The latest results of a longitudinal study of Tennessee children who attended the state's pre-K program have been released. Here's a summary from the Hechinger Report:
Children who attended Tennessee’s state-funded voluntary pre-K program during the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years were doing worse than their peers by the end of sixth grade in academic achievement, discipline issues and special education referrals. The trend emerged by the end of third grade and was even more pronounced three years later.
....The first part of the study of Tennessee’s program was released by the Vanderbilt University researchers in 2015. The results, said Farran, were “alarming”: The positive effects of the state-funded pre-K program faded out by the end of kindergarten and turned “slightly negative” by the end of third grade.
I find this very peculiar. Apparently the pre-K program had positive effects through the middle of kindergarten, but then turned negative three years later and even more negative three years after that.
What could possibly cause this? I can imagine positive effects that continue to be positive. I can imagine negative effects that continue to be negative. And I can imagine any kind of effect that eventually flattens out.
But a positive effect that, mysteriously, turns negative years later? What could a pre-K program possibly do that would sit around dormant for years and then suddenly erupt like a time bomb starting around third grade? I can't make any sense out of that.
Something very strange is going on here. But what? The study was an RCT, so the treatment and control groups should have been similar. Was there a difference in how parents responded to the program? Did primary teachers know which kids had been in the program? Or what? This really demands some kind of answer, or, at the very least, a bit of informed speculation.
Remember the Let's-Copy-Finland-Boomlet?
In Scandinavia, kids start school later. Developmentally, it's not necessarily appropriate to have tiny kids learning what we think they should learn. Kids in small class sizes also can become needy and less resilient. Not always, but can. So I imagine that something similar is going on here. Or maybe it's a bogus study!
But the only educational silver bullet shown to work elsewhere is the one we haven't tried here: paying teachers like they're the professionals they are or should be.
https://expatchild.com/school-starting-ages-around-world/
Finnish kids start school at 7. They have *daycare* before that.
When I was in Romania in 2002, the kindergartens -- which were a separate campus -- were for 6 year olds & grade 1 started at 7.
Could be a paneuro thing.
My first question is "How big is the effect?" Because that sure sounds like statistical noise.
It was the peanut butter and lead sandwiches
Hesher tried to warn us about those crazy American sandwiches.
If noted Rocky Top fanboi KKKlay Travis doesn't say 'Black', he's going to pass out.
"the treatment and control groups should have been similar". Not if the program was voluntary (and all volunteers accepted). There could be positive or negative effects from this. When parents volunteer their kids for charter schools instead of regular public schools it at least means that they have some interest in education. But if they volunteer them for pre-school it may mean that they don't have the time or interest to attend to their kids' development themselves or just want to offload the kids for some other reason.
A truly controlled study would have to eliminate the element of choice by parents and/or students.
Both groups were students who applied to the program. The test group were randomly accepted and the control group were randomly rejected. The bigger issue is you're comparing kids who got pre-kindergarten from the state to kids who got pre-kindergarten from the feds or private programs or didn't get it at all. Not sure you would expect the state of tennessee to provide a better program than the feds.
And there is evdience that the state program was sub-par.
Haven’t yet looked at the source document, just the Hechinger piece. Wondering why there wasn’t a disaggregated analysis for all the subgroups: state, Federal, private, home care. The Hechinger report says Tennessee’s program was ‘worse than nothing’, but shows no data at all.
Double blind randomized control trails are the gold standard for establishing causation. This study didn't have it.
I actually followed the links and couldn't get an actual copy of the study but this kind of research is really hard to do well. And even if the methodology is beyond reproach (which I doubt), I'd still be very concerned about randomization and dropout rates.
So, if ten, large, well executed studies show the same results, then you'd have my interest. Until then, it is mildly interesting, at best.
Agreed. My rule of thumb is that in the social sciences, no single study can ever be conclusive. (I am a psychologist, have worked both research and applied.)
This has random assignment + multi-year longitudinal follow-up. If there's ever been a higher standard study in this category then where is it?
Interesting point.
I was thinking the students could be more demanding and/or are bored because of the lack of challenges at school--which leads to acting out. And if someone is labelled a "troublemaker" in third grade, that will definitely affect how they're treated in subsequent years and become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Some sort of mass poisoning?
It's Tennessee, and during the Obama administration, so we should assume many of these parents want their children to be assholes, so they could be prepared to attack the capitol when they get older.
