![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
This article presents an overview of the human capital approach to human development and how it has been used for evaluating early education programs. It critiques the human capital approach by considering how its focus on measurable returns on economic investments limits an understanding of the full and complex contribution of early education to young children’s development and well-being. The capabilities approach described by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum provides a more thorough framework for understanding the influence of early education on young children’s development and well-being. The article proposes that integrating the human capital approach within the capabilities approach addresses the critiques of the human capital approach and provides a more inclusive context for understanding and assessing the full contribution of early education to children’s development and well-being. It concludes with the implications that such integration has for assessment practices in early childhood.
Introduction
A number of recent studies by the economist James Heckman and his colleagues have examined several high-quality early childhood programs, including the Perry Preschool Project (Barnett and Masse, 2007), and found significant differences in educational outcomes, as well as noncognitive skills such as persistence and critical thinking (Heckman, 2007, 2008; Heckman et al., 2006). These recent findings provide strong support for investment in quality early childhood education based on the significant returns for program participants, their families, and society.
These studies reflect a human capital approach to human development based on human capital theory (Becker, 1964, 1993). Human capital theory posits that increases in education and skills lead to increases in human productivity, which, in turn, leads to economic productivity. Long-term outcome measures in the form of increased productivity are indicators of program effectiveness and are typically assessed through cost–benefit analysis. Using economic outcomes as a measure of program effectiveness frames the goal of investment in individuals as an economic return in the form of increased economic productivity. This view is consistent with that of neoliberals and underlies their philosophical and economic bases for early education.
Recently, the human capital approach has been critiqued for its instrumental view of education, its focus on economic returns on investment in early education, and the use of narrow, single metrics for evaluation (Robeyns, 2006a; Saito, 2003; Unterhalter, 2009). This article examines and expands on these critiques, and then proposes an alternative view of early education based on the capabilities approach initially developed by Amartya Sen (1980, 1992, 1997, 1999) and further developed by Martha Nussbaum (2011).
This article has three parts. The first part presents an overview of human capital theory and a review of key evaluation studies of early education programs using cost–benefit analysis. Also included here is a critique of human capital theory—specifically, how its focus on measurable returns on economic investments limits our understanding of the contributions of early education programs to children’s development. The second part presents the central features of the capabilities approach and how it provides a more thorough framework for conceptualizing and evaluating early education programs and their contribution to children’s development. The final section describes how the integration of human capital theory within the capabilities approach addresses the critiques of human capital theory. This section also includes a discussion of the implications that the capabilities approach has for assessment practices in early education. The practices offer a way to assess more fully the contribution of early education to children’s development and well-being.
The human capital approach to early childhood
The human capital approach to human development is based on the work of neoclassical economist Gary Becker and outlined in his 1964 book, Human Capital. In Becker’s view, human capital in the form of education increases an individual’s knowledge and skills. With the knowledge and skills needed in the economy, individuals have increased opportunities for employment, leading to a higher standard of living and, ultimately, economic growth. Becker (1993: 324) notes that “[s]ince human capital is embodied knowledge and skills, and economic development depends on advances in technological and scientific knowledge, development presumably depends on the accumulation of human capital.” Thus, human capital theory recognizes the central role of education in both human and economic development.
As a view of human development, the accumulation of human capital as knowledge and skills is a constant, dynamic process of different abilities acquired at critical stages in the life cycle. When individuals are prevented from gaining a particular ability at a particular time, “remediation is costly, and full remediation is often prohibitively costly” (Carneiro and Heckman, 2002: 89). Below is a brief review of key studies which show the long-term returns of economic productivity on investments in early education. The main contention of the studies is that human capital acquired at one stage of development influences both developmental and economic outcomes at later life stages which show significant returns on such investments.
Long-term-outcome studies: Return on investments
The economist James Heckman has been at the forefront of research using a human capital framework to examine the effectiveness of early education programs (Heckman, 2007, 2008; Heckman et al., 2006; Heckman and Masterov, 2007). Using cost–benefit analysis, his research seeks to establish causal links between participation in early education programs and long-term benefits and outcomes. Heckman and his colleagues argue that early intervention programs promote achievement in young disadvantaged children by preparing them for a successful experience in elementary school, which in turn can lead to higher rates of high school completion. Based on a growing body of research (Heckman, 2000a, 2000b, 2007; Heckman et al., 2006; Heckman and Masterov, 2007), Heckman and Masterov (2007: 449) state: “Enriched interventions targeted toward children in disadvantaged environments are cost-effective remedies for reducing crime and the factors that breed crime, and raising productivity in schools and in the workplace.” They conclude that “[e]ducation and skill are central to the performance of a modern economy” (450).
