When Research Doesn’t Matter

I remember sitting with an early childhood expert on a panel, discussing what age group was worth investing in more when it came to teaching and learning. I was a high school principal at the time, so I just knew it was grades 9-12. So I spent all of my time during panel time telling the audience how it was my high schoolers they needed to invest in. Toward the end, the early childhood expert pulled out a chart and showed the crowd that the return on investment for an early childhood program was 12 times that of investing in high schools. I left the stage with my tail between my legs.

I’ve been an early childhood champion ever since.

So you can imagine my surprise when I saw this title appear in last week’s EducationWeek online – “Preschool Studies Show Lagging Results. Why?”

The article begins,

“Landmark studies of preschool programs in the 1960s and 70s showed that they could make a big difference for children from low-income families. But more recent experimental studies of preschool don’t show as strongly positive results for students’ academic and social outcomes. Why?”

“That’s the question that Anamarie Whitaker, an assistant professor in human development and family sciences at the University of Delaware, set out to investigate in a new working paper. She and seven colleagues outlined the findings from randomized studies of modern preschool programs – which show smaller effects than well-known Perry Preschool program that began in 1962, or the Abecedarian project of the 1970s.”

“Children that participated in these programs saw a range of positive outcomes that lasted well into adulthood: They were healthier, more likely to graduate from high school, and made more money than their peers. Many elements of the Perry Preschool program inspired early childhood education design for years afterward.”

“EducationWeek spoke with Whitaker about what might be driving these lower effects, and how the preschool landscape is changing. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.”

“What made the Perry Preschool and Abecedarian programs distinctive – and effective?”

“Perry Preschool was a preschool program designed to demonstrate that early life experiences influenced children’s early development. It was a small demonstration program that took place in the 1960s, in Ypsilanti, Michigan. It was a small-scale study with a random assignment design: 123 African American children were part of the study, ages 3 and 4. Fifty-eight children were randomly assigned to receive the treatment condition, and the others were randomly assigned not to receive the treatment, being in the control.”

“The treat condition received high-quality preschool services, that was a school year program. It provided half-day programming five days a week and a weekly home visit by the child’s teacher. The program was really focused on close teacher-child interactions, children selecting their own activities, teachers supporting children’s interest and extending the activity that the child had selected, if appropriate. There was a really strong emphasis on involving children in designing their activities and planning their own time.”

“Abecedarian was also an early-care and -education program. This program took place in the 1970s in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The majority of participants in the program were African American as well. Abecedarian offered full day, center-based intensive early-care and -education services, including some medical care, starting when children were infants and continuing until children entered kindergarten. There’s a school-age component to Abecedarian, but I won’t talk about that since we’re just focusing on early care.”

…

“And it’s a really important thing to know that both of these programs were small programs, run by researchers. And both programs, importantly, were evaluated using an experimental design and followed these children into adulthood. And both of these programs offer lifelong benefits of participation, including in domains like educational attainment, economic outcomes, and overall health and well being.”

“You mentioned both of them being designed and also run by researchers. Is that different from the more recent program evaluations?”

“Yes, and it’s really important to think about. The programs that are operating now, these are at-scale statewide, or citywide programs serving many more children. Operating across many more sites, and locations.”

“What are some of the other ways that they might differ from the programs with really strong results in the past?”

“This is kind of the central question of our paper: why we’re seeing different results than these demonstration programs or earlier preschool programs in general. We really try to discuss these common theories, review the evidence behind them. We think scale is one reason.”

“One of the potential reasons mentioned for decline in program effects in the paper is improved counterfactual conditions. Can you explain what that means?”

“Since the 1960s, we’ve seen a dramatic increase in the safety net for low-income families. We’ve seen increases in funding for social support, such as income support, like TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), nutritional support through SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), increases in education spending on a per-child basis. We’ve also see declines in infant and child mortality, suggesting these improved conditions medically and/or environmentally for children and families.”

“While these social supports may not be universal, children that are not attending preschool now likely have more access to, and potentially higher quality services, than they likely did 50 or 60 years ago. So this is a really good development, and it’s also likely that this is one of the reasons why we’re not seeing the same type of effects from our current preschool programs.”

“Does this mean that preschool isn’t worth the investment – or that the form of preschool should change?”

“I think preschool still plays a really essential role for most parents of young children. Working parents really rely on preschool; over half of 3-5-year-olds are attending a preschool center. Our question is really, how do we ensure that these experiences are best supporting their short-and long-term development?

…

“Is the answer more funding across the board, or do we not know necessarily which levers might be most important to pull?”

“It’s a question of where to invest, and that’s where that future research can show us: What specifically about classroom experiences are effective? And what is effective in both the short, medium, and long term?”

Here’s my prediction. Republican-dominated state legislatures will use this research to claim that the importance of preschool has been over-hyped the past 20 years or so. In turn, these legislatures will attempt to either hold funding at its present levels or cut funding moving forward.

But, to be clear, that’s not what this report is asking us to do. This report is asking for additional research to suggest what indeed works, and doesn’t work, for today’s 3- and 4-year-olds.

My fear is that cuts will happen before the research is clear.

Til tomorrow. SVB