“Study lauds role of early ed” is the headline of a story published in the News & Observer today.  It is a little misleading because The Abecedarian Project was unlike any “early ed” program that we have (or will have) in North Carolina.

The Abecedarian study tracked the academic performance and occupational status of two groups of low-income students from infancy to age 30.  A group of 57 children received high quality child care from infancy to age five, and a group of 54 children received no intervention at all.

Because of the limitations of the study, we should be careful not to draw unwarranted conclusions about early childhood education programs for at-risk children.  The small sample of children, a significant limitation in itself, was provided high quality (and high cost) child care and services.  It is unlikely that NC Pre-K sites would be able to deliver the same kind of superior care to 20,000 children that Abecedarian Project researchers provided for 57.

When the two groups were compared, the children who received high quality child care generally outperformed those who did not.  The latest evaluation of the project, which is discussed in the News & Observer today, found that those who received pre-kindergarten services were more likely to have a college education and steady employment and less likely to receive public assistance than those who did not receive the intervention.

Interestingly, the most recent evaluation showed no significant difference between the two groups on measures of income and criminal activity.  Previous studies of outcomes revealed that other gaps between groups were not large or statistically significant.  On cognitive tests, for example, the gap between the two groups began to narrow or “fade out” as students entered high school.

In the end, I strongly disagree with the idea that this study has a central role in the debate over pre-k funding in North Carolina.  Our elected officials would bankrupt the state if they decided to provide Abecedarian-like preschool services to the number of kids that currently receive state-funded services.  That said, I would prefer that the state fund a Abecedarian-inspired program that used taxpayer funds to provide greater assistance to fewer families.