A possible short-term benefit of early childhood programs: packaging them with adult job training programs

Posted on January 13, 2011 by timbartik

Some recent posts at this blog have been discussing the political problem that early childhood programs’ economic development benefits are mostly long-term, while political leaders often want results before the next election. So far, I have suggested two short-term benefits of early childhood programs: special education cost savings, and property value increases due to higher school test scores. Today I suggest a third possible short-term benefit: packaging early childhood programs with adult job training programs for the parents of the child participants.

This packaging would require some change in early childhood programs. They would have to be offered in conjunction with some job training program that did a good job of addressing the job training needs of parents.

For packaging early childhood programs with some other program “X” to be a real way to increase the short-term benefits of early childhood programs, there has to be some reason why the packaging makes sense. Otherwise, you could claim short-term benefits for early childhood programs by packaging the programs with ANY program that has great short-term benefits. But for these short-term benefits to be legitimately associated with early childhood programs, there have to be some gains from the package. For example, perhaps the packaging of program X with the early childhood program might somehow increase the returns to both programs because of some synergies between program X and the early childhood program.

Adult job training for parents of child participants in early childhood programs might have such synergies. Early childhood programs often provide some free child care for parents. This additional parent time could be used for job training. In addition, knowing their child is in a high-quality early childhood program may make parents more positive about investing in their own future.

Adult job training programs for parents may also increase the rate of return to early childhood programs.  For example, research by Duncan, Kalil, and Ziol-Guest suggests that added family income when a child is in the age range from zero to five will have large effects in increasing that child’s adult earnings. The combination of better parental earnings and a good early childhood program may have more dramatic effects in increasing the former child participant’s earnings as an adult.

As James Heckman has argued, it is harder to run good adult job training programs than good early childhood programs. But adult job training programs can have good rates of return if they are focused on employers’ skill needs.

In chapter 7 of Investing in Kids, I do some simulations of the potential effects of combining pre-k programs with high-quality training programs for parents.  The training programs are only assumed to be used by parents who are economically disadvantaged. I find that such training programs can potentially double or triple the magnitude of economic development benefits as a percent of total program costs after five years.  For example, a universal pre-k program by itself will increase state residents’ earnings after 5 years by 16% of the program’s costs. A universal pre-k program, packaged with a high-quality community college training program, will increase state residents’ earnings after five years by 47% of the combined costs of the two programs.

This calculation does not allow for any synergy effects between the pre-k program and the adult job training. The short-term and long-term benefits of this package could be much greater if there are such synergies.

This packaging proposal could benefit from some pilot experiments. Can we effectively combine early childhood programs with job training programs for parents? Is the combined package more effective than running such programs separately?  These are questions that could be answered with appropriately designed research studies.

Posted in Early childhood program design issues, Early childhood programs, Timing of benefits | 7 Comments

More political implications of property value increases due to pre-k

Posted on January 12, 2011 by timbartik

As mentioned in a previous post, one possible short-term benefit of pre-k is an increase in local property values. The argument is that preschool will increase elementary test scores, and higher elementary test scores have been shown to increase property values.  Calculations based on this research suggest that due to elementary test score effects, an expansion of pre-k should result in property value increases of as much as 13 times the annual program costs of the expanded pre-k.

I also show in chapter 7 of Investing in Kids that property value increases of  pre-k could be even higher, if parents and others fully understood how large the effects of pre-k are on the child’s later earnings as an adult. Only a portion of the effects of pre-k on the adult earnings of former child participants are due to the “hard” skills that are measured by elementary school tests. Much of the effects of pre-k on adult earnings are due to changes in behavior and soft skills, which are reflected in increases in educational attainment, employment rates, and wage rates that go well beyond what would be predicted based on school test results.

I calculate that if parents fully understood the earnings effects of pre-k, the resulting property value increase could be as much as 80 times annual program costs for pre-k.  (Given the magnitude of property wealth, even this large ratio of property value increases to annual pre-k costs only requires a housing price increase of 5 %.)  At average property tax rates in the U.S., such a property value increase would be sufficient for the increased property tax revenues to cover annual program costs of the pre-k expansion. (Some property tax limitation provisions of some states’ constitutions may prevent these increased property valuations from increasing property tax bills, so such a self-financing effect would not occur in all states.)

