http;//www.Californiacontrarian.com

From Wikipedia:Shakespeare’s phrase, “hoisted with his own petard” is an idiom that means “to be harmed by one’s own plan” or “to fall into one’s own trap.”For those of you, (including myself until I looked it up) who do not know what a “petard” is. A petard an explosive device formerly used in warfare to blow in a door or gate, or to form a breach in a wall, etc., and sometimes it backfired and it blew up and killed those who were setting it up.

As almost everyone knows, California, especially in its Central Valley, has a very large agricultural economy. There are many crops to pick, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal article, agriculture employed a year-round average of 70,000 workers in California last year. Who picks these crops? In years past these agricultural workers were mainly illegals, mainly single men, who would live cheaply so that they could send most of their earning home. Local communities as well as the state of California have turned a blind eye to these illegals, and now there is a problem (acting a bit like a petard). In some Central Valley towns, apartment rents have risen approximately 28% since 2015. Who are renting a large number of these apartments? . . . illegal farm workers. Why such a significant increase?

As with most economic questions, the answer usually revolves around “supply and demand,” and this is no different. For years in California the supply of low income housing has not kept up with its population growth, due partially to state and local regulations (another petard?) In addition in recent years there has been an increasing group of agricultural workers with H-2A visas, and thus an increasing demand for limited housing. According to that same WSJ article, use of the H-2A visa program has been steadily increasing in California in recent years with the Labor Department certifying nearly 19,000 applications in 2018, up 24%.Employers have been hiring more of these H-2A visa workers as they are more dependable compared to illegals, who can be deported, and who have been having more difficulty getting back into the U.S. if they return to their home country.

Okay so H-2A visa workers have been replacing illegals . . . why does that effect the cost of housing? Actually, the answer is quite simple – employers are required to provide housing for their H-2A visa workers, and this requirement drives up demand for and subsequently drives up the cost of housing. Landlords who own the apartments, prefer H-2A workers, because farmers are willing to pay higher rents in order to house these H-2A workers, and do so more reliably. One farmer planned to use his own farmland to construct housing for his H-2A workers, but California’s strict environmental regulations precluded him from doing so (another petard?).

What are the consequences for these illegal workers who now cannot afford housing? The short answer is that they either return to their home country, or they become homeless. And because of California’s liberal social handout programs ( yet again, another petard!) most stay and become part of an ever increasing homeless population. 

Can anybody think of a sport, a contest, a match, or a game in which one of the participants gains an advantage by breaking the rules? Out-and-out breaking of the rules should be and usually is overseen and disallowed by the referee or the umpire. Certainly some will try to bend the rules to their own advantage, but it is very unusual, or perhaps even unheard of, to have someone admit to breaking the rules and yet argue that breaking the rules is “fair play!” Well, welcome to the Democrat’s playbook when we are talking about the 2020 census and the present legal protestation by the Democrats, vis-a-vis states where the Democrats are in charge.

As you are all probably aware, the issue is about whether a question about citizenship can be allowed on the 2020 census. Here the Dems admit to breaking the rules when it comes to enforcing laws that would tend to punish and deport illegals, and they are concerned that merely asking a question about citizenship will discourage these non-citizens from filling out a census form. And here is where the breaking of the rules leads to a big advantage for these rule-breaking states, for the way the standards are written now, it is the total population, not the legal number of citizens, that determine representation in the House of Representatives. The Dems think that it is right for a state to have more representation in Congress, because that state sanctions thousands, and perhaps millions of illegals living within its borders. (On 6/11/1929, the House passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435. The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons. Thus, the size of a state’s House delegation depends on its population.)

Think about the logic (illogic) of this: State A gets more representation in Congress than State B because State A has a larger population; even though State A has many more illegals than State B, it doesn’t matter. These “extra” representatives from State A can now argue (vote in Congress) for issues that favor the illegals over the actual citizens in State B. All other things being equal, State A gets relatively more representatives, and that means that State B gets relatively less of the total of 435.

So that brings us back to the original question: Can anybody think of a sport, a contest, a match, or a game in which one of the participants gains an advantage by breaking the rules? Ans: Of course not, as that would be stupid!

6/6/19

President Obama certainly seemed to be a believer in the “everybody should be able to go to college“ school of thought. At a Democratic National Committee event, June 23, 2011 he said, “We still have so much more work to do on education. We have made great strides, but we have to hit the goal that I set that once again we will have the highest proportion of college graduates of any country in the world.” He remarked at the Biltmore Hotel, Coral Gables, Fla., Feb. 23, 2012. “When kids graduate, I want them to be able to afford to go to college. If they’ve been working hard, if they’ve gotten the grades to go to college, I don’t want them to cut their dreams short because they don’t think they can afford it.” At the Weekly Address by President Obama on 8/16/14, he said, “And so as President, I’m working to make sure young people like Elizabeth can go to college without racking up mountains of debt. We reformed a student loan system so that more money goes to students instead of big banks.” 
To set the record straight ahead of time:

-I do not believe that everybody should go to college.

