METAANALYSIS 
CITATIONS 

BenefitCost Summary Statistics Per Participant  

Benefits to:  
Taxpayers  $2,121  Benefits minus costs  $8,001  
Participants  $4,401  Benefit to cost ratio  $30.89  
Others  $1,845  Chance the program will produce  
Indirect  ($98)  benefits greater than the costs  79 %  
Total benefits  $8,269  
Net program cost  ($268)  
Benefits minus cost  $8,001  
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant  
Benefits from changes to:^{1}  Benefits to:  

Taxpayers  Participants  Others^{2}  Indirect^{3}  Total 

Labor market earnings associated with test scores  $2,050  $4,514  $2,004  $0  $8,569 
Health care associated with educational attainment  $124  ($34)  ($135)  $62  $18 
Costs of higher education  ($53)  ($80)  ($24)  ($27)  ($184) 
Adjustment for deadweight cost of program  $0  $0  $0  ($134)  ($134) 
Totals  $2,121  $4,401  $1,845  ($98)  $8,269 
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant  
Annual cost  Year dollars  Summary  

Program costs  $260  2013  Present value of net program costs (in 2016 dollars)  ($268) 
Comparison costs  $0  2013  Cost range (+ or )  10 % 
Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (NonDiscounted Dollars) 
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits perparticipant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in nondiscounted dollars to simplify the “breakeven” point from a budgeting perspective. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment. 
MetaAnalysis of Program Effects  
Outcomes measured  No. of effect sizes  Treatment N  Adjusted effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefitcost analysis  Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)  

First time ES is estimated  Second time ES is estimated  
ES  SE  Age  ES  SE  Age  ES  pvalue  
Test scores^{}  14  11652  0.071  0.055  11  0.051  0.060  17  0.198  0.008 
Abe, Y., Thomas, V., Sinicrope, C., & Gee, K.A. (2012). Effects of the Pacific CHILD professional development program. (NCEE 2013–4002). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Borman, K.M., Cotner, B.A., Lee, R.S., Boydston, T.L., & Lanehart, R. (2009). Improving elementary science instruction and student achievement: The impact of a professional development program. Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Crystal City, VA.
Borman, G.D., Gamoran, A., & Bowdon, J. (2008). A randomized trial of teacher development in elementary science: Firstyear achievement effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1(4), 237264.
Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P.L., Chiang, C.P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499531.
Foster, J.M., Toma, E.F., & Troske, S.P. (2013). Does teacher professional development improve math and science outcomes and is it cost effective? Journal of Education Finance, 38(3), 255275.
Garet, M.S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W., . . . Silverberg, M. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Garet, M.S., Wayne, A. J., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Walters, K., Song, M., . . . Warner, E. (2010). Middle school mathematics professional development impact study: Findings after the first year of implementation. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Heller, J.I., Daehler, K.R., Wong, N., Shinohara, M., & Miratrix, L. W. (2012). Differential effects of three professional development models on teacher knowledge and student achievement in elementary science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(3), 333362.
Johnson, C.C., Kahle, J.B., & Fargo, J.D. (2007). A study of the effect of sustained, wholeschool professional development on student achievement in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(6), 775786.
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R.D., Green, L.B., Beretvas, S.N., Cox, S., Potter, N.S., . . . Gray, A.L. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 6986.
Santagata, R., Kersting, N., Givvin, K. B., & Stigler, J.W. (2011). Problem implementation as a lever for change: An experimental study of the effects of a professional development program on students' mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(1), 124.
Saxe, G., Gearhart, M., & Nasir, N. (2001). Enhancing students' understanding of mathematics: A study of three contrasting approaches to professional support. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4(1), 5579.