This calculation suggests one strategy to increase the short-term political benefits of pre-k. Suppose parents and the general public were more fully educated about the benefits of high-quality pre-k.  Suppose parents and the general public had better comparative information about the availability and cost of high-quality pre-k in different local economies.  This increased education and information should result in high-quality pre-k having larger property value effects. These higher property value effects provide greater property tax receipts to local governments, and provide greater short-run benefits to homeowners, who comprise a majority of voters.

Such educational/information campaigns would also more directly increase short-run political support for expanding pre-k. Voters who more understood the benefits of pre-k for their child’s future, and their state or local area’s future, and more fully understood the quality of their own state or local area’s efforts in pre-k, would be more likely to support a well-planned expansion of high-quality pre-k.

Using property value increases as a rationale for human capital investments has a long tradition in the U.S.  Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz, in their book The Race Between Education and Technology, have a great quotation on this topic. The quotation comes from the Iowa Department of Public Instruction in 1914:

“The landlord who lives in town… may well be reminded that when he offers his farm for sale it will be to advantage to advertise, “free transportation to a good graded school”.” (Goldin and Katz, p. 193)

The same type of property value argument can be used today to argue for high-quality preschool.

Posted in Early childhood programs, Timing of benefits | Comments Off on More political implications of property value increases due to pre-k

Property value increases: another short-run benefit of early childhood programs

Posted on January 11, 2011 by timbartik

Several of my blog posts have addressed the political problem that much of the benefits from early childhood programs are long-term. These programs’ benefits are long-term because most of the economic benefits associated with former child participants don’t occur until they become adults. The long-term nature of program benefits is a problem because political leaders often focus on the short-term.

I have already mentioned one benefit of early childhood programs that is short-term: savings in special education costs. Today’s blog post discusses another benefit that is short-term: increased property values.

We know from research that higher test scores in early elementary school will increase local property values. This research compares the prices of houses that are similar in all respects except for the test scores of the local elementary school. The research compares similar houses in the same neighborhood that are divided by an elementary school attendance zone boundary.  Parents presumably are willing to pay more for houses that are associated with higher elementary test scores because they expect this to result in more achievement for their child.

We also know from research that high-quality preschool affects early elementary test scores. If we combine these two lines of research, we can calculate the effects of universal pre-k on property values that would occur simply through the “transmission mechanism” of higher elementary test scores. These higher property values do not assume that parents DIRECTLY put any value on preschool. It simply assumes that parents are willing to pay for higher elementary test scores, regardless of why these higher test scores occur.

In chapter 7 of Investing in Kids, I present this calculation. I find that property value increases due to higher elementary test score effects of preschool could plausibly be 13 times the annual program costs for universal pre-k.

These property value increases would occur in the short-term. After a universal pre-k program was begun, we would expect test score increases in early elementary school to occur within a few years.  Property value increases should occur when the test score increases become visible. Property value effects would occur within 5 years, whereas the increases in adult earnings of former child participants won’t occur for at least 15 years.

Are these property value increases high enough that preschool ends up hurting the poor, due to higher rents? No.   In these calculations, the percentage increase in property values (and in housing rents) is less than one percent. Property values are large enough, and annual costs of universal pre-k are small enough, that even this small percentage increase in property values is equal to about 13 times annual program costs of universal pre-k.  Furthermore, as I calculate in chapter 8 of Investing in Kids, the benefits of universal pre-k are a substantially higher percentage of income for lower income families. Even with a slight increase in housing prices, universal pre-k has “progressive” effects on the income distribution, that is, universal pre-k provides greater percentage benefits for lower income families.

Even political leaders who focus only on the short-term should be interested in property value increases that occur within 5 years.  These property value increases will increase property tax receipts.  These property value increases also represent substantial increases in the wealth of homeowners, who constitute a majority of voters.

In a subsequent post, I will provide more thoughts on the political implication of property value increases due to universal pre-k.

Posted in Early childhood programs, Timing of benefits | 2 Comments

A short-run benefit of early childhood programs: special education cost savings

Posted on January 10, 2011 by timbartik

As mentioned in a previous post, one political issue with early childhood programs is that their economic development benefits for state economies are (mostly) long-delayed.  Much of the benefits for state economies are from the better skills of former child participants when they become adults. Therefore, much of the earnings effects in state economies from early childhood programs do not occur for a generation.

In this post, and subsequent posts, I will explore possible short-run benefits of early childhood programs. This post explores the benefits of reductions in special education assignments.

