Preschool Can Be Great. Universal Pre-K Schemes Are Something Else.

Despite what advocates say, the science does not support sweeping mandates.

By and
23

Last week, a couple hundred “nonprofit organizations, business leaders, and women’s advocates” took out a full-page ad in the New York Times to quixotically insist that Congress pass the (very, very dead) Build Back Better Act. Tellingly, the ad led with the ever-popular demand that Congress enact “universal preschool for all 3- and 4-year-olds.”

It made sense to lead with preschool. Heck, it may be the piece of Build Back Better that Sen. Joe Manchin most consistently embraced last fall. And it’s easy to understand why. Good, reliable child care is crucial for harried parents of young kids, especially in an age when aunts, uncles, and grandparents are less likely to live nearby. It empowers moms who want to work, an issue that’s taken on added urgency as COVID-fueled disruptions have driven more than 1 million mothers out of the workforce. And good pre-K schooling can make a big difference for some kids. Reliable, trusted, convenient preschool is a terrific thing.

Unfortunately, that’s not enough for today’s Democrats, who’ve sought to turn pre-K into a sacrament. Having concluded that the existing web of preschool options is too uneven, that some providers don’t pay caretakers enough, that some centers are affiliated with churches that hang fast to pre-woke doctrines, and that the whole system is just, well, too damn messy, they’ve set out to remake the world of preschool in the image of K-12 public schooling.

They dream of a vision of universal preschool that deemphasizes or displaces today’s web of mom-and-pops, church-sponsored offerings, and the rest in favor of something that looks more like Bill de Blasio’s signature mayoral accomplishment—effectively tacking an extra grade on the front end of New York City’s expensive, unionized public school system. De Blasio’s model has undercut small, community-based or charter providers, which receive $9,800 per pupil even as the school district’s preschool programs get two to three times that amount, while putting pre-K on a K-12 calendar, subjecting it to the vagaries of union contracts and school closures, and moving kids out of neighborhood settings and into school buildings.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
23
By and
Comments (23)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    This article nailed it. With these sorts of things it’s very hard to isolate what works and what doesn’t without hundreds or thousands of studies. There are too many factors to control for.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    The Freakonomics authors dedicated a chapter in the first book (over ten years ago) to examining educational programs, and found they were of limited value. The problem was a lot of correlations but limited causality. Taking your kids to the zoo did not make them better students, but high achieving parents are more likely to take their kids to the zoo. Having books in your house correlates with higher academic achievement, but it's more a case that higher achieving parents almost all have more books in their homes. As the authors put it, 𝒊𝒕'𝒔 𝒏𝒐𝒕 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒅𝒐 𝒃𝒖𝒕 𝒘𝒉𝒂𝒕 𝒚𝒐𝒖 𝒂𝒓𝒆. While I think they overstate the opposite, in general I agree that trying to do too much too early has too little long term value.

    Does this mean I am anti-pre k? No. I think a good day care can be valuable. A good day care is safe, has some structure to it, encourages kids to play, providing some supervised activities, including some "learning" ones.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Tracie

    Curious you made this a bureaucrats vs private sector argument vs investigating the elements of these Tennessee programs. Many of my former grad school classmates in occupational therapy posted this article, which focuses more on the harm of taking self-directed play away from children and replacing it with academic training.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/202201/research-reveals-long-term-harm-state-pre-k-program

    "Four-year-olds need lots of time to play, create, socialize, take initiative, figure things out on their own, and learn to manage themselves. The time spent in academic training is time that they cannot spend on learning the much more important skills that come from self-directed activities...Regardless of the mechanism, it is now abundantly clear that we should stop even thinking about teaching academics to tots. We should finally make the decision that the Germans made half a century ago and stop formal academic training for children below age 6."

    Collapse
    1. M Shulman

      Thanks for this link! I'm curious whether anyone has done similar studies of Montessori programs. My own experience with Montessori leads me to believe that it does provide all of those needs listed, even though along the way the children also start learning reading, writing, and arithmetic. In particular, when done correctly it is entirely self-directed.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Tracie

        Seems like the Montessori model allows for self-directed play. However, I don't know that it's standardized enough to easily compare to anything else. Seems like that's the point though. Academic standards are dumb for preschoolers.

        Collapse
        1. M Shulman

          Anyone can call themselves "Montessori", so there's no standardization there. But there are organizations like Association Montessori Internationale or the American Montessori Society that set standards and give certifications. If you want to trust that something is *actually* Montessori, in a sense close to the original meaning, you need to look for those labels, and I think those programs are what researchers should study.

          Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

      A lot of it depends on what you mean by "academic training". I think there are age appropriate learning activities which can benefit four year olds. Reading and writing, no, but supervised play activities, doing puzzles, art can all be beneficial. Really, anything that keeps kids from sitting in front of a television (or an iPad) all day can be beneficial.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Tracie

        I think "academic standards" which promote teaching to the test are maybe not so good. Maybe the "plays well with others" type standards were better.

        Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Patrick

    We may as well just skip ahead to the end. The final progressive view will be that any parents should be able to drop their child off at a taxpayer-funded care facility or school from birth to age 18. Need to Netflix and Chill for a few days? Cool, just drop your infant off with the state and pick up when done.

