Does Pre-K Work? The Research on Ten Early Childhood Programs—and What it Tells Us

Research Methods & UsePre-KChildcareHome VisitingAdvocacy in the ECE Field

Apr 12

Written By Katharine Stevens

By Katharine B. Stevens | Elizabeth English

REPORT

American Enterprise Institute

April 12, 2016

Key Points

Widely cited early childhood programs vary greatly in both design and results. The research on these programs shows neither that “pre-K works” nor that it doesn’t; rather, it shows that some early childhood programs yield particular outcomes, sometimes, for some children.
Both the relevance and rigor of early childhood research is considerably weaker than many realize. A stronger knowledge base is urgently needed around the core policy question: what are the most effective early interventions for improving disadvantaged children’s lives?
Our current knowledge is insufficient to justify a large expansion of pre-K as the best path forward. Instead, policymakers should focus on advancing rigorous research, high-quality child care, and voluntary home visiting programs.

Download the PDF

Executive Summary

With growing public and political support, the early childhood field is advancing quickly, now focused primarily on expanding school-based pre-K. Yet pre-K is just one part of a broad landscape of programs for children from birth through age four, and the emphasis on pre-K often overshadows other valuable approaches, such as child care and two-generation initiatives that work with children and parents together. Neither the public nor policymakers have a clear picture of the range of early childhood programs, the varied evidence on their effectiveness, and how that evidence can guide us going forward.

This report aims to provide a starting point for a more comprehensive, nuanced dialogue around core policy goals in early childhood and the best strategies to accomplish those goals. It examines 10 of the best-known, widely cited programs of the last half century—Abbott Preschool, Abecedarian, Boston Pre-K, Chicago Child-Parent Centers, Georgia Pre-K, Head Start, Nurse-Family Partnership, Oklahoma Pre-K, Perry Preschool, and Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K—and the research on those programs. The report has two parts.

Part I is a short guide to the four research methods most commonly used to evaluate early childhood programs. While research findings are often presented in policy debates as black and white, they have a lot more gray than is often acknowledged. A basic understanding of how studies are conducted is essential to correctly interpreting their results. This brief overview aims to help nonexperts understand the methods used in early childhood research, how the choice of methods can influence study results, and the limitations of each method.

Part II describes the 10 programs, answering several broad questions about each: What is the specific nature of the program? Whom does it serve, and how is it designed? What kind of research has been conducted on it? What methods were used, and what results were found? What are the key takeaways?

A close look at these 10 programs reveals that they are as different as they are similar. Some focused on four-year-olds, some on three-year-olds, and some solely on infants and toddlers. Some programs ran for just one year, others for two, and one served children from infancy to kindergarten. Some were school-based while others were home-based. Some targeted children alone while some targeted their families too. Some programs increased the number of alphabet letters children knew when they were five; others led to large increases in social, economic, and health outcomes decades later.

The research conducted on the 10 programs also varied greatly. Researchers used different methods to investigate a range of questions: some evaluated basic academic skills in kindergarten, some examined children’s performance in elementary school, and still others tracked a range of long-term social and economic effects into adulthood. Some studies were more rigorous than others.

The research shows neither that “pre-K works” nor that it does not; rather, it shows that some early childhood programs yield particular outcomes, sometimes, for some children. Overall, our report finds that this body of research provides less useful information than is commonly assumed. It shows that early childhood programs can have a significant, sustained impact on the lives of children born into disadvantaged circumstances, but falls far short of showing that all programs have that impact. The most rigorous research shows that the most meaningful, far-reaching effects occurred with intensive, carefully designed, well-implemented programs—specifically Abecedarian, Nurse-Family Partnership, and Perry—that target very young children, engage parents, and teach a broad range of skills.

Two important policy implications emerge. To move the early childhood field forward, we must:

Strengthen and accelerate rigorous research in early childhood. The early childhood research base is often characterized as rigorous and extensive, and it indeed includes hundreds of studies published over the last several years. Yet both the relevance and rigor of this research is considerably weaker than many realize. A stronger knowledge base is urgently needed to guide policy.

While current research focuses overwhelmingly on the short-term impact of conventional pre-K on children’s basic academic skills, the core policy question remains unanswered: what are the most effective early interventions for improving disadvantaged children’s lives? To guide policy effectively, research must be improved by focusing on the most important questions instead of the most fashionable or convenient ones; increasing research transparency and replication; and pursuing new approaches to rigorous, policy-relevant research.

Advance high-quality child care and voluntary home visiting for disadvantaged children. Our current knowledge base does not justify a large expansion of pre-K as the best path forward. Instead, the leading science and strongest research indicate that advancing high-quality, educational child care and supporting parents in better fulfilling their role as their children’s “first teachers” are the most practical and promising avenues to help the children and families most in need. The growing pre-K push may well do more harm than good by diverting attention and scarce resources from other, more effective approaches.

Early childhood is gathering public and political momentum as one of the most important domestic policy areas of our time. But what America’s most disadvantaged children are facing is not an achievement gap; it’s a life gap. To close that gap, we need to move beyond a narrow focus on improving academic skills as the aim and expanding pre-K as the solution. Researchers, policymakers, and the public alike must remain focused on the core goal: to give all children, no matter the circumstances of their birth, a fair start in life.