The United States can't “race to the top” when many children are not even at the starting line.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnettW. StevenBrownKirsty, and ShoreRima. “The Universal vs. Targeted Debate: Should the United States Have Preschool for All?”Preschool Policy Matters6 (April 2004).
2.
BarnettW. StevenEpsteinDale J.FriedmanAllison H.SansanelliRachel A., and HustedtJason T.. The State of Preschool: 2009 State Preschool Yearbook.New Brunswick, N.J.: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 2009.
3.
BelfieldClive R.NoresMilagrosBarnettSteve, and SchweinhartLawrence. “The High/Scope Perry Preschool Program: Cost–Benefit Analysis Using Data from the Age-40 Followup.”Journal of Human Resources41, no. 1 (Winter 2006): 162–190.
4.
ColeyRichard J.An Uneven Start: Indicators of Inequality in School Readiness. ETS Policy Information Report. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 2002.
5.
FredeEllenJungKwangheeSteven BarnettW., and FiguerasAlexandra. The APPLES Blossom: Abbott Preschool Program Longitudinal Effects Study (APPLES) Preliminary Results Through 2nd Grade, Interim Report.New Brunswick, N.J.: National Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, 2009. http://nieer.org/pdf/apples_second_grade_results.pdf.
6.
GormleyWilliamJr.GayerTedPhillipsDeborah, and DawsonBrittany. “The Effects of Oklahoma's Universal Pre-K Program on School Readiness: An Executive Summary.”Washington, D.C.: Center for Research on Children in the United States, Georgetown University, 2004.
7.
KarolyLynn A., and BigelowJames H.. The Economics of Investing in Universal Preschool Education in California.Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corp., 2005.
8.
LynchRobert. Enriching Children, Enriching the Nation: Public Investment in High-Quality Prekindergarten.Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute, 2007.
9.
MeadSara. Education Reform Starts Early: Lessons from New Jersey's PreK-3rd Reform Efforts.Washington, D.C.: New America Foundation, 2009.
10.
ReynoldsArthur J.TempleJudy A.RobertsonDylan L., and MannEmily A.. “Age 21 Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers.”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis24, no. 4 (December 2002): 267–303.
11.
WatAlbert. The Pre-K Pinch: Early Education and the Middle Class.Washington, D.C.: Pre-K Now, 2008.
12.
WatAlbert. The Case for Pre-K in Education Reform: A Summary of Program Evaluation Findings. Pew Center on the States Research Series. Washington, D.C.: Pew Center on the States, 2010.
13.
WatsonSara. The Right Policy at the Right Time: The Pew PreKindergarten Campaign.Washington, D.C.: Pew Center on the States, 2010.
14.
WestJerryDentonKristin, and Germino-HauskenElvira. America's Kindergartners: Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99, Fall 1998. Statistical Analysis Report NCES 2000–070. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2000. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000070.pdf.