-When considering college it behooves every applicant to understand how he/she is  going to pay for that college education.

-If the cost of a college education is beyond one’s means, go to a community college first and get a part time job while going to school.

-Consider joining the military first so that it can aid you with your college expenses.

-Do not, and I repeat . . . do not go into significant debt in order to pursue your college    dream, and do not expect your parents to borrow money to pay for your college.

So keeping my thoughts in mind, I would have to say to President Obama, “Oops!”    For perhaps, as a consequence of his enthusiasm for his “everyone should be able to go to college,” many, many of today’s college graduates are in deep financial holes from which they may never dig out. 
There was a disturbing article last month in the Wall Street Journal on the sad situation about student loan payback at historically black colleges and universities (HBCU). The fact that this article was about HBCU is particularly relevant, because of the enormous influence President Obama had and still has with black youth. Granted white youths also have significant debt because of student loans, but as this article pointed out that attendees at these HBUC schools “have been hit particularly hard by the student-debt crisis,” as on average those from HBCU schools are further in debt. HBCU alumni have a median federal-debt load of about $29,000 at graduation – 32% above graduates at other public and non-profit four year schools. Even worse “the majority of HBCU grads haven’t paid even $1 of their original loan balance in the first few years out of school.” One wonders if these non loan-balance payers understand the basic concept of principle and interest. Oops!

Now granted the indebted students that have graduated from an HBCU school are really no different than indebted students that have graduated from non-HBCU schools, except that “many HBCU schools see a mandate in giving opportunity to disadvantaged youth, who often start out with fewer financial resources and a diminished ability to pay.” The WSJ article tells the stories of various individual HBCU graduates as well as stories of HBCU graduate’s families who are in dire straits because of these student loans. At this point I have to wonder if that HBCU college education debt is going to be worth it. Have those with a diminished ability pay been done a service or a disservice? Will this federal-debt be a millstone around their necks for many years, decades, or even forever? When will they be able to start a family? Will they ever be able to buy a house? I have empathy for these individuals, but perhaps the decision to go to college was misguided in the first place. One wonders if those who acted as their cheerleaders understand the concept of principle and interest! Oops!

On May 30 my local newspaper had a large picture of a small infant accompanying a front page headline that said, “SMALL BUT MIGHTY, BABY BEATS ODDS; Premie born at 8.6 ounces is the tiniest infant ever to survive.” The infant was delivered by C-section at 23 weeks gestation in December, 2018 because of the mother’s life threatening preeclampsia. The story goes on to detail the various reasons why premies this small usually do not survive, but this premie girl beat the odds and has gone home. To me this story on the front page is somewhat oxymoronic for this ultra liberal local newspaper that usually leans far to the left on just about anything. Could this represent a small, but potentially mighty change in the attitude of this liberal “paper.” Highlighting that a 8.6 oz. 23 week gestation premie is alive, well, and now home is a bit odd in the context of the recent continued leftward-shift on abortion being promulgated by various state legislatures.

As pointed out by Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List:“Take for example the sweeping abortion billDemocrats in the Illinois legislature are trying to ram through in the last days of their session. This bill would create a “fundamental right” to abortion, wiping out all sorts of modest limits Illinois has on the books and effectively expanding abortion on demand (already paid for by taxpayers) through the moment of birth and even infanticide. It repeals the state’s ban on grisly partial-birth abortions; since the federal ban still applies, it seems this was intended to make a statement about values. It also allows non-doctors to perform abortions, removes conscience protections for pro-life health care workers, and would force all private health insurance plans to cover abortion – including religious organizations. This bill is even more radical than the law signed by New York’s Governor Cuomo and the failed bill proposed by a Virginia legislator earlier this year.”

According to the latest polling (May 17-20,2019) 45% of Independents believe that abortion should be generally available to those who want it, while 36% think that abortion should be available but under stricter limits than it is now, and 17 % feel that abortion should not be permitted. These Independent stats have not changed much over the last 15 years, but now the more radical abortion laws these different state legislatures pass (e.g. Illinois), the more the Independents will back away. With more radical things like partial birth abortion, and infanticide, it’s easy to predict a shifting of the of Independents’ thinking more toward abortion with stricter limits than it is now. A small, but potentially mighty change. For those of us who are against abortion this shift can only be good.

