In reviewing the website for the National Institute for Evidence Education research this week I found an article by W. Steven Barnett, the
director of NIEER. It is called “Expanding
Access to Quality Pre-k is Sound Public Policy”. I would like to share the introductory
paragraphs that summarize the main points of the article. Then I will present my thoughts about the
article below.
“Executive Summary
In
2013, preschool education received more attention in the media and public
policy circles than it has for some time, in part because of a series of high
profile proposals to expand access to quality Pre-K. The scientific basis for these proposed
expansions of quality pre-K is impressive.
This paper brings to bear the full weight of the evidence to address the
following questions:
*What
does all the evidence say about effective preschool education and long term cognitive
benefits? A statistical summary of
studies since 1960 demonstrates that effects persist, and provides evidence about
what works
(intentional teaching with small groups).
*What
are the estimated effects of state and local pre-K programs in more recent
years? We provide estimated effect sizes for school readiness at K and later achievement
for studies from the last couple of decades. Effects vary across programs, but
are overwhelmingly positive. Long-term achievement gains tend to be smaller,
but still can be substantial.
*Is
Head Start ineffective? A national randomized trial of children who attended
Head Start in 2002 found modest initial effects and failed to detect lasting
impacts. That study underestimates effects by design, its greatest limitation;
nevertheless, the results were disappointing. Since then
Head
Start has been subject to reform, including a Bush Administration emphasis on
improving literacy and more teachers with college degrees. Data collected in
2003, 2006 and 2009 show large increases in the size of Head Start children’s
language and literacy gains between
2003
and 2009.
*Can
government improve the quality of public preschool education? Head Start
provides one example, as described above. New Jersey provides another. It
raised standards and implemented a continuous improvement system that
transformed early care and education in 31 cities from bad to good over eight
years. The latest follow up on the New Jersey children finds large gains in
achievement and school success through grade 5.
*If
states expand pre-K with temporary federal matching funds, what happens to
state education budgets when that federal money is not available? NIEER projects
that in 2030 all but 1 state would spend less on education from pre-K through
grade 12 under federal proposals that incentivize
states to raise pre-K quality standards, offer a full school day, and serve all
children under 200 percent of the federal poverty level.
Idaho
is the only state that might have to pay a little more, because it has
relatively low grade repetition and special education costs. Given the answers to
these questions it seems self-evident that local, state, and federal
governments should expand access to quality pre-K and other enhancements of early
education, especially for children in low-income families.”
One remark from the article that stood out the
most to me was the fact that research shows that intentional teaching, not play-based
teaching, in small groups leads to persistent effects on long-term cognitive
benefits.(Barnett, 2008) I definitely
agree with the small groups part. I also
think that planning play experiences for children can be done intentionally,
and that when highly educated teachers interact with children while they play,
the maximum long-term gains will be achieved.
