My 2 cents: While intriguing, I remain doubtful. My issue is that they give us the stats in averages. The control that stays home has significantly higher sco

My 2 cents: While intriguing, I remain doubtful. My issue is that they give us the stats in averages. The control that stays home has significantly higher scores on average. That part, I'm not disputing. What I'm asking is if the score distribution was normal or skewed. Out of the kids who stayed home, how many of them were spending quality time interacting with other kids, their parents, their siblings? AFAIK it's understood that quality social time can significantly help in other facets of life, vs say spending all day watching cartoons or on a phone, especially in these young impressionable years. If half of the kids who were at home had that experience, and _that_ boosted their scores, and pulled the average up for the entire group, then this study would be misleading. The question isnt "is pre k better than staying home"; it should be "is pre k better than the alternative to what the child would have received". pre-K programs are good when they are better than the alternative. From the I formation given (and granted I could be misunderstanding something), this study doesn't address that.