The achievement gaps among different groups of students begin before the first day of school. Gaps exist between African American and white students; between Hispanic and white students; and between advantaged and disadvantaged students, because they have been exposed to very different environments. Some children hear many words and have a large vocabulary; others do not. Some children have parents who are college educated; others do not. Some get regular visits to the doctor and the dentist; others do not. Some live in comfortable homes in safe neighborhoods; others do not.
These differences affect children’s readiness to learn. They influence their vocabulary and background knowledge. Access to health care and nutrition affect their physical and mental development. Of course, all children can learn, but some have a head start because of their socioeconomic circumstances, while others start far behind.
By itself, early childhood education cannot completely close the gaps caused by inequality of wealth and inequality of opportunity, but researchers have concluded that it is more successful in narrowing the gap than most other interventions. Early childhood education programs have abundant research to support them, unlike the currently fashionable “reforms,” which have very little or no research or experience to back them up.
One of the most prominent advocates of early childhood education is James Heckman, a Nobel Prize–winning economist at the University of Chicago. Heckman approaches the subject as an economist, in search of the most cost-effective way to heal economic and social dysfunction. In the past few decades, he says, the proportion of children born into disadvantaged environments has been increasing, putting them at risk of teen pregnancy, crime, poor health, and a lifetime of low earnings. He observed that the accident of birth powerfully affects one’s life chances; this is bad not only for the individuals but for society, which loses their potential contributions. He assembled evidence to demonstrate that “the absence of supportive family environments harms child outcomes.” The good news, however, is that “if society intervenes early enough, it can improve cognitive and socio-emotional abilities and the health of disadvantaged children.” Early intervention not only enhances the life prospects of children but also has a high benefit-cost ratio and rate of return for society’s investment. Heckman argues that early intervention is more cost-effective than later interventions that target older students and adults. Building a strong foundation for learning in the early years is crucial: “Skill begets skill; motivation begets motivation.” He writes that “if a child is not motivated to learn and engage early on in life, the more likely it is that when the child becomes an adult, it will fail in social and economic life. The longer society waits to intervene in the life cycle of a disadvantaged child, the more costly it is to remediate disadvantage.”1
Heckman believes that noncognitive skills are as important for success in life as cognitive skills. But federal education policy, represented by No Child Left Behind, prioritizes cognitive skills and ignores noncognitive skills like motivation, self-discipline, and the ability to work with others, even though these skills are highly valued in the workplace. The growing divide in American society, Heckman writes, is attributable in large part to the decline of the American family, the growing proportion of children raised in disadvantaged families, the dramatic rise in the proportion of single-parent families and never-married mothers, who are less likely to invest in their children as they are growing up. This phenomenon, he says, is “especially pronounced for African American families.” Compared with poorly educated women, more educated women are less likely to have children out of wedlock and more likely to be married, have fewer children, and invest more time and resources in the upbringing of their children. The children who lack these circumstances start far behind. Heckman insists that poverty is not destiny and that society can effectively intervene to change the early environment in which children are raised. Heckman cites longitudinal studies like the Nurse-Family Partnership program, the Perry Preschool Project, and the Abecedarian Project to demonstrate that investment in early childhood education improves noncognitive skills, has significant, lasting effects, and thus represents the best return on society’s investment. Heckman recommends that when center-based programs end, they should be followed up by home-visiting programs that encourage a permanent change in the child’s home environment and improved parenting. Such interventions, he recognizes, must be sensitive to cultural differences.2
Heckman’s work was influenced by major longitudinal studies of preschool education. The most important of these studies was the Perry Preschool Project. David Weikart, who had just earned a PhD at the University of Michigan, started the project in 1961 at Perry Elementary School in Ypsilanti, Michigan. At the time, many people assumed that IQ was fixed and that interventions made no difference. Weikart set out to prove they were wrong.3
The project enrolled fifty-eight poor African American children, beginning at age three. Most of the children attended for three hours a day for two years. The school developed its own active-learning curriculum that encouraged children to plan their own daily activities. Most of the Perry teachers had master’s degrees in child development. There was one teacher for every six children. They received salaries similar to public school teachers. Teachers made weekly home visits, teaching parents how to turn everyday activities into learning experiences for their children.
The project tracked the progress of these fifty-eight students until they were adults, well into their forties. They were “less likely than students in the control group to skip school, be assigned to a special education class, or have to repeat a grade. By age nineteen, 66 percent of them had graduated from high school, as compared to 45 percent of those who hadn’t gone to Perry.” As adults, they earned more, paid more taxes, were less likely to be on welfare, and were less likely to have been incarcerated. They were more likely to own a home and a car. On average, those who had the benefit of the Perry Preschool Project were contributors to society. Of the control group, 52 percent spent some time in jail for various offenses, as compared with 28 percent of those who had been in the preschool program. From the perspective of economists, an investment in high-quality preschool education improved the lives of those who were in the program and paid handsome returns to society.4
It is important to note important aspects of the Perry Preschool Project that contributed to its stellar record:
One, the teachers were professionals, very well trained for their work.
Two, class sizes were small so that each child received the time and attention needed from the teacher.
Three, parent education was integral to the work of the project. Teachers paid weekly home visits to teach the parents to engage their children and support what they were learning each day.
Knowing what we know from research about the value of early childhood education, how do we compare to other nations in providing it to our population? The Economist magazine surveyed the condition of early childhood education in forty-five nations in terms of availability and quality. The Nordic countries led the pack: Finland, Sweden, and Norway were at the top, “thanks to sustained, long-term investments and prioritization of early childhood development, which is now deeply embedded in society. In general, Europe’s state-led systems perform well, as the provision of universal preschool has steadily become a societal norm.” The United States, the wealthiest nation in the world, ranked twenty-fourth, in a tie with the United Arab Emirates. Compared with the top European nations, where preschool was near universal, only 54 percent of U.S. children in the relevant age group attended preschool.5
Since we know as a matter of fact that the achievement gap begins in the earliest years, reformers should be demanding an expansion of early childhood education of high quality with well-prepared teachers. I want to stress the second part of the last sentence: high quality with well-prepared teachers. Few Head Start centers meet those requirements. Is it not a scandal that we rank twenty-fourth among the world’s most advanced nations? Reform could make a difference here if we mean to reduce the achievement gaps and improve the lives of children.
The case for early childhood education is based on sound research, conducted over many years. The evidence is overwhelming. Early childhood education works. Early intervention can make a lasting difference in children’s lives. It’s expensive to do it right. It’s even more expensive to do half measures or not to do it at all.