A groundbreaking study that followed 2,990 children from low-income families found out enrolling in a state-supported pre-kindergarten was actually detrimental to their academic performance in their third to sixth grades.

How could this be when proponents of early childhood education touts it helps young children be more prepared and successful not only academically in that getting an early education boosts graduation rates but also lessens the likelihood of being placed in special education.

The Study: Tennessee Pre-K Pupils

Using a randomized, controlled trial, researchers from the Vanderbilt University followed 2,990 children from low income families from the moment the children got into Tennessee’s pre-kindergarten (TPK) program until sixth grade.
Common knowledge dictates that children who were enrolled in TPK would have better educational outcomes. However, data based on their test scores only showed this to be true on the children’s first grade exams. Come third grade, the children were doing worse and by sixth grade, children were doing badly not only in one core subject but in all three–math, science, and reading.

Aside from doing badly on their tests, the test group also committed major and minor infractions that led to suspensions, thereby displaying the negative effects of pre-k education on the children enrolled.

Possible Reasons for the Negative Effects

To fully understand why these negative effects came about, one of the researchers Dale Farran considered how the pre-kindergarten program was designed and how the children’s experiences while being enrolled in the program contributed to their view of education.
Examining the data gathered she found out the following factors which may have contributed to producing a negative impact on children and their mindset about schooling.

1. Transition time

Farran found out that instead of having more hours allocated to learning, the teachers and children spent more time moving from one place to another. This includes ushering the children from their room to bathrooms or the cafeteria which were far away from their pre-k rooms.
What hours could have been spent on learning was redirected to guiding children to what would have seemed a labyrinthine structure. And having children go by batches to either the bathroom or cafeteria would have been seen as more time-saving than having to usher one or two children back and forth.

2. Learning environment

The architectural layout of the main areas children need to access in a state-funded pre-kindergarten program was not conducive for small children whose needs need to be met urgently.
Being placed in a public school which was designed for older pupils, the program certainly had to cut corners and make the children adapt to the learning environment instead of having a learning environment that’s conducive to them.

3. Control commands

Part of having to usher young children around a larger space with older children around is to use more control commands. Instead of letting the children explore as what young children are geared to do, teachers have to issue control commands more frequently, with negative terms such as “don’t,” “avoid,” or ”stop.”
Studies have shown that effective commands and increasing compliance are best brought about by using the opposite of negative imperatives. But as teachers become frazzled in an environment where there is more noise and distractions abound, they are more likely to have a higher need to control their children to behave appropriately.
As a result, young children develop an antagonistic relationship with teachers as authoritative figures who elicit compliance through coercion instead of positive reinforcement.

Counter-arguments raised against the Vanderbilt study

Meanwhile, as Farran seeks to understand why their study yielded these negative effects, others have also come to the defense of preschool education.
NIEER’s W. Steven Bartnett was quick to put forth counter-arguments lest anyone who reads the Vanderbuilt TPK study becomes convinced that pre-k education and all early childhood education fails the children it serves.
In a NIEER article he posits the following counter-arguments one should consider about the study and its revelations about state-funded early childhood education.

Risk of overgeneralization

While the Vanderbilt study may become a classic reference when it comes to early childhood education and its effect on long-term outcomes for years to come, the risk of overgeneralization is too high. A single study is not and should not be treated as a final inclusive conclusion for early childhood education’s effects on all children served in the state, or country even.
While its results are shocking, and runs counter to what other previous studies have shown, i.e. positive outcomes and net effects for children enrolled in preschool programs, it should not be considered as conclusive evidence that all preschool programs produce negative outcomes for children.

Tennessee’s treatment of TPK graduates

The causality presented fails to account how the Tennessee public school system proceeded to absorb the TPK graduates.

The author points out that instead of having a seamless transition into kindergarten, most TPK graduates were placed in a special education route instead.

Lack of a credible group of studies documenting whether the patterns remain the same

And while the Vanderbilt study certainly has its merits in exposing a gap that needs to be addressed in order to fully actualize the potential the TPK program has started, more studies need to be conducted in order to reach a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of a state-funded program on children, their learning outcomes, and academic performance.

While defendants and critics continue releasing their thoughts on the Vanderbuilt study, one thing can be certainly concluded from it, there is much more need for the country to focus its attention and resources on not only expanding the access to universal childcare and early childhood education but also on increasing the quality of the programs. This is to ensure that whatever is invested in the children’s potential becomes realized into better outcomes that spreads out exponentially for everyone.