Heckman (2007) argues that investment in programs earlier in children’s lives is more cost-effective than interventions later in the life cycle (see also Aizer and Cunha, 2012). A number of other recent studies—most notably, Doyle et al. (2009) and Kilburn and Karoly (2008)—provide support for this view by documenting the economic cost-effectiveness for investments in early education. Their results show that interventions made earlier rather than later not only are more cost-effective, but also result in larger benefits which are realized earlier and experienced longer. Arguing for the cumulative nature of early interventions, Heckman and Masterov (2007: 447) note: “Skill begets skill, learning begets learning.”
Kilburn and Karoly (2008: 16), for example, found that, for every US$1 of cost, the Perry Preschool Project returned US$17.07, the Abecedarian Project returned US$3.23, and the Chicago Child-Parent Centers returned US$7.14. While these figures differ slightly from the returns found by other studies reported in the literature, suffice it to say that the results across a number of studies are consistent: investments in early education yield high rates of return in later outcomes. The returns are in the form of reduced costs from fewer placements in special education classes, higher high school graduation rates, and increased income from steady long-term employment.
These studies are significant for two reasons. First, this body of work examines studies that span a 40-year period. Few studies have examined the long-term outcomes of intervention programs for young children in poverty over that length of time. Second, as noted above, the outcomes such as reduced placement in special education, higher graduate rates, and increased employment are consistent with a human capital approach. Thus, the long-term nature of the outcome studies bolsters the arguments put forward by human capital adherents and policymakers alike.
Human capital theory also serves as a basis for early childhood policies and initiatives in Australia, Canada, and England (Halfron et al., 2009), and for program development and assessment in England (Sylva et al., 1999, 2010) and Germany (Leu and Schelle, 2009; Oberhuemer, 2012). While these studies cannot be examined in detail here, it is worth noting that a recent report by the Network of Early-Career Sustainable Scientists and Engineers (2009: 29; original emphasis) states: “it is indisputable that quality early education produces some cognitive and emotional gains, which may be long-lasting, and to which economic value can be assigned. At the very least these economic analyses have been influential in informing policy decisions.” That being said, the human capital approach to justifying and assessing early education is not without its critics, who have raised a number of concerns—two of which are examined next.
Critiques of the human capital approach
This section examines the following two critiques of human capital theory: (1) an instrumental view of education, which justifies investments in early childhood based on economic returns, and (2) a lack of attention to contextual factors and their influence on individual achievement and program effectiveness. Each critique and its significance for early education is addressed below.
Instrumental view of education
Robeyns (2006a: 73; original emphasis) critiques the human capital approach to education as being “entirely instrumental: it values education, skills and knowledge only in so far as they contribute (directly and indirectly) to expected economic productivity.” While there is acknowledgement that education has some instrumental value, Robeyns’ (2006a: 73) concern really cuts two ways: that education is valued only for its contribution to economic productivity and that knowledge and skills not deemed as contributing to economic productivity have “no investment value from the perspective of human capital theory.” The human capital perspective cannot explain why someone would want to learn how to read and write poetry, for example, or learn another language if not for future economic benefit (Robeyns, 2006a). This instrumental view of education narrows the role education plays in individuals’ lives and it narrows our understanding of individual agency. If individual agency is used only for economic gain, it overlooks how individuals use agency toward goals they value and have reason to value.
Lack of attention to context
The human capital approach posits that resources such as early education programs account for participants’ later achievements and positive outcomes. Program outcomes are assessed through cost–benefit analysis, which is effective for assessing a small range of program outcomes. Yet not all program participants achieve the same level of success or outcomes. The variation can be due in large part to a number of societal, cultural, institutional, and personal arrangements that act as barriers to attaining goals. Chiappero-Martinetti and Sabadash (forthcoming) have critiqued the use of cost–benefit analysis for its inability to assess directly or indirectly the influence of a range of contextual and societal factors on an individual’s ability to benefit from program components.
