(Guest post by Greg Forster)
That’s the question in my new policy brief from OCPA.
Today the Oklahoman ran an op-ed adapted from that policy brief:
Policymakers shouldn’t spend big money expanding pre-K when the benefits are so uncertain. They should also take pre-K off Oklahoma’s automatic-funding conveyor belt; it should have to make a case for itself like every other discretionary expense.
Moreover, Oklahoma should consider introducing school choice design in existing pre-K programs, to strengthen the freedom and power of parents. Oklahoma’s existing program permits schools to partner with community organizations; why not allow community organizations to serve parents directly?
Let me know what you think!
This important topic reminds me of the class size debate, namely, a policy where the results don’t magic “logical” expectations. It is particularly discouraging if it turns out that pre-K for children in poverty does not make a difference.
Good blog. Also the previous one about Max Eden’s article.
Early education may confer benefits. Early institutionalization degrades overall education system performance, harms children, and damages the child/parent bond.
All evals of preschool research have come to the same conclusion. Despite a few successful pre-schools (e.g., Abecedarian), no long-term gains. And some had negative effects.