Universal Pre-K

http://national.deseretnews.com/article/2750/navigating-the-research-on-universal-pre-k-overhyped-or-silver-bullet.html

I just read this, and I see so many flaws in the various arguments that I cannot resist writing about it.

First, the argument is about whether the Federal government should devote several billions of dollars to make preschool part of the education system.  There is some evidence that poor children are likely to make more money and are less likely to get involved in crime when they grow up, if they attended a preschool.  There is also, however, significant evidence that the cognitive benefits of preschool disappear within 2 years of starting elementary school.  The cost to the country of doing this is around $15 billion.  One side of the argument claims that universal pre-K is the best way to improve education and situation of the poor.  The other side argues that the benefits are primarily temporary, and the cost will be more than the return.  At this point, I don't actually care who is right.  Perhaps we need more research, preferably done by people with mixed opinions, to avoid confirmation bias.

The first problem with universal pre-K is the cost.  Our nation is already heavily in debt, and if we cannot prove that the investment will pay off, perhaps we should not do it.  The second is reach.  While the evidence shows that poor children can gain substantial long term benefits from pre-K, there is no conclusive evidence that middle and upper class children benefit at all.  Those supporting universal pre-K say that it will not be taken seriously if it only targets poor people, and they cite Head Start as an example of this.  While this is probably true, it is not, perhaps a valid excuse for spending many times what is necessary.  What I hear them saying is, "We need to spend $15 billion to get people to take this seriously."  That money would probably be more effective spent as a bribe to get the people to pretend to take it seriously than it would to use it to offer preschool to those whom it is unlikely to benefit.

There is also a lot of mud slinging going on in this debate, which makes it very difficult to determine what is fact and what is opinion.  There is one study that "was likely underfunded" (yeah, I don't know what that is supposed to mean either) that showed kids who attended pre-K actually did worse in math and language than kids who did not.  The "fact" that it might have been underfunded is used to discredit it.  Likewise, another study showed impressive long term benefits from pre-K, at a price of $90,000 per child.  While this study may have been valid, the price tag for those results is just not an option.

One theory as to why benefits are observed is that preschool provides more social interaction than the home, improving the social skills of the children at an age where it makes a bigger difference.  Perhaps (though it is not stated), middle and upper class children have more opportunities to gain social skills at 4 years old than lower class children?  If this is not true, then this theory does not account for the discrepancy between lower class children and middle/upper class children.  (Supposedly, poor families are actually having fewer children than middle and upper class families now, so maybe social interaction at home can have the same benefits, so long as there are several children.)  Regardless, if this is true, we don't need to bother spending $15 billion extra on this.  It is already proven that the benefits of the learning go away fairly quickly.  If the social interaction is the key, then we could eliminate low income pre-K programs like Head Start and instead provide government funded day care, and it would be far cheaper.  Day care provides a very similar social setting, and day care workers don't cost as much as trained educators.  In fact, without the learning part attached, and presented as an aid to poor families where both parents work, it would be taken far more seriously than a preschool program justified primarily by limited and unreliable data.

One proponent of universal pre-K asks a question that is stupidly obvious.  Discussing some of the problems with programs specifically targeting poor people, Steven Barnett asks, "Why would we do that?  Why not just make it open to everyone?"  The painfully obvious answer is $15 billion.  I guess he just didn't think of that one.  In addition to this, there are multiple claims that the $15 billion to $20 billion already being spent on low income preschool programs is being spent poorly.  Not everyone agrees with this, but given the state of the rest of our education system, it is hard to believe that significant improvements are not possible.

Ultimately, the situation is complicated.  Obama and other proponents of the idea seem to be prepared to throw huge amounts of money at in, just in case it works.  There is evidence that it could be beneficial, but there is no evidence that it will be.  None of the most influential studies mirrored the reality of the situation well enough to actually trust.  The less influential studies all seem to be affected by many uncontrolled factors, as there is really no consensus between them.  Studies targeting the middle and upper classes are unlikely to ever be conducted, because no one seems to care.  What I see this as is a giant $15 billion experiment that will affect children all around the U.S., to see whether universal pre-K will help them or harm them.  Maybe the potential for harm is not that high, but the price tag certainly is.  $15 billion is enough money to pull over 1 million Americans out of poverty entirely.  This would dramatically reduce the need for a preschool system designed to help poor children, and it would likely do far more for them than preschool ever could.

I don't care who is right in the debate over benefits, but I am opposed to spending huge amounts of money on things that have such a high risk of failure.  Instead of arguing over what the data means, maybe we need to spend a fraction of that money doing more research, where the situations are closer to what they would be if universal pre-K was made available on the proposed budget.  I might not care about who is right, but I certainly do not want our government to gamble even more money on huge social experiments that have a limited probability of paying off.