Rios-Aguilar et al. (2011), for example, have documented how human capital studies lack the ability to explain how capital is activated and converted into positive returns. These authors note that, in order to provide such explanations, research must examine “power issues within certain contexts, but also emphasize key process (i.e., recognition, transmission, conversion, and activation) that can help under-represented students achieve” (Rios-Aguilar et al., 2011: 175). In a similar vein, Robeyns (2010), Unterhalter (2009), and Walker (2009) argue that human capital theory fails to consider how racism, sexism, classism, and other forms of prejudice and bias may prevent individuals from converting resources into opportunities to expand their capabilities.
The critiques of the human capital view point out the shortcomings of its instrumental view of education and its lack of attention to factors that may account for the success or failure of program components to influence children’s development. The capabilities approach, first outlined by Sen (1980, 1992, 1997, 1999) and further developed most notably with Nussbaum (2011), views education as having both an instrumental and an intrinsic value for individuals, and attends to the variety of contextual factors that influence program effectiveness and children’s development.
The capabilities approach to well-being
For Sen (1992: 81), the central premise of the capabilities approach is that people ought to have the freedom “to choose the lives they value and have reason to value.” Sen’s primary concern is with the freedoms individuals have to act as agents in making choices from among opportunities (Alkire and Deneulin, 2009). For Nussbaum (2011: x), the capabilities approach starts with the question: “What are people actually able to do and to be?” According to Nussbaum, “the capabilities approach departs from a tradition in economics that measures the real value of a set of options by the best use that can be made of them” (25). Rather, she says, “[o]ptions are freedoms and freedom has intrinsic value” (25). The capabilities approach views “each person as an end, asking not just about the total or average well-being but about the opportunities available to each person” (18).
The two main concepts of the capabilities approach are capabilities and functionings. Capabilities are the freedoms which allow “persons to lead the kind of life they value—and have reason to value” (Sen, 1999: 18). Capabilities are the freedoms a person has to choose and to act. They are the opportunities and potential to achieve. For Nussbaum, what makes capabilities significant is that they can lead to functionings and, as such, represent options for individuals. Functionings are the “beings and doings that are the outgrowths or realizations of capabilities” (Nussbaum, 2011: 25). Examples include being literate because of having the opportunities to learn to read and the availability of reading materials, or good health as the realization of proper nutrition and medical care.
Walker and Unterhalter note the relationship of capabilities and functionings to education:
The capability approach requires that we do not simply evaluate the functionings but the real freedom or opportunities each student has available to choose and to achieve what she valued. Our evaluation of equality must then take account of freedom in opportunities as much as observed choices. (Walker and Unterhalter, 2007: 5)
They go on to say that “to count as education, processes and outcomes ought to enhance freedom, agency and well-being” (15; original emphasis). When education enhances freedom and agency it allows for expanded capabilities in the future. This runs counter to the human capital approach, which aims to equalize resources through investment in early education in order to increase human capital and economic productivity. Sen proposes a view that focuses not on equalizing resources, but rather on equalizing opportunities and freedoms—that is, what it is that people can do or be.
For Sen, individual agency and the freedom to make choices are greatly influenced by social, political, and economic conditions, which individually or collectively can either support or present barriers to educational opportunities. In Sen’s (1999: xi–xii) view, due to the complementarity between individual agency and social arrangements, it is crucial “to give simultaneous recognition to the centrality of individual freedom and to the force of social influences on the extent and reach of individual freedom.” Here Sen (1980: 216) draws a distinction between a view of equality based on the amount of resources a person has and a view based on the “relationship between persons and goods.” For Unterhalter (2009: 219; original emphasis), this highlights the necessity to take into account the social forces present in a society which can support or hinder “whether learners are able to actually convert resources into capabilities, and thereafter into functionings.” Thus, a key point of the capabilities approach is that it seeks to “equalize a person’s capability set, or one’s range of opportunities” (Terzi, 2010: 164). This view does not ignore the need for resources. Rather, it conceptualizes resources as necessary but not sufficient for achieving outcomes. This recognition that social arrangements can either support or serve as barriers to education allows the capabilities approach to address social barriers in ways human capital theory cannot (Robeyns, 2010; Unterhalter, 2009; Walker, 2009).