“Houston, we have a problem” is a popular but erroneous quotation from the radio communications between the Apollo 13 astronaut John Swigert and the NASA Mission Control Center during the Apollo 13 spaceflight, as the astronauts communicated their discovery of the explosion that crippled their spacecraft. 

“Denver, we have a problem.” This could well be the response from U.S. Attorney General William Barr in response to a letter written to him from Denver Democratic Mayor Michael Hancock about a problem. No, just because Mr. Hancock is a mayor doesn’t mean that he is adding his name to the list of unqualified presidential candidates ! Rather his letter basically was asking the U.S. Attorney General to not do his job . . . more specifically not to enforce federal law. Here we are speaking of one ramification of the problem that Colorado law and Federal law are at odds when it comes to marijuana. Everyone knew that eventually this would be a major problem, if not with Colorado, then with one of the other ten states and D.C. that have legalized marijuana or one of the fourteen states that have decriminalized it, as marijuana is still classified as an illegal substance federally. The problem as addressed in the mayor’s letter involves immigrants who legally use marijuana in Colorado or who work in the Colorado cannibas industry. These permanent residents can be denied citizenship by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, even though marijuana use is legal in Colorado.

This dilemma initially arose because during the Obama era, the federal government eased up on enforcing federal laws against marijuana, however closing one’s eyes like a toddler trying to hide while playing hide-and-seek does not make a problem go away. Subsequently while he was Attorney General, Jeff Sessions stopped playing hide-and-seek and rightfully opened his eyes when he stated that it was part of his job to enforce federal law.

What little I know about William Barr makes me think that it very unlikely that a letter from a Democratic lightweight mayor would persuade this Attorney General not to enforce federal laws. I am sympathetic to the plight of these legal immigrants who are caught up in this game of monkey in the middle. Perhaps Congress should seriously address this issue instead of frivolously searching for phantom collusion, etc.! The longer Congress shirks it’s responsibility, the more likely we will hear, “Boston, we have a problem” or “L.A., we have a problem” or “Seattle we have a problem,” etc.!

This year Memorial Day weekend has turned out to be different and unique for me because of three separate things, all of which happened over the last day or so. What makes these three unrelated things even more eerie is that each is a “Michael-thing,” as I will explain. 

The first “Michael-thing” was sent to me in an e-mail by a acquaintance of mine, Michael Mc. It was a YouTube video entitled “Price for Freedom,” which was a display of multiple cemeteries, mainly scattered throughout Europe (Italy, 4402; Luxembourg, 5076; Sicily, 7861; Netherlands, 8301; multiple areas in France with thousands of graves in each) and also in North Africa and the Philippines (16,366). Set to the music of “Hymn to the Fallen” by John Williams, each of these cemeteries had row upon row of graves marked only by white crosses. Thousands and thousands and thousands of graves, each one for an American serviceman killed in battle. The final cemetery with its approximately 303,000 graves was Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. A truly moving video. These are the real heroes. Thank you, Michael Mc.
The second “Michael-thing” was an article in this weekend’s Wall Street Journal by Michael M. Phillips entitled The Medals They Carried, which chronicled multiple Medal of Honor recipients. For those not familiar with the Medal of Honor, it is America’s highest award for combat valor, and as the article points out, “it is both a gift and a reminder of what is often the worst day of a veteran’s life.” While detailing unbelievable acts of bravery by recipients of the Medal of Honor, the article emphasizes how difficult it is for some of these recipients to wear or even view the Medal because many of their comrades died despite their valor. These are real heroes. Thank you, Michael Phillips.
The third “Michael-thing” was pure serendipity, as yesterday when I was pushing my granddaughter in her stroller, we ran into my neighbor, Michael. Even though Michael has lived only two houses from me for about twenty years, I have never really gotten to know him. He is quiet, sometimes bordering on aloof, and on more than one occasion I have refrained from asking him about his “Oxford” scarf. Anyway yesterday for whatever reason, he was unusually garrulous and started talking about the recent 50th reunion of his Vietnam unit. He spoke of Vietnam things that he could not remember very well and also talked about the one thing he could remember very very well . . . the day that he lost thirty-five of his men during a Vietcong ambush. He was a medic, and thirty-five of his comrades were killed in a single afternoon . . . “I could not save them, and I still wake up nights, terrified, in a sweat, even though it’s been fifty years!” Where did this catharsis come from? Why did I never suspect that my neighbor was a Vietnam War hero? Thank you, Michael.
I consider myself a big backer of the military. Even though I was in the Navy for many years, I was never in combat, and never had to put my life on the line. Perhaps that is why I never stand at athletic events when the PA announcer asks that all veterans stand in order to be recognized. I stay sitting so that I can applaud the real heroes, like those buried in unmarked graves marked only by white crosses, those who have distinguished themselves by their acts of unheralded bravery, and those like my neighbor, Michael.
5/27/19

On Thursday, 5/23/19, at her weekly “Days of Our Life” press briefing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters she is concerned for the well-being of President Donald Trump.

