Abstract
At the 2014 White House Summit on Early Education, over $1 billion in private, philanthropic, and federal funding was devoted to pre-K and other early childhood interventions. This amount is a small fraction of the $79 billion that is proposed for early childhood interventions by Timothy Bartik, a senior economist at the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, in his book From Preschool to Prosperity. The author presents his case to provide universal full-day pre-K to all children, along with developmental child care, pre-K, and home visiting programs for low-income children. Readers will not find an in-depth description and analysis of every pre-K program; rather, the book is written to convince a broader audience of the value of universal pre-K by highlighting its return on investment.
Bartik begins by examining the empirical evidence that early childhood programs have on participants’ future earnings. Two of the most well-cited and studied pre-K programs include the Perry Preschool program in Ypsilanti, Michigan in the 1960s and the Abecedarian program in North Carolina in the 1970s. Both studies used a randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology. Because participants were randomly assigned, the estimated findings could be justifiably credited to the programs’ interventions. The Perry Preschool program boosted the participants’ future earnings by 19%, whereas the Abecedarian program increased earnings by 26%. Although benefits are certainly important, Bartik correctly focuses on the other side of the equation as well—the costs. Under a benefit–cost analysis, Bartik shows that the return on investment for early childhood interventions is as low as 1.5 to 1, but can be as high as 5 to 1.
After convincingly making the case that pre-K programs have demonstrated a strong return on investment, Bartik then addresses the criticisms that individuals have used against public funding for universal pre-K. Few, if any, serious critics have challenged the findings from the Perry Preschool and the Abecedarian programs, but they charge that the findings are largely irrelevant today. Because the programs were targeted to a specific group of children a long time ago, the findings should be viewed skeptically. There is some truth to asking the question about the relevancy of a program 30 years ago, but if a researcher sets out to demonstrate the effect on adult earnings, then criticizing a program for being decades old is unfair.
A more defensible criticism, however, is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) report on 84 agencies representing 5,000 children that enrolled in Head Start between 2002 and 2008. This evaluation also used an RCT methodology and highlighted that by the end of 3rd grade there were very few impacts found for either cohort in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices. The few impacts that were found did not show a clear pattern of favorable or unfavorable impacts for children. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/head_start_executive_summary.pdf, p. 5)
Bartik responds by saying that, although the results were statistically insignificant, the actual estimate still shows a lifetime earnings increase of 1.2%. However, if we accept the validity of RCTs and its methodology, we also have to accept the statistically insignificant finding for Head Start in the HHS report. Moreover, because the HHS report uses a nationally represented sample, it presents a more credible question about the validity of Head Start’s impacts on student achievement. Bartik admirably defends Head Start by arguing that the RCT methodology in the HHS report was imperfectly interpreted, but critics have a reasonable argument to be made that Head Start may not be as effective as hoped. As a reader, I appreciate that Bartik addressed criticisms head-on, but in doing so, his case for universal pre-K is no longer airtight.
After addressing the critics, Bartik then makes the case for a universal pre-K program based on the best practices found in individual programs. He advocates for a pre-K program with smaller class sizes and credentialed teachers. Again, I appreciate Bartik’s honesty in acknowledging the mixed findings for credentialing and class sizes on student achievement. Several studies have shown that teacher credentials and class sizes matter, whereas several have shown that they do not affect student achievement. His proposal to restrict pre-K to just 1 year also appears reasonable because of the diminishing returns to one more year.
In a later chapter, Bartik expounds on the spillover effects from pre-K education on society. He presents a compelling case that the spillover effects are actually greater than any direct wage effect that accrues to the children. This chapter is perhaps the strongest chapter in the book because Bartik shows that the benefits of pre-K are not restricted to future earnings for the participants; they encompass reductions in crime and other taxpayer benefits through a reduced reliance on government programs.
In summary, if you were a proponent of universal pre-K prior to reading this book, then you will find much to like in what Bartik writes. However, if you were skeptical of expanding taxpayer support for pre-K, then you can find evidence in this book to support your case, as well. That both of these statements can be said about Bartik’s book is perhaps the best compliment that can be paid to the author. He laid out the arguments for both sides while still advocating his proposal; however, by defending a $79 billion proposal that represents 2% of all government tax collections, I doubt many skeptics will be persuaded to support his proposal. The costs are simply too large. Perhaps a middle ground can be found. Instead of the public being asked to fund all of the costs of universal pre-K, parents could be asked to pay a portion. By proceeding with fewer tax dollars, it also allows for more research on pre-K’s effectiveness to surface before paying the full costs.