Protect Our Kids From Preschool Hype

In a recent Wall Street Journal article the Reason Foundation's Shika Dalmia and Lisa Snell argue that pre-k programs don't work or, worse, actually harm kids. Dalmia and Snell have a point: Some pre-k advocates exaggerate the benefits of pre-k. But Dalmia and Snell commit the same sin by over-hyping the evidence against pre-k and conflating high-quality educational pre-k with ordinary daycare programs.

Preschool is not childcare. Preschool is quality.

Dalmia and Snell write that research shows null or negative effects of preschool programs, but the studies they choose to cite underscore the real issue in pre-k policy: quality. For example, the authors cite a 2006 study by the C.D. Howe Institute that found higher incidence of misbehavior among children in Quebec's universal preschool program. But Quebec's "universal preschool" program is not really preschool; it is custodial child care program for children starting at birth, and it does not have the same quality standards or educational goals as the pre-k programs that states across the country have established over the last decade. Similarly, the authors argue that the federal Head Start program has no academic impact. In fact, research shows academic benefits from Head Start. But a study by the National Institute for Early Education Research found that students in Oklahoma's state pre-k program, which had a stronger literacy focus than Head Start, made even bigger gains than Head Start students on pre-literacy and pre-math assessments.

Over and over again, evidence shows that quality is the key to getting good results from early childhood investments. What does quality look like? High-quality pre-k programs have small class sizes, qualified teachers (a big issue undermining quality in Head Start), a coherent and comprehensive curriculum emphasizing both academics and social/emotional development, ongoing assessment, and adequate funding - basically all the standards we apply to K-12. Having reasonable high-quality standards in across a statewide pre-k program helps ensure that all children receive a solid foundation before they enter kindergarten.

NAEP scores don't tell the whole story.

Dalmia and Snell make another argument we often hear against pre-k: The academic benefits kids gain from pre-k "fade out" by the end of elementary school. As evidence, they point to declining average test scores since 1992 on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in Georgia and Oklahoma - two states with universal pre-kindergarten programs. But in fact, Oklahoma's scores on the NAEP have actually been increasing since 2002, (concurrent with the state pre-k program, which started in 1998.) Moreover, NAEP test scores mask the massive demographic changes that have occurred in these states over the past decade and a half, notably a 300 percent increase in Georgia's Hispanic population. Nor do NAEP scores differentiate for any changes or lags in the K-12 system that may have contributed to lower performance.

There is evidence that pre-k benefits "fade out" over the early elementary years-but research suggests that's less evidence of pre-k ineffectiveness than it is a reflection of poor quality in the public elementary schools children attend following pre-k, which are ill-equipped to build on and sustain children's early learning gains. That spotlights another important element of quality early education: It must be aligned with a quality early elementary school program.

The best pre-k programs work with the K-12 system -- rather than awkwardly alongside it -- to harmonize expectations, curriculum and assessment in order to ensure that pre-k serves as foundation for elementary school, and that elementary school reinforces what kids learned in pre-k. Efforts to align standards, curriculum, and teaching in grades PK-3 are already paying off. If we continue to work on it, we will be able to maximize the short- and long-term benefits of pre-k - through the 4^th grade NAEP tests and beyond.

Pre-k also has many benefits that cannot be measured directly by the NAEP. These include building social skills such as self confidence and the ability to interact with others in a classroom environment. Dalmia and Snell cite a 2005 study by researchers at Stanford and the University of California, which found that children who attended preschool showed slower social development than children who remained at home. But the effects were only "moderate in magnitude." Moreover, that study also compared pre-k students with children who stayed at home with their mothers-but for many kids with working moms, that's not a choice. Instead, the choice facing policymakers is whether they'll invest in quality pre-k for those children, or allow them to remain in poor quality childcare programs that research shows do have negative social and cognitive impacts. That same Stanford study found that children in preschools showed gains in pre-literacy and pre-math skills, especially if they started preschool at age 3. Another study published that year found that the quality of parenting was much more important than childcare in determining children's social and behavioral skills.

Pre-K is not just for low-income children.

Dalmia and Snell write that "the only preschool programs that seem to do more good than harm are very intense interventions targeted toward severely disadvantaged kids." It is true that research shows that low-income children show the greatest academic gains from pre-kindergarten. But this does not mean that more advantaged children do not benefit from pre-k at all. Certainly the 89 percent of parents with incomes over $100,000 annually who pay, sometimes exorbitantly, to send their four-year-olds to pre-k programs must think their children are reaping some type of educational benefit. Kids from affluent families aren't foregoing pre-k; they're enrolled in high-quality private preschool or stay at home in academically rich family settings. This is why we need to start with targeted pre-k programs for disadvantaged children, who are doubly disadvantaged because they get less educational stimulation at home or in childcare, and are also less likely to have access to high-quality pre-k and other early learning opportunities.

But we shouldn't stop there. Most public pre-k programs currently are open only to extremely low-income children, leaving many moderate-income families struggling to find care. Three-quarters of children in families with incomes of $75,000 or more are enrolled in some kind of preschool program, while only half of children from middle income families ($30,000 - $75,000) are in preschool. With increasing costs and competition for childcare, this means that middle-income children who are in organized care are likely in lower-quality environments. Universal pre-k makes sure all kids are covered. Pre-k doesn't have to replace other forms of childcare (and in many cases, it works with them) but if these authors want to advocate choice for parents, we need to make pre-k available for all who want it.

We're still a long way from providing high-quality, affordable, educational pre-k to every three- and four-year-old whose family wants it. Too many kids lack access to quality early education, and the quality of what is available is often inadequate. But if the debate about preschool is going to be about quality-and it should be-and if we're going to make pre-k about education rather than childcare, it should be made available to all children, just like K-12. Preschool is school, and we can't reform the K-12 system without it.

For another good critique of Dalmia and Snell's argument, check out an op-ed in this week's San Francisco Chronicle by David Kirp and NIEER's Stephen Barnett.