Early Childhood Education May Not Be a Magic Bullet

Biden promised “the most transformative investment in children and caregiving in generations” was coming with the passing of his Build Back Better framework. Unfortunately, Senators Manchin and Sinema killed the bill claiming the exorbitant costs were simply too much for America to afford, irrespective of the fact the bill was nearly fully offset. Part of that package included “universal preschool for all 3- and 4-year olds”:

“Preschool in the United States costs about $8,600 per year. The Build Back Better framework will enable states to expand access to free preschool for more than 6 million children per year and increase the quality of preschool for many more children already enrolled. Importantly, parents will be able to send children to high-quality preschool in the setting of their choice – from public schools to child care providers to Head Start. The program will lead to lifelong educational and economic benefits for children and parents, and is a transformational investment in America’s future economic competitiveness. In fact, research shows that every $1 invested in high-quality early childhood care and education can yield $3 to $7 over the long-run, as they do better in school, are more likely to graduate high-school and college, and earn more as adults.”

Preschool costs on average $889 per month, amounting to an average savings of $10,800 per kid. That is a sizeable investment in families that intend to send their kids to preschool. Like many other BBB proposals, this policy would lessen the potential burden of early childhood costs. The childcare tax credit similarly contributed $300 per month universally, lowering child expenses by $3600 per kid. The proposal to limit child care costs to 7% of income could be similarly helpful for parents of infants, of whom child care costs 17.1% of national median household income.

Early childhood expenses are a highly cited reason why millennials aren’t procreating. The growth rate continues to slide downward in America, nadiring at .1% in 2021. Growth was higher before the pandemic, with a rate closer to .35%. But even that rate was still the lowest in the history of the US. Trying to boost births through economic incentives makes some sense for a country lacking growth prospects. I’m uncertain that these will have massive effects (or any at all), but it makes sense to try and alleviate some of the disparities in wealth held between potential young parents today and their ancestors at childbearing age. Notably, the birth rate is usually highest among the poor and decreases with every successive decile by household income.

That’s not to say it is bad policy simply because it can’t curtail the falling population growth rate. Plenty of critics would like to grow the US population (100 Billion Americans comes to mind) for economic benefits, but it is probably a losing battle over the long run. The world growth rate is expected to decrease throughout this century until approaching zero by 2100. That said, we can at least not punish young adults for having children. Families with children under five have much lower incomes than those households without kids, even after accounting for age, education, and race. The associated decline in income of having a child under five is $14,850, or 14% of the total average household income. Most of that decline is reflected by the impact on earnings for women.

So, if prekindergarten education is good for poor and young families, then that means progressives should champion the cause? In many cases, yes, but the progressive issue for prekindergarten is murkier than you may expect – in large part due to the correlations that studies have shown of early childhood education on later life outcomes.

A study released in January delved into the potential effects of the Tennessee prekindergarten program on children’s achievement and behavior through sixth grade. The Tennessee program serves over 18,000 children a minimum of five and a half hours of instruction five days a week. The program is oversubscribed; the program’s popularity surpasses funding, which bestowed a gift upon the researchers in the form of a randomly assigned cohort. Nearly 3000 children were randomized to either a waitlist or admittance into the program. The researchers found that while kindergarten readiness was improved among those attending the program, the trend reversed by third grade – the formerly waitlisted children drew even with peers on disciplinary infractions and academic measures. Children in the control group continued to outclass those previously enrolled in the early childhood program through sixth grade.

Those results are not encouraging! Republicans already are against further spending on prekindergarten education, and it’s not hard to envision ads about the Biden administration considering trying to dumb down the next generation. Sure, it may be suitable for parents and the economy, but at what cost? This isn’t the first study that found lasting negative impacts from prekindergarten programs. Quebec has a similar program to Tennessee’s that has been studied and shown the program to correlate with children having “worse health, lower life satisfaction, and higher crime rates later in life.” It is certainly possible that some pre-K programs are meaningfully harmful to children.

There is conflicting evidence supporting early childhood education as well. A meta-analysis from 2017 of 22 high-quality early childhood studies found that early childhood education led to statistically significant reductions in special education placement and grade retention and increases in high school graduation rates. Jim Heckman, a Nobel award winner, has several papers that reflect positive long-term outcomes for early childhood enrollees. One of his papers is summarized as follows:

“This paper estimates the long-term benefits of an influential early childhood program targeting disadvantaged families. The program was evaluated by random assignment and followed participants through their mid-30s. It has substantial beneficial impacts on health, children’s future labor incomes, crime, education, and mothers’ labor incomes, with greater monetized benefits for males. Lifetime returns are estimated by pooling multiple data sets using testable economic models. The overall rate of return is 13.7% per annum, and the benefit/cost ratio is 7.3. These estimates are robust to numerous sensitivity analyses.”

It is safe to say the results of prekindergarten education are mixed. A couple of explanations are possible, but two that seem potentially likely are that some programs are better than others, and (conflictingly) more recent studies appear more negative as the research is getting better. Further studies are necessary to determine whether early education impacts later academic success.

Should the Democrats ditch its early childhood education policy? Absolutely not. The harm of only looking at childhood educational attainment from prekindergarten access is that it does not reflect the potential consequences of childcare costs on family wealth. Every dollar currently spent by families on prekindergarten would likely be better spent on keeping kids secure and comfortable, thus leading to better life outcomes. The United States spends an abysmal figure on child care – around $500 per child. Compare that to the OECD average of $14,436, let alone the Scandinavian countries above $20,000.

The educational benefits of prekindergarten certainly seem low, but freeing up adults to work and support their children is essential for a capitalistic society currently lacking growth. Even if you do not want to incentivize child-rearing, you definitely do not want to punish those young adults willing to take on the challenge of exorbitant costs of having a child.

Quite a few studies also show that the poor results of academically focused early childhood education models are not replicated by play-based models. For instance, a study of impoverished Black children found that those who attended play-based preschools performed better academically than those in academic preschools by grade four. A coauthor of the Tennessee preschool study, Dale Farran, came out with a similar idea for where the Tennessee statewide program went wrong:

“Farran points out that families of means tend to choose play-based preschool programs with art, movement, music and nature. Children are asked open-ended questions, and they are listened to.

This is not what Farran is seeing in classrooms full of kids in poverty, where “teachers talk a lot, but they seldom listen to children.” She thinks that part of the problem is that teachers in many states are certified for teaching students in prekindergarten through grade 5, or sometimes even pre-K-8. Very little of their training focuses on the youngest learners.

… In 2016, Farran published a study based on her observations of publicly funded Tennessee pre-K classrooms similar to those included in this paper. She found then that the largest chunk of the day was spent in transition time. This means simply moving kids around the building.”

America should have universal childcare, and at the very least should increase its abysmally low spending on child care. Yes, the educational benefits are small and potentially slightly detrimental. But there may also be some ability for the programs to become better as we accept that early education isn’t some magic bullet by which we can raise every kid to above-average intelligence. Preschool can simply be daycare with a bit of instruction and still have net benefits for society. Focusing on imitating positive home environments with added socialization would be a good step. That said, between universal child care and a direct child payment similar to the child tax credit, give me the direct payment. Studies of preschool outcomes are pretty muddled, but virtually every study shows poverty has deleterious effects on academic and social outcomes. If we truly want to close the intelligence gap between poor and affluent families, then let’s close that gap economically.