Capabilities and human capital
For Sen (1999: 293), both human capital theory and the capabilities approach “place humanity at the center of attention.” Yet two significant differences distinguish them. The first is that, whereas human capital theory emphasizes human agency directed toward economic productivity, the capabilities approach focuses on the freedoms individuals have to use their agency in order to expand their capabilities, which, in turn, can lead to greater agency. The second difference is between how each view measures and values education. Sen (1999: 295; original emphasis) believes that enhancing human qualities in order to increase economic growth is important, but he goes on to say that it tells us “nothing about why economic growth is sought in the first place.” Increasing one’s human capital can lead to a fuller life, but so, too, can additional education, better health care, or a number of other factors that increase opportunities and freedoms. In Sen’s (1999: 295; original emphasis) view, these are developmental because they support well-being “in addition to the role they have in promoting productivity or economic growth or individual incomes.” However, while human capital theory can provide some useful information for some outcomes of early education, Sen (1999: 296; original emphasis) sees the capabilities approach to human development as a broader perspective that is “additional and inclusive, rather than, in any sense, an alternative to the ‘human capital’ perspective.” Through this reasoning, Sen proposes that the human capital approach can be integrated into the capabilities approach. As such, the integration addresses the two critiques of the human capital view noted above.
Broader view of education
That the capabilities approach provides a broader view of education will be addressed by two points: (1) the capabilities approach does not deny the contribution human capital makes to economic productivity, but rather integrates it into a broader vision of education, and (2), in doing so, the capabilities approach offers a broader and richer description of children’s agency and critical thinking abilities, which has implications for assessment practices. Each is addressed briefly below.
One goal of the capabilities approach to education is developing individuals’ “internal capabilities” (Nussbaum, 2011: 152), which allows them not only increased employment, but also the abilities to participate in the political, social, and cultural life of their communities. Both Nussbaum (2000, 2011) and Robeyns (2006b, 2010) document how the enhancement of women’s education benefits women, their children, and their position in their household and other levels of their society. For Nussbaum (2011: 155), education for human development must include the foundation of basic skills in literacy and numeracy, but it also “requires much more … critical thinking, the ability to imagine and to understand another person’s situation from within and a grasp of world history and the current global economic order—are all essential for responsible democratic citizenship.”
This is consistent with Robeyns’ contention that the capabilities approach does not philosophically or theoretically exclude monetary assessments:
The claim of the capability approach is not that one should do away with the established monetary indicators and statistics, but rather that for several questions they offer only a partial view of the subject matter, and that for some questions they are misleading. (Robeyns, 2006b: 372)
She concludes that a choice between capability metrics or other metrics, such as monetary and/or economic, is sometimes neither needed nor desirable. As such, the capabilities approach outlines a broader set of educational goals, which means a richer conceptualization of the curriculum, and can provide a more varied set of assessment practices.
Regarding the second point, following Sen, Mario Biggeri and his colleagues, in a series of groundbreaking studies (Ballet et al., 2011; Biggeri, 2007; Biggeri and Libanora, 2011; Biggeri et al., 2006), interviewed children in several countries, of various backgrounds and circumstances. The intent was to use a participatory approach to document “what children think they should be able to do and be, that is, their valued capabilities” (Biggeri, 2007: 197). Analysis of the interviews showed that children most often identified education, love, and care, leisure activities, and life and physical health as valued capabilities (Biggeri, 2007; Biggeri et al., 2006). Hearing children’s valued capabilities is important for several reasons. Firstly, as noted above, it follows Sen’s idea that the selection of capabilities must be the result of a democratic process. Only individuals can select what it is that they value; others cannot do this for them. Secondly, it posits that children are capable of expressing what it is that they value and why it is valued. This acknowledges children’s autonomy, agency, and critical thinking skills (Biggeri et al., 2006).
In order to make a choice, there must be opportunities for children to choose from among a range of options, so that they understand the process of choice-making and have the ability to reflect on their choices so as to make changes to their choices if they so desire (Ballet et al., 2011). Ballet et al. note:
If we seriously consider children’s participation in decision-making processes regarding their well-being, then participation must take different forms according to their age. This means that we must be concerned with the formation of children’s capacity for critical thinking and capability to aspire, and must develop participatory methods that are suitable for different ages. (Ballet et al., 2011: 40)
Thus, the capabilities approach calls for the increased inclusion of children’s voices and perspectives in their decision making. This broader view of education allows for a richer conceptualization of children’s agency and can become the basis for assessment practices, both of which are further addressed below.
