<<  <  >  >>

Page 13

ents were no more likely to talk with teachers

about school work or to attend school activities

and functions than control-group parents.

Preschool children were more likely to have been

placed in remedial education.  By age 19, they

were unemployed at a rate equal to that of their

control-group counterparts.64

In addition, questions have been raised concerning the

Perry sample and methodology.  According to Zigler,

[The Perry sample] was not only nonrepresentative

of children in general; there is some doubt that

it was representative of even the bulk of econom-

ically disadvantaged children. . . . The Perry

Project poses a number of methodological difficul-

ties. . . . Children had to have a parent at home

during the day, resulting in a significant dif-

ference between control and intervention groups

on the variable of maternal employment . . .

[and] assignment to experimental and control

groups was not wholly random.65

Whether or not one believes the Perry findings are

valid, there are several facts that should prevent legis-

lators from basing policy recommendations for universal

preschool on the study.  First, in more than 40 years, no

other program or study has produced results as dramatic as

those found for Perry.66  That suggests that there may have

been unique conditions at the Perry Preschool that simply

cannot be duplicated.  Certainly, as a general principle,

science requires an experiment to be replicable before it

can be considered valid.  Policymakers should be no less

cautious when it comes to applying findings to millions of

children.

Second, benefits were obtained only for severely dis-

advantaged children at risk of "retarded intellectual func-

tioning"; it is simply inappropriate to generalize the

effects of Perry to all children.  This is particularly

important given the studies that suggest that preschool

may actually be harmful to many mainstream children.

Third, Perry children may have outperformed children

in the control group, but they still fared poorly compared

with mainstream children.  For example, nearly one-third

of participating children dropped out of high school,

nearly one-third of the children were arrested, and three

of five participating children received welfare assistance

as adults.67   That has led many researchers to be more

level-headed about the likely effects of early interven-