Joe Enge, Education Policy Analyst, Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI);
Chairman, Education Watch Nevada:

I have some serious qualms regarding the iNVest ‘07 plan. Among them are some major assumptions. On page 3 it directly connects iNVest with the A.C.R. 10 Adequacy Study, which I testified against last August with Dr. Richard Phelps. Dr. Richard Phelps did an in-depth analysis of the A.C.R. 10 Study, which brought forth some fatally flawed elements and assumptions. Therefore, the figures cannot be trusted. I am a little concerned about what Ms. Moulton mentioned regarding proof the money was well-spent.

On page 3 she is citing the AYP figures from NCLB, which admittedly are cited by most school districts and superintendents as arbitrary and unfair. I tend to agree with that. I find it questionable to cite those figures as proof that suddenly this investment has paid off. If we are going to look at some objective measures, why do we not look at the ACT scores? Why do we not take a look at the SAT scores? Why do we not take a look at the college remediation rates? By my understanding, they have not improved over the course of time, even though we have increased investment in education.

I have written extensively and testified about all-day kindergarten. I believe I have some work on the NPRI website at www.npri.org. I also heard mentioned some interest in CTE programs. There is a great study, definitive in my opinion, on CTE by Dr. Robert Schmidt, which was completed on behalf of NPRI. I would urge this Committee to read it.

There are a number of concerns with all-day kindergarten in this iNVest ‘07 plan. I find it intellectually dishonest on page 17. It implies that it is a given that all-day kindergarten is the end-all and be-all for improving academic achievement for students. That is an extremely questionable assumption.

There are a number of studies that show fade-out. Some studies show that by first grade the achievements gained are lost, some studies show by the third, and some show by fifth grade that there is nothing. When we are investing $186 million, we really need to have honest information and be able to see all the data that is out there.

You will see the list of some of the studies (Exhibit F). One of the most definitive studies was done by the United States Department of Education (USDE), Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. They utilized 22,000 children at kindergarten entry. The Goldwater Institute cited that study. It showed there were some marginal gains in the short-term, but by the time those students had reached third grade, those gains had completely disappeared as compared to students who attended only half-day kindergarten.

I only attended half-day kindergarten. I do not know if I could have been more successful, or if any of you could have done the same. My daughter did not attend kindergarten. I have a daughter in sixth grade and a son in first who attended kindergarten last year. My daughter went to school overseas, where you do not start school until age seven. She is doing quite well. My son did half-day last year, and he is doing quite well. Obviously, that is anecdotal; hence, I do not believe in using anecdotal information. That is why I like data.

We have a Kansas report. We are not the first State who has had to wrestle with this issue. Kansas has wrestled with it as well. Their experts with their State Department of Education came back and said it is pretty mixed. There are not definitive studies that show it is worth the investment. Massachusetts School District reported to parents saying that, “Empirical evidence of all-day, half-day, and alternative-day programs suggest that there are no clear, differential effects of kindergarten schedules on both academic achievement and classroom social behaviors, therefore, Medway (this is the school district) can consider financial, philosophical, and other factors in deciding kindergarten schedules.” If we want to implement something like this for social reasons, I am fine with that, if that is where the debate is going to go. But if we are going to go upon academic achievement, there are some serious problems with that.

The Rand Corporation did a study, which showed, once again, fade-out. The advantages disappeared. But what is interesting is the Rand Study actually showed some negative behaviors, particularly among boys. I do not know why we develop a little slower, but sometimes it is hard for boys to sit in the classroom all day at that age level. They actually found some negative social behaviors and even some negative outcomes in math. They really did not know why, and they need to study it more and in-depth. I am not saying it is definitive, but there is the possibility we could have negative outcomes.

Also, it was mentioned that “our studies showed,” with “our” meaning a Clark County study. There is a problem with school districts doing their own studies. They need to bring in somebody objective, an outside person to do these types of studies to be taken seriously and credibly. There are also developmental issues. There is only so much you can give a child before it is overkill. I have heard it likened to a medical dosage.