A report presents data on early care and education trends in Wisconsin and concludes that government regulations have had the effects of limiting supply, decreasing parental choice in providers, and increasing costs. The report recommends increasing regulatory freedom, consolidating state agencies, and increasing parental rights over use of government childcare subsidies. The report should be applauded for continuing to spotlight the need for quality childcare and education. But because of significant methodological flaws and omission of important literature, its recommendations should be treated with extreme caution, if not avoided altogether.

With universal pre-K and child care back on the national political agenda, increased scrutiny of these proposals is expected and welcome. A Manhattan Institute policy brief reviews evidence relating to both means-tested and universal early childhood care and education programs. However, the complexity of early care and education does not lend itself to simple policy prescriptions. A more meticulous review of the literature relying on fewer preconceptions might have led to more nuanced conclusions. 

A recent report published by a new project at Brookings called “Evidence Speaks” claims that advocates exaggerate unmet need as well as the cost of universal pre-kindergarten (UPK). It estimates that 69 percent of all four-year-olds already attend preschool and that universal access tops out at 80 percent enrollment. To close this modest gap, the report proposes a means-tested subsidy for half-day preschool that fully funds only those in poverty. The estimated cost is $2 to $4 billion per year. Unfortunately, the report vastly underestimates unmet need and costs; both estimates are based on serious factual errors and unfounded assumptions. Access to high-quality preschool (as opposed to attendance in any preschool classroom) for four-year-olds is under 25 percent, not 69 percent. High-quality UPK could enroll more than 90 percent, not 80 percent, of children. Enrollment rates go up with better policy design. Also, the Brookings plan would leave one in five children in low-income families with no access to any preschool education and, since the plan ignores dosage and quality, would leave many more in weak or ineffective programs. The report’s conclusions regarding needs and the costs to meet them are invalid and misleading, and it should not be used as a basis for policymaking.

This report argues that a particular charter school preschool model is successful and that, therefore, charter approaches should be used to expand preschool access, recommending that states develop large numbers of charter preschools. But the report fails to make the case that the model is unusually effective or that charter status is critical to any success it does have.While the AppleTree model may well be as effective as the Pioneer authors suggest, this report lacks rigorous evidence regarding the model’s development, implementation, cost, and effectiveness. The report uses a pre-test, post-test design to argue the program is effective, but lacks a comparison group that could show if the test results are impressive or disappointing. It also provides no evidence that the children served are comparable to children served by other preschool programs. Sample sizes, attrition, and statistical methods are unreported, and no statistical tests of significance appear to have been conducted. Preschool models with rigorous evidence of high levels of effectiveness have been developed and are currently implemented by public school systems where adequate funding has been made available. We will not know whether AppleTree can add to the preschool policy debates without more rigorous evaluation of the program and its effects.

The research summary Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students presents the research background for the Obama administration’s proposals for comprehensive, community-wide services in high-poverty neighborhoods, extended learning time, family engagement and safe schools. While these policies have broad and common-sense appeal, the research supporting the particular policies proposed by the administration is weak and poorly presented in the research summary. As promising as community-wide services may be, a broad research base does not yet exist concerning how to make them successful. The research on extended learning time is also inconclusive. Family involvement is crucial to education, but the evidence for a causal link between student achievement and the type of parent involvement discussed is ambiguous and suspect. The proposals for safe schools boil down to increased local flexibility and increased gathering of survey data, neither of which can be expected to improve outcomes. Together, the administration’s proposals would require an extensive financial commitment in order to be fully implemented, but the scope and source of these funds is not explained. Overall, the evidence provided is not sufficiently strong to justify the programs they champion. While the research summary adequately documents problems, a wiser course for public policy would be a carefully structured set of pilot studies to sharply and accurately identify solutions.

Suggested Citation: Glass, G.V., Barnett, W.S., & Welner, K.G. (2010). Review of “Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students.” Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved [date] from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/successful-safe-healthy

Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut is a new book published online by the Hoover Institution and authored by the Fordham Institution’s Chester Finn. It is an inaccurate and poorly reasoned attack on the movement to secure all children a good preschool education. The book cherry-picks a few weak studies to fit its preconceptions, and it builds the case for targeted programs based on errors, exaggeration, misrepresentation, and logical inconsistency.

Suggested Citation: Barnett, W.S. (2009). Special Review of “Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/Special-Review-Reroute-Preschool-Jugger…

This new report from the Lexington Institute, "How sound an investment? An analysis of federal prekindergarten proposals," considers current proposals for federal involvement in prekindergarten (pre-K). It is misleading, however, with respect to both the provisions and likely consequences of those proposals. The report attempts to disparage the potential benefits of pre-K by presenting inaccurate information about public pre-K programs and their effects. Although the report provides some useful cautions about these programs, it exaggerates the relative importance of those cautions. The report's conclusions are grounded in a failure to consider other relevant research on pre-K's effectiveness and the relative merits of targeted and universal approaches to preschool education.

Suggested Citation:

Barnett, W. (2008). Review of "How Sound an Investment? An Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten Proposals."  Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/federal-prekindergarten-proposals

This report reviews studies and accounts of early childhood programs and presents an argument against universal preschool and all-day kindergarten programs. The report concludes that public investment in preschool education programs is unnecessary, and that preschool programs and full-day kindergarten do not have lasting educational effects on children.

Suggested Citation:

Barnett, W. (2006). Review of "Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential Information for Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers."  Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-assessing-proposals-preschool-and-kindergarten-essential-information-parents-taxpay