|Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant|
|Taxpayers||$6||Benefits minus costs||($112)|
|Participants||$13||Benefit to cost ratio||($0.22)|
|Others||$7||Chance the program will produce|
|Indirect||($46)||benefits greater than the costs||37 %|
|Net program cost||($92)|
|Benefits minus cost||($112)|
|Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant|
|Benefits from changes to:1||Benefits to:|
|Labor market earnings associated with test scores||$6||$13||$7||$0||$26|
|Adjustment for deadweight cost of program||$0||$0||$0||($46)||($46)|
|Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant|
|Annual cost||Year dollars||Summary|
|Program costs||$86||2013||Present value of net program costs (in 2018 dollars)||($92)|
|Comparison costs||$0||2013||Cost range (+ or -)||10 %|
|Estimated Cumulative Net Benefits Over Time (Non-Discounted Dollars)|
|The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in non-discounted dollars to simplify the “break-even” 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.|
|Meta-Analysis of Program Effects|
|Outcomes measured||Treatment age||No. of effect sizes||Treatment N||Adjusted effect sizes(ES) and standard errors(SE) used in the benefit - cost analysis||Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)|
|First time ES is estimated||Second time ES is estimated|
Angrist, J.D., & Lavy, V. (2001). Does teacher training affect pupil learning? Evidence from matched comparisons in Jerusalem public schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 19(2), 343-369.
Antoniou, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2013). A Dynamic Integrated Approach to teacher professional development: Impact and sustainability of the effects on improving teacher behaviour and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(1), 1-12.
Cardelle-Elawar, M. (1995). Effects of metacognitive instruction on low achievers in mathematics problems. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 81-95.
Dalton, E.A. (2010). Relationship between professional development expenditures and student achievement. (Doctoral dissertation, Tarleton State University, 2010, UMI No. 3428757).
Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., Meloth, M.S., Vavrus, L.G., Book, C., Putnam, J., & Wesselman, R. (1986). The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill instruction and student awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher effects. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 237-252.
Harris, D.N., & Sass, T.R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 798-812.
Jacob, B.A., & Lefgren, L. (2004). The impact of teacher training on student achievement: Quasi-experimental evidence from school reform efforts in Chicago. The Journal of Human Resources, 39(1), 50-79.
McGill-Franzen, A., Allington, R.L., Yokoi, L., & Brooks, G. (1999). Putting books in the classroom seems necessary but not sufficient. The Journal of Educational Research, 93(2), 67-74.
Siegle, D. & McCoach, D. (2007). Increasing student mathematics self-efficacy through teacher training. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 18(2), 278-331.
Sloan, H.A. (1993). Direct instruction in fourth and fifth grade classrooms. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(08), 2837A.