Eduardo Porter has a great article in the New York Times about the importance of investing in the education of younger kids. Many studies have shown that 3-year olds with educated mothers have higher test scores than kids with less educated mothers, and that education gap is consistent as they get older. In addition, other studies show that disadvantaged kids who receive intensive help in their early years have a long term payoff.
Research by Mr. Heckman and others confirms that investment in the early education of disadvantaged children pays extremely high returns down the road. It improves not only their cognitive abilities but also crucial behavioral traits like sociability, motivation and self-esteem.
Studies that have followed children through their adult lives confirm enormous payoffs for these investments, whether measured in improved success in college, higher income or even lower incarceration rates.
The Times has a great graph showing that United States invests less in early childhood education than other developed nations. We tend to put our dollars into high school and higher education, which has less of an impact on reducing inequality.
Even conservative agree that we're not spending the right way.
Erick Hanushek, an expert on the economics of education at Stanford, put it more directly: “We are subsidizing the wrong people and the wrong way.”
Hanushek isn't a tax and spend liberal. He has found limited benefits of reducing class size and similar policies. And Hanushek thinks that investing in pre-schools is right thing to do.
So, why are we doing things backassed in this country? Because the voters determine where tax money goes. Suburban, middle class voters want their kids' college education subsidized. I do, too, but couldn't we take a few dollars from the higher ed pile and put it into the pre-school pile? If we want to get serious about reducing income inequality, it's the right thing to do.