    Collapse
  5. Mathew A

    Far better to just have a expanded tax credit. That could be used to pay for pre-k if the parents want, OR used to allow a parent to stay home.

    either way, leave the parents in control

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    NashLives

    This is a very nice write up. Lots of good, even-handed discussion of existing literature without focusing too much on a single empirical paper (as is often the case in these kind of articles). The adjudications of various causal inference issues is also very well done for a general audience. Someone should go back and replicate the original Perry Preschool findings, I wonder if everything is kosher in the original analysis. That would be a fun blog post I would read!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      NashLives

      Sure enough, Heckman et al. (2010) went through and reanalyzed the Perry data. The findings largely hold up to newer econometric techniques, but of course we're still talking about a small-N study with a design that doesn't allow us to disaggregate effects (i.e., class size vs. quality teaching vs. at-home visits, etc.)! https://nieer.org/2010/09/17/the-perry-preschool-study-stands-the-test-of-time-but-it-doesnt-stand-alone

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    Using actual data to figure out what policies to pursue and tax dollars to spend! Who'da thunk it? 😏

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    EricRemcon@gmail

    I thank TD for posting this article. I applaud anytime data is injected in the decision making process regarding a nationwide experiment. WARNING: Strong opinion to follow ….

    Children are:

    * A lot of work (and require sacrifice).
    * A big financial commitment.
    * A big PERSONAL responsibility.
    * A vital cog in the continuation and improvement of society.
    * One of the greatest blessings in life.

    Children are NOT:

    * The responsibility of the state (except relating to adoption and abuse).

    It bothers me any time I see pre-K and child care mentioned in the same article, although it is refreshing to see pre-K acknowledged as what it is – free childcare. Over the last 50+ years a good and necessary societal function (public education) has been hijacked by all sorts of groups with tangential connections to the development of children. Public sector teacher unions first priority has been, and always will be, teacher jobs/pay. School administrative staff sizes have exploded to provide dubious services. Food assistance advocates have expanded the school lunch programs to such an extent that the original supporters would blush. Any public school built in the last 20 years bears more resemblance to the Taj mahal than a building with the basic requirements for schooling (heat/cool, ventilation, safe classrooms). I would like to see a study that compares the facilities of public/private/for profit schools. I’m sure you can guess where my money is on the evidence of largess.

    The federal government’s involvement in education has done what it always does with any program – GROW. That growth is done in the name of good intentions, but is based on dubious or nonexistent data. The federal government has no right to involvement in education other than establishing basic curriculum and testing guidelines. By basic, I mean reading, math, history, government. I don’t mean literature lists, fine arts, patriot classes, etc. I’m sure the basic federal requirements for education could be funded with less than half of what we spend on just school lunches, let alone the billions in recent covid aid.

    If a community wants to have gold plated drinking fountains and sports facilities rivaling the pros, let them. But also make them pay for it. ALL funding for schools belongs at the state level. Even at the state level, there is massive waste and inequity, but throwing more federal money is not the solution. We already have an expensive problem, adding pre-K will only make it worse and according to the data this article cites, not provide much benefit.

    Collapse
    1. LucyTrice

      As I have said many times on this site, education is not a monolithic entity across all fifty states, and varies from school to school. The public school buildings built within the past 20 years in our area are solid, attractive, welcoming buildings thoughtfully designed to be functional, energy efficient and easily maintained.

      This is important. Schools are one of the few types of community buildings we have in our area. Children know about money, know that people spend money on things that matter; students get the message sent by cut rate, esthetically insulting schools.

      My county is the one governing body I would gladly allow to raise my taxes: they are masters at pinching pennies (Want it to look like you offer high school students a wide range of classes without actually having to spend much money? No problem - just limit the seats so you don't have to hire more teachers). But they understood the importance of well designed facilities and developed plans that could be reproduced across the county, using the same basic pattern for all high schools, the same basic pattern for all middle schools and for all elementary schools. It can be done.

      Regarding the classes to be taught: In order to learn, one has to practice what is taught. Every class with written material reinforces reading and comprehension. Every class that deals with quantities and ratios and planning or analysis builds and reinforces math skills.

      And I have come to see that the school activities that don't show up on the test are, in many ways, the most valuable: their standards are real. In marching band, in football in theater, there is no grade inflation. You get out what you put in and everybody can see real strengths, "A grade" performance.

      I have a standing recommendation that all polling be done in public schools so citizens can see what they are paying for.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        EricRemcon@gmail

        It sounds like we are mostly in agreement (communities can have the schools they want, as long as they are paying for them and not using federal dollars). I am against the pre-K federal program not because of my high/low opinion of the value of pre-K, but because it would be a very expensive (and likely to grow) federal program. Just like school facilities or teacher standards, local communities can prioritize funding pre-K programs (at the expense of something else) if they choose.

        The other things you mention (curriculum related, and grade inflation). The federal impact on education should be defining certain basic reading and math levels and basic facts regarding history and government. How those standards are achieved can be left up to the states. Your mention of grade inflation, I think grade inflation is real (at least in the non-AP classes). I could be wrong (it wouldn’t be the first time 🙂), I don’t have any special knowledge just my experiences with my kids, their friends, and the younger work associates that I deal with. I agree with you about the benefits of extra-curricular activities that don’t show up on a report card, especially relating to leadership. Both of my kids were involved in marching band and developed leadership skills because of it. My son even decided he wanted to be drum major, worked hard, and got it all on his own without any parental prodding or help.

        Collapse
  9. Scott Watson

    Very well done piece. Giving parents meaningful choices is a great idea. I would like to know more about the Child Care Development Block Grant data that shows its positive impact.

    Collapse
  10. MikeS

    Thank you for this article, which definitely upended my preconceptions of the value of Head Start, making me a more discerning consumer of claims regarding early childhood education and care.

    Collapse
Load More