School Quality is Hard, Even in Early Childhood

I mentioned this once before, but I think that people sometimes exaggerate the contrast between what we know about charter schools and what we know about pre-kindergarden. In both cases, what we have are examples of highly effective intervention alongside other examples of lower-quality intervention and continued debate over what really works.

For a taste, check out Sara Mead on pre-K teacher quality:

These concerns are underscored by developments over the past several years. On the one hand, an important 2007 study found limited correlations between pre-kindergarten teacher's educational credentials and observed classroom quality or child outcomes, raising questions about the established orthodoxy in the field. At the same time, new models–most notably the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS)–have emerged that offer valid and reliable measures of pre-k instructional quality based on what teachers actually do in the classroom–and are correlated with student learning outcomes. And there is also evidence that certain types of professional development are effective in improving the skills and effectiveness of pre-k teachers, whether or not they have a bachelor's degree–such as high-quality coaching linked to CLASS and the combination of professional development, coaching, and progress monitoring provided through the Texas Early Education Model.

None of that is to say that pre-K boosters are wrong. On the contrary, they're completely correct. High quality pre-K programs appear to have large benefits. But the situation is no different from the one facing K-12 education—high quality is both extremely valuable, somewhat hard to come by, and best obtained if we judge providers on their results rather than by assuming we know which inputs are the best.