![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/notjustcute.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/preschool.jpeg?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1)
<\/figure>\n<\/p>\n When a working paper with the title, \u201cWhy are Preschool Programs Becoming Less Effective?\u201d<\/a> found its way into my inbox last month, you better believe I printed out a hard copy and sat down with my highlighter in hand, entranced like it was the latest best-selling novel. I had to pause to take my son to practice and literally thought, \u201cBut this is a cliffhanger!\u00a0 I have to find out what happens next!\u201d (*Pre-established Nerd Status*)<\/em><\/p>\n It\u2019s important to note that the paper is not yet fully published \u2013 hence the term, working paper<\/em> \u2013 but it does carry a lot of weight, coming from the esteemed Annenberg Institute at Brown University with a multidisciplinary team that includes respected researchers representing the fields of education, child development, developmental psychology, economics, and public policy.<\/p>\n Now, before you panic, the title does not imply that preschool is not worth funding, supporting, or doing. This is a team of rigorous researchers, committed to learning from data. They are also, from my observation, committed to improving access to quality educational opportunities for all <\/em>children.\u00a0 This paper doesn\u2019t claim preschool isn\u2019t worth doing; it\u2019s a reminder that it should be done well.<\/strong><\/p>\n As I\u2019ve said before, it isn\u2019t enough to simply have a preschool.\u00a0 The ingredients matter.<\/a> <\/p>\n Their principal question comes from this observation:<\/strong><\/p>\n When examining 17 notable studies on preschool programs over the past several decades, programs beginning between 1960 and 1999 showed impacts that were twice as large as those from programs beginning between 2000 and 2011. Additionally, the later programs seemed to show more of a fade-out effect* than those from the earlier decades.<\/p>\n (*Fade-out effect is the term used when impacts found shortly after the observed year become diminished or even imperceptible when compared to control groups after a short amount of time.)<\/em><\/p>\n More simply put, a review of the research showed that modern preschool programs yielded smaller benefits than those running before the year 2000.<\/strong><\/p>\n So, while nearly every proposal for funding an early childhood education program will cite research from the \u201cgold standard\u201d programs of the 1960s and 1970s \u2013 Perry Preschool and Abecedarian \u2013 few if any are replicating their results today.<\/p>\n We should all be asking exactly what these researchers asked \u2013 What\u2019s going on?<\/strong><\/p>\n The authors note that there are many factors to consider when looking at diminishing impact. In my reading, I saw these factors fitting into two categories, a classic case of good news and bad news.<\/p>\n The impact of public early childhood interventions is smaller, in part, because of other successful interventions.\u00a0<\/strong> Programs aimed at nutrition, health, parent support, housing \u2013 these all improve child development outcomes. The authors point out that while disparities still exist, there have been great improvements since the 1960s. We\u2019re doing better for all <\/em>children, therefore, the impact of public preschool programs is going to be a little bit less than if the starting point was lower and the needs higher. Essentially, the rising tide has lifted all boats. That type of \u201cchallenge\u201d is actually a win.<\/p>\n The second category of reasoning the panel suggests examining is the content and methods of modern preK programs<\/strong>. While earlier programs like Perry and Abecedarian implemented developmentally responsive, whole-child curricula, research shows today\u2019s programs are more likely to be influenced by an academic push-down effect.\u00a0 In recent decades, kindergartens have been shifting their focus from social skills to early math and reading. Consequently, preschool and PreK programs are also more likely to focus on early academics, rather than on foundational skills.<\/p>\n As the paper\u2019s authors point out, \u201cThe almost complete fadeout of today\u2019s preschool programs in RCT (randomized control trial) studies suggests that focusing on early literacy and, perhaps, numeracy skills in preschool programs, at best, is ineffective and may also result in negative outcomes in the medium-term for children.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n This doesn\u2019t necessarily mean that these early academic skills can\u2019t be included (in fact, they very much should<\/em><\/strong> be), but if they\u2019ve become the primary focus<\/em><\/strong>, there\u2019s been a trade-off. As Dr. Dale Farran explained on the podcast<\/a>, these academic skills used to be seen as an offshoot of harder-to-measure foundational skills. Foundational skills (curiosity, executive function, etc.) were the main focus, and \u201cacademic\u201d skills were the more easily measured byproduct. Many of today\u2019s programs instead have cut right to training for specific academic skills, attempting to leapfrog the foundational skills. Sounds more efficient, perhaps, but in the long run, research tells us it\u2019s a flawed trade.<\/strong> Like building a house without a foundation<\/a> or training for a marathon by starting with 26.2-mile runs, you can<\/em> do it, but without establishing the base, the effect isn\u2019t the same. In fact, it may even become detrimental.<\/a><\/p>\n To illustrate this trend, Dr. Farran has proposed an \u201cIceberg Model of Early Developmental Competencies.\u201d<\/a><\/em> The tip of the iceberg \u2013 the part we see above water \u2013 contains concrete skills like letters, sounds, and numbers.\u00a0 She describes these skills as \u201cfinite and definable.\u201d\u00a0 We can easily count the letters a child identifies and check boxes for each numeral the child matches to a group of objects.\u00a0 These skills tend to be lumped together as \u201cschool readiness skills\u201d and we print them out on checklists and screening assessments.<\/p>\n However, Farran suggests that while valuable, this collection of constrained skills is not the objective in and of itself.\u00a0 These skills were also meant to be an indicator.\u00a0 Children showing the indicator skills, generally had built those on top of what she calls \u201cunconstrained skills\u201d \u2013 vocabulary, curiosity, persistence, self-control, etc.<\/p>\n In previous decades, children were afforded an experience that fostered the unconstrained skills, while simultaneously establishing foundations for the constrained skills to build.\u00a0 More recent trends suggest, however, that children who haven\u2019t been afforded a play-based, language-rich, relationally healthy early childhood experience too often wind up in programs where they are expected to build the tip of the iceberg, higher and faster than before, and without any attention to the base. It may appear to be working when looking at the short-term, but without the deep base in place, these tip-of-the-iceberg skills become brittle and unsteady.<\/strong><\/p>\n Similarly, this 2021 article published in Child Development<\/em><\/a> asserts that while both \u201cconstrained and unconstrained skills are not necessarily separate and distinct categories and are not in conflict with one another,\u201d constrained skills are \u201coften taught in isolation to support skill development that can be easily assessed and take up most instructional time in PreK classrooms.\u201d<\/p>\n Essentially, they\u2019re saying that both types of skills can and should be learned together in a well-balanced learning environment.\u00a0 Unfortunately, they often aren\u2019t.<\/strong> Because constrained skills can be taught and measured directly, and because they are influenced by the push-down of academic skills, their perceived value (and subsequent time allotment) is often outsized.<\/p>\nHere\u2019s the good news:<\/strong><\/h2>\n
Now for the bad news.<\/strong><\/h2>\n