The Pre-K Debates: Current Controversies and Issues - Softcover

Excerpted from Chapter 1 of The Pre-K Debates edited by Edward Zigler, Ph.D., Walter S. Gilliam, Ph.D., and W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D. Copyright© 2011 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.

Introduction
Edward Zigler, Walter S. Gilliam, and W. Steven Barnett

Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Likewise, anything worth doing well is worthy of vigorous debate regarding the goals of the effort and exactly how those goals should be achieved. Preschool education has grown into an idea that is worthy of debate. Indeed, vigorous debate has been an integral part of the evolution of the concept of early education. Since the 1960s, preschool education has grown from an experimental idea from researchers and scholars into one that is widely accepted by leaders in the worlds of policy, economics, and business. It is widely viewed as perhaps the best means for improving the educational and later-life outcomes of young children, addressing the racial and class gaps in educational achievement, and protecting our societal investment in education. The interested parties have grown from a handful of scholars to thought leaders across a myriad of ?elds, including business leaders, philanthropists, advocates, economists, lawyers, and public of?cials. This wide-ranging interest in early education is a strong indicator of the priority given to this topic and a societal acceptance of the importance of supporting our youngest and most vulnerable learners. Given this level of interest, debates are inevitable, and each issue of debate has its champions.

This book builds on the considerable evidence for the positive impact of high-quality early education, as well as the fact that many of our early education programs do not rise to the level of quality that research has consistently shown is possible to achieve and necessary for bene?cial impacts. Much has been learned about the essential ingredients of early education (e.g., Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, & Thornburg, 2009; Zigler, Gilliam, & Jones, 2006a). The current debates are largely about the goals of public preschool education and how best to provide the ingredients needed to accomplish them on a large scale.

Rather than restating the rationale for early education, this book dives directly into the hottest debates in the ?eld. For each issue of debate, the most vocal and erudite champions were identi?ed. Each champion summarized his or her position and the evidentiary basis in a brief essay, and the essays were organized to place each debater in contrast to an opposing debater. In this way, the reader can weigh the pros and cons for each position and emerge more informed as to what is known (and yet unknown) about how best to provide early education in the United States. At the end of the book, Martha Zaslow—one of the nation's most forward-thinking scholars on early education and child care and Director of the Of?ce for Policy and Communication of the Society for Research in Child Development—offers a summary and synthesis of the main topics of debates, highlighting areas of clear differences in opinion, as well as areas where some degree of consensus may be found.

To set the stage for the foray into these debates, Chapters 1 and 2 provide an overview of current understanding of preschool education and the rationale for this intense interest in how best to provide it. Chapter 1, by Nobel Laureate economist James J. Heckman, provides an excellent discussion of many of the key concepts underpinning the importance of early education, whereas Chapter 2, by Sara D. Watson of the Pew Charitable Trusts, explains why these key concepts have so greatly captured the energy and enthusiasm of public of?cials and private philanthropy.

After this brief overview, Part I of the book moves directly into the issues of debate. Chapters 3–7 focus squarely on what is perhaps the biggest issue facing public-funded preschool: Should eligibility for publicly funded preschool be targeted speci?cally to low-income children or open to all children regardless of income? The debaters raise both practical and principled questions about alternative policies. Although the issue may appear to be one of polar-opposite opinions, a variety of middle-ground options are also explored in the essays. Chapters 8–14 focus on what degrees or credentials preschool teachers should possess. Again, the issue at hand is more nuanced than simply debating whether teachers should possess a bachelor's degree or not. The debaters tackle this weighty issue from a variety of angles that address both preservice training and ongoing teacher supports, as well as the ways in which the broader contexts and conditions of early education may affect the answers. Chapters 15–20 address the goals of preschool: Should public-supported preschool be focused primarily on cognitive or academic achievement, or should the mission be broader? Chapters 21–24 focus on discussing which locations and administrative structures might best deliver preschool education. At present, public-funded preschool is provided across a wide array of provider organizations (e.g., public schools, private schools, Head Start grantees, child care providers, other nonpro?t agencies). Which programs are best equipped to provide a quality preschool experience to young children, and how can a system of early education best be created from the programmatic building blocks that currently exist?

Parts II and III include issues that do not ? t neatly into debates, but they are important nonetheless. These topics address questions such as the following:

• How do we ensure quality and accountability in preschool programs? (Chapters 25–8)
• What should come before and after preschool? (Chapters 29–34)
• What lessons can be learned from state efforts to implement prekindergarten systems? (Chapters 35 and 36)
• What might be the dangers in overselling preschool as a magical elixir to cure all of the ails in our educational system? (Chapters 37 and 38)

The purpose of this book is not to settle these debates. Rather, it is to allow the interested reader an opportunity to better appreciate the differing perspectives and opinions, understand the reach and limits of the existing evidence in favor of each position, and form his or her own conclusion. As the French essayist Joseph Joubert (1754–1824) opined, "It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it" (Lyttelton, 1899). With this in mind, this book is not intended to close any debates, but rather to open them up for greater illumination and wider participation. Enter the debaters.

Debate 1
TARGETED VERSUS UNIVERSAL PRESCHOOL

STUDY QUESTIONS

• What are the three main criticisms of targeted preschool? What are the authors' rebuttals?
• How does a universal program generate bene?ts that a targeted program does not? Do these outcomes outweigh the added expense?
• Do you agree or disagree with the tactic of implementing universal pre-K and then working to make it high quality? Conversely, what are the benefits of starting with a high-quality, targeted pre-K program and then expanding it to a universal program? (See examples in Chapter 6.)

