Preschool Funding for Kids Now Pays Off Billions Later

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There are few sure investments in this chaotic economic climate, but on a national level, education has proven to pay off big down the road. As tight economic times have put the squeeze on education budgets here in the U.S., a new report shows the big benefits of even small investments in early education worldwide.

For every dollar invested in boosting preschool enrollment, middle- and low-income countries would see a return of some $6.40 to $17.60, according to a new analysis published September 22 in The Lancet. “Early childhood is the most effective and cost-effective time to ensure that all children develop to their full potential,” noted the authors, led by Patrice Engle, of California Polytechnic State University. “The returns on investment in early child development are substantial.”

Previous research found similar cost-benefit figures for the U.S. as well. In one Chicago study published earlier this year, each $1 invested in early childhood education returned an estimated $11 during the course of the child’s life thanks to better earnings, less public aid and less drain on the justice system.

If just a quarter of the kids from 73 middle- and low-income countries attended one year of preschool, it would generate some $10.6 billion additional money down the road thanks to increased potential and earning capabilities of those children once they become adults.

The effect of this extra schooling might be felt for generations. Preschool has been shown to boost school attendance and achievement later in life. And that suggests, “in turn, children who remain—and succeed—in school are more likely to earn higher incomes as adults and to provide better nutrition, health care, stimulation and educational opportunities to their own children,” Anthony Lake, executive director of UNICEF, wrote in an essay in the same issue of The Lancet.

This sort of down-the-line effect could also help to reduce economic disparities between wealthy and poor countries—and individuals. Even within the same country, kids from the lowest fifth of the income bracket are already less than half as likely to go to preschool. “Unless governments allocate more resources to quality early child development programs for the poorest people in the population, economic disparities will continue to widen,” Engle and her colleagues wrote.

Preschool is just one aspect of early childhood development, with proper nutrition and a safe and stimulating environment being other crucial components for success and healthy progress. But with such a big payoff and the relative ease of scaling up school programs—as opposed to ensuring proper nutrition and care at home—countries of all income ranges could boost educational enrollment for kids under the age of 5 now as a way of improving the odds of economic brawn in the future.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/09/22/preschool-funding-for-kids-now-pays-off-billions-later/

[slim 1,533]

One of the big reasons preschool is so successful is it gets the kids away from the parents for a while.

[luckytxn 2,265]

It is a state function at the most and local for sure and not a heavy cumbersome bureaucratic Federal apparatus that should have anything to do with education.

[Danno 1,228]

Last I heard HeadStart was a huge waste of money as all the gains vanished just a few, school years later.

Lets be honest anyway, these programs are often another tax payer provided day care canter.

It's Time to Stop Head Start

by Darcy Ann Olsen

Anniversaries have a way of prompting us to reflect on where we've been and where we're going. Thirty-five years ago this summer, the first group of children graduated from the newly adopted Head Start program. At this point in time, should we look forward to another 35 years of Head Start or, instead, reconsider the wisdom of this longtime program?

President Lyndon Johnson told audiences, "Children are inheritors of poverty's curse and not its creators…. We set out to make certain that poverty's children would not be forevermore poverty's captives." With seven major objectives--improve the child's physical health, help the child's emotional and social development, improve the child's mental processes, establish expectations of success, increase the child's ability to relate positively to family, develop in the child and his family a responsible attitude toward society, and increase the sense of dignity and self-worth of the child and his family--Head Start raised a high bar that, in retrospect, doomed it to failure before it even began.

Clearly Head Start has not stopped poverty in its tracks. Not surprisingly, the program's goals have become less ambitious over time. Head Start now has the overall goal of "increasing the school readiness of young children in low-income families," according to the Head Start bureau. Yet studies show that Head Start has not been able to meet even this boiled-down expectation.

In 1985 the Department of Health and Human Services undertook the first meta-analysis of Head Start research and shook the establishment with its dire findings: "In the long run, cognitive and socioemotional test scores of former Head Start students do not remain superior to those of disadvantaged children who did not attend Head Start." In other words, Head Start was a false start--the net gain to children was zero.

But the establishment has clung to the study's remnants: although gains were not maintained over time, some children had experienced short-term boosts. This, they argued, was Head Start's job. If schools couldn't maintain gains, that reflected a problem with the schools, not the program. That certainly sounds reasonable. But, it's also reasonable for people to question Head Start's utility. If students test the same with or without Head Start after a year or two, what's the point of sending them through the program in the first place?

The most recent and thorough analysis of Head Start was conducted by the non-partisan General Accounting Office in 1997. After reviewing more than 600 citations, manuscripts, and studies, GAO concluded, "The body of research on current Head Start is insufficient to draw conclusions about the impact of the national program."

In a sense, the GAO is right: sloppy study designs and amateur methodological errors so riddle the literature that any claims about the success or failure of the program are not convincing. Given that, one might suggest that more research is needed before giving up on the program. On the other hand, one might also look for guidance from other programs that bear a striking resemblance to Head Start. On this, findings are conclusive: early intervention programs can boost children's test scores, but those gains wash out within a few years of exiting the programs.

