• Startling Conclusions of Rand Study
• It’s Not About the Statistics & Reports?

Startling Conclusions of Rand Study
Chuck Muth and Jim Clark have made reference to the 2006 Rand study refuting the benefits of All-Day K. Not only does the Rand study School Readiness, Full-Day Kindergarten, and Student Achievement: An Empirical Investigation confirms the benefits of All-Day K evaporate, but may even produce negative behaviors and mathematics performance. Its summary states:

The literature, however, has provided mixed findings with respect to the effect of full-day kindergarten on school readiness and nonacademic outcomes, and the results of our study raise the possibility that full-day kindergarten programs may actually be detrimental to the development of nonacademic readiness skills. Students who participated in full-day kindergarten were less likely to exhibit good self-control, interpersonal skills, and dispositions toward learning, and they were more likely to engage in problematic internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

Full-day kindergartens have also proven popular because a spate of early studies showed promising effects on the cognitive development of children in full-day kindergarten compared with those attending half-day kindergarten (see Ackerman, Barnett, and Robin, 2005 for a useful summary). However, later studies have shown that the effects largely disappear by first grade and, as Cannon, Jacknowitz, and Painter (2006) and Rathbun and West (2004) showed, are eliminated by third grade. Our analyses that examined student achievement through the fifth grade reinforce the notion that full-day program may not enhance achievement and may actually be associated with poorer mathematics performance.

We may be lucky if we just get zero results for this expensive experiment; we may actually get negative results. Are our public school education leaders obligated to provide this information like the warning labels on prescriptions for side effects? It is one thing to be intellectually dishonest about the proven “fade out” for benefits, but it is an entirely different thing to keep quiet about reports of negative consequences.

It’s Not About the Statistics & Reports?
The KVBS Channel 3 News, Las Vegas All-Day K story by Kendall Tenney showed both sides of the debate well. We have seen an interesting change in the advocates’ positions. It started during the election with “all studies show” and has presently devolved to “never mind the studies just visit and observe the classes.” The parent wanting the program in the story said, “It’s not all about statistics all the time and reports and advisors. Come observe a classroom and see what goes on between the two. I think the difference is clear.”

Public policy should be all about statistics and reports when spending public funds. The difference is not clear, reputable studies do not back up the assertions, and it is doubtful most voters will want to spend $186 million based on the “feelings” of the nice lady in the story. It is fine for individuals, if they so choose, to make major decisions based on subjective observations and feelings as they are the ones who will carry the consequences. It is another thing entirely to ask the rest of us to close our eyes to reality and objective data when spending taxpayers’ money.

There’s a larger, long-term concern involved in the current discussion. While the sense of entitlement has grown, the use of thoughtful, objective reasoning in public discourse has been diminished and replaced by the “I feel therefore it should be” reasoning. Will All-Day K fix that?

Joe Enge
Chairman, EdWatch Nevada
Education Analyst, Nevada Policy Research Institute

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Samuel Johnson*
*Debatable as original source since proverb predates him

Comments