Anonymous wrote:A better study could be designed to compare the outcomes from the preK program in DC to another city or urban center without universal preK.
In MC, my kids attended a child care center without a structured preK curriculum. There was random books and toys to learn numbers, letters' time, money, colors, and shapes. No test, no grade, no drills.
What is an universal preK program different from a private daycare center? A curriculum designed by each school district, state, or white house/DOE? Who is going to monitor it? Will the next president shut it down or reopen with an executive order?

Residents of those other cities tend to be different from each other, which makes comparisons less valid. But there are similar studies which have been done, for example the ones comparing Quebec to the rest of Canada (Quebec, IIRC, mainly uses a network of private providers to provide its universal benefit.) The same uptick in behavioral problems are seen, though I'm unaware of anything that looked at academic results - again, trickier, because Quebec is very different from the rest of Canada.

This is a decent overview:

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/quebecs-daycare-program.pdf


To throw gas on the fire, generally speaking, outcomes on a per child basis are roughly tiered: mom provides care > grandparents provide care > unrelated daycare provider. The subsidized roll-outs shift caregiving from related adults to unrelated, so a negative impact is to be expected.

I referenced earlier studies; here's the 2018 one, from Tennessee, which showed the same effects.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200618300279

"This study of the Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K Program (VPK) is the first randomized control trial of a state pre-k program.

• Positive achievement effects at the end of pre-k reversed and began favoring the control children by 2nd and 3rd grade.

• VPK participants had more disciplinary infractions and special education placements by 3rd grade than control children."

A better study could be designed to compare the outcomes from the preK program in DC to another city or urban center without universal preK.
In MC, my kids attended a child care center without a structured preK curriculum. There was random books and toys to learn numbers, letters' time, money, colors, and shapes. No test, no grade, no drills.
What is an universal preK program different from a private daycare center? A curriculum designed by each school district, state, or white house/DOE? Who is going to monitor it? Will the next president shut it down or reopen with an executive order?

I would want to know who designed the program and who is running it.
A developmentally appropriate preschool program designed by early childhood specialists will have different impacts than a "Pre-K" program designed by politicians who misguidedly think that starting academics earlier is the answer to education issues.

True universal preK exists in DC. They've been doing it for years. All income levels attend the public universal preK schools, there are virtually no private preschool programs in DC.

My kids went to two excellent and very different private preschool programs in Virginia. I feel lucky that I was able to choose these for them instead of sending them to the DC preschools. But those who want to implement universal preK cite DC as the model. They want that to be everywhere.

Anonymous wrote:Why would this be?

I've also wondered how they could test this when Pre-K is only offered to low income students

They assume kids from middle-income and higher families have other options. though given the cost of preschool/childcare and the increased need for two-income families, I think this is an unreasonable expectation for many middle-income families. In DC at least, the universal PK has been a big boon for middle class families and likely led more middle class families to stay in the city after having children (which in turn is good for the district because it means more kids in DCPS, especially since decreasing middle class flight also tends to benefit schools with high populations of at risk kids, which brings more money and community investment in these schools).

We have this weird habit of pretending that middle-class people are more like wealthy people in terms of what they can afford. It's based on the wide availability of credit in the last several decades. But wage stagnation and inflation means that middle class families are actually much more like low-income families in terms of lifestyle. This is most true in urban areas where housing is expensive.

I'm not an expert but I don't quite understand this study. As PPs have pointed out, a lot of this has been studied before. Also, their metrics seem weird to me?

Previous studies have already shown that academic gains rarely last past the first few grades. This is generally not considered the primary purpose behind universal PK.

I don't understand how they are using rates of special education intervention either. Are they saying rates of sped are higher for the PK kids than for the non-PK kids? Because that's a plus for PK -- it means more kids are getting extra services and may mean more issues are being identified earlier.

Attendance and discipline are more straight forward but I'd have to read the entire study to get a sense.

This just feels odd because this study is identical to many previous studies and largely says the same thing. I'm not sure what the point is. I want to see more studies on the impact of PK on family outcomes. The academic benefits of PK have always been dubious. But its benefit as a form of subsidized childcare is more compelling to me. Especially given that we are in a continuing and worsening childcare crisis in this country.

There are lots of studies on this.

Why would this be?

I've also wondered how they could test this when Pre-K is only offered to low income students

Haven't they already done a study on low-income students who attended Head Start? Their gains disappeared by 3rd grade.

So another one just dropped: https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fdev0001301

Results are pretty much the usual:

"As state-funded pre-kindergarten (pre-K) programs expand, it is critical to investigate their short- and long-term effects. This article presents the results through sixth grade of a longitudinal randomized control study of the effects of a scaled-up, state-supported pre-K program. The analytic sample includes 2,990 children from low-income families who applied to oversubscribed pre-K program sites across the state and were randomly assigned to offers of admission or a wait list control. Data through sixth grade from state education records showed that the children randomly assigned to attend pre-K had lower state achievement test scores in third through sixth grades than control children, with the strongest negative effects in sixth grade. A negative effect was also found for disciplinary infractions, attendance, and receipt of special education services, with null effects on retention. The implications of these findings for pre-K policies and practices are discussed."

The problem, of course, is that true universal pre-k hasn't yet been tried. We just need to get our top people working on it, and staff it with saints.