Several studies show that early childhood programs cause large reductions in special education assignments. The reduction in special education assignments is often more than a one-third reduction.  Perry Preschool reduced the percentage of all school years in special education from 28% to 16%. The Abecedarian child care and preschool program showed reductions in students ever placed in special education assignments from 48% to 26%. The Chicago Child Parent Center preschool program showed reduction in students ever assigned to special education from 25% to 14%.

The additional annual costs per student from special education assignments average nationally over $10,000. These extra annual costs potentially accrue over 13 years (from kindergarten to 12th grade), so the total cost of a special education assignment can be quite high.

In chapter 7 of Investing in Kids, I do some simulations of how program costs for early childhood programs compare with savings in special education costs in the short-run.  If we initiative a new or expanded early childhood program, these special education cost savings will start out small but then increase as additional cohorts go through the K-12 system. They reach their maximum and permanent value after 13 years, when the new or expanded early childhood program has had a chance to affect special education assignments for cohorts at all grade levels.

For a universal pre-k program, the simulation shows that as of 13 years after the program is begun, the special education cost savings reach a permanent level that covers 48% of the pre-K program’s annual costs. These cost savings increase fairly uniformly from program initiation, so that the cost savings are 4% after one year, 8% after two years, etc.

For a full-time full-year child care and preschool program from birth to age 5, similar to the Abecedarian program, the simulation shows that as of 13 years after the program is begun, the special education cost savings reach a permanent level that covers 34% of the program’s annual costs.  These cost savings also increase fairly uniformly from program initiation (3% after one year, etc.).

These special education cost savings are obviously quite large. They are sufficient within the first 10 or 15 years to cover a politically and economically significant share of the annual costs of early childhood programs.

However, these special education cost savings, by themselves, are insufficient to make the programs pay for themselves. Accounting for special education cost savings only modestly moves up how quickly early childhood programs have economic development benefits exceeding net program costs (after accounting for special education cost savings).

Consider a universal pre-k program. Without accounting for special education cost savings, it takes 24 years after the program is begun for the economic development benefits to exceed program costs.  With special education cost savings included in the calculation of net program costs, the number of years after program initiation for economic development program benefits to exceed net program costs is cut from 24 years to 19 years.

However, there are other possible short-run benefits of early childhood programs. Subsequent posts will consider the short-run benefits from increased property values, and synergies with adult training programs.

Posted in Early childhood programs, Timing of benefits | 2 Comments

What can NAEP trends tell us about effects of universal pre-k?

Posted on January 10, 2011 by timbartik

In the comment thread on the post on public vs. private delivery of pre-k, there is some discussion of the broader issue of using NAEP to measure the effectiveness of universal pre-k. NAEP is an acronym for the National Assessment of Educational Progress. NAEP has provided assessments of student achievement in different subject areas for samples of U.S. students since 1969. Since 1990, some results have also been reported for some states, with all states required to participate since the passage of No Child Left Behind.

The comment thread considers whether trends in NAEP test scores by state can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of universal pre-k. More specifically, the comment thread discusses whether we can use trends in NAEP test scores to evaluate the universal pre-k programs in Oklahoma, Georgia, and Florida.

To summarize my comments in this thread: NAEP trends as of now only add limited information to our evaluations of universal pre-k. The information from NAEP is limited because of the timing of various tests, effects of preschool on student retention in grade, and other causes of NAEP trends such as composition of the student population, changes in social problems, and changes in K-12 school quality. Better information is provided by well-done comparisons across individuals rather than across states, in which we compare individuals who participated in preschool versus individuals in a well-chosen comparison group. Having said that, the information that is provided by NAEP trends is consistent with universal pre-k in Oklahoma and Georgia having positive effects on student achievement.

For more specifics, see my replies in the comment thread.

Posted in Early childhood program design issues, Early childhood programs | Comments Off on What can NAEP trends tell us about effects of universal pre-k?

The problem of long-delayed benefits of early childhood programs

Posted on January 7, 2011 by timbartik

One political problem faced by early childhood programs is the long delay before most benefits are realized.

Although there are other economic development benefits of early childhood programs, most of the economic development benefits occur due to the better skills and higher labor force participation rates of former child participations. Obviously we are not having 4 year old pre-schoolers enter the labor market at age 5.  Therefore, most of the benefits of early childhood program occur when former child participants enter the labor market, particularly when they reach prime earnings years.