Attention to context
The capabilities approach can provide a more sensitive account of the ways contextual and societal factors support or hinder what individuals can do and achieve. As noted above, when addressing contextual and societal factors, Sen (1980: 216) draws a distinction between a view of equality based on “shares of goods” and a view based on the “relationship between persons and goods.” Sen believes that a person’s ability to achieve should be measured by the freedoms a person has to convert resources into valued capabilities that can further increase agency. A capabilities view, then, shifts attention away from the amount of resources an individual may have to consideration of the opportunities that individual has to convert resources into valued capabilities. Thus, rather than seeking to equalize the resources available to each person, the capabilities approach seeks to “equalize a person’s capability set, or one’s range of opportunities” (Terzi, 2010: 164).
Recent research has focused on children’s ability to perceive barriers to accessing opportunities. Building on the methods of Biggeri and Libanora described above, Kellock and Lawthom (2011) used the photo-voice methodology to examine children’s valued capabilities and possible barriers to attaining functionings. Children were given cameras to document areas of their school that were significant to them. Through analysis of interviews with the children about their photographs, four valued capabilities emerged, along with perceived barriers. The four capabilities were: being literate, being physically active, being a friend, and being creative. The barriers involved, variously, the lack of particular skills, the lack of time or opportunity to engage in the activity, and the lack of resources. When discussing children’s capabilities and barriers related to being literate, Kellock and Lawthom note:
Whilst they have the freedom to experience, for example, being a friend, some of the time, there are occasions when this is not possible and this freedom is removed from their control. These remarks imply that the lack of freedom, for example, to be literate, hinders children’s learning and progress, whilst, at the same time, causes a whole range of difficulties such as having a negative self-image. (Kellock and Lawthom, 2011: 145–146)
Evident here is that barriers include a variety of factors. In documenting both the children’s valued capabilities and barriers to converting them, Kelloch and Lawthom note that the capabilities approach provides both the theoretical framework and, now increasingly, methods to discern and address barriers to children’s development and well-being.
Recognition of the importance of children’s valued capabilities and the barriers they may experience changes the way educators approach curriculum, teaching, and assessment practices. Educators must have a broad view of the contextual features that may provide support for or hinder children’s development and well-being, and that of their families.
Implications for early childhood education
This last section gives a brief example of the implications that the capabilities approach has for assessment practices in early education. At the heart of Sen’s (1992: 81) view of development is that individuals have the freedoms and agency to be able “to choose the lives they value and have reason to value.” For Sen (1999: 18–19), then, the individual as agent is “someone who acts and brings about change, and whose achievements can be judged in terms of her own values and objectives, whether or not we assess them in terms of some external criteria as well.” Choosing what one values and has reason to value presupposes the availability of choices and the agency to select, act on, and determine the value of one’s choices. The implication for early childhood education is that children are seen as agents in their own learning and assessment processes.
The recent work on Learning Stories by Margaret Carr and her colleagues (Carr, 2001; Carr and Lee, 2012; Carr et al., 2009) describes assessment practices consistent with the focus of the capabilities approach on children’s agency and valued capabilities (Ballet et al., 2011; Biggeri, 2007; Biggeri and Libanora, 2011). One purpose of Learning Stories is that teachers actively engage children as agents in the selection of learning activities and assessment practices. A second purpose of Learning Stories is to document that engagement in the learning activities, the outcomes of the activities, and the children’s dispositions in their approach to their learning activities. The documentation makes visible children’s agency by illustrating the processes through which children make choices about what they learn, how they learn, how they are assessed, and their reflections and valuations of the activities in which they have engaged and of the outcomes. The documentation comes from teachers, children, and their parents, and can be in the form of written and spoken text, pictures, and videos, among other forms. The documentation also includes the reflections of teachers, children, and parents on factors in the learning environment that may have encouraged, supported, or hindered children’s learning. In the language of the capabilities approach, the documentation, then, demonstrates “whether learners are able to actually convert resources into capabilities, and thereafter into functionings” (Unterhalter, 2009: 219; original emphasis). In sum, assessing children’s learning with Learning Stories documents children’s agency in learning activities as well as in their assessments of their learning, and their critical reflections on both, in ways that are consistent with the capabilities approach.
