One feature of the so-called "Build Back Better" bill Biden has been unable to get through Congress is funding for universal pre-K early childhood education. We ask is this even a good idea?
Steven Hayward who posts at Power Line summarizes two studies which find that children who are enrolled in pre-K government child care have worse life outcomes than their age/race/economic level peers who are not so enrolled.
One study, done in Quebec, found the following:
We find that the negative effects on noncognitive outcomes persisted to school ages, and also that cohorts with increased child care access had worse health, lower life satisfaction, and higher crime rates later in life.
The other study, published in an APA journal and done in a state (TN?) that went into pre-K but had insufficient slots for the eligible kids, and so used a lottery to choose those who were admitted, compared later outcomes of those admitted with their otherwise similar peers who were not.
Data through sixth grade from state education records showed that the children randomly assigned to attend pre-K had lower state achievement test scores in third through sixth grades than control children, with the strongest negative effects in sixth grade. A negative effect was also found for disciplinary infractions, attendance, and receipt of special education services.
And the study's authors conclude:
Our results are robust and contrary to the claims made by many advocates for the universally positive effects of pre-K participation. Children from poor families who attended a state pre-K program did not, for the most part, become proficient readers in third grade. On the contrary, their performance on all measures of achievement through sixth grade was significantly below that of comparable children who did not attend.
Life outcomes are better for very young children who stay home with their mothers or grandmothers. This outcome is unsurprising ... mothers matter (a lot).
