<<  <  >  >>

Page 12

taxpayers a return on investment of $7.16 on the dollar."60

Advocates rely heavily on that cost/benefit analysis to

make their case that preschool is an investment that more

than pays for itself in the long term.

The High/Scope researchers' interpretation of the

long-term findings is that the preschool program prepared

children for kindergarten, which resulted in a more posi-

tive reaction by kindergarten teachers that, in turn,

caused the children to have a stronger commitment to

school.  That is sometimes called the snowball hypothesis.

Three researchers from Yale University explain: "The snow-

ball hypothesis presumes that children who attend quality

intervention programs are better prepared socially and aca-

demically when they begin school.  This enables them to

interact positively with their teachers, who in turn

relate positively to them, and this tone of adult-child

relationships continues in progressive years of school."61

Others posit that the home visitation component was large-

ly responsible for the results.  They hypothesize that

people became more effective parents as a result of their

involvement in the program.  Experiences such as building

relationships with teachers may help parents establish a

more supportive home environment and effective "home-school

linkages."62   At any rate, there is no consensus on what

components of the program were responsible for the chil-

dren's gains.  The critical question remains, how could a

one- or two-year half-day preschool program produce such

outstanding results?

The High/Scope researchers have been subject to heavy

criticism for using nonstandard significance levels.  If

standard significance levels are used, many of the most

"significant" differences between the experimental and con-

trol groups disappear.63   Psychology professor Charles

Locurto of the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts

argues that the Perry results are less remarkable when all

findings, not just those that favor Perry, are considered.

He writes:

We might marry the large number of nonsignificant

and unfavorable findings into a different picture

of the Perry Project's outcomes.  We might argue

that preschool training resulted in no differ-

ences in school motivation or school potential at

the time of school entry, no lasting changes in

IQ or achievement test performance. . . . There

were no differences in their average grades as

compared to former control-group children, in

their personal satisfaction with their school

performance or in their self-esteem.  Their par-