Conclusion
Human capital theory can provide robust documentation of some of the outcomes of early childhood education. Such evidence can provide some of the support needed to make a case for the educational and economic benefits of early education (Barnett and Masse, 2007; Belfield et al., 2006). Yet, as shown, this view has significant shortcomings. Two have been considered. The capabilities approach offers a broader view of development which focuses on an individual’s freedoms and agency. The integration of the human capital view within the capabilities approach addresses these critiques and further provides a broader framework for assessing and valuing the contribution of early education to children’s development and well-being. This view has significant implications for early childhood education. The research on Learning Stories by Carr and her colleagues (Carr, 2001; Carr and Lee, 2012; Carr et al., 2009) has been presented as an example of an assessment practice that is consistent with the capabilities approach.
Declaration of conflicting interests
This text is original and has not been published elsewhere.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
*
Parts of this paper were presented as part of a symposium: Using Humanistic Economics and the Capabilities Approach to Rethink Early Childhood Educational Research, Practices and Policies, at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA, April 2014.
References
|
Aizer, A, Cunha, F (2012) The production of child human capital: Endowments, investments and fertility. NBER Working Paper 18429. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Alkire, S, Deneulin, S (2009) A normative framework for development. In: Deneulin, S, Shahani, L (eds) An Introduction to the Human Development and Capability Approach: Freedom and Agency. Oxford: Earthscan and International Development Research Centre, pp. 3–21. Google Scholar | |
|
Ballet, J, Biggeri, M, Comin, F (2011) Children’s agency and the capabilities approach: A conceptual framework. In: Biggeri, M, Ballet, J, Comin, F (eds) Children and the Capability Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 22–45. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Barnett, WS, Masse, LN (2007) Comparative benefit–cost analysis of the Abecedarian program and its policy implications. Economics of Education Review 26(1): 113–125. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Becker, GS (1964) Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special Reference to Education. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research. Google Scholar | |
|
Becker, GS (1993) Human Capital. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Belfield, CR, Nores, M, Barnett, S. (2006) The High/Scope Perry Preschool Program: Cost–benefit analysis using data from the age-40 followup. Journal of Human Resources 41(1): 162–190. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Biggeri, M (2007) Children’s valued capabilities. In: Walker, M, Unterhalter, E (eds) Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 197–214. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Biggeri, M, Libanora, R (2011) From valuing to evaluating: Tools and procedures to operationalize the capability approach. In: Biggeri, M, Ballet, J, Comim, F (eds) Children and the Capability Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 79–106. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Biggeri, M, Libanora, R, Mariani, S. (2006) Children’s conceptualizing their capabilities: Results of the survey during the First Children’s World Congress on Child Labour. Journal of Human Development 7(1): 59–83. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Carneiro, P, Heckman, J (2002) Human capital policy. In: Heckman, J, Krueger, A (eds) Inequality in America: What Role for Human Capital Policies? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 77–240. Google Scholar | |
|
Carr, M (2001) Assessment in Early Childhood Settings: Learning Stories. London: Paul Chapman. Google Scholar | |
|
Carr, M, Lee, W (2012) Learning Stories: Constructing Learner Identities in Early Education. London: SAGE. Google Scholar | |
|
Carr, M, Smith, AB, Duncan, J. (2009) Learning in the Making: Disposition and Design in Early Education. Rotterdam: Sense. Google Scholar | |
|
Chiappero-Martinetti, E, Sabadash, A (forthcoming) Integrating human capital and human capabilities in understanding the value of education. In: Tiwari, M, Ibrahim, S (eds) The Capability Approach: From Theory to Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar | |
|
Doyle, O, Harmon, CP, Heckman, J. (2009) Investing in early human development: Timing and economic efficiency. Economics and Human Biology 7(1): 1–6. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | |
|
Halfron, N, Russ, S, Oberklaid, F. (2009) An International Comparison of Early Childhood Initiatives: From Services to Systems. New York: Commonwealth Fund. Google Scholar | |
|
Heckman, J (2000a) Invest in the Very Young. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Heckman, J (2000b) Policies to foster human capital. Research in Economics 54(1): 3–56. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Heckman, J (2007) The economics, technology, and neuroscience of human capability formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(33): 13250–13255. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | |
