So I would ordinarily shy away from doing an old-school blog post that simply links to something else, but this feels like a study that calls out for an exception. I’ve just been reading a paper in the journal Developmental Psychology, thanks to a friend’s library access. It’s a pre-K study that has many virtues, including
I really want to read the study because I wouldn’t have predicted worse outcomes compared to the control group. I wouldn’t have expect better outcomes but it’s hard to be believe that more school makes things worse. I wonder if they have any theories why.
What's interesting is that during World War II the U.S. had a very effective universal child care program. Under the Lanham Act, the federal gov. funded public care centers in communities where women had stepped up to help the war effort.
And these care centers were great in a lot of different ways. The teacher to student ratio was like 1:12. Teachers were actually well-trained (and paid). Some programs even provided dinners that mothers could take home when they came to get their kids. Sadly, the child care ended once the war did. But the fact that this was managed during a massive war effort suggests (more like proves) universal child care is more than feasible.
haven't had a chance to read this but I wanted to ask...why is there no organization that provides things like free tutoring, free pre-k and free counseling in very poor areas of large cities? I get it, government is worthless, I agree, but there's no George Soros or David Geffen who can fund this? Isn't there at least ONE person in NYC who can draw up a business plan for a charity to takeover a small storefront or loft space to provide something like free pre-k? Free tutoring? Why are liberals still waiting for government to do something? It's been 70 years of Dept of Ed and inner city education is at the same place it was back then.
I get there's dumb conservatives in the sticks, but they don't advocate for big govt programs (at least not out loud), so let's get back to the situation at hand. Isn't there anyone out there who wants to start this charity and look for funding from a billionaire?
From the abstract, the study participants are low income students who are part of an “oversubscribed” state-run pre-K program, who are randomly assigned to either attend pre-K (treatment) or be on the waitlist (control). Not having access to the article, I’d question how much external validity there is with this study. It seems a stretch to say that these results would hold among a general population of pre-K students (mix of incomes) and students attending non-public pre-K (not just state run) which may have better student/teacher ratios. One interpretation of the findings is that, for low income students, not attending pre-K (and potentially having more one on one time with a caregiver) leads to better outcomes than attending an over-crowded pre-K. I’d be skeptical to extrapolate more than that without seeing other research.
Good grief...you regular people (that is not librarians) are outdoing me. I can send a copy to anyone, but looks like you have solved that! klmccook at gmail.com
Durkin K, Lipsey MW, Farran DC, Wiesen SE. Effects of a statewide pre-kindergarten program on children's achievement and behavior through sixth grade. Dev Psychol. 2022 Jan 10. doi: 10.1037/dev0001301. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35007113.
This is so counterintuitive it makes my head hurt.
Is there an explanation as to why it doesn't help when it seems it should?
More pertinent, is there an explanation for why middle class (and up) parents are convinced it's essential? They devote gobs of resources to their children's pre-k education.
Is that all fruitless? Or does their conduct indicate an explanation for what's going on - that what's essential is not just any pre-k instruction but really high-quality stuff.
That would explain these parents' actions - they compete not to secure just any pre-k for their kids (that's taken for granted) but for spots high-quality programs (indicating they think the difference is meaningful), and be consistent with this study, I think.
Do the authors of the paper have any theories as to why the effect would be negative? I can certainly speculate myself, I'm just curious. Where I'm standing, if pre-K does indeed cause children to become meaningfully academically worse later in life, that should also give one pause about supporting universal child care in general, not just because the supposed academic benefits aren't real.
Interesting for us ed nerds - thank you. Tech is the obvious answer. Instead of investing mega $ that go down the drain in labor costs and overhead, simply provide every 4 year old in the USA with a huggable toy containing a voice synthesizer and enough AI programming to conduct intelligible, age-appropriate conversations that include a healthy dose of complex sentences and high school vocabulary words. Of course, we'll need a huge supply of them and they should come with a selection of different voices and dialects. They'll also have to be small enough to fit in a kid's backpack. Problem solved - Leo the Lion for the 21st century!
My child goes to a Montessori preschool. I can live with the idea that it has no effect on his future outcomes, but the negative effects are concerning. A lot of these education posts are ultimately reassuring: Just keep them alive and they’ll be fine. But not this one. It’s worrying that a RCT shows more future behavior problems in the preschool group.
We chose his preschool because it seemed like a nurturing environment. The ratio is 7:1 (often less because of absences) and it’s a spacious classroom with lots of different things to do. The Montessori style means he gets to follow his interests for much of the day. They seem to coddle the kids as you’d expect for the price. Plus, he likes to play with other kids (he’s an only child).
I guess I’m just trying to justify my choice. No effect is okay, but I hope it’s not harming him. 😕
I wish we had more research on the characteristics of schools associated with these outcomes (along with the effect of various options, like how many days per week, whether to go full or half day, whether to do summer program). But there would be huge selection problems in any attempt to study these things outside of random assignment, and you can really only do random assignment for government programs.
I really want to read the study because I wouldn’t have predicted worse outcomes compared to the control group. I wouldn’t have expect better outcomes but it’s hard to be believe that more school makes things worse. I wonder if they have any theories why.
