[vc_row][vc_column][vc_empty_space][vc_column_text]In a newly-published study, children admitted to the Tennessee state-funded preschool program by lottery did less well than those who were not admitted, based on data for sixth grade:<\/p>\n
This is not what we expect to see. The studies of Perry Preschool<\/a>\u00a0and the Abcedarian project<\/a>\u00a0show that high quality early childhood programs have positive lifetime impacts. Similarly, Professor James Heckman\u2019s work<\/a> offers a compelling demonstration of \u201cthe great gains to be had by investing in the early and equal development of human potential.\u201d So why is this data from Tennessee showing something so different? This post will wrestle with that question.<\/p>\n The research report from Kelley Durkin, Mark Lipsey, Dale Farran, and Sarah Wiesen (all based at Vanderbilt) is available from Developmental Psychology<\/em>, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the American Psychological Association. This work continues 2018 analysis of preschool impacts through grade 3, adding evidence through grade 6. The journal article is available here (paywall)<\/a> and analyzed in this Hechinger reporting.<\/a><\/p>\n The study design is careful enough to deserve attention. While no research design is perfect, this one has at least moderately careful controls. The students being compared are all from low-income families and all from families that applied to be in the preschool program. Getting admitted was a lottery-decision, not a matter of doing a better job of applying or pressing the system for an opportunity. Similarly, this study looked at most of the evidence Kentucky considers in school report cards. In addition to data on assessments, discipline, attendance, and disability identification, the study considered retention in grade and found no significant differences between groups for that outcome. Someday it could be great to have data on participants\u2019 later education, careers, health family life, and other indicators of their flourishing, but these learners have not yet finished high school.<\/p>\n So again, what\u2019s happening? Here are some thoughts on what to explore.<\/p>\n First, what\u2019s happening on easily measured indicators of quality, like group size and teacher qualifications and pay? The authors cite some evidence on that, writing:<\/p>\n As we report, the statewide scale up of TN-VPK began in 2005 after nearly 10 years of pilot testing and met nine of the 10 NIEER benchmarks (Barnett et al., 2009). A recent review of statewide programs by the NIEER group (Friedman-Krauss et al., 2019) praised the program in Tennessee for being among those in 27 states that paid its pre-K teachers at parity with elementary teachers, one of only 26 states to offer pre-K teachers retirement benefits, health care and paid time off, and one of only 25 to require its teachers to have a bachelor’s degree plus certification. Among state-funded pre-K programs, the TN program is above average and arguably in the top tier on characteristics many believe mark high quality (Sharpe et al., 2017).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That suggests that the simpler forms of evidence may not be good clues to the problem.<\/p>\n