The truth about pre-K (hint: it doesn’t work)

At last night’s education committee hearing, both Clark County Superintendent Dwight Jones and Washoe County Superintendent Heath Morrison indicated they are proponents of spending government money to provide pre-K services. Several liberal lawmakers have also previously indicated they are big fans of pre-K.

Each claims that funding pre-K increases student achievement.

Except it doesn’t. Consider Georgia, which has had universal, state-subsidized pre-K since 1992.

Or consider Oklahoma, which has had universal, state-subsidized pre-K since 1998.

Now compare this to the reforms Florida instituted in 1998, and the ensuing results.

There’s no contest. Why would anyone choose pre-K over the proven reforms of Florida? Bueller… Bueller…

Now, advocates of pre-K will cite small-, small-scale studies to justify this enormous expense, but those studies have significant limitations, which the Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke details here. She also explains here how government-funded pre-school could crowd out private alternatives.

In fact, the research in these papers is so important, I’m going to link to them again:

• Does Universal Preschool Improve Learning? Lessons from Georgia and Oklahoma
• More Government Preschool: An Expensive and Unnecessary Middle-Class Subsidy

The next time someone advocates pre-K as a solution to Nevada’s education problems, remind him or her about Georgia and Oklahoma. There’s no need to repeat a failed experiment.

State-subsidized pre-K is an enormously expensive program that produces little to no lasting increase in student achievement.