I want to read the study too. Counterintuitive for sure but stranger things are true.
not sure if you can post links on here but have shared on google drive if anyone wants to read it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vfShplpa_dUXbPJNaKlFubli_OZDq5Jh/view?usp=sharing
What's interesting is that during World War II the U.S. had a very effective universal child care program. Under the Lanham Act, the federal gov. funded public care centers in communities where women had stepped up to help the war effort.
And these care centers were great in a lot of different ways. The teacher to student ratio was like 1:12. Teachers were actually well-trained (and paid). Some programs even provided dinners that mothers could take home when they came to get their kids. Sadly, the child care ended once the war did. But the fact that this was managed during a massive war effort suggests (more like proves) universal child care is more than feasible.
haven't had a chance to read this but I wanted to ask...why is there no organization that provides things like free tutoring, free pre-k and free counseling in very poor areas of large cities? I get it, government is worthless, I agree, but there's no George Soros or David Geffen who can fund this? Isn't there at least ONE person in NYC who can draw up a business plan for a charity to takeover a small storefront or loft space to provide something like free pre-k? Free tutoring? Why are liberals still waiting for government to do something? It's been 70 years of Dept of Ed and inner city education is at the same place it was back then.
I get there's dumb conservatives in the sticks, but they don't advocate for big govt programs (at least not out loud), so let's get back to the situation at hand. Isn't there anyone out there who wants to start this charity and look for funding from a billionaire?
From the abstract, the study participants are low income students who are part of an “oversubscribed” state-run pre-K program, who are randomly assigned to either attend pre-K (treatment) or be on the waitlist (control). Not having access to the article, I’d question how much external validity there is with this study. It seems a stretch to say that these results would hold among a general population of pre-K students (mix of incomes) and students attending non-public pre-K (not just state run) which may have better student/teacher ratios. One interpretation of the findings is that, for low income students, not attending pre-K (and potentially having more one on one time with a caregiver) leads to better outcomes than attending an over-crowded pre-K. I’d be skeptical to extrapolate more than that without seeing other research.
just wanted to say that I love these education-and-quantitative-metrics posts :)
Obvious proof that we need pre-pre-K
Good grief...you regular people (that is not librarians) are outdoing me. I can send a copy to anyone, but looks like you have solved that! klmccook at gmail.com
Durkin K, Lipsey MW, Farran DC, Wiesen SE. Effects of a statewide pre-kindergarten program on children's achievement and behavior through sixth grade. Dev Psychol. 2022 Jan 10. doi: 10.1037/dev0001301. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 35007113.
I have wondered (but not looked into) how pre-K compares to head Start? Anyone?
Please note the edited footnote
This is so counterintuitive it makes my head hurt.
Is there an explanation as to why it doesn't help when it seems it should?
More pertinent, is there an explanation for why middle class (and up) parents are convinced it's essential? They devote gobs of resources to their children's pre-k education.
Is that all fruitless? Or does their conduct indicate an explanation for what's going on - that what's essential is not just any pre-k instruction but really high-quality stuff.
That would explain these parents' actions - they compete not to secure just any pre-k for their kids (that's taken for granted) but for spots high-quality programs (indicating they think the difference is meaningful), and be consistent with this study, I think.
Do the authors of the paper have any theories as to why the effect would be negative? I can certainly speculate myself, I'm just curious. Where I'm standing, if pre-K does indeed cause children to become meaningfully academically worse later in life, that should also give one pause about supporting universal child care in general, not just because the supposed academic benefits aren't real.
Interesting for us ed nerds - thank you. Tech is the obvious answer. Instead of investing mega $ that go down the drain in labor costs and overhead, simply provide every 4 year old in the USA with a huggable toy containing a voice synthesizer and enough AI programming to conduct intelligible, age-appropriate conversations that include a healthy dose of complex sentences and high school vocabulary words. Of course, we'll need a huge supply of them and they should come with a selection of different voices and dialects. They'll also have to be small enough to fit in a kid's backpack. Problem solved - Leo the Lion for the 21st century!
Not American, so can anyone explain what they do in pre-K?
It seems way too young to begin education...
My child goes to a Montessori preschool. I can live with the idea that it has no effect on his future outcomes, but the negative effects are concerning. A lot of these education posts are ultimately reassuring: Just keep them alive and they’ll be fine. But not this one. It’s worrying that a RCT shows more future behavior problems in the preschool group.
We chose his preschool because it seemed like a nurturing environment. The ratio is 7:1 (often less because of absences) and it’s a spacious classroom with lots of different things to do. The Montessori style means he gets to follow his interests for much of the day. They seem to coddle the kids as you’d expect for the price. Plus, he likes to play with other kids (he’s an only child).
I guess I’m just trying to justify my choice. No effect is okay, but I hope it’s not harming him. 😕
I wish we had more research on the characteristics of schools associated with these outcomes (along with the effect of various options, like how many days per week, whether to go full or half day, whether to do summer program). But there would be huge selection problems in any attempt to study these things outside of random assignment, and you can really only do random assignment for government programs.