Even the benefits for parents from early childhood programs may be long delayed. Early childhood programs may increase the quantity and quality of the labor supply of the parents of child participants by providing low-cost or free child care, or by otherwise encouraging more self-sufficiency. A majority of the benefit from the effect on parents is the effect on the long-run labor force participation rates of these parents.

As reported in chapter 7 of Investing in Kids, the immediate economic development benefits for a state economy from early childhood programs are considerably less than annual costs. I estimate that the boost to state per capita earnings from these programs is 20 to 30% of program costs in the years immediately after some early childhood program is initiated.

Eventually the boost to the state economy is much greater than program costs. In the long-run, the boost to per capita earnings in a state is from two and a half to four and a half times as great as annual program costs. But it takes a long time to get to that long-run. I estimate that the boost to state residents’ per capita earnings does not exceed program costs for around 20 years after the program is started.

Now, the present value of the future increase in state per capita earnings is two to three times the present value of program costs. So, from a rational, policy wonk view, high-quality early childhood programs have economic development benefits that significantly exceed costs.

But from a political perspective, these long-run economic development benefits occur well after any political leader’s term in office is over. Why should politicians be supportive of these programs, even though they don’t have short-run economic development benefits exceeding costs?

The answer I give in chapter 7 of Investing in Kids is that these programs may have some short-run economic benefits that either are less obvious, or that require some policy effort to develop. I will outline some of these short-run benefits in subsequent posts. Among the most prominent possible short-run benefits of high quality early childhood programs are: (1) lower costs for special education; (2) increased property values; and (3) possible synergistic effects with job training programs for the parents of the child participants.

However, a larger political point is that if our society is to prosper, we somehow need to rediscover the political and social will to invest in the long-term. If we just focus on the short-term, what future will the U.S. have? As the cliché goes, the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time to plant a tree is today.

Posted in Early childhood programs, Timing of benefits | 3 Comments

How should we respond to uncertainty?

Posted on January 6, 2011 by timbartik

Although there is good research support for the economic development benefits of early childhood programs, there is also some uncertainty. In particular, we don’t know whether large-scale implementation of some early childhood program will yield the same sizable long-term benefits as the Perry Preschool Program did or the Chicago Child-Parent Center program did.

Business incentive programs also have some uncertainty in expected benefits. There are considerable differences across studies in estimated effects of business taxes on business location decisions. These differences cause large differences in estimated costs of business tax incentives per induced job.  In addition, there is considerable uncertainty over the estimated effects of business incentives that are services to business, such as customized job training, as relatively few studies have looked at such services.

One important aspect of uncertainty is that we don’t know for certain the best program designs.  In most cases, the estimated impacts of past early childhood programs or past business incentive programs only tell us that a particular program is estimated to have a certain effect. These estimates don’t tell us why a particular program had that effect. Therefore, we are uncertain about what aspects of program design are most crucial.

How should we respond to such uncertainty in possible effects of early childhood programs and business incentive programs? I explore this question in chapter 6 of Investing in Kids.

Such uncertainty can rationalize inaction. Before large-scale implementation of new programs, perhaps we should wait for better evidence.  In particular, we should wait for better evidence of what program designs are most effective. In the case of early childhood programs, this position of “waiting for better evidence” has been argued for by Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution. In the case of business incentive programs, this position has been argued for by Therese McGuire of Northwestern University.

But there is potentially a heavy cost to waiting. The biggest cost of “waiting for better evidence” is that we forego the potential benefits of large-scale implementation of these programs.  For example, in the case of early childhood programs, children are only 4 once. If we defer large scale implementation of pre-k programs while we await better evidence, some children will not receive high-quality pre-k education which could potentially provide large long-term benefits.

After all, the uncertainty goes in both directions. Perhaps new pre-k programs or business incentive programs will have even higher benefits than the average benefits expected based on past programs. Past experience does not perfectly predict the future, but it provides the best available predictor. This argument has been made in the context of preschool programs by Jens Ludwig and Deborah Phillips.

A better alternative is to implement what we believe to be the best program design based on past research, while structuring the programs to learn from experience.  We can implement early childhood programs or business incentive programs on a large scale while collecting data on program performance. Such data collection can include collecting data on the relative performance of different program variations. This data collection would allow programs to be improved over time based on objective evidence.

