CONTACT
W. Steven Barnett (732) 932-4350 (email) wbarnet@rci.rutgers.edu or
Kevin Welner (303) 492-8370 (email) kevin.welner@colorado.edu
TEMPE, Ariz and BOULDER, Colo. (August 22, 2008) -- Contentions in a Wall Street Journal commentary published today (“Protect Our Kids from Preschool,” by Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell) rehash arguments Snell and her Reason Foundation colleagues made two years ago, and that have already been rebutted.
W. Steven Barnett, professor and director of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University, published a review of a Reason report making many of these same arguments, explaining that Snell’s report was misleading and ignored important existing research.
The WSJ commentary weighs in on this year’s Presidential campaign and on Senator Obama’s advocacy of universal preschool. Dalmia and Snell denounce the policy as premature and lacking evidentiary support. But these contentions have no more merit today than they did two years ago. According to Professor Barnett, “the commentary makes false and misleading claims based on logical fallacies and analyses that do not meet accepted standards for scientific research while ignoring rigorous research that contradicts their assertions.” Examples of false claims are provided below.
Claim: National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores have declined nationally.
Fact: NAEP scores in reading, math, and science have significantly increased since the 1970s for whites, blacks and Hispanics. A rigorous national study by RAND researchers that controls for other state characteristics and policies finds that state preschool education policies increase NAEP scores.
Claim: Fourth grade NAEP scores declined in Georgia and Oklahoma after pre-K for all was introduced.
Fact: NAEP scores in both reading and math rose in Georgia after children who attended universal pre-k reached the 4th grade test. Oklahoma has not offered pre-k to all families long enough to reliably look at the question of its effects on NAEP at fourth grade.
Claim: Research shows that Head Start's effects don't last.
Fact: Some studies report no lasting effects. Other studies, including some that are quite rigorous, find lasting effects.
Claim: Preschool education has not been found to benefit any children but the most disadvantaged.
Fact: Rigorous studies going back to the 1980s have found positive effects for children who are not economically disadvantaged, as have recent rigorous studies of state pre-K programs that are open to all children.
Two of our Think Tank Reviews provide detailed explanations of the how Snell and others have used think tank reports to purvey misinformation about preschool education, distorting the research they do cite while dismissing and ignoring the research that contradicts their claims.
These documents are on the web:
Review of 2006 report by Darcy Olsen and Lisa Snell, published by the Reason Foundation:
http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-assessing-proposals-
preschool-and-kindergarten-essential-information-parents-taxpay
The Reason report is available here:
http://www.reason.org/ps344_universalpreschool.pdf
Review of 2008 report by Robert Holland and Don Soifer, published by the Lexington Institute:
http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/federal-prekindergarten-proposals
The Lexington report is available here:
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/docs/805.pdf
CONTACT:
W. Steven Barnett, Board of Governors Professor
Director, National Institute for Early Education Research
Rutgers University
(732) 932-4350
wbarnet@rci.rutgers.edu
Kevin Welner, Associate Professor
Director, Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC)
University of Colorado, Boulder
(303) 492-8370
kevin.welner@colorado.edu
About the Think Tank Review Project
The Think Tank Review Project (http://thinktankreview.org), a collaborative project of the ASU Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) and CU-Boulder's Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC), provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
Kevin Welner, the project co-director, explains that the project is needed because, "despite their garnering of media attention and their influence with many policy makers, reports released by private think tanks vary tremendously in their quality. Many think tank reports are little more than ideological argumentation dressed up as research. Many others include flaws that would likely have been identified and addressed through the peer review process. We believe that the media, policy makers, and the public will greatly benefit from having qualified social scientists provide reviews of these documents in a timely fashion." He adds, "we don't consider our reviews to be the final word, nor is our goal to stop think tanks' contributions to a public dialogue. That dialogue is, in fact, what we value the most. The best ideas come about through rigorous critique and debate."
**********
###
The Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder partners with the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University to produce policy briefs and think tank reviews. These centers provide a variety of audiences, both academic and public, with information, analysis, and insight to further democratic deliberation regarding educational policies.
Visit their website at http://educationanalysis.org
###
**********