<<  <  >  >>

Page 10

schooling can be harmful to children.  Zigler explains,

"There is a large body of evidence indicating that there

is little if anything to be gained by exposing middle-

class children to early education. . . . Those who argue

in favor of universal preschool education ignore evidence

that indicates early schooling is inappropriate for many

four-year-olds and that it may even be harmful to their

development."46   Abundant evidence supports that conclusion.

Zigler, for example, cites research showing that con-

versations they have at home may be the richest source of

linguistic and cognitive enrichment for children from all

but the most deprived backgrounds.47   He also cites

research showing that premature schooling can potentially

slow or reduce a child's overall development by replacing

valuable play time.48

Elkind describes the potential harm of early schooling

this way: "When we instruct children in academic subjects

. . . at too early an age, we miseducate them; we put them

at risk for short-term stress and long-term personality

damage for no useful purpose.  There is no evidence that

such early instruction has lasting benefits, and consider-

able evidence that it can do lasting harm."49  Elkind

argues that when children receive academic instruction too

early (generally before age six or seven), they are put at

risk for no apparent gain.  By attempting to teach the

wrong things at the wrong time, early instruction can per-

manently damage a child's self-esteem, reduce a child's nat-

ural eagerness to learn, and block a child's natural gifts

and talents.  He concludes, "If we do not wake up to the

potential danger of these harmful practices, we may do

serious damage to a large segment of the next generation."50

Before lawmakers decide to make preschool an

entrenched institution, like public kindergarten, they

should seriously consider those findings.  To go forward

with plans for universal preschool, despite abundant evi-

dence that early schooling is often harmful to mainstream

children, would be exceedingly irresponsible.

Still fewer studies have examined or demonstrated

long-term effects of intervention on children's develop-

ment.  (Long-term is defined as four or more years after

program participation.)  Like the short-term studies, most

long-term studies have significant methodological problems.

They are impaired by small sample size, attrition, and

selection bias.51   Furthermore, most programs studied are

model programs, not large-scale programs, which means they

are severely limited in statistical power and generaliz-

ability.52   The consensus in the literature is that two