How Much, or How?

Ooh boy, Nicholas Kristof writing about all the things I care about! 

He gets right to the point about how little public funding goes to children under age 5.  And to how early investments in children actually have documented cost-benefit pay-offs.

Kristof's also refreshingly frank in taking on Head Start questions.  He admits what we've long known, that some gains (e.g. IQ) for kids who go through HS wear off quickly.  But he points out that "the former Head Start participants are significantly less likely than siblings to repeat grades, to be diagnosed with a learning disability, or to suffer the kind of poor health associated with poverty."  Those are really important measures, especially when you consider how repeating grades sets kids up to drop out.

His closing point is: we can't afford not to fund early childhood.  But it's not just a question of how much funding early-childhood gets.  It's a question of how programs are run.

Problem is, quality of day-care varies a lot.  And overall, the picture isn't pretty--some programs are excellent, others terrible, most in-between.  That variation happens even within a government-funded program like Head Start, not to mention in the ever-growing area of private day-care.  Are play areas safe?  Are teachers well-trained?  Are adult-child interactions engaging?  These are not side questions, they are the main questions.

Dumping a whole lot of money into early-childhood without ways of ensuring programs are actually well-run won't do much for the disadvantaged kids Kristof cares about.  Kids from tough backgrounds need great programs, not just more programs.