JLARC has taken a crack at studying Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s proposal to expand pre-K in Virginia. A draft report released yesterday draws some conclusions that bear upon the debate:
- Research indicates that a quality preschool experience for “at-risk” four-year-olds helps prepare them for school and can have long-lasting benefits.
- Research suggests quality pre-K can be beneficial for children not at risk, but gains experienced by these children may be more limited. Virginia’s focus on at-risk students appears appropriate.
- Virginia Preschool Initiative students gain in literacy skills during the pre-K year and outperform other kindergarteners. Longer term student-level data are needed to assess VPI’s impact on test scores in later grades.
- Best estimates of annual per-pupil costs for a quality pre-K program in Virginia range from $6,790 to $7,920. Costs will need to be adjusted as compensation levels, support costs, or pupil-to-teacher ratios change.
- The Governor’s proposal for expanding the scope of preschool for at-risk children is unlikely to serve as many children by 2012 as has been stated, particularly if the VPI per-pupil amount is not increased.
Here’s my spin on the bottom line: First, we can document short-term benefits for at-risk children, but the long-term benefits are debatable. Short-term benefits to middle-class children are limited, as the long-term benefits presumably are as well.
Second, as soon as the pre-K program is expanded, it will face cost pressures. Apparently, the $5,700 per child the state allocates currently to the program is deemed less than the $7,000+ it takes to run a quality program. Raising the standards will be the next battle cry.
Thirdly and most importantly, some 5,270 slots are going unfilled currently, indicating that pre-K is not where local school systems prefer to allocate their resources. Many school boards believe there are other areas where the money may be better spent.
Let’s go ahead and expand the Virginia Preschool Initiative to include at-risk kids — and then rigorously measure the long-term impact on individual children to see if the investment does what it’s touted to do. If it does, the program is a keeper. If it doesn’t, there is no justification for expanding it beyond the at-risk population.