While standing next to Schumer, who is looking more drained and sluggish by the day, Nancy said, “We don’t want it to be partisan now, but I can only think he wasn’t up to the task of figuring out the difficult choices of how to cover the cost of infrastructure legislation that we had talked about . . . I pray for the president of the United States. I wish his family, his administration or his staff would have an intervention for the good of the country.”

Does she actually think that anybody other than her lapdogs and of course, Sluggo Schumer, actually believe any of this drivel? Perhaps, even more important does she actually believe any of this drivel? (If she sincerely believes any of this, then maybe we should be praying for her!) 

I suspect that she purposely insulted President Trump just before their scheduled meeting on infrastructure. Infrastructure repair and replacement is more his baby than it is hers, as it was one of his campaign promises. So why not torpedo the infrastructure meeting before it could get going? She undoubtedly suspected that her statement that morning about him covering something up would piss him off . . . and after the recent exonerating Mueller Report, it did piss him off . . . understandably. Only a fool would think that it is okay to insult someone in the morning, and then sit down with them in the afternoon and play buddy-buddy. So either she is a conniving wench or she is a fool. Giving her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps she is a mere fool, as the more this Democratic intransigence persists, the more foolish she and most of the Democrats, in general, are looking.

Rumor has it that her chauffeur never even turned off the car when she exited for her meeting with the President, as he/she apparently suspected that Nancy would be back very shortly. (Another rumor has it that President Trump basically told Nancy and Sluggo Schumer something like, “I am pretty busy getting ready to go to Japan for my meeting with Shinzō Abe, Prime Minister of Japan, and so perhaps you two ‘shin-go away’!”)

According to a poll taken just today, her bit about “praying for the President” is now running a close second to syrup of ipecac when an emetic is indicated and vomiting is a necessity. Her comments about her concern for the well-being of Mr. Trump did not even move the dial one iota on her “The Days of Our Life” credibility scale. Why did she say some of these obviously unbelievably phony things?

Nancy is aware that the Dems have steadily falling numbers and that they have neither a real message nor any real ideas on the radar either now or in the foreseeable pre-2020 future! And so . . . Desperate Nancy Says Desperate Things!

Well, it was only a matter of time before the Dems went for the throat of a black member of President Trump’s cabinet. Predictable ? Yes!

Not to be dissuaded by facts, earlier this week House Democrats Carolyn Maloney (D, NY), Juan Vargas (D,CA), and Maxine Waters (D, CA), etc. took to innuendo and character assassination to attack Ben Carson, Housing and Urban Development Secretary at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee. Their comments were used to condemn the proposal discussed by Mr. Carson to ban government aid to residents of HUD who shelter illegal immigrants. The rule change would end a Clinton-era regulation that allowed immigrants to obtain aid without having to disclose whether they were here legally. This Carson (Trump) plan could free up an estimated 32,000 public housing slots, according to HUD, as 1.6 million applicants nationwide wait to be considered.(Nationwide, it is estimated that 32,000 public households are being taken up by illegal immigrants. Keep in mind that this could be either an over-estimation or an under-estimation. I will bet that it is actually an underestimation, but either way it is a lot.)              

Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) set the tone by accusing Carson of leading an agency that is “actively causing harm,” sentiments that were shared by other Democrats on the panel. Carson subsequently pointed out that this policy was not going to have an immediate effect as the Trump administration is giving illegals 18 months to get out of taxpayer-subsidized public housing.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., dragged the political discussion to a new low, calling Carson “despicable,” saying he will “rip apart families and be throwing children on the street.” (Carson calmly reminded Maloney that there are hundreds of thousands of children in need of decent housing whose parents are here legally. “Do you suggest that we prioritize” families breaking the law instead?”, he asked . . . there was no immediate response from one of the richest members of Congress.)

Rep. Ayanna Presley (D, MA) was also one of several Democrats on the panel to basically tell Carson he’s in the wrong field. “Today you are not here as a doctor or even as our surgeon general, which I think might be better suited for your talents, but as the official task of leading the agency overseeing our nation’s crumbling housing stock,” she noted. “And for that I do believe you are unqualified.”( For those of you who are interested I would highly recommend any of a number of Ben Carson’s books that detail his life story and his personal experiences with poverty and his growing up in Detroit. Personally, I will take Mr. Carson over Rep. Presley, who in 2009, served as United States Senator John Kerry‘s (D-Mass.) political director . . .  nuff said!) 

