9 ms·
This was interesting because all other evidence from large scale longitudinal studies points to the opposite conclusion. But there is the bold tag "Accurately R
by flipgimble 8y ago
This was interesting because all other evidence from large scale longitudinal studies points to the opposite conclusion. But there is the bold tag "Accurately Reported" on straighttalkonevidence.org after all
Reading through it appears authors have, maybe deliberately, misrepreented causality. The pre-k program was discontinued and kids were sent to poorly performing public school, they noticed a decline in academic achievement and blamed this on the pre-k program. Is it me or is this a good case of using statistics to tell whatever story fits your agenda?
Digging into further, looks like the website if funded by Laura and John Arnold Foundation [1]. Another billionaire (hedge fund manager) has found a way exploit the economy to siphon obscene amounts of money and as a result is the only one qualified to fix all of society.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_and_John_Arnold_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_and_John_Arnold_Foundati...
- collective-intl 8y agoNot true - I've seen this effect before in other studies, and already suspected it was true. It's surprising that the effects of pre-k turn negative after some years, but I think it's legit science. If there's any bias, it's for researchers to publish the opposite conclusion.
- flipgimble 8y agoYou make my point for me when you say that you already suspect the result and this proves it. Let’s not bring truth into this when it clearly using statistics to advocate your point of view.