Despite evidence that preschool programs do little for children, both presidential contenders are reluctant to let go of Head Start. Instead, George W. Bush supports changing Head Start into an early reading and numeracy program, and Al Gore suggests pouring an additional $1 billion into the program. Both ideas are senseless: thirty-five years, $44 billion, and 17 million children have passed through the Head Start gates since 1965. By any reasonable standard, that's more than enough time and resources to create a successful program, if that were possible.

To make matters worse, it seems that politicians have learned little from experience with Head Start and a host of other early interventions. The hottest issue bubbling up is "universal preschool." As Vice President Al Gore put it in his nomination acceptance speech, "This nation was a pioneer of universal public education. Now, let's set a specific new goal for the first decade of the 21st century: high-quality, universal pre-school, available to every child in every family, all across this nation." In other words, Gore wants government schools entrusted with educating every 3- and 4-year-old in the country.

Gore clings to the notion that preschool improves children's early school performance which, in turn, improves later school performance. "Quality preschool can lead to higher IQs, higher reading and achievement levels, higher graduation rates and greater success in the workplace," says Gore, echoing President Johnson's early optimism. Of course the difference today is: we know better.

Consider the views of child-development scholar Edward Zigler, a founder of Head Start. As far back as 1987, when educators were debating the merits of universal preschool, he warned, "This is not the first time universal preschool education has been proposed…[in the past], as now, the arguments in favor of preschool education were that it would reduce school failure, lower dropout rates, increase test scores, and produce a generation of more competent high school graduates….Preschool education will achieve none of these results."

What Zigler recognized is that a child's academic and personal growth turn on a lot more than preschool. Family, natural abilities, neighborhood, and life experiences easily outweigh the influence of preschool. Preschools may teach children how to count, follow directions, and get along; Zigler himself favors universal preschool as a means to achieve school readiness. But preschool alone, like Head Start alone, confers no lasting advantage. To put all children on an equal footing would require genetic engineering, surrogate parents, and for many kids, home away from home.

Underlying moves for more government preschool programs is the mistaken idea that today's preschoolers aren't prepared for kindergarten. The quiet truth is that 70 percent of preschool-aged children already attend preschools, and the gap in participation rates between preschoolers from high- and low-income families has narrowed from 28 percentage points to just 13 points. And, call it old-fashioned, but some parents still prefer to care for their preschoolers at home.

Whether in preschools or with parents, a recent study of children entering kindergarten by the Department of Education found that kids are in top shape on factors kindergarten teachers say are the most important for school readiness--physical health, enthusiasm, and curiosity. In terms of concrete reading and math skills, nearly all, 94 percent, are proficient at recognizing numbers, shapes and counting to 10, and two in three know their ABCs.

It's also in the early years when American students are most competitive internationally. Consider France, England, Denmark, Spain and Belgium where more than 90 percent of 4-year-olds attend public preschools. International tests show that by age 9, when the benefits of preschool should be most apparent, American children outscore nearly all of their universally preschooled peers on tests of reading, math, and science.

While American children start school better prepared than ever, the overall performance of older students continues to decline. Tests show that by eighth grade, Americans start sliding down the international curve. By 12th grade, they hit bottom. The reasons for that decline are debatable-maybe it's low parental involvement, maybe it's cultural change, maybe it's stagnant government schools or some combination thereof. But one thing is certain, it's time to stop blaming preschoolers for the nation's education woes.

In any case, the desirability of programs like Head Start and universal preschool should not hinge only on whether preschool works. More basic is the moral question of whether the government should entrench itself still further in the schooling of children. On this question, both presidential contenders are swimming against a powerful tide--witness the increasing demand across the states for alternatives to government-run schools and the growth of multi-million-dollar private scholarship funds, homeschooling, voucher initiatives and tax credits. Parents are working to loosen the government's grip on education, even as politicians are seeking to extend that hold to preschoolers.

After 35 years without success, it's time politicians reconsider the wisdom of Head Start. When they do, it will be time to let the program go.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

For every dollar invested in boosting preschool enrollment, middle- and low-income countries would see a return of some $6.40 to $17.60, according to a new analysis published September 22 in The Lancet. “Early childhood is the most effective and cost-effective time to ensure that all children develop to their full potential,” noted the authors, led by Patrice Engle, of California Polytechnic State University. “The returns on investment in early child development are substantial.”

Early is the key. My daughter just turned 5 and she understands fully and speaks well three languages at this point. One would not believe the amazing progress she made in her German speaking abilities in the little over two weeks we spent in Germany around her 5th birthday just now. It's unbelievable what a young brain can absorb. She's attending VPK since late August here and I am just beside myself about what she learns each and every day attending this voluntary but publicly financed program. I'd pay for it if it wasn't sponsored by the state. Not because she doesn't learn at home. She does and has. According to her teacher, she's the brightest kid in her class and she's been home with mom - and me once I get home from work - up until now. I remember an elementary school teacher that my daughter met during a work social of mine a year ago - the spouse of a co-worker happens to be a teacher - putting her into 1st grade based on her communication skills when she was barely 4 years of age. So, she's been developing just fine outside of school or daycare or any of that but ever since she started the VPK program, she's made a big jump. As far as I am concerned, these programs are awesome and worth every penny that goes into them.

