growth curves from an early childhood educational experiment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 231–242.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high risk African-American students at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, , Ochshorn, , Kagan, S., & Fuller, B. (2003). Effective investments in early care and education: What can we learn from research? NCSL Policy Brief I. Denver: National Conference of State Legislators.Google Scholar
Chicago Longitudinal Study. (1999). Chicago Longitudinal Study: User's guide (Vol. 6). Madison: Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin.
Clarke, S. H., & Campbell, F. A. (1998). Does intervention early prevent crime later? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 319–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. A. (1998). The monetary value of saving a high-risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 14, 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee for Economic Development. (2002). Preschool for all: Investing in a productive and just society. New York: Author.
Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. (1983). As the twig is bent … lasting effects of preschool programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Durlak, J. A. (1997). Successful prevention programs for children and adolescents. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilliam, W. S., & Zigler, E. F. (2001). A critical meta-analysis of all impact evaluations of all state-funded preschool from 1977 to 1998: Implications for policy, service delivery, and program evaluation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 441–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Governor's Task Force on Universal Access to Preschool. (2002). Ready set grow: Illinois preschool. Springfield, IL: Author.
Guterman, N. B. (1999). Enrollment strategies in early home visitation to prevent child physical abuse and neglect and the “universal versus targeted” debate: A meta-analysis of population-based and screening-based programs. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 863–890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanushek, E. (1999). Some findings from an independent investigation of the Tennessee STAR experiment and from other investigations of class size effects. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1984). Schooling and well-being: The role of nonmarket effects. Journal of Human Resources, 19, 377–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, J. (2000). Policies to foster human capital. Research in Economics, 54, 3–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Karoly, L. A. (2002). Reducing poverty through human capital investments. In Danziger, S. H. & Haveman, R. H. (Eds.), Understanding poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Karoly, L. A., Greenwood, P. W., Everingham, S. S., et al. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and don't know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
Kruger, A. (1999). Experimental estimates of educational production functions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 497–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruger, A. (2003). Economic considerations and class size. Economic Journal, 113, F34–F63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, H. M., & McEwan, P. J. (2001). Cost-effectiveness analysis: Methods and applications (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lipscomb, J., Weinstein, M. C., & Torrance, G. W. (1996). Time preference. In Gold, M. R., Russell, L. B., Siegel, J. E., & Weinstein, M. C. (Eds.), Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine (pp. 214–246). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Long, D., Maller, C., & Thorton, C. (1981). Evaluating the benefits and costs of the Job Corps. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 81, 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, J., & Nelson, G. (2000). Programs for the promotion of family wellness and the prevention of child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 1127–1149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masse, L. N., & Barnett, W. S. (2002). A benefit-cost analysis of the Abecedarian early childhood intervention. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.Google Scholar
Mosteller, F. (1995). The Tennessee study of class size in the early school grades. The Future of Children, 5, 113–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Science and Technology Council. (1997, April). Investing in our future: A national research initiative for America's children for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Committee on Fundamental Science, and the Committee on Health, Safety, and Food.
Olds, D. L., Eckenrode, J., Henderson, C. R., et al. (1997). Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 278, 637–643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oppenheim, J., & McGregor, T. (2003). The economics of education: Public benefits of high-quality preschool education for low-income children. Entergy Corporation, New Orleans.
Ou, S. (2003). The effects of an early childhood intervention on educational attainment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Madison, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Peisner-Feinberg, E. S. (1999). The children of the Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study go to school: Technical report. Chapel Hill: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
Peltzman, S. (1997). Class size and earnings. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11, 225–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramey, C. T., Campbell, F. A., & Blair, C. (1998). Enhancing the life course for high risk children: Results from the Abecedarian Project. In Crane, J. (Ed.), Social programs that work (pp. 163–183). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
Ramey, C. T., Campbell, F. A., Burchinal, M., Skinner, M. L., Gardner, D. M., & Ramey, S. L. (2000). Persistent effects of early intervention on high-risk children and their mothers. Applied Developmental Science, 1, 2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, A. J. (1999). Educational success in high-risk settings: Contributions of the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 345–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, A. J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Reynolds, A. J., Ou, S., & Topitzes, J. W. (2003). Paths of effects of early intervention on educational attainment and juvenile arrest: A confirmatory analysis of the Chicago Child-Parent Centers. University of Wisconsin, Madison. Unpublished manuscript.
Reynolds, A. J., & Robertson, D. L. (2003). School-based early intervention and later child maltreatment in the Chicago Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 74, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2339–2346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2002). Age 21 cost-benefit analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 267–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, A. J., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. J. (Eds.). (2003). Early childhood programs for a new century. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.Google Scholar
Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. (1993). Significant benefits: The High-Scope Perry Preschool study through age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.Google Scholar
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 (No. 14). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.Google Scholar
Scrivner, S., & Wolfe, B. (2003). Universal preschool: Much to gain but who will pay? Discussion paper. Madison: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Sullivan, L. M. (1971). Let us not underestimate the children. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foreman.Google Scholar
Temple, J. A., Reynolds, A. J., & Ou. S. (2003). Grade retention and school dropout: Another look at the evidence. In Walberg, H. J., Reynolds, A. J., & Wang, M. C. (Eds), Can unlike students learn together?: Grade retention, tracking, and grouping (pp. 35–69). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1992). Early intervention: Federal investments like WIC can produce savings. Report no. HRD-92-18. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2000). Title I preschool education: More children served but gauging effect on school readiness unclear. Report no. HEHS-00-171. Washington, DC: Author.
Vandell, D. L., & Pierce, K. M. (2003). Child care quality and children's success at school. In Reynolds, A. J., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. (Eds.), Early childhood programs for a new century (pp. 115–139). Washington, DC: CWLA Press.Google Scholar
Weisbrod, B. A. (1965). Costs and benefits of preventing high school dropouts. In Dorfman, R. (Ed.), Measuring benefits of government investments (pp. 117–149). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
White House. (2003, February). Head Start policy book. Washington, DC: Office of the President. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/earlychildhood/hspolicybook/hs_policy_book.pdf. Accessed July 11, 2003.
Yoshikawa, H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 27–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zigler, E., & Berman, W. (1983). Discerning the future of early childhood intervention. American Psychologist, 38, 894–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zigler, E., & Styfco, S. J. (1993). Head Start and beyond: A national plan for extended childhood intervention. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Zigler, E., Taussig, C., & Black, K. (1992). Early childhood intervention: A promising preventive for juvenile delinquency. American Psychologist, 47, 997–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×