The Economic Case for Targeted Preschool Programs
Art Rolnick and Rob Grunewald

As stewards of the public purse, policy makers are charged with allocating scarce resources to investments that provide the greatest benefits relative to costs. Early childhood education (ECE) targeted for at-risk children is such an investment. Economic research has made the case that investment in ECE for at-risk children provides extraordinary returns. Some of the bene?ts are private gains for individuals in the form of higher wages later in life, but a majority of the bene?ts accrue to society as a whole through reduced remedial education and crime costs and higher tax revenue.

However, returns to ECE investments are not all equal. The returns to universal programs (i.e., preschool programs available for all children) are much lower than returns to targeted programs. Indeed, the returns to universal programs appear low even relative to other public investments. Consequently, based on the principle that resources should be invested in the highest return projects, ECE investments should be aimed at our most at-risk children.

In this chapter, we ?rst show that investments in at-risk children achieve substantially higher returns than universal investments. We then respond to several criticisms of targeted preschool programs. We conclude with a discussion of the key features for successfully investing in targeted ECE programs and advocate for a market-based approach.

ECONOMIC RESEARCH FAVORS TARGETED APPROACHES TO EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

The high return to early childhood investments targeted to at-risk children is well researched. Analyses of the Perry preschool program (Schweinhart et al., 2005), the Abecedarian project (Masse & Barnett, 2002), the Chicago Child-Parent Centers (Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, & Mann, 2002), and the Elmira Prenatal/Early Infancy Project (Karoly et al., 1998) show annual rates of return, adjusted for in?ation, ranging from 7% to just over 20% and benefit–cost ratios ranging from 4:1 to more than 10:1 (Heckman, Grunewald, & Reynolds, 2006). Researchers followed effects of these ECE programs through adolescence and well into adulthood (Heckman et al., 2006).

These four longitudinal studies form the primary cost–benefit evidence in support of ECE investments targeted to at-risk children (i.e., from low-income households) and their families. Research also suggests that early childhood investments targeted to at-risk children should start well before preschool. Neuroscience shows that the ?rst few years of life are crucial to healthy brain development. Programs that begin early are particularly important to children exposed to toxic stress (National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, 2009).

RETURNS TO TARGETED PROGRAMS ARE HIGHER THAN UNIVERSAL

In this section, we show that returns to targeted preschool programs are higher than universal programs through a critique of the case for universal preschool. Proponents for universal preschool claim that the rate of return to middle-income children on a per-child basis is substantial—even though it is smaller than the return to low-income children. They demonstrate the rate of return to middle-income children in part by extrapolating from the longitudinal studies focused on low-income children. In addition, proponents note that the total return to universal preschool is much larger than the total return to targeted preschool because there are a large number of middle-income children relative to low-income children.

In our response to the case for universal preschool, we begin by discussing three shortcomings in universal proponents' claim that per-child returns to universal preschool are substantial. First, extrapolating evidence from the longitudinal targeted studies to middle-income children is subject to a fair degree of uncertainty. Second, benefits to low-income children from attending universal preschool tend to drive the universal rate of return. Third, universal preschool supplants funds middle- and high income families would spend on preschool regardless of the availability of universal preschool.

In addition to these shortcomings, we argue that the per-child rate of return is a better criterion for making funding decisions than the total rate of return. Moreover, we contend that the higher overall cost of universal preschool relative to targeted preschool could crowd out investment in potentially higher return investments.

A targeted approach achieves a higher rate of return than a universal approach because low income children begin at a lower baseline than children from higher-income families. (Children from higher-income families are more likely to start preschool closer to the developmental mean.) Hart and Risley (1995) observed that by the age of 3 years, children who grew up in homes with parents on welfare had only half the number of vocabulary words as children who grew up in homes with college educated parents. The gap observed by the researchers translates to high costs to society. We argue that a preschool investment in the former child produces a high public return, whereas a preschool investment in the latter produces a modest public return. The longitudinal studies cited previously show that high-quality targeted ECE programs can reduce costs for special education, grade retention, and the criminal justice system and can increase tax revenue (Heckman et al., 2006).

Universal proponents point to studies of universal preschool programs to make the case that children from all income levels benefit from attending. For example, a study of Oklahoma's universal preschool program in Tulsa showed that children from higher income families posted test score gains. However, children who quali?ed for free lunch and reduced-price lunch had higher test score gains in letter-word identi?cation, spelling, and applied problems than children who paid full price for lunch (Gromley, 2007).

Some researchers have used the cost–benefit study results of the longitudinal studies to help estimate economic returns to universal programs. Examples of applying the results from studies of targeted preschool programs to universal preschool are found in Bel?eld (2004), Karoly and Bigelow (2005), and Lynch (2007). However, attempts to adjust the economic impact for middle-income and high income children are subject to a fair degree of uncertainty. For example, the Karoly and Bigelow study of California universal preschool reported that preschool benefit–cost estimates range from roughly 2:1 to more than 4:1. Differences between the estimates are based on different assumptions regarding how much middle-risk and low-risk children benefit from universal preschool relative to high-risk children.

If the per-child rate of return of middle-risk and low-risk children is relatively modest, the participation of high-risk children in universal programs would primarily drive the economic return. In the Karoly and Bigelow study (2005), the most conservative estimate of 2:1 assumed that all benefits to the universal program accrue to high-risk children, who comprise 25% of California's 4-year-old population. The baseline benefit–cost ratio reported in the study was 2.6:1, in which middle-risk children and low-risk children received 50% and 25% of benefits, respectively, relative to high-risk children. (In the simulation, these impacts referred to children who would not have attended preschool without the implementation of the universal program.) The baseline benefit–cost ratio is driven largely by benefits to high-risk children. Furthermore, if the California preschool program was limited to the high-risk children and not offered to all children, overall costs would drop by 75% (the proportion of middle- and low-risk children in the simulation), thus increasing the benefit–cost ratio to clo...