Early Childhood Education
Open accessAbstract
This paper organizes and synthesizes the literature on early childhood education and childcare. In it, we go beyond meta-analysis and reanalyze primary data sources in a common framework. We consider the evidence from means-tested demonstration programs, large-scale means-tested programs and universal programs without means testing. We discuss which programs are effective and whether, and for which populations, these programs should be subsidized by governments. The evidence from high-quality demonstration programs targeted toward disadvantaged children shows beneficial effects. Returns exceed costs, even accounting for the deadweight loss of collecting taxes. When proper policy counterfactuals are constructed, Head Start has beneficial effects on disadvantaged children compared to home alternatives. Universal programs benefit disadvantaged children.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Perry pre-school program in Michigan as well as the Abecedarian and CARE programs in North Carolina all demonstrated substantial benefits.
“Specifically, the Perry pre-school program in Michigan as well as the Abecedarian and CARE programs in North Carolina all demonstrated substantial benefits (Elango et al. 2015).”
From Educational Inequality* (2022) · cites this paper as Elango et al. 2015
Early evidence from randomized control trials of high intensity programs targeted at poor, low-educated families in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s indicated that early investment could improve outcomes and reduce educational inequality.
“Early evidence from randomized control trials of high intensity programs targeted at poor, low-educated families in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s indicated that early investment could improve outcomes and reduce educational inequality.”
From Educational Inequality* (2022) · cites this paper as Elango et al. 2015
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Blanden, J., Doepke, M., & Stuhler, J. (2022) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w29979 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
- Authors
- Elango, S., Garcia, J. L., Heckman, J. J., & Hojman, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
- Corresponding author
- Elango, Sneha
- Venue
- SSRN Electronic Journal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015
- ISSN
- 1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4299855286
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare
- Keywords
- early childhood education, child care, program effectiveness, universal programs, returns to education, government subsidies, Head Start, disadvantaged children
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
