The NYT has an interesting article up discussing a new study, out this week, presenting the findings of research on the long-term earnings prospects of students vis-à-vis their participation in early-childhood educational programs.  Previous studies have focused on the relative effects using test scores, and showed little long-term gains into high school using that metric, as the effects seem to fade out over time.

From the text:

“Students who had learned much more in kindergarten were more likely to go to college than students with otherwise similar backgrounds. Students who learned more were also less likely to become single parents. As adults, they were more likely to be saving for retirement. Perhaps most striking, they were earning more.

“All else equal, they were making about an extra $100 a year at age 27 for every percentile they had moved up the test-score distribution over the course of kindergarten. A student who went from average to the 60th percentile — a typical jump for a 5-year-old with a good teacher — could expect to make about $1,000 more a year at age 27 than a student who remained at the average. Over time, the effect seems to grow, too.”

I am fortunate to know  a few people (and managed to marry one) who make foundational, beneficial impacts on children, and who would definitely agree that the real measure of a teacher’s success can’t be captured solely by test scores – a major hurdle for real “Pay for Performance” initiatives, and cause for countless debates over how to measure teaching efficacy.  At least in this case, the researchers are pointing the way to adult outcomes that have real meaning and economic impact:  earnings potential.

The study findings are here.

The NY Times has a great thread on their “Room for Debate” blog about the rising costs of college vs. the maximum amount of Pell Grant money available…grants that a large number of students use to make college attendance possible.

The disparity is striking:

Take a look at a better chart with more of the source material here.

The writers on “Room for Debate” differ (of course) in their take on whether or not more federal assistance is needed.  Richard Vedder, a professor and economist from Ohio University, posits that federal loans and grants are part of the reason why costs have risen…  His argument is interesting: As more grants and loans are available, colleges have raised tuition to capture more of the loan and grant funds in a reinforcing upward spiral.  His solution: focus on improving secondary education to enhance the number of students who are actually college-ready upon graduation from highschool…

Whatever the strategies for addressing this problem might be, the fact remains that if the US economy is going to return to health and remain the dominant force in the global marketplace, a wide swath of our workers will need higher education to be able to compete and drive innovation.  With costs spiraling ever higher, it remains to be seen whether or not we can collectively find a way to overcome these barriers and develop the knowledge-based economy that will be increasingly critical in the future.