Social work already intersects with our school systems and government bodies. As pre-k expands it is important to consider some of the following implications.

1. The role of a social worker as advocate and source of empowerment for children.
2. Partners with family systems that surround the child, learning and growth can’t happen in a vacuum.
3. Social workers can extend support networks of children and families, offering connections to resources to uplift and empower caregivers.
4. Embedding social and emotional learning within the classroom, this is often overlooked when the measurement of a child’s success is their testing ability.
5. Add a trauma focused lens to learning. In a pandemic education system there are unaccounted for stressors in both teachers and students. We have to think how these stressors can be addressed and support given to those experiencing them.

Pre-k programs are educational offerings for children ages 4-5. According to the NCES close to half of all children nationally are enrolled in a preprimary education program from the ages of 3-4. This increases to nearly 87 percent for kindergarten classes before compulsory schooling begins. We are looking at pre-k in particular to asses why it matters to children and families.

What many studies seek to determine is whether or not these early education programs offer lasting positive effects for children. What I also seek to understand is if there are additional benefits to families who may be receiving the opportunity for high quality child care for the first time. With President Biden seeking to invest 200 billion into national pre-k funding, this topic is of immediate importance.

When looking at the research around pre-k we are given a certain narrative, one that I admit seems very appealing. The idea that all children should have access to high quality education beginning at the age of 4 sounds like the kind of government intervention that anyone could get behind. After all, with schooling only becoming more intensive and competitive, shouldn’t we begin preparing children as soon as possible how to socialize in a classroom environment? The data seems to support the benefit of pre-k programs with a rise in test scores and a drop in truancy and disciplinary actions. The question then becomes, why wouldn’t we want to support these programs? Why would we doubt the large data sets advocating for a public program that also receives popular support?

Pushing back on these assumptions is an article by the Manhattan Institute that seeks to highlight the drawbacks of universal pre-k. The programs are found to benefit only the deeply disadvantaged, a group that is at times overrepresented in these studies. With children from other backgrounds there is a negligible effect on the much touted testing and often the benefits recede quickly and children will often regress to mean. When scrutinizing the research it was found that some of the benefits were not broadly repeatable by current pre-k programs, meaning that only the highest quality programs produced long term effects, and they were often coupled with early intervention programs as well. With these holes becoming apparent we are left to wonder if pre-k is the easy win we assumed it to be or does there need to be further investigation as to how we invest in our children? One possible example put forward by the study asks what if we invested the billions ear marked for pre-k directly into families? Possible further expansions to the child tax credit or other assistance programs targeting families in need, which I would argue are most families.

The other area I often wonder about is the effect on families that pre-k programs have. There is not a great deal of research on the extending implications of child care and education, but one study in Washington D.C. gives us some insight and poses some interesting questions. The study showed that the maternal labor force increased by 12% across low and high income levels, middle income had negligible change. These results were also touted as an enormous boon for working class families and showed that not only did pre-k benefit the child but could also uplift the caregiver as well. While at first I found myself nodding in agreement I wondered again about what the Manhattan Institute’s article had said about expanding child care credit. Do these results devalue the role of parents as caregivers and espouse that to be of value you must be employed? This perpetuates the devaluation of caregiving that is deeply entrenched in our capitalist society, the idea that the only real work is that which brings in the most money. These questions are not meant to be a final judgement on pre-k, but to merely open ourselves up to questioning to what ends do these programs serve?

When taking pre-k programs on their face it is difficult to see an problem with them. The idea of increasing school enrollment at no cost to families seems like a great program to implement. The questions arises however, about their effectiveness and whether or not there is any benefit to pre-k over other forms of childcare at that age. Multiple studies have been made tracking the efficiency of these programs and their impacts on child learning over time. In this post we will look at two of these studies and consider what their conclusions posit.

First we look at what is perhaps the most famous study regarding pre-k and early childhood education, The Abecedarian Project. Following children born in the early to mid 70’s, the project tracked academic performance and other measures at ages 12, 15, 21, 30, and 35. This makes it the longest running study of its type to examine the effects of early education on children. Specifically, the project sought to determine if positive effects could be found on children in poverty and if providing an early education would in turn have a positive effect. Overall the project has become know for espousing the positive, long term effects of early childhood education. The standard to which a child was measured was their academic performance, employment, and if they were considered self supporting. A detailed TED talk regarding the project and its successes can be found here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXf3CCyhLGU

Second is a recent study out of Boston released in November of last year. This study found there to be a boost in college attendance, SAT, and other test scores. The program was based around children in the late 90’s so the data set was limited to children reaching high school. The test pulled large amounts of data from the school record systems to determine their findings. While attempting to discover the effects of pre-k programs they looked at enrollment records as well as disciplinary records. Across all metrics there was improvement over the control groups of children that did not enter into a pre-k program. Similar to the Abecedarian Project, the Boston school system supported a largely Black population who made up nearly 50% of participants. This study gained a great deal of attention for it’s size and scope, especially as President Biden seeks to expand pre-k funding nationally. The New York Times ran a feature on the study which can be found below.

/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/10/briefing/universal-pre-k-biden-agenda.html