Witnessing a four-year-old fall behind before anyone has bothered to notice is quietly devastating. Not in a big way. Not very loudly. Gradually, due to a confluence of factors that no one could control, such as inadequate diet, unstimulating surroundings, and caregivers who are too busy to read bedtime stories or pose inquisitive questions. By the time that child enters a kindergarten classroom, the difference between them and a more fortunate peer is already apparent, quantifiable, and, as research continues to show, costly for all parties involved.
This argument has been strengthened over the years by economists. James Heckman, a Nobel laureate whose research on the creation of human capital has influenced decades of policy thinking, makes the straightforward claim that early cognitive and non-cognitive abilities compound in ways that subsequent interventions just cannot match at the same cost. It’s not a gentle argument wrapped in humanitarian rhetoric. When it comes to rate-of-return calculations, early childhood consistently prevails. However, Washington keeps allocating funds as if the most economical window for human development doesn’t open until middle school, job training, or some other remedial moment that occurs far downstream from the actual source of the issue.
The fact that policymakers consistently misinterpret the evidence is especially startling and genuinely perplexing. The “fade out” effect, which is the observation that academic gains from programs like Head Start seem to diminish by the second or third grade as other children catch up, is a persistent source of concern. This has been used by detractors to claim the investment was a waste. However, there are important gaps in that framing. Benefits reappear when researchers follow participants into adulthood: greater lifetime earnings, lower incarceration rates, and higher educational attainment. Test results are often the only thing that the fade-out crowd considers. The results of life tell a different tale.
An even more general point regarding where the returns truly reside is made by two recent studies. According to a New Haven preschool lottery study, winning a seat increased parents’ incomes by about $5,400 per year, which persisted for at least six years after the preschool period. That’s about a 20 percent increase in income, mostly due to parents working longer hours because they were able to do so thanks to high-quality full-day care. Access to full-day programs increased mothers’ employment by five percentage points without decreasing the amount of time they spent with their children, according to a different national study on kindergarten expansion. These results are not marginal. They contend that we have been measuring the wrong people when we discuss the return on investment in early childhood.
Approximately 50% of three and four-year-olds in America do not attend any kind of preschool. In a market where rates have increased to the point where “unsustainable” is the charitable word, about 7.5 million families are managing that gap through a combination of lost wages and expensive private childcare. Companies that are concerned about the availability of labor and participation in the workforce might benefit from looking at these figures. Because the childcare math doesn’t work, the workers they claim they can’t find are frequently sitting at home.
Seeing this debate go through Congress year after year gives me the impression that something crucial is being misunderstood. Although it might be, this isn’t a welfare argument. Although it is a social justice argument, it is not the only one. Fundamentally, it is an investment argument, backed by neuroscience, economists of all stripes, and now growing evidence that the advantages also apply to employers, parents, and the larger tax base. Advocates are no longer constructing the economic case for early childhood investment. It’s constructed. Progress has been much slower when it comes to the political will to take action.
While waiting for institutions to catch up, children cannot postpone their development. At least that much seems clear. Apparently, the others are still not.
