Review finds bias, selective use of evidence in Lexington report

Contact: W. Steven Barnett, (732) 932-4350; (email) wbarnet@rci.rutgers.edu
Kevin Welner, (303) 492-8370; (email) kevin.welner@gmail.com

TEMPE, Ariz and BOULDER, Colo. (March 24, 2008) - A report from the Lexington Institute that critiques proposals for federal promotion of pre-Kindergarten is incomplete, misleading, biased and inaccurate, a new review of the report finds.

The report, "How Sound an Investment? An Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten Proposals," was prepared for the Lexington Institute by Robert Holland and Don Soifer. It was reviewed for the Think Tank Review Project by W. Steven Barnett, the director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University.

Expanding pre-Kindergarten (or pre-K) has become the subject of a growing national movement as evidence emerges about the importance of early childhood education in setting the stage for later achievement. But lacking universal mandates, states vary widely in the access of children to preschool, with a handful of states serving more than 40% of 4-year-olds while four times as many have no pre-K program at all. Spending and standards on such matters as class size vary widely as well. Federal legislators and others have proposed a number of bills to support and fund pre-K education.

The new Lexington report contends that federally funded preschool for all children would cost too much while providing little benefit to children. The report makes particular note of research on "negative" effects of preschool on children's behavior and complains that a government-run program would drive private child care providers out of business. The report instead proposes either tax credits for private child care or vouchers that low-income families could use to purchase private early childhood care and education.

Barnett, however, finds the report to be severely flawed. "Rather than capitalizing on an opportunity to clarify an area of policy that is ripe for change, the report manages to muddy the waters and to obstruct reasoned discussion of approaches for improving opportunities for many of the nation's children," he writes.

Among other problems identified in his review, Barnett finds:

• The report misuses two studies to make the case that pre-K increases behavior problems. In reality, the studies primarily look at children attending "private programs with minimal standards and public oversight," Barnett notes. Moreover, the studies show correlation--not causation--and the Lexington Report ignores the possibility of alternative explanations, including a "plausible alternative hypothesis that children more prone to behavior problems are more often enrolled in [these] preschool programs." The Lexington Report also ignores several other studies, including national, randomized trials of Head Start, which found such programs reduced behavioral problems.

• To make the case that evidence does not support requiring preschool teachers to have a bachelor's degree, the report cites another pair of studies yet fails to mention the limitations of those studies' research methods. It also omits research that comes to conclusions at odds with the Lexington authors' views.

• The writers rely too heavily on one economist's view that new investments in early education should focus on poor children-a viewpoint that even the economist in question had acknowledged is not based on hard evidence. At the same time, the Lexington report ignores the views of other economists who find that including all children in public early education would provide larger benefits to individuals and society and "demonstrate that under reasonable assumptions a universal program can be a more economically efficient policy."

"The report presents inaccurate information about current public pre-K programs and the research into their effects. Although the report provides some useful cautions to policymakers, it exaggerates their importance in comparison to the potential benefits of pre-K," Barnett concludes. The result is a report that "oversimplifies the debate," ignores relevant research and falls short of thoughtful policy discussion.

CONTACT:

W. Steven Barnett, Professor and Director
National Institute for Early Education Research
Rutgers University
(732) 932-4350
wbarnet@rci.rutgers.edu

Kevin Welner, Professor and Director
Education and the Public Interest Center
University of Colorado at Boulder
(303) 492-8370
kevin.welner@gmail.com

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 Policy Research Unit (EPRU) conducts original research, provides independent analyses of research and policy documents, and facilitates educational innovation. EPRU facilitates the work of leading academic experts in a variety of disciplines to help inform the public debate about education policy issues.

Visit the EPRU website at http://educationanalysis.org

The Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder seeks to contribute information, analysis, and insight to further democratic deliberation regarding educational policy formation and implementation.

Visit the EPIC website at http://epicpolicy.org