The results from a group of Developmental Psychology researchers this week were astounding! Their findings on a state-wide pre-K program not only made them question the use of universal pre-K, but also made them warn against it! This week on the blog, we can’t help but ask, “Do parents and the government have the same goals for education?” And if not, what role and control should the government have in the lives of children?

Knowing their research would be controversial, the investigators were careful but frank in their language around their conclusion:

The whole package of outcomes we have found is disconcerting. The intent of everyone who has advocated for expansion of state pre-K programs is well meaning and reflects a commitment to improving the life outcomes for children from impoverished circumstances. If the programs we have created do not produce the desired effects, the findings themselves should not be dismissed simply because they were unanticipated and unwelcome. Rather, they should stimulate creative research into both policies and practices with potential to have the desired effects. The goal remains the same. If we are serious about the goal, the means to attain it may have to change.

In other words, the state-run pre-K program being used as the model for a universal pre-K program is failing students. The investigators who studied the program are begging for policy-makers to have intellectual humility. They suggest that the findings shouldn’t be unwelcome but should encourage more creative research and problem solving. 

The biggest question for many is now what is the goal of universal pre-K? The researchers understood this goal to be “school readiness prior to kindergarten entry,” but they add that other goals of universal pre-K might included positive long-term effects, particularly for economically disadvantaged children:

• Positive academic outcomes

• Positive behavioral outcomes

• Close the achievement gap

Now that researchers have determined that the state-run pre-K model, as the curriculum stands, doesn’t foster readiness or long-term positive outcomes, what will happen to this policy? Will there be room for more research, more creative solutions for low-income families and school readiness? Or will this conversation reveal other goals of the government?

Is the goal really more about childcare and the workforce than it is about education? Is it more about reelection and rewarding important constituencies? 

Here’s what it should be about - it should be about enhancing learning and providing better opportunities for every child, no matter who they are or where they live. Many educators have responded suggesting that there is significant research that suggests children fare better in the classroom setting if they wait until 6 or even 7 years old to attend school. Did you know that 31 states still do not require kindergarten for this very reason? Others have argued the issue could be the loss of play in these pre-K settings. 

What else affects school readiness? It’s also important to look outside of classroom walls and state-run curriculum for a solution. Although researchers are trying to uncover problems in this government-run pre-K curriculum, they should also consider different pre-K models or legislative strategies for education readiness.

For example, state governments could support low-income parents through government-funded education savings accounts for pre-K rather than through more state-run programs. Government education administrators do not have the time to “fix the landing gear while they are flying the plane.” Instead, these researchers are calling on  legislators to consider a different policy.  What if the policy was an education opportunity that let parents decide what is best for their children rather than forcing an expensive, unsuccessful, one-size-fits all policy on low-income children? 

Want to learn more about educational opportunity and neighborhood research? Check out this tedX talk!