No, just proof that shitlib do-gooder Phil Bredesen was wrong for Tennessee, & would be wrong for America (as Kamala's VP replacement after she takes over for Breyer in the Supremes).
Wait, either one assigns experimental units randomly, or one matches - you can’t have it both ways.
This is really interesting. According to the article, many of the control group ended up in Head Start, so there may be some quality difference between the two, rather than a blanket preK-is-bad issue.
My guess is that there is a difference in how the Tennessee program developed social/emotional skills. If your preschool is too academic, it could leave social deficits that become more problematic later.
Well, at least as regards "discipline issues," one possibility is that the kids who received extra education were far enough ahead of the average that they were BORED. Having been closely involved with an academic preschool for some years, and having seen what the kids are capable of when they leave, and what they have to deal with when they re-enter the public school system, I wouldn't blame them for going nuts and acting out.
As is so often the case in these kinds of studies, the results were probably affected by variables that the researchers did not take into account, and which cannot be identified with hindsight. That's why it's wise never to base important policy decisions on one or a handful of studies.
Yes.
I wondered about this earlier this morning.
The control group and experimental groups were both composed of people who applied to the program. Apparently many of the control group ended up attending Head Start instead.
Perhaps the program puts more emphasis on socialization, as opposed to Head Start, which might put more emphasis on reading readiness. These are just examples, but it's conceivable that one program emphasized skills that offer short-term benefit in primary grades, while the other offers more long-term benefits that manifest in later grades.
on 13% went into head start. 64% were home-schooled.
If it was me, the first thing I would look at is who funded the study.
Conservatives in government and public life are like armless people who have been raised in institutions for the armless who do not understand even the concept of doorknobs.
The students in this study all had parents who chose to apply for the program. The study says nothing about what the program would do for the children of parents who did not apply. Still, it's an interesting data point. Apparently, it is possible for pre-K to lead to poorer mid-term outcomes.
The wide variability in the quality of pre-K programs and research showing pre-K leading to improved outcomes suggests that the problem is with the Tennessee program, not with pre-K in general.
What's wrong with the Tennessee program? The Hechinger Report article suggests a number of things. They point to a NYTimes article saying that there wasn't much in the way of teacher training or guidance, no overall planning. They mention other critics note that the Tennessee pre-K program was too academic in structure with teachers lecturing rather than the usual pre-K activity based learning.
My understanding is that in some cases - like heavily pressuring children to excel at the limit of their concentration and ability - can lead to impressive performance in the short term, but then burn-out strikes.
BEFORE: My nine year-old child plays the violin, is studying algebra, and leaning Greek and Latin. We are so proud!
AFTER: For some reason my child has given up on studies and simply wants to be a farm-hand in Nebraska. So strange.
Christopher Mc Candless was a hero to most, but he never meant shit to me.
I do regret, though, that he didn't survive to run comms for Bernie 2016 & 2020.
There is a lot to be desired from the Hechinger article, starting with the quote they get from the lead researcher suggesting Pre-K may be worse than doing nothing at all. The problem with this quote is pointed out later as the report explains children who did not attend the state Pre-K did in fact receive early care and education through Head Start, Child Care and Home-Based programs, all of which would have a focus on early childhood development and long-term academic success. So, in fact, the Tennessee Pre-K students didn't do worse than their peers who stayed at home; they did worse than their peers in other programs. Which begs the question: which of the four options was the best, and can that be duplicated in a Pre-K setting? My guess is yes.
THAT is actually interesting. Tennessee has a lot of undesirable qualities but seriously underfunding state education programs is one of the most serious. The state is solely dependent on a sales tax for revenue. Every time there is a recession, the budget tanks and the first thing on their chopping block is public education. It is a thing you can cut and not see the effects for years.
I'd be interested in seeing the actual statistics, but the article is paywalled until next year.
This would make me wonder... did they track kids that moved?
Not sure what's mysterious here. An abused toddler can present as a well adjusted kindergartener because the "presentation" is so simple and accordingly similar to other kids. Navigating prosaic life isn't typically the issue but rather navigating the complexities of more complex and nuanced relationships.
If I was bullied in daycare I'd probably still show higher vocabulary in kindergarten than those who stayed home simply because of all the social exposure. But whether that social exposure helped me long term is another question.