For example, it would be quite feasible to collect data on the effects of pre-k programs on kindergarten readiness. As shown in studies by Gormley of Oklahoma’s pre-k program, and by NIEER of various states’ pre-k programs, it is possible to get rigorous evidence on how pre-k programs affect student achievement levels at entrance to kindergarten. This is done by collecting similar student performance levels at entrance to the pre-k program, and at entrance to kindergarten. With such data, it is possible to provide reliable estimates that separate the effects of the pre-k program from what would have happened without the program, due to the experiences the children would have otherwise had as they aged.  This methodology is a form of what is called regression discontinuity analysis, which is considered the next best form of program evaluation to random assignment experimentation.

Thus, it is quite technically feasible to do large-scale implementation of early childhood programs and business incentive programs, while collecting ongoing data that will allow these large-scale programs to be improved over time.  Although this is technically feasible, is it politically feasible? It requires a political culture that is willing to aggressively move forward in implementing a social program, and is also willing to use potentially critical data to improve the program rather than kill it.

Posted in Business incentives, Early childhood program design issues, Early childhood programs, Incentive design issues | Comments Off on How should we respond to uncertainty?

Pre-k as an intervention vs. charter schools

Posted on January 5, 2011 by timbartik

Sara Mead of Bellwether Education Partners has a thought-provoking post (“How Pre-k is Like Charter Schools, and What We Can Learn from the Evidence on Each”) comparing pre-k and charter schools as educational policy interventions.  She argues that “the body of evidence for pre-k is… comparable to the body of evidence on charter schools. In both areas, we have a strong body of evidence that specific models–such as the High/Scope Perry Preschool and the KIPP network of charter schools–“work.” But we also have evidence showing that the broader range of early childhood or charter school operators are something of a mixed bag. “ Therefore, for both pre-k programs and charter schools, a crucial policy issue is “How do you design structural arrangements so as to maximize the number and reach of the highest-quality providers, and minimize the number of low-quality providers?”

Sara Mead goes on to add two caveats. The first is that pre-k is offering additional services, whereas charter schools are offering a different type of service. The second is that in many cases, existing preschool programs simply have too few resources, and that therefore simply adding more resources (e.g., lower class sizes) will help. She implicitly contrasts this lack of resources with K-12.

My interpretation of the research evidence is somewhat different.  (Although perhaps it could be argued that our interpretations are similar but place a somewhat different spin on the research results.)  My view is that for pre-k, the research evidence suggests that a pre-k program run with some attention to having reasonable quality and resources, and a reasonable focus on learning, will generally be effective. For charter schools, my view is that the research evidence suggests that on average, charter schools have been disappointing, but that some charter schools, which take better approaches to educational delivery, are quite effective.

In other words, if a “full glass” means strong research evidence of effectiveness, and an “empty glass” means no research evidence of effectiveness, I would say that the “research glass” is significantly more than half full for pre-k, while it is less than half-full for charter schools. I don’t know for sure what Sara Mead would say, but she could be interpreted as saying the “research glass” is “half-full, half-empty” for both pre-k and charter schools.

I don’t know how you “prove” how “full” the research glass is. You don’t do it by just counting studies. I am impressed by the findings that pre-k programs seem to work when run by Chicago Public Schools, and by a wide variety of states. It doesn’t seem as if you have to have pre-k programs run by some extraordinary leadership or management talent. On the other hand, it seems as if for charter schools, we frequently find that charters, on average, are no better than regular public schools. Charter schools are more effective in larger urban areas, or for lower income or lower prior achievement students. Charter schools also are more effective if they have more distinctive designs, such as the Harlem Children’s Zone or KIPP Schools.

Why might pre-k be an “easier” intervention than charter schools to make effective in a wide variety of settings? First, as Sara Mead notes, pre-k is adding additional learning time for many students. One thing we do know from educational research is that additional learning time, not surprisingly, leads to more learning. Charter schools do not necessarily add learning time. It is of interest that KIPP Schools, one of the successful charter school models, operate with a significantly longer school day and year.  The Harlem Children’s Zone schools also have more student hours in school. Maybe charter schools would be more consistently successful for more students if they always added learning time. An interesting issue is whether charter schools could consistently add learning time at the same cost per student if they were run at a large scale. Pre-k programs of course have a cost to add additional learning time, which is part of the analysis of the benefits and costs of this policy intervention.

Second, it may be that earlier educational interventions find it easier to make a difference for a wider variety of students. As various researchers have hypothesized, such as Nobel Prize-winning economist James Heckman, people may be more malleable at younger ages. In the educational research field, it certainly seems that there are more successful interventions at the elementary school level than at the high school level.  It is not impossible to change people at later ages, but the approaches to doing so might need to be more targeted at specific types of persons and more carefully designed in their goals.