[Danno 1,228]

Early is the key. My daughter just turned 5 and she understands fully and speaks well three languages at this point. One would not believe the amazing progress she made in her German speaking abilities in the little over two weeks we spent in Germany around her 5th birthday just now. It's unbelievable what a young brain can absorb. She's attending VPK since late August here and I am just beside myself about what she learns each and every day attending this voluntary but publicly financed program. I'd pay for it if it wasn't sponsored by the state. Not because she doesn't learn at home. She does and has. According to her teacher, she's the brightest kid in her class and she's been home with mom - and me once I get home from work - up until now. I remember an elementary school teacher that my daughter met during a work social of mine a year ago - the spouse of a co-worker happens to be a teacher - putting her into 1st grade based on her communication skills when she was barely 4 years of age. So, she's been developing just fine outside of school or daycare or any of that but ever since she started the VPK program, she's made a big jump. As far as I am concerned, these programs are awesome and worth every penny that goes into them.

Here is what the Dept of Health and human services found after spending 6.8 Billion dollars annually (Thats Billion with a "B:)

DHHS 2011 Study

A 2011 report by the Department of Health and Human Services, “Head Start Impact Study," examined the cognitive development, social-emotional development, and physical health outcomes of Head Start students as compared to a control group that attended private preschool or stayed home with a caregiver. Head Start students were split into two distinct cohorts – 3-year-olds with two years of Head Start before kindergarten, and 4-year-olds with only one year of Head Start before kindergarten. The study found that: 1) Though the program had a “positive impact” on children’s experiences through the preschool years, “advantages children gained during their Head Start and age 4 years yielded only a few statistically significant differences in outcomes at the end of 1st grade for the sample as a whole. Impacts at the end of kindergarten were scattered…”; 2) After first grade, there were no significant social-emotional impacts for the cohort of 4-year-olds, and mixed results on measures of shyness, social withdrawal and problematic student-teacher interactions. The cohort of 3-year-olds with two years of Head Start attendance, however, manifested less hyperactive behaviors and more positive relationships with parents; 3) By the end of first grade, only “a single cognitive impact was found for each cohort.” Compared to students in the control group, the 4-year-old Head Start cohort did “significantly better” on vocabulary and the 3-year-old cohort tested better in oral comprehension. The study concludes, "Head Start has benefits for both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in the cognitive, health, and parenting domains, and for 3-year-olds in the social-emotional domain. However, the benefits of access to Head Start at age four are largely absent by 1st grade for the program population as a whole. For 3-year-olds, there are few sustained benefits, although access to the program may lead to improved parent-child relationships through 1st grade, a potentially important finding for children’s longer term development.”[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program#Funding

I wouldn't call that Program a good investment no matter how you look at it.

Do a little math and lets see what the Government is paying for this daycare program.

905,000 children -costing 6.8 billion dollars a year.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

As long as parents who have children attending said school fund it then more power to them. It's when people who have no children have to pay school tax, etc.. is when it becomes total bs. Why should someone who doesn't have kids pay for someone else kid?

[Danno 1,228]

As long as parents who have children attending said school fund it then more power to them. It's when people who have no children have to pay school tax, etc.. is when it becomes total bs. Why should someone who doesn't have kids pay for someone else kid?

Actually, those people not having kids should pay DOUBLE...... who are those free loaders expecting to pay for their Social Security?

[SuperDuper! 230]

It's always a dreamy theoretical scenario to pose a seemingly irresistible investment like, "Every $1 dollar invested now, will bring $7 of benefit later."

Or "Provide kids with good schools now, and keep them out of costly prisons later."

The problem is, gov't's and investors on every level are short-term in their thinking, only looking every 3-6 months ahead.

If only we were generational thinking, and could say, "Let's sacrifice now, for the generation 20 years down the road, who are not even called into existence yet.

It just ain't gonna happen, despite the obvious value and benefit it would accrue to society.

[HannahP 119]

Why should someone who doesn't have kids pay for someone else kid?

Hey now, just 'cause your wife won't do you doesn't mean the rest of us aren't succeeding with our sex lives!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

One of the big reasons preschool is so successful is it gets the kids away from the parents for a while.

Sarcasm detected. My generation did without preschool for the most part. It was the crazy old uncle that tried to molest us, not the pedophiles running the daycare. Better someone you know, than the stranger down the street that charges you money to have sex with your kids.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Hey now, just 'cause your wife won't do you doesn't mean the rest of us aren't succeeding with our sex lives!

I guess I'm doomed to be a virgin.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Why_Me

[HannahP 119]

I guess I'm doomed to be a virgin.

/sadpanda for you

[Dan and Judy 614]

Hey now, just 'cause your wife won't do you doesn't mean the rest of us aren't succeeding with our sex lives!

I was complaining to my best friend that my wife wasn't giving me enough sex.

He said " don't feel bad I know some guys she's cut off completely"

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

I'm guessing peeps with five kids had sex a total of five times?