When a working paper with the title, “Why are Preschool Programs Becoming Less Effective?” 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, “But this is a cliffhanger! I have to find out what happens next!” (*Pre-established Nerd Status*)
It’s important to note that the paper is not yet fully published – hence the term, working paper – 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.
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 children. This paper doesn’t claim preschool isn’t worth doing; it’s a reminder that it should be done well.
As I’ve said before, it isn’t enough to simply have a preschool. The ingredients matter.
Their principal question comes from this observation:
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.
(*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.)
More simply put, a review of the research showed that modern preschool programs yielded smaller benefits than those running before the year 2000.
So, while nearly every proposal for funding an early childhood education program will cite research from the “gold standard” programs of the 1960s and 1970s – Perry Preschool and Abecedarian – few if any are replicating their results today.
We should all be asking exactly what these researchers asked – What’s going on?
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.
Here’s the good news:
The impact of public early childhood interventions is smaller, in part, because of other successful interventions. Programs aimed at nutrition, health, parent support, housing – these all improve child development outcomes. The authors point out that while disparities still exist, there have been great improvements since the 1960s. We’re doing better for all 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 “challenge” is actually a win.
Now for the bad news.
The second category of reasoning the panel suggests examining is the content and methods of modern preK programs. While earlier programs like Perry and Abecedarian implemented developmentally responsive, whole-child curricula, research shows today’s programs are more likely to be influenced by an academic push-down effect. 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.
As the paper’s authors point out, “The almost complete fadeout of today’s 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.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean that these early academic skills can’t be included (in fact, they very much should be), but if they’ve become the primary focus, there’s been a trade-off. As Dr. Dale Farran explained on the podcast, 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 “academic” skills were the more easily measured byproduct. Many of today’s 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’s a flawed trade. Like building a house without a foundation or training for a marathon by starting with 26.2-mile runs, you can do it, but without establishing the base, the effect isn’t the same. In fact, it may even become detrimental.
To illustrate this trend, Dr. Farran has proposed an “Iceberg Model of Early Developmental Competencies.” The tip of the iceberg – the part we see above water – contains concrete skills like letters, sounds, and numbers. She describes these skills as “finite and definable.” We can easily count the letters a child identifies and check boxes for each numeral the child matches to a group of objects. These skills tend to be lumped together as “school readiness skills” and we print them out on checklists and screening assessments.
However, Farran suggests that while valuable, this collection of constrained skills is not the objective in and of itself. These skills were also meant to be an indicator. Children showing the indicator skills, generally had built those on top of what she calls “unconstrained skills” – vocabulary, curiosity, persistence, self-control, etc.
In previous decades, children were afforded an experience that fostered the unconstrained skills, while simultaneously establishing foundations for the constrained skills to build. More recent trends suggest, however, that children who haven’t 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.
Similarly, this 2021 article published in Child Development asserts that while both “constrained and unconstrained skills are not necessarily separate and distinct categories and are not in conflict with one another,” constrained skills are “often taught in isolation to support skill development that can be easily assessed and take up most instructional time in PreK classrooms.”
Essentially, they’re saying that both types of skills can and should be learned together in a well-balanced learning environment. Unfortunately, they often aren’t. 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.
As an illustration, those researchers point out that the Boston Public School PreK program (the subject of their study) spent twice as much time in unconstrained language instruction as constrained literacy instruction. Conversely, programs like the one Farran studied in Tennessee showed more than three times as much time spent in constrained instruction vs unconstrained instruction. Notably, positive program impacts were much better in Boston than in Tennessee.
Constrained skills are more easily measured and can be taught more directly. When looking at math and literacy, this includes skills like identifying letters and numbers, counting, phonological tasks, and identifying shapes. Unconstrained skills are more broad and complex and may continue to develop over a lifetime. In the areas of math and literacy, this could include vocabulary, comprehension, critical thinking, making connections, identifying patterns, using strategies, and flexible problem-solving.
Back to the original question of preschool efficacy, in addition to the teaching focus or curricula being problematic, the authors of the working paper from Brown also call out a shift in teaching styles accompanying this academic trend. It’s somewhat predictable. Emphasizing direct skills may lead to teaching more directly. Research showed preschool and PreK teachers were increasingly likely to use direct instruction — talking at the children, rather than with them — a less effective practice for early learners. Not only is heavy use of direct instruction inadequate for successfully teaching the content at this age and stage, it also sidesteps other important experiences our young learners need – hands-on exploration, social interactions, conversational turns, and creative problem-solving. These experiences build that foundation of unconstrained skills that make it easier for children to effectively add concrete skills as well.
Again, this isn’t to say that reading and math skills should be abandoned. But context and focus matter. Pushing down outsized academic skills and methods inevitably pushes out what children actually need. If we’re focused on building deep, lasting skills and development, we need to use the right ingredients and in the right proportions.
According to the authors of the Child Development article:
“Our results in no way indicate that unconstrained skills are superior to constrained skills, or that PreK programs should focus all their attention on supporting unconstrained versus constrained skills in order to generate lasting benefits for students…Findings do suggest, however, that programs should not restrict activities to constrained instruction and should instead expand their focus to strengthen both types of competencies.”
Both of the papers I’ve mentioned in this article state the need for more clarity in defining quality but here are some consistent themes across this and other research:
High-quality, effective programs incorporate conversations, group discussions, thinking out loud, summarizing and sharing observations, representing and comparing data, play-based approaches, thematic units (for cross-discipline connections), scaffolding, valuing child agency, building positive relationships, sparking curiosity, etc.
In essence, these programs are language-rich, active, playful, social, and filled with wonder. In that process, academic skills are also built, but built better and stronger.
As I’ve mentioned before with my literacy model, I think of the constrained skills as the building blocks and the practices that support unconstrained skills as the mortar that gives them real strength.
If we want to make sure our preschool and PreK programs are successful and effective, both in being a wise investment of our time and resources and, most importantly, in positively impacting the lives of families and young children, it isn’t enough to simply establish programs for programs’ sake. Let’s establish good ones for the children’s sake.
Leave a Reply