سود و زیان سرمایه گذاری در آموزش و پرورش پیش دبستانی : مدارک و شواهد از مراکز والدین ـ کودک و برنامه های مرتبط
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|6679||2007||19 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 11660 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
|شرح||تعرفه ترجمه||زمان تحویل||جمع هزینه|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت عادی||هر کلمه 90 تومان||15 روز بعد از پرداخت||1,049,400 تومان|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت فوری||هر کلمه 180 تومان||8 روز بعد از پرداخت||2,098,800 تومان|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Economics of Education Review, Volume 26, Issue 1, February 2007, Pages 126–144
We discuss the evidence on the effectiveness of preschool programs using results from three well-known intervention studies: the Chicago Child–Parent Centers, High/Scope Perry Preschool Program, and the Carolina Abecedarian Project. Results from cost–benefit analyses of other programs for younger and older children also are reported. Given that the Child–Parent Center Program is an established, large-scale preschool program for which a cost–benefit analysis has been recently completed, we focus on this program. We examine the longer-term effects in more detail and we investigate the robustness of estimates used in the cost–benefit analysis. Depending on the assumptions made, our results indicate that the benefit–cost ratio for the preschool program offered by the Child–Parent Centers ranges from $5.98–$10.15. We find strong evidence that the consistently positive economic returns of high-quality preschool programs exceed most other educational interventions, especially those that begin during the school-age years such as reduced class sizes in the elementary grades, grade retention, and youth job training.
In recent years, policymakers and economists appear captivated by estimates suggesting a high rate of return to early childhood education. The first estimates came from the well-known High/Scope Perry Preschool Program (Barnett, 1985); and while early childhood advocates and policymakers frequently used these results to argue that preschool programs can yield sizeable benefits, there were two major drawbacks. Because the sample size was small and the educational intervention was a researcher-initiated model program, critics argued that it was not clear how these results might generalize to other non-model preschool programs such as those offered by financially constrained public schools or human service agencies. Moreover, until recently there existed no results from other cost–benefit studies of either large- or small-scale early childhood programs to offer corroborating evidence. As new evidence has appeared, there has been growing reliance on results of cost–benefit analysis in early childhood research (e.g., Carroll et al., 2004, Grunewald and Rolnick, 2004 and Heckman and Masterov, 2004). In this paper, we discuss the evidence on the effectiveness of preschool programs using results from three well-known intervention studies. Our primary focus is the cost–benefit analysis of the preschool component of the Chicago Child–Parent Centers (CPC). The federally funded CPCs are located in high-poverty neighborhoods in Chicago and offer an educational intervention to children from preschool through grades 2 or 3. Reynolds, Temple, Robertson, and Mann (2002) conducted a cost–benefit analysis of the program and found that each dollar invested in the program yields a payoff of seven dollars of benefits to society. We also briefly review the findings from the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program (Schweinhart et al., 2005) and the Abecedarian Project (Masse & Barnett, 2002). Because in contrast to these interventions the Chicago CPC Program is a large-scale on-going program, we highlight its findings.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
According to the NCES (2003, Table 43), nearly two in five children do not enroll in center-based preschool programs before entering kindergarten. Compared to more affluent parents, parents from lower-income families are less likely to send their children to preschool and are less able to afford to send their children to higher-quality programs. The findings reviewed here from three well-designed studies suggest that greater investments in high-quality preschool programs, especially those enrolling children from disadvantaged families, are warranted. Unlike a decade ago, scientific support for the benefits of preschool programs is strong. A major conclusion from these findings for early childhood policy is that for the first time a critical mass of evidence exists that preschool programs have comparatively high levels of cost effectiveness. Public investments in early education programs are warranted on efficiency grounds for two reasons. First, as documented in the Abecedarian, Perry, and Chicago Child–Parent studies, early educational interventions generate benefits that spillover to others in society. The existence of positive externalities is a common justification for public investment. A second efficiency-related rationale for increased spending on early education involves the existence of borrowing constraints faced by lower-income families. Even if all families were aware of the long-term benefits of early intervention, the families who might benefit the most are the least likely to be able to borrow against their children's possible higher future incomes. While the discussion here has focused on the effect of investments in enriched preschool education on educational attainment, achievement, earnings, and reduced crime, there are also issues of fairness involved in the establishment of a high-quality preschool programs intended to serve children from low-income families. Recent research by Restuccia and Urrutia (2004) shows that parental investments in early education can explain earnings persistence across generations. Restuccia and Urrutia argue that the existence of borrowing constraints affecting parental investments in early education leads to the persistence of low earnings in these families for generations. While “early education” in their model refers to elementary and secondary education, given the high returns to high-quality preschool programs, it is clear that their conclusions may apply to education in the preschool years as well. Government intervention to subsidize early childhood investments by borrowing-constrained low-income parents not only may increase labor force productivity and reduce crime, but it can also serve to increase income mobility over time for low-income families.