Today's New York Times article, "Obama Pledge Stirs Hope in Early Education," refers to research by Nobel prize-winning economist, James J. Heckman, and others that shows that "each dollar devoted to the nurturing of young children can eliminate the need for far greater government spending on remedial education, teenage pregnancy and prisons."

Back in June 2004, The National Campaign featured early childhood education in its Science Says publication concluding, "research suggests that children's experiences in programs many years earlier may also contribute to a reduced likelihood that they will become parents too soon. Indeed, studies indicate that early childhood and elementary school programs can contribute to reduced risk of adolescent pregnancy."

The Abecedarian Project was one of the programs highlighted in the publication for its impressive results.  The children in the treatment group had higher IQs when they were 3 (this persisted through age 21 which was the last assessment), they also scored higher on math and reading tests.  By the age of 21, 35% of the treatment group had graduated from college compared to 14% of the no treatment group.

And for the pièce de résistance: the kids were significantly less likely to have become a teen parent (26% in the treatment group versus 45% in the no treatment group became teen parents).

The comments posted about the article on the New York Times Web site suggest support for this approach.  Do you support more spending on early childhood education?