Posted on by Californiacontrarian

What Appears to Actually be Beneficial for the Kids

The Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K program was a very well done study that evaluated the results of Pre-K in Tennessee. There was a control group, and the children were followed and compared until 3rd grade. I was amazed when I read the results of this Voluntary Pre-K (VPK) study, because basically the control group (RCT) did equal to or in some instances better than the VPK children!

I have tried to summarize the results of this study in the next few paragraphs:

The study found that children who participated in VPK experienced considerably greater gains in literacy, language, and math skills during the pre-k year than the control children, and that this difference was recognized as greater preparedness for grade level work by kindergarten teachers at the beginning of the following year.

However, those positive VPK effects on achievement largely disappeared by the end of kindergarten with children in the control group catching up to the VPK participants. Moreover, by second grade the performance of the control children surpassed that of the VPK participants on some achievement measures. This pattern was echoed on the 3rd grade state achievement tests for the full RCT sample. VPK participants scored lower on the reading, math, and science tests than the control children with differences that were statistically significant for math and science.

On other outcomes, including teacher ratings of classroom behavior, retention in grade, disciplinary infractions, and attendance, there were generally few overall differences between VPK participants and control children across the years, although school records did show somewhat more disciplinary actions for the violation of school rules for the VPK participants.

The other question is whether some demographic subgroups of children benefited more from VPK participation than others. Considering the number of combinations of subgroups, outcomes, and school years involved in examining this issue, relatively few differential pre-k effects were found.

I would suggest that everyone reread the last few paragraphs at least once. Wow!

As a bonus I have included the conclusion of the study exactly as it was printed.

Conclusion:

“We are mindful of the limitations of any one study, no matter how well done, and the need for a robust body of research before firm conclusions are drawn. Nonetheless, the inauspicious findings of the current study offer a cautionary tale about expecting too much from state pre-k programs. The fact that the Head Start Impact study – the only other randomized study of a contemporary publicly funded pre-k program – also found few positive effects after the pre-k year adds further cautions (Puma et al., 2012). State-funded pre-k is a popular idea, but for the sake of the children and the promise of pre-k, credible evidence that a rather typical state pre-k program is not accomplishing its goals should provoke some reassessment. It is apparent that the phrase “high-quality pre-k” does not convey enough about what the critical elements of a program should be. Now is the time to pay careful attention to whether the country’s youngest and most vulnerable children are well served in the pre-k classroom environments currently operated and to explore innovations with the potential to serve them better.”

Wow!

Keep in mind that Pre-K is not free! Is Pre-K worth the cost? How much does this program cost California? The short answer is, “a lot!”

In 2015-16 California boosted total spending on Pre-K by $200 million (a 17% increase from the prior year). That put the total spending at greater than $1.4 billion! These increases accounted for more than 1/3 of overall spending increases in the entire U.S.A. for Pre-K. Wow!

So not only does California spend an unbelievable amount on Pre-K, but they also do it inefficiently. Per year, California spends $6409 per child enrolled in Pre-K compared to the national average of $4976. Wow!

So it appears that in this very well done “Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K study”, published in Early Childhood Research Quarterly states that not only is Pre-K is not beneficial for the children, but also in some instances these VPK children appear worse off!

Yikes!

Any chance that California will now re-examine it’s Pre-K policies and spending based on these new facts? Short answer . . . “NO!”, as to me, this freebie is just another way for the Democratic politicians to buy votes!

118 Replies to “What Appears to Actually be Beneficial for the Kids”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.