New Evidence Raises Doubts on Obama's Preschool for All

Real Clear Policy ^ | 11-20-2013 | Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst, Brookings Institution

[Sir Napsalot]

Last week legislation was introduced in the Senate and House to create federally funded universal pre-k for 4-year-olds. The details of the legislation are largely consistent with the White House proposal, called Preschool for All, that was announced in the president's state of the union address in February.

.... Senator Harkin, the lead author of the Senate version of the legislation, declared that "Decades of research tell us that … early learning is the best investment we can make to prepare our children for a lifetime of success."

(snip)

Unfortunately, supporters of Preschool for All, including some academics who are way out in front of what the evidence says and know it, have turned a blind eye to the mixed and conflicting nature of research findings on the impact of pre-k for four-year-olds. Instead, they highlight positive long term outcomes of two boutique programs from 40-50 years ago that served a couple of hundred children. And they appeal to recent research with serious methodological flaws that purports to demonstrate that district preschool programs in places such as Tulsa and the Abbott districts in New Jersey are effective. Ignored, or explained away, are the results from the National Head Start Impact Study (a large randomized trial), which found no differences in elementary school outcomes between children who had vs. had not attended Head Start as four-year-olds. They also ignore research showing negative impacts on children who receive child care supported through the federal child development block grant program, as well as evidence that the universal pre-k programs in Georgia and Oklahoma, which are closest to what the Obama administration has proposed, have had , at best, only small impacts on later academic achievement.

[Sir Napsalot]

Lengthy article. Take home message: the so-called overwhelming evidence of the benefits of early childhood "education" is mixed. Counter to our 'normal' conventional wisdom.

But to progressives, academics, and their Dems representatives, facts and researches are to be picked and chosen. A more compelling narrative trumps everything else.

As long as they can get more government involved in every aspect of our lives, our children's lives. And more bureaucracies/more funding, of course.

[hal ogen]

And just how much will this boondoggle cost? Also, do parents really want their children held captive by the “educators” for even more years of their lives?

[heylady]

I don’t think Pre K is the issue, I think it is the quality of Pre K offered by the government. My children and grandchildren all attended Pre K at private schools. It gave them a chance to learn to socialize with other children.

[SMARTY]

No kid of MINE would ever be exposed to THAT horror.

No matter what the cost, I’d be home with him/her myself, before I’d ever let THEM near my child.

[JoeFromSidney]

In part this is a payoff to the teachers' union. More teachers needed to staff the Pre-K classes. In addition, it's glorified baby-sitting for mothers who work outside the home.

In addition, it means more income for the government. If a mother takes care of her children at home, those "services" are not taxable. Send the child to day-care or Pre-K, and the salaries of the staff are taxable. Nice example of one hand washing the other.