- Email: [email protected]
Introduction to the special issue ‘The economics of early childhood education’ Economics of education review
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Economics of Education Review 26 (2007) 1–2 www.elsevier.com/locate/econedurev
Editorial
Introduction to the special issue ‘The economics of early childhood education’ Economics of education review 1. Introduction This Issue of the Economics of Education Review is devoted to the economics of early education. Recent years have seen a substantial growth in research interest by economists in this area. The reasons for this are many. Primarily, interest is motivated by the evidentiary claims that the early childhood years are strongly formative and that, when considered as investments, early education programs offer high private, fiscal, and societal returns (especially, when contrasted with programs for youth; see Carneiro & Heckman, 2003). A secondary motivation derives from the political and public support for investments in young children; research in this area has the potential to influence policy, particularly in relation to how public investments might be structured and programs implemented. Inquiry into early education can also be set within the broader context of education policy research. With respect to K-12 schooling, research has established three (somewhat conflicting) generalizations. One is that each year of educational attainment has powerful consequences for a person’s economic well being. The second is that current school provision appears—at least prima facie when applying basic economic principles— inefficient and high cost (Hanushek, 2004). The third is that proposed school reforms—even the most successful ones or those involving wholesale organizational and institutional restructuring— appear to have only modest effects on student outcomes. Thus, early education looks promising. Introducing an additional (voluntary) year of schooling before kindergarten would raise attainment. If early 0272-7757/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.07.002
education raises school readiness and enhances students’ proficiency, this should improve efficiency over the entire K-12 school system. And, with its diverse and sustained benefits for children, early education may have relatively powerful academic and developmental consequences such that it merits priority over other public investments. In addition, a case may be made for investing in early education on equity grounds. There are substantial gaps between children as they enter school; these gaps persist through childhood, but disadvantage is being reinforced rather than established (Magnuson and Waldfogel, 2005). And, when their children are young many low-income families are at the same time credit-constrained in making optimal investments in education. Head Start serves in part to redress these inequities, but when full enrollment and quality effects are taken into account, disadvantaged children still report lower levels of school readiness as a result of fewer resources committed in the early years (Barnett & Belfield, 2006). The articles in this Special Issue address these issues, offering new and policy-relevant research on an educational reform of growing significance. Henry Levin and Heather Schwartz evaluate the universal pre-K program in Georgia. Young Eun Chang and colleagues examine whether pre-schooling helps families. Katherine Magnuson and colleagues identify the ways in which pre-K does influence children’s performance in school. Three articles focus on how intensive investments in early education should be: Susanna Loeb and colleagues look for the optimal length of pre-schooling; Philip DeCicca compares half-day versus full-day kindergarten; and Janet Currie and Matthew Neidell examine how variations in Head Start programs
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2
Editorial / Economics of Education Review 26 (2007) 1–2
affect children. Gary Henry and Dana Rickman test for another input—children’s peers—on outcomes from the Georgia program. Finally, Steve Barnett, Judy Temple and Arthur Reynolds report costbenefit analyses of two high-profile model early education programs. Collectively, these studies contribute to the growing research interest in investments in early education by economists. References Barnett, W. S., & Belfield, C. R. (2006). Early childhood development and social mobility. The Future of Children, forthcoming.
Carneiro, P., & Heckman, J. J. (2003). Human capital policy. In J. J. Heckman, & A. B. Krueger (Eds.), Inequality in America: What role for human capital policies?. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Hanushek, E. A. (2004). What if there are no ‘best practices’? Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 51, 156–172. Magnuson, K. A., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Early childhood care and education: Effects on ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. Future of Children, 15, 169–188.
Clive R. Belfield Economics Department, Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing, NY 11367, USA E-mail address: Clive.belfi[email protected]
Economics of Education Review 26 (2007) 1–2 www.elsevier.com/locate/econedurev
Editorial
Introduction to the special issue ‘The economics of early childhood education’ Economics of education review 1. Introduction This Issue of the Economics of Education Review is devoted to the economics of early education. Recent years have seen a substantial growth in research interest by economists in this area. The reasons for this are many. Primarily, interest is motivated by the evidentiary claims that the early childhood years are strongly formative and that, when considered as investments, early education programs offer high private, fiscal, and societal returns (especially, when contrasted with programs for youth; see Carneiro & Heckman, 2003). A secondary motivation derives from the political and public support for investments in young children; research in this area has the potential to influence policy, particularly in relation to how public investments might be structured and programs implemented. Inquiry into early education can also be set within the broader context of education policy research. With respect to K-12 schooling, research has established three (somewhat conflicting) generalizations. One is that each year of educational attainment has powerful consequences for a person’s economic well being. The second is that current school provision appears—at least prima facie when applying basic economic principles— inefficient and high cost (Hanushek, 2004). The third is that proposed school reforms—even the most successful ones or those involving wholesale organizational and institutional restructuring— appear to have only modest effects on student outcomes. Thus, early education looks promising. Introducing an additional (voluntary) year of schooling before kindergarten would raise attainment. If early 0272-7757/$ - see front matter r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2006.07.002
education raises school readiness and enhances students’ proficiency, this should improve efficiency over the entire K-12 school system. And, with its diverse and sustained benefits for children, early education may have relatively powerful academic and developmental consequences such that it merits priority over other public investments. In addition, a case may be made for investing in early education on equity grounds. There are substantial gaps between children as they enter school; these gaps persist through childhood, but disadvantage is being reinforced rather than established (Magnuson and Waldfogel, 2005). And, when their children are young many low-income families are at the same time credit-constrained in making optimal investments in education. Head Start serves in part to redress these inequities, but when full enrollment and quality effects are taken into account, disadvantaged children still report lower levels of school readiness as a result of fewer resources committed in the early years (Barnett & Belfield, 2006). The articles in this Special Issue address these issues, offering new and policy-relevant research on an educational reform of growing significance. Henry Levin and Heather Schwartz evaluate the universal pre-K program in Georgia. Young Eun Chang and colleagues examine whether pre-schooling helps families. Katherine Magnuson and colleagues identify the ways in which pre-K does influence children’s performance in school. Three articles focus on how intensive investments in early education should be: Susanna Loeb and colleagues look for the optimal length of pre-schooling; Philip DeCicca compares half-day versus full-day kindergarten; and Janet Currie and Matthew Neidell examine how variations in Head Start programs
ARTICLE IN PRESS 2
Editorial / Economics of Education Review 26 (2007) 1–2
affect children. Gary Henry and Dana Rickman test for another input—children’s peers—on outcomes from the Georgia program. Finally, Steve Barnett, Judy Temple and Arthur Reynolds report costbenefit analyses of two high-profile model early education programs. Collectively, these studies contribute to the growing research interest in investments in early education by economists. References Barnett, W. S., & Belfield, C. R. (2006). Early childhood development and social mobility. The Future of Children, forthcoming.
Carneiro, P., & Heckman, J. J. (2003). Human capital policy. In J. J. Heckman, & A. B. Krueger (Eds.), Inequality in America: What role for human capital policies?. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Hanushek, E. A. (2004). What if there are no ‘best practices’? Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 51, 156–172. Magnuson, K. A., & Waldfogel, J. (2005). Early childhood care and education: Effects on ethnic and racial gaps in school readiness. Future of Children, 15, 169–188.
Clive R. Belfield Economics Department, Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing, NY 11367, USA E-mail address: Clive.belfi[email protected]