Democratic Rep. Juan Vargas of San Diego County chimed in as he couldn’t believe Carson could be so “mean-spirited” in prioritizing law-abiding people over law-breaking ones.

“There is an affordable housing crisis in this country, and we need to make certain our scarce public resources help those who are legally entitled to it,” explained Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson. (Call me crazy, but this seems pretty reasonable.)

And so it went: 

Carson seeking at least a partial solution to a big nationwide housing problem. Democrats resorting to innuendo and character assassination rather that addressing some solutions. 

I have not seen anything, as of yet, from the Main-Stream Media, but I would venture to guess that they will congratulate the Dems for “winning” this battle, although the Dem’s predictability nullifies the results of any of these short term skirmishes. Remember, neither the skirmish at Fort Sumpter, nor the first Battle of Bull Run, both won by the Confederacy, were important in the long term outcome of the Civil War.As I said before to me the only real surprise was how long it took for the Dems to get around to attacking Mr. Carson, who has been Trump’s HUD Secretary for over two years. Delayed, but predictable nonetheless.

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!

What if something that logically should benefit a lot of people turned out not to be beneficial?

Would that something be stopped or at least revisited?

What if the proof that something that was helpful turned out to be very marginal proof, would that proof be revisited and re-examined?

What if that something that was thought to be beneficial cost a lot of money, would the powers that be re-examine the cost/benefit of that something if the benefit was significantly less than advertised?

I would think that the answers to all of the above questions would be would be an easy, “Yes.” Why would something that has marginal or no benefit, and costs a lot of money be continued without at least a cursory re-evaluation? Welcome to California! For here in the Golden State appearance and political correctness take precedence over fact, especially if the actual facts seem to go against what you have been programmed to believe.

The question that I am going to be examining in this two-part series is . . . take a deep breath and hang on . . . “Is Pre-K schooling beneficial?” Is it worth the cost?

Believe It or not, I think I heard that collective audible gasp! In general, the response to what I just said is going to be something like this:

“Of course, Pre-K is beneficial. There have been studies showing that this is a proven fact – at least that’s what I have read. How could it possibly not be beneficial? The more education that a child has, the better. Right? Many states, especially California, have been spending a lot of money providing Pre-K to those children who are in the lower economic levels of society. How can this not be good?”

I could easily assume what you thought about this subject is summarized by the quote above, as this is what I had thought. However, a few months back, I came across Notable and Quotable in the Wall Street Journal which was entitled, “Does Pre-K Help?” This short blurb was from a randomized control trial, involving thousands of children, published in Early Childhood Research Quarterly. After reading this I then googled the lengthy article and read it in its entirety. Before getting into the findings and the conclusion of the randomized study, I was able to discover the origin as to the expected benefits of Pre-K. This expectation derives mainly from longitudinal research that reported positive outcomes on school completion, employment, marriage stability, criminal behavior, and the like for two model programs – Perry Preschool, mounted in the 1960s, and Abecedarian, begun in the 1970s. Both programs served a small number of children in a single location, and neither has been fully replicated in contemporary publicly funded programs.

So it turns out that the actual purported benefit of Pre-K “from studies” is very weak to start with. Are there any other studies proving the long term benefits of Pre-K?

What about Head Start?

The following I taken directly from Early Childhood Research Quarterly: “In this context, the Head Start Impact study (Puma, Bell, Cook, & Heid, 2010; Puma et al., 2012) warrants attention. While not a study of state pre-k, it is the only previous randomized study of a public pre-k program. This study began in 2002 with a national sample of 5000 children who applied to 84 programs expected to have more applicants than spaces. Children were randomly selected for offers of admission with those not selected providing the control group. The 4-year-old children admitted to Head Start made greater gains across the pre-k year than nonparticipating children on measures of language and literacy, although not on math. However, by the end of kindergarten the control children had caught up on most achievement outcomes; subsequent positive effects for Head Start participants were found on only one achievement measure at the end of 1st grade and another at the end of 3rd grade. There were no statistically significant effects on social–emotional measures at the end of the pre-k or kindergarten years. A few positive effects appeared in parent reports at the end of the 1st and 3rd grade years, but teacher and child reports in those years showed either null or negative effects.”

So interestingly the only other study of something quite similar, in fact, did not demonstrate any benefit! The latest study reported in the Early Childhood Research Quarterly is that of the Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K program.

State tuned!