Fern Shubert
Brad Shackelford
Seth H. EdwardsIn spite of Abcedarian, research does not support expensive pre-school programs as sound public policy
By: Delma Blinson ( More Entries )
Login to Send a Private Message to Delma Blinson
The News & Observer recently reported that a report of the famous Frank Porter Graham Development Institute's Abcedarian Project. This is the longitudinal study most frequently cited by proponents of early childhood (pre-school) education to support more money being spent on Pre-K than the state has been doing. At first glance, as the N&O reports, the results look impressive. The study too 104 children at birth, essentially, and divided them into two groups and tracked the students for 30 years now. One group (Experimental) was given very intensive early childhood training from about 4 months on until public school. The other group (Control) got no special training. On most measures of success the Experimental group did better than the Control group.
Click here to read the N&O article.
Sounds impressive. Indeed. Until you scratch below the surface.
The Cato Institute did just that and you can find a summary of their critique by clicking here.
They breakdown the research methodology and analyze the results and conclude:
To summarize, then, no empirical evidence supports the claims that universal preschool will reduce the number of children who will perform poorly in school, become teenage parents, commit criminal acts, or depend on welfare. Although some projects have had meaningful short-term effects on disadvantaged children's cognitive ability, grade retention, and special education placement, those benefits are short-lived. At the same time, most interventions have concentrated on disadvantaged children, so there is no evidence for universal replicability. In fact, a large body of evidence shows that preschool can have a negative impact on middle-income children.
Few studies have examined or demonstrated long-term effects of intervention on children's development. Most attempted studies were of model programs and were impaired by small sample size, attrition, and selection bias and were severely limited in statistical power and generalizability. The two projects that provide the most valid estimates of the long-term effects of early intervention on disadvantaged children--Perry Preschool and Abecedarian--do not support the claims made by advocates of universal pre-school.
Finally, even if there were reliable evidence of lasting, long-term effects of early intervention on disadvantaged children, it would still be necessary to show that those effects could be generalized to a program of state or national scope. As the following section details, the government's longest running preschool program for disadvantaged children, Head Start, has failed to produce long-term benefits for participating children.
If you are really into this kind of stuff, to see what the advocates of expensive pre-school programs are up against you should review these articles by the Cato Institute.
In the interest of fair disclosure, I should say that I am very much in favor of top-notch pre-school education. I have a strong bias in that area. Their names are Brayden and Caden. Both are pre-schoolers...our grandchildren...and we want the best for them.
But as much as we are biased in their favor, I'm not convinced that it is sound public policy for the government to provide pre-school education for all children. The research is simply not sufficient to justify the expenditure of the kind of money that would cost. We do not have solid data to show that millions of dollars spent on government run pre-schooling would be better spent there than on something somewhere else, such as K-3 reading, writing and math. Or on our community colleges. Or on lowering tuition, fees and textbook costs in our university system.
The solid evidence is simply not there.
Delma Blinson writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.
Click here to read the N&O article.
Sounds impressive. Indeed. Until you scratch below the surface.
The Cato Institute did just that and you can find a summary of their critique by clicking here.
They breakdown the research methodology and analyze the results and conclude:
To summarize, then, no empirical evidence supports the claims that universal preschool will reduce the number of children who will perform poorly in school, become teenage parents, commit criminal acts, or depend on welfare. Although some projects have had meaningful short-term effects on disadvantaged children's cognitive ability, grade retention, and special education placement, those benefits are short-lived. At the same time, most interventions have concentrated on disadvantaged children, so there is no evidence for universal replicability. In fact, a large body of evidence shows that preschool can have a negative impact on middle-income children.
Few studies have examined or demonstrated long-term effects of intervention on children's development. Most attempted studies were of model programs and were impaired by small sample size, attrition, and selection bias and were severely limited in statistical power and generalizability. The two projects that provide the most valid estimates of the long-term effects of early intervention on disadvantaged children--Perry Preschool and Abecedarian--do not support the claims made by advocates of universal pre-school.
Finally, even if there were reliable evidence of lasting, long-term effects of early intervention on disadvantaged children, it would still be necessary to show that those effects could be generalized to a program of state or national scope. As the following section details, the government's longest running preschool program for disadvantaged children, Head Start, has failed to produce long-term benefits for participating children.
If you are really into this kind of stuff, to see what the advocates of expensive pre-school programs are up against you should review these articles by the Cato Institute.
In the interest of fair disclosure, I should say that I am very much in favor of top-notch pre-school education. I have a strong bias in that area. Their names are Brayden and Caden. Both are pre-schoolers...our grandchildren...and we want the best for them.
But as much as we are biased in their favor, I'm not convinced that it is sound public policy for the government to provide pre-school education for all children. The research is simply not sufficient to justify the expenditure of the kind of money that would cost. We do not have solid data to show that millions of dollars spent on government run pre-schooling would be better spent there than on something somewhere else, such as K-3 reading, writing and math. Or on our community colleges. Or on lowering tuition, fees and textbook costs in our university system.
The solid evidence is simply not there.
Delma Blinson writes the "Teacher's Desk" column for our friend in the local publishing business: The Beaufort Observer. His concentration is in the area of his expertise - the education of our youth. He is a former teacher, principal, superintendent and university professor.
| Ashley Dawn Couch charged with felony assault - biter / spitter | Community, Teacher's Desk, School News | Lawrence Mel Tetterton arrested for possession with intent to sell |
{ QR Code for Mobile Phones }
