Four Year Old Kindergarten Update; January 2008

Four Year Old Kindergarten Update: January 2008

I had the pleasure of attending the Wisconsin Association of School Boards (WASB) State Convention on January 23rd. There were so many fine offerings that it was hard to decide which ones to attend. One of the Idea Exchange sessions was entitled “Many Happy Returns: Why School Boards Should Care about Pre-K,” presented by Patte Barth, director of the center for public education and Chrisanne Gayl, director of federal programs. I spent many an agonizing hour over this topic, as can be seen by the many essays here. I debated about attending, doubting my ability to be unbiased. I asked myself a few questions. Could I be open-minded to new data? Can I shut up and listen? Probably not, but I really was curious about the state-of-the-art data available on this controversial topic.

I finally found the room just as they were finishing the presentation. Not only that, but they had not produced enough copies of their slides for all the attendees, so I had to squint to make out the references on the slides. Sure enough, there it was: “High/Scopes Perry Preschool Project” in living color. I sighed audibly. Universal Preschool program advocates continue to insist on pulling out that old saw from the early 1960’s to prove their point. Questioning revealed that newer data were available. We were directed to look up Oklahoma’s data at our leisure because they present compelling current data regarding that subject. Since it was only begun in 1998, there are no long-term data available to check the long-term socioeconomic impact, but student achievement comparisons are impressive. “Why,” I asked her, “don’t you show it to us?” Ms. Barth made the point that pre-K studies were notoriously difficult to evaluate because they lack standardization. One might even expand on that statement. There also lacks formal study of the baseline environment, which makes it difficult to measure progress made toward the goal, which further assumes that a concrete, measurable goal has been established. This is the essential point opponents of Universal 4K have tried to make for years. There is a cart before the horse approach taken with pre-K. The older studies such as High/Scopes proves that a well designed experiment is feasible with concrete baselines, goals and measurements. Pointing out the dearth of sound experimental procedure used to evaluate 4K programs is lost on the proponents of Universal 4K. They merrily go about insisting that Universal 4K needs to be implemented with no questions asked, while characterizing opponents as evil Republicans with no regard for our children. I assure you I am neither. If this bunch would speak with data instead of appealing to emotional arguments and inapplicable 40-year-old studies, they would be more successful.

I also asked why the group wishes to expand to Universal 4K instead of advocating for and targeting the “in between” demographic of at risk population who can’t afford pre-school but don’t qualify for Head Start. For example, why not work on increasing the income qualification levels for Head Start in Wisconsin (a pitiful 100% of the federal poverty level, or FPL) instead of paying over 90 Million Dollars a Year to provide a Universal program? Other more successful states have up to 250% of the FPL as the threshold income qualification for Head Start. That was answered with an illuminating “Head Start is a federally funded program.” Well, DUH! And “Each community must decide how its program should look.” AARGH! That is NOT the answer to my question.

When I returned home, I logged onto the website where Ms. Barth’s presentation is located (www.centerforpubliceducation.org) and found more research studies. Two more studies from the late 60’s and early 70’s were noted there. The Abecedarian Project at the University of North Carolina (1972-1985) was mentioned, which had fewer participants than High/Scopes did (111) and also dealt exclusively with a high-risk population. This study included birth to 5-year-old interventions, with eligible children receiving services up to age 8. Similar educational gains were seen for these children, as well as social gains. The Chicago Child Parent Centers begun in 1967 was another touted study. The demographic focus was again economically disadvantaged children and similar successes were seen with the study participants. And none of them are Universal 4K programs.

Contemporary Universal 4K studies include those in Oklahoma and Kansas. Georgetown University analyzed the Tulsa, Oklahoma school district program and NIEER (National Institute for Early Education Research) evaluated the Kansas program. According to NIEER, it is difficult to control the variables in a side-by-side study of students with and those without pre-K, so they designed the study differently. They used as a control group students with birthday cut-off dates just after the 4K-eligibility date. The study group consisted of students with birthdays just before the cut-off date. One reason NIEER felt compelled to use this protocol was because “it was impossible to extract a control demographic because there was no way of telling whether or not individuals in the control group attended other preschool programs.” The study compared results on various testing protocols implemented by the teachers. Other contemporary 4K studies have followed suit in their protocols. However, this does not meet the criteria of a side-by-side study sought by so many of us. These are not students from the same cohort, but students who are one year apart in school, regardless of their age group. Comparison of students who have completed an entire year of 4K to students just entering 4K of similar age range is an interesting exercise, but doesn’t really drive home the point. In Tulsa, despite the program being Universal, only 60% of the 4-year-olds are enrolled. There ought to be plenty of students to randomly choose from as a true control. Why does it matter whether or not they have had other pre-school experience? They are the control. If publicly funded pre-K is so superior, it should hold up to comparisons to other programs. The reluctance of Universal Pre-K proponents to show these data lead cynics such as myself to conclude that a true side-by-side study would NOT show all the fabulous social and educational gains one is led to expect from their constant quoting of results from the High/Scopes and Abecedarian Projects.

I reiterate that the socioeconomic and educational gains proven by the well designed studies such as The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project, Chicago Parent Child Project and The Abecedarian Project apply to children demonstrating one or more high risk factors such as poverty and developmental delays. Society in general and these children in particular gain so much from nurturing a strong emphasis on the benefits of education. These students are often already served by Head Start, a fantastic program. The students we need to focus our limited resources on are the “in-between” kids, children of struggling parents who wish to provide but cannot afford quality pre-school for their children. And our resources are limited. As much as we all would like to take the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on the Defense Department and spend it on other more lofty goals such as education, it’s not going to happen any time soon. Implementing Universal 4K will result in the cancellation of other proven educational programs, such as Gifted and Talented programs. Then what will we do with all of those baby Einsteins we produce with Universal 4K?