RSS FEEDS
Recent Research
DECEMBER 9, 2009 | Testimony by NATHAN BENEFIELD
Costing-Out the Price of Education
In the last two years, Gov. Rendell has used the "costing-out" study to justify proposed increases in state education subsidies. Yet while costing-out or "adequacy" studies have been conducted in over 35 states to quantify the amount of education funding needed, in no case did spending increases result in dramatic improvement of adequacy standar
JUNE 13, 2007 | News Release by COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION
Count the Costs of Pre-K Counts
Academic and financial costs of taxpayer-funded preschool questioned, alternatives proposed at news conference HARRISBURG, PA — Today, the Commonwealth Foundation joined with a coalition of organizations to call on lawmakers to fully count the academic and financial costs of Governor Ed Rendell&rsq
JUNE 13, 2007 | Policy Points by COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION
Taxpayer-Funded Preschool: Count the Costs
Governor Ed Rendell’s budget proposal for the 2007-08 fiscal year includes $75 million for “Pre-K Counts”—a taxpayer-funded program which would provide grants to school districts, Head Start programs, and government-approved providers at a projected cost of $6,750 per child. “Free” preschool would be made avai
Recent Blog Posts
JUNE 10, 2010
Government Preschool Delivers Few Results
State Sen. Pat Browne is quoted on John Micek's blog Wednesday, citing an oft-repeated claim that government funding for preschool is one of the "best investments" of taxpayer money:
"There's no area where we've seen such policy success in the last 10 years as early-childhood," said Sen. Pat Browne, R-Lehigh, the vice-chairman of the Senate Education Committee. "We turned the corner and now we lead the nation in the success of our at-risk children."
In contrast, the evidence is clear that state preschool funding yields few, if any, positive long-term effects.
- Large, government-run preschools improve student performance upon entry, but all gains disappear by third grade or sooner.
- States with "universal preschool" have no long-term academic gains (in fact, they have declined).
- Preschool conveys few benefits for middle class or upper income students:
- Education tax credits, allowing school choice among existing private preschools, is a more effective policy strategy.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 08:26 AM | 0 comment
JANUARY 14, 2010
New Head Start Study Shows No Long-Term Effects of Preschool
A study on students in Head Start released yesterday by the US Department of Health and Human Services shows no long-term academic improvement from the program. In fact, the effects disappear after Kindergarten.
The study showed that at the end of one program year, access to Head Start positively influenced children’s school readiness. When measured again at the end of kindergarten and first grade, however, the Head Start children and the control group children were at the same level on many of the measures studied.
This should not surprise - numerous studies show that any gains from large scale government-run preschool disappear after a few years.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 08:30 AM | 0 comment
OCTOBER 9, 2009
Is Preschool for All a Good Idea?
Chester Finn of the Fordham Foundation has a good article in the latest Education Next on the movement for "preschool for all." Finn is generally supportive of government programs for low-income and at risk children, but notes important differences between targeted programs, and universal, state-run Pre-K systems:
But the big issue with pre-K education is whether the gains and gap reductions last. Evidence is limited because the longitudinal studies needed to answer such questions are costly, complex, and obviously time-consuming. But the available evidence is profoundly discouraging. Most of the gains that can be found upon entry into school ebb over time, and the differences attributable to various kinds of programs tend to wash out, too. In fact, effects that may appear significant at the conclusion of the program itself frequently fade to the vanishing point by the time youngsters have progressed as far as 3rd grade. That fadeaway doubtless has more to do with what happens to students in the K—12 system—and the continuing malignant influences in the outside lives of many youngsters—than with preschool programs themselves. But it also suggests that universalizing the preschool experience is not the way to achieve lasting gap reduction. Indeed, as Fuller and others have noted, if the policy goal is to narrow gaps between haves and have-nots, why would the same programmatic intervention be administered to everybody? ...
What’s more troubling is this calculation: since 85 percent of four-year-olds already participate in some sort of pre-K program, as much as $30 billion of that $36 billion figure would replace money that is presently being spent—by federal or state programs, private charity, and out of pocket by parents—while as little as $6 billion would go to pre-K services for children who currently have none. And that’s if they participate. Since no pre-K program will be compulsory, at least some of the families that don’t sign on today will not do so tomorrow, either because they’re too disorganized or because they truly don’t want it for their daughters and sons.
Could this large additional public expenditure be worth it?
Finn's conclusion notes, among other things the importance of transforming Head Start into an effective program for low-income children - ensuring the billions taxpayers currently spend on preschool actually improves educational achievement.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 11:30 AM | 0 comment