Posted in Early childhood programs | Comments Off on Pre-k as an intervention vs. charter schools

Pre-k quality and public vs. private delivery

Posted on January 5, 2011 by timbartik

One controversial issue is whether a large-scale or universal pre-k program is best delivered through the public schools, or through private preschools.

My assessment of the evidence is that either approach can work. Oklahoma’s near-universal pre-k program seems to be successful. Oklahoma’s program is largely delivered through the public schools.  But Georgia’s large-scale pre-k program also seems to be successful. Georgia’s program is delivered through a charter school approach, under which a variety of providers are authorized to receive a state payment per preschool child enrolled.

On the other hand, Florida’s approach to large scale preschool is generally considered to be less successful. Florida relies on vouchers to preschool parents. But the vouchers are modest enough that it is difficult for many Florida preschool programs to be high-quality.  It is quite possible that with greater funding and additional regulation, a voucher approach to pre-k funding might also be successful.

As a practical matter, if a local area already has many high-quality preschool providers, it would seem wise to somehow make them eligible for funding in an expanded pre-k system. This seems wise for several reasons.

First, it seems politically sensible. The threat to private preschools seems to have motivated some of the opposition to the 2006 California ballot initiative to expand state funding for preschool.  Opposition from some private preschool providers also seems to be motivating some opposition to expanded pre-k in New York State.

Second, it seems more sensible to build on what you have than to recreate it. If a local area already has some high-quality private preschool providers, there seems a lot of waste in driving them out of business and replacing them with public school provision.

Third, there is the ongoing argument that competition among different school providers may lead to more innovation, more ability to address diverse needs, and higher quality. Whether this is so in the preschool case obviously depends upon how that competition is structured. For example, it is not obvious that parental choice by itself, without any regulation, will be sufficient to ensure pre-k quality. But with some regulation that provides minimum quality standards, and promotes better measures of quality, a choice among different providers may promote quality.

Posted in Early childhood program design issues, Early childhood programs | 14 Comments

Another blog on human capital and local economic development

Posted on January 5, 2011 by timbartik

My colleague at the Upjohn Institute, Michelle Miller-Adams, runs a blog on the Kalamazoo Promise. The Kalamazoo Promise, announced in November 2005, guarantees every graduate of Kalamazoo Public Schools up to four years of tuition at any public university or community college in Michigan. The Kalamazoo Promise is funded by anonymous private donors.

What relevance does the Kalamazoo Promise have to my blog and book about early childhood programs? The main relevance is that the Kalamazoo Promise was intended by the private donors to promote the economic development of the Kalamazoo area.  The Promise is intended to promote economic development in two ways. First, the availability of this benefit will help attract parents, and attract businesses due to this attractive effect on parents. Second, the Promise will increase the educational attainment of Kalamazoo students, many of whom will return after college to the Kalamazoo area, which will also generate new economic activity. These Promise effects on local economic development are quite similar to how early childhood programs can affect local economic development.

So far, there is considerable evidence that the Promise has increased Kalamazoo Public Schools enrollment and stabilized KPS’s ethnic composition. There also is some evidence that KPS student achievement has increased. Other data on the Kalamazoo Promise can be found at the Upjohn Institute’s research hub on the Promise, and its associated data collection web page.

From a broader perspective, the U.S. faces the challenge of significantly increasing the quality of our human capital, in order to better compete in the world economy. This challenge requires us to broaden our concept of education. In the 19th century, the U.S. led the world in adopting graded, “common schools”, through 8th grade. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the U.S. led the world in adopting free high schools for all and high school graduation as the expectation for all students. In today’s economy, the U.S. needs to broaden our concept of education to include early childhood programs for many more children, and to expand post-secondary education for many more students.

Michelle has also written an excellent book on the Kalamazoo Promise, The Power of a Promise, which describes the background and early history and results of the Promise. Her blog follows up on that book.

The Kalamazoo Promise is of interest well beyond Kalamazoo. A number of cities and states around the U.S. are exploring setting up similar programs, with various combinations of private and public funding.  There have so far been three annual national conferences discussing Promise-style programs, and the various economic, political, and administrative issues involved in setting these programs up and evaluating them.

In any event, Michelle’s blog (and book) are well worth checking out.

Posted in Economic development | Comments Off on Another blog on human capital and local economic development