What if the benefits of quality pre-kindergarten fade by second grade?

A new report out of Tennessee found that while state pre-k helped to prepare students for kindergarten benefits were nearly impossible to see in later grades. Measurable differences among students who attended those programs and those who did not were virtually non-existent by second grade, according to a report released by the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury’s Offices of Research and Education Accountability.

Pre-K participation is associated with a small but reliable effect on student outcomes in Kindergarten, specifically among economically disadvantaged students. These effects are detectable (but diminished) in First Grade and by Second Grade the difference between Pre-K students and a reasonably comparable group of non-Pre-K students is negligible.—“Assessing the Benefits of Tennessee’s Pre-Kindergarten Program: Annual Report 2008-2009.”

Of course, this is a complex question, but it may help some political positions. “Some Northeast Tennessee GOP lawmakers have stressed that taxpayer-funded investments in 4-year-old children attending pre-K classes might be better placed in higher education,” according to The Kingsport Times-News, which first reported the story last week.

The 71-page report sparks a lot of questions for politicians, researchers and advocates. Near the top of the list is: What is the goal of pre-k?  This study found state pre-k helped to get children ready for kindergarten, but it was hard to see what it did a few years later. It also questioned the definition of school readiness.

Many studies claim that Pre-K improves “school readiness” but the definition of “readiness” can be so broad as to be rendered almost uninterpretable.”

While the review is sure to draw scrutiny, it recognized pre-k may have benefits that are hard to assess in later years.

 This is not to say that the benefits of the program do not persist in the long term, but due to many additional sources of variation that come into play over time, they are increasingly difficult to isolate—particularly in an analysis of secondary data, which does not benefit from methodological controls—and may ultimately be overshadowed by other, more potent sources of variation such as socioeconomic disadvantage.

Finally, the report focused on only one stage of a quality early learning system. What about quality child care and preschool? In fact, the review raises the work of North Carolina’s Abecedarian Project and the Perry/Highscope Program, highlighting that these are intensive interventions and different than contemporary pre-k.

Once again a thoughtful report raises many questions at a time when researchers, teachers and politicians are trying to figure out what works in pre-k classrooms.

Thanks to the Kingsport Times-News for covering this news and the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies for highlighting the development.