3 ms·
Yeah I thought there were a lot of weird things about the results. As you say, it's hard to explain the pattern observed in terms of the pre-K program itself; t
by derbOac 5y ago
Yeah I thought there were a lot of weird things about the results. As you say, it's hard to explain the pattern observed in terms of the pre-K program itself; the explanations in the article sort of ignore the interim outcomes.
My guess is something like what you're mentioning is going on, or there's some kind of odd, subtle sampling bias or attrition bias.
Then again too, if there's another similar design that comes to the opposite conclusion maybe it's just sampling variability and it's all null in the end.
- perilunar 5y ago>it's hard to explain the pattern observed in terms of the pre-K program itself; What's so hard to explain? The article points out that the poor kids got drilling, worksheets and lectures, while wealthy kids get play-based programs. The results are no surprise to me at all. Young kids need play, not teaching.
- skyde 5y agoHow do you know explain your conclusion? If you are correct and teaching young kid didn’t work it would be a waste of time but not make the kid grade worse or better. if young kid need to play wouldn’t the kid that played get better grade in grade 1?