3 ms·

I agree that my topmost comment was a little loose, but that wasn't targeted at any individual person. Having the relationship between correlation and observed

I agree that my topmost comment was a little loose, but that wasn't targeted at any individual person. Having the relationship between correlation and observed to you is not a dunk (I hope). The preponderance of evidence I've been exposed to does not show a strong positive clinically significant effect of mainstream kindergarten, the one Head Start study you referenced notwithstanding. For example, here is one study that finds in the opposite direction. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/0034654309359185?journalCode=rera https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3102/003465430935918... This is the sum of what I was trying to get across, in so many words. Sorry if the way I said it made you feel bad. I don't really want to cite studies at each other all day. I honestly don't have time for it and it's a little too amenable to cherry-picking. If there is a well-regarded summary of the literature that you're aware of, I'm happy to read it. But this really isn't that big of a deal to me, so please don't feel obligated to respond.

mlyle 6y ago
The cherry that you picked is a good example. You point to a study showing a small (but positive) marginal benefit of full-day kindergarten over half-day kindergarten to refute my original assertion that kindergarten in general is good? mkay. If you have academic library access, here's a Harvard meta-analysis of ECE (e.g. preschool/pre-K). 7 of the input studies were randomized to ECE vs. non-ECE. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X17737739 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X1773773...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  R.e. me cherry-picking my study: "But the association disappeared by third grade." Second sentence in the abstract? To me, an effect which disappears by third grade is not a small positive effect. It is no effect at all. R.e. your study: this table (https://imgur.com/a/VOqDjNo https://imgur.com/a/VOqDjNo) claims that ECE (i.e. pre-k and 3k) cause a twelve percentage point (20%) increase in the likelihood of graduating from high school. That does not pass the sniff test for me. The effect size is far too large -- it would be plain to everyone that ECE was a must-have if the effect were this big. No parent would opt not to send their kid to pre-K. The study authors acknowledge serious limitations to their methodology: > Limitations: Research is needed to address several important limitations of the work presented. First and most importantly, circumstances surrounding today’s ECE programs differ from those associated with many of the programs included in this analysis. Many programs in this analysis were implemented at a time when alternative care options were limited, mostly targeted particularly high-risk children, often included comprehensive “wrap-around” services and home visiting components, and frequently provided services for multiple years at a time. IMO, you cannot cite this study in opposition to my position ("kindergarten doesn't make a significant difference for most kids") in good conscience. It is a bad study, at least as it pertains to ECE for any non-at-risk kids.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    > R.e. me cherry-picking my study: "But the association disappeared by third grade." Second sentence in the abstract? To me, an effect which disappears by third grade is not a small positive effect. It is no effect at all. Yes, so there was a positive effect that was no longer measurable by third grade, when we're looking at the dose response of kindergarten. (And there's other studies pointing the other way re: dose-response). And, we're talking about kindergarten in general, not the marginal benefits of higher doses of kindergarten. That is-- if 200 mg ibuprofen is the standard of care, and we find people taking 400mg of ibuprofen have better outcomes than 200mg, then we think that probably ibuprofen is good (and 200mg would probably be better than 0). If we find taking 4000mg of ibuprofen is worse than taking 200mg, we can't really form any conclusions about the overall merits of 200mg vs. 0. > That does not pass the sniff test for me OK, so you don't like it. That's definitive. > IMO, you cannot cite this study It's not a study, it's a meta-analysis. > in opposition to my position ("kindergarten doesn't make a significant difference for most kids") Which is at least a clear position rather than the default position of snark. > It is a bad study It summarizes all the high quality research we have on the subject, and mentions/criticizes the earlier meta-analyses (which included many more component studies and found similar magnitudes of effect). > at least as it pertains to ECE for any non-at-risk kids. Of course, some of the component studies were of lower risk populations.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      > Which is at least a clear position rather than the default position of snark. I'll leave it to the reader to decide who has been the snarky one in this convo. I'm done with you.
      - dang 6y ago
        You also broke the site guidelines in this thread. Please do not take HN further into flamewars, and please don't get involved in nasty tit-for-tat spats. Those are particularly tedious. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mlyle 6y ago

The cherry that you picked is a good example. You point to a study showing a small (but positive) marginal benefit of full-day kindergarten over half-day kindergarten to refute my original assertion that kindergarten in general is good? mkay. If you have academic library access, here's a Harvard meta-analysis of ECE (e.g. preschool/pre-K). 7 of the input studies were randomized to ECE vs. non-ECE. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X17737739 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3102/0013189X1773773...

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
R.e. me cherry-picking my study: "But the association disappeared by third grade." Second sentence in the abstract? To me, an effect which disappears by third grade is not a small positive effect. It is no effect at all. R.e. your study: this table (https://imgur.com/a/VOqDjNo https://imgur.com/a/VOqDjNo) claims that ECE (i.e. pre-k and 3k) cause a twelve percentage point (20%) increase in the likelihood of graduating from high school. That does not pass the sniff test for me. The effect size is far too large -- it would be plain to everyone that ECE was a must-have if the effect were this big. No parent would opt not to send their kid to pre-K. The study authors acknowledge serious limitations to their methodology: > Limitations: Research is needed to address several important limitations of the work presented. First and most importantly, circumstances surrounding today’s ECE programs differ from those associated with many of the programs included in this analysis. Many programs in this analysis were implemented at a time when alternative care options were limited, mostly targeted particularly high-risk children, often included comprehensive “wrap-around” services and home visiting components, and frequently provided services for multiple years at a time. IMO, you cannot cite this study in opposition to my position ("kindergarten doesn't make a significant difference for most kids") in good conscience. It is a bad study, at least as it pertains to ECE for any non-at-risk kids.
- mlyle 6y ago
  > R.e. me cherry-picking my study: "But the association disappeared by third grade." Second sentence in the abstract? To me, an effect which disappears by third grade is not a small positive effect. It is no effect at all. Yes, so there was a positive effect that was no longer measurable by third grade, when we're looking at the dose response of kindergarten. (And there's other studies pointing the other way re: dose-response). And, we're talking about kindergarten in general, not the marginal benefits of higher doses of kindergarten. That is-- if 200 mg ibuprofen is the standard of care, and we find people taking 400mg of ibuprofen have better outcomes than 200mg, then we think that probably ibuprofen is good (and 200mg would probably be better than 0). If we find taking 4000mg of ibuprofen is worse than taking 200mg, we can't really form any conclusions about the overall merits of 200mg vs. 0. > That does not pass the sniff test for me OK, so you don't like it. That's definitive. > IMO, you cannot cite this study It's not a study, it's a meta-analysis. > in opposition to my position ("kindergarten doesn't make a significant difference for most kids") Which is at least a clear position rather than the default position of snark. > It is a bad study It summarizes all the high quality research we have on the subject, and mentions/criticizes the earlier meta-analyses (which included many more component studies and found similar magnitudes of effect). > at least as it pertains to ECE for any non-at-risk kids. Of course, some of the component studies were of lower risk populations.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    > Which is at least a clear position rather than the default position of snark. I'll leave it to the reader to decide who has been the snarky one in this convo. I'm done with you.
    - dang 6y ago
      You also broke the site guidelines in this thread. Please do not take HN further into flamewars, and please don't get involved in nasty tit-for-tat spats. Those are particularly tedious. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html