Main conclusionsSerbia has every chance to expand coverage of
preschool education, provided that we:promote enrolment in short
programs, andconvince parents who do not need daycareSerbia should
first focus on the poorest but eventually aim at universal
coverage:48% of the children are already on board!children in the
middle groups benefit as well(A Vision for Universal Preschool
Education. Zigler, Gilliam and Jones, 2006)
*The cumulative deficit, shown here, represents the idea that
the later the investment in improved caring for a child , the wider
the gap that has to be closed. This is illustrated by showing the
top curve, which represents the normal course of development, and
the bottom curve, which shows the course of development for a child
who is developmentally delayed - in other words, has a slower rate
of development, and may be at risk for mental retardation.
The key message is that the later you intervene, the greater the
gap that has to be closed.
The Y axis (vertical) is the childs developmental level - both
cognitive and social. The X axis (horizontal) is the age period.
The list of factors on the right side of the graph represent all of
the factors that may affect the magnitude of the developmental
delay. Some of these are characteristics of the individual, such as
responsiveness, and others are characteristics of the situation
(timing, intensity of the intervention, breadth of the
intervention), and a third refer to cultural and developmental
appropriateness.
This chart is from Ramey and Ramey, Am Psychologist. (1999).
*One of the most well-known findings of this study is that the
preschool program had a large return on investment. The best
estimate, using a 3% discount rate, which is similar to an interest
rate over and above inflation, is that for each dollar invested,
the program returned $12.90 to the public and $4.10 to
participants, for a total return of $17.07. As the graph shows, the
sources of the return were savings in welfare, education due to
less need for special education classes, greater earnings of
participants, higher taxes paid on greater earnings, and both
criminal justice system and victim costs of crime. Savings in crime
costs alone were over 11 times the cost of the program, but even
with the crime savings, the program paid for itself.
Some would say at $8,500 a year per child, the program is too
expensive. But the public cost of every poor child who does not
receive this program is not zero, but almost $200,000. Why do we
keep choosing to spend $200,000 on big problems that we could
prevent by spending $15,000? Government deficits are real, large,
and growing. A major reason for them is our failure to make early
childhood investments that significantly reduce our social problems
before they get out of hand.