|
Heckman, J (2008) Schools, skills and synapses. Economic Inquiry 46(3): 289–324. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Heckman, J, Grunewald, R, Reynolds, AJ (2006) The dollars and cents of investing early: Cost–benefit analysis in early care and education. Zero to Three 26(6): 10–17. Google Scholar | |
|
Heckman, J, Masterov, D (2007) The productivity argument for investing in young children. Review of Agricultural Economics 29(3): 446–493. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Kellock, A, Lawthom, R (2011) Sen’s capability approach: Children and well-being explored through the use of photography. In: Biggeri, M, Ballet, J, Comin, F (eds) Children and the Capability Approach. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 137–161. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Kilburn, RR, Karoly, LA (2008) The Economics of Early Childhood Policy: What the Dismal Science Has to Say about Investing in Children. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Google Scholar | |
|
Leu, HR, Schelle, R (2009) Between education and care? Critical reflections on early childhood policies in Germany. Early Years 29(1): 5–18. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Networks of Experts on the Social Sciences of Education and Training (2009) Early Childhood Education and Care: Lessons from Research for Policy Makers. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Google Scholar | |
|
Nussbaum, M (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Nussbaum, M (2011) Creating Capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Oberhuemer, P (2012) Balancing traditions and transitions: Early childhood policy initiatives and issues in Germany. In: Papatheodorou, T (ed.) Debates on Early Childhood Policies and Practices: Global Snapshots of Pedagogical Thinking and Encounters. London: Routledge, pp. 17–26. Google Scholar | |
|
Rios-Aguilar, C, Kiyama, JM, Gravitt, M. (2011) Fund of knowledge for the poor and forms of capital for the rich? A capital approach to examining funds of knowledge. Theory and Research in Education 9(2): 163–184. Google Scholar | |
|
Robeyns, I (2006a) Three models of education: Rights, capabilities, and human capital. Theory and Research in Education 4(1): 69–84. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Robeyns, I (2006b) The capability approach in practice. Journal of Political Philosophy 14(3): 351–376. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Robeyns, I (2010) Gender and the metric of justice. In: Brighouse, H, Robeyns, I (eds) Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–235. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Saito, M (2003) Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: A critical exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education 37(1): 17–33. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Sen, A (1980) Equality of what? In: McMurrin, S (ed.) The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press and Cambridge University Press, pp. 196–220. Google Scholar | |
|
Sen, A (1992) Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Sen, A (1997) Human capital and human capability. World Development 25(12): 1959–1961. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Sen, A (1999) Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Sylva, K, Melhuish, E, Sammons, P. (2010) Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the Effective Pre-School and Primary Education Project. London: Routledge. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Sylva, K, Siraj-Blatchford, I, Melhuish, T. (1999) Technical paper: An introduction to the effective provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project. London: Institute of Education, University of London. Google Scholar | |
|
Terzi, L (2010) What metric of justice for disabled people? Capability and disability. In: Brighouse, H, Robeyns, I (eds) Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150–173. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Unterhalter, E (2009) Education. In: Denuelin, S, Shahani, L (eds) An Introduction to the Human Development and Capability Approach. London: Earthscan, pp. 207–227. Google Scholar | |
|
Walker, M (2009) Selecting capabilities for gender equality in education. In: Walker, M, Unterhalter, E (eds) Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 177–196. Google Scholar | |
|
Walker, M, Unterhalter, E (2007) The capability approach: Its potential for work in education. In: Walker, M, Unterhalter, E (eds) Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–18. Google Scholar | Crossref |
Author biography
Cary A Buzzelli is Professor of Early Childhood Education in the School of Education at Indiana University. His previous research examined the moral dimensions of teaching. He co-authored, with Bill Johnston, The Moral Dimensions of Teaching: Language, Power, and Culture in Classroom Interactions (RoutledgeFalmer, 2002). His current research focuses on the implications of the capabilities approach for early childhood education, particularly in the areas of curriculum, assessment, and teacher education.