Is it too Much? The Possible Harms of Early Education in a Group Setting

The prevailing thought on early childhood education is that early intervention will increase school readiness and can in turn improve educational, social, and economic outcomes for students. However, research on the subject has struggled to universally affirm these notions.

Evidence substantiating these claims requires examining the long-term effects of these programs, and we have only recently reached the point where multiple cohorts of students have been studied into adulthood. Thus far, the results have been inconclusive.¹ This has not, however, halted efforts to expand and promote early childhood education, leaving many parents wondering what is best for their child.

Since the year 2000, about 50 percent of children ages 3–4 have been enrolled in early childhood education (ECE) programs. Just 30 years earlier, in 1970, it was only 20 percent. For five-year-olds, it is nearly 90 percent.²

Following an expansion of state funding for kindergarten and pre-K programs in the 70s and 80s, enrollment more than doubled. Since then, ECE has become commonplace.

For the most part, parents remain free to make these choices for themselves—only 17 states have mandatory kindergarten education, and pre-K is not mandatory anywhere.³ That could change, however, if legislators make efforts to expand these programs in order to address declining test scores in public schools.

These efforts may be well-intentioned but they do not incorporate an understanding of the broader research. There is a decided lack of consensus in the data or among researchers.⁴ Some studies show positive short term outcomes for ECE, but many also show that these benefits may be short lived, and a few studies, like those reviewed here, show long term negative impacts of starting school too soon. In light of this it is our firm belief that these decisions should remain in the hands of parents.

Pre-K: The Impact of Early Intervention

Two early longitudinal studies of program models—the Perry Preschool and Abecedarian Project—form the basis for many of the claimed benefits of pre-K programs. Both programs showed long term positive effects on academic performance, employment, income, criminal behavior, and health.⁵

However, the small size and resource-intensive nature of these programs makes them cost-prohibitive and difficult to scale, and the positive outcomes have not been replicated in larger programs.⁶

Because the rapid expansion of pre-K programs has occurred mostly during the last two decades, much of the related research is relatively new. Between 2002 and 2017, there was a nearly $4 billion increase in state spending for pre-K programs. While substantial evidence shows that pre-K programs improve short-term outcomes, the results of medium-length studies have been more mixed.⁷ Critically, to-date, only two studies have tracked the long-term impacts of large-scale pre-K programs, and neither is encouraging.

The first of these studies was commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services and examined the long-term results of the Head Start Program. The study found that, on average, by the 3rd grade there were no significant differences between those who did and did not attend the program.⁸

Critically, to-date, only two studies have tracked the long-term impacts of large-scale pre-K programs, and neither is encouraging.

Two additional long-term studies were conducted by researchers at Vanderbilt University who examined the performance of 2,990 students in Tennessee from pre-K through 3rd grade⁹ and again during a follow-up study of the same students through the 6th grade.¹⁰ The randomized study compared students who participated in Tennessee’s voluntary pre-K program with those who did not. HSLDA reported on this research when the findings were first released in 2022.¹¹

In the study, researchers examined students who applied to attend state sponsored pre-K programs. About half of the applicants were admitted, while the remaining applicants were placed on wait lists. Participants for the study were randomly selected from both groups. Researchers then tracked each group’s end-of-year test scores, disciplinary infractions, and receipt of special education assistance. The control and treatment groups were selected to be representative of the whole state and matched demographically to ensure that the only major variable between them was whether or not they attended pre-K.

Results indicated that those who attended pre-K outperformed their peers at the beginning of kindergarten, but the two groups achieved parity during the kindergarten and first grade years.

Continued data collected over the course of the study found that students who participated in the pre-K program consistently scored lower than their peers on year-end achievement tests, and they did so by widening margins as the students progressed from grade to grade.

More troubling were the behavioral and developmental outcomes researchers observed in students who attend state-funded pre-K programs. The researchers in the Tennessee study found that 11 percent of the students who participated in pre-K received special education services, compared to only 8 percent of those that did not enroll in pre-K.¹²

By 6th grade, the pre-K participants were more likely to have been disciplined for rule violations, more likely to have one or more major disciplinary offenses, and more likely to have any sort of disciplinary offense. As before, the margins between these two groups widened during successive years. Children who participated in pre-K programs were also more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior and lack self-control.

Similarly, the aforementioned Abecedarian program reported increased aggressive behavior from participants in the early grades, and two samples from the National Center for Education Statistics found that children exhibited less self-control if they had any type of center-based care outside the home before kindergarten.¹³ This is particularly striking considering research which indicates that self-control in childhood is predictive of health and success in adulthood.¹⁴

But What about Kindergarten?

The Tennessee studies, and many studies like them, primarily focus on pre-K education. Studies on kindergarten programs are less prolific but have similarly mixed results, and while the findings are less alarming, they also don’t show compelling evidence in support of the programs.

A professor at Dartmouth College measured data from 24 states between 1954 and 1978, during the expansion of kindergarten programs nationwide. The researcher, Elizabeth Cascio, examined the claim that “kindergarten would provide the preparation children need to succeed in the elementary school years.”¹⁵ Proponents of kindergarten believed that earlier education would reduce spending on special and remedial education, as well as reduce public assistance needs and lower incarceration rates.

To examine these and other claimed benefits of kindergarten, Cascio compared the outcomes for students before and after the expansion of state-funded kindergarten. Her findings showed that, while kindergarten funding did have a significant impact on enrollment, there were no significant long-term effects on dropout rates, individual earnings, or receipt of public assistance. The only notable effect was a reduction in incarceration rates for white men, an effect that was not replicated for African-Americans.¹⁶

Another pair of studies found a disconnect between instructional content and student knowledge in kindergarten. Using a nationally representative sample, the studies found that more than three-quarters of students entering kindergarten already possess basic literacy and mathematics skills. Yet those same skills remained the primary focus of instruction for kindergarten teachers. The result was that, the only students who made any significant progress were those who had not already mastered those basic skills before kindergarten entry.¹⁷

A more recent study by Dee and Sievertsen examined Danish students and found that a one-year delay in kindergarten enrollment improved mental health outcomes for students.¹⁸ In Denmark, students are expected to enroll in kindergarten the calendar year they turn 6, which creates a natural division in cohorts between those who turn 6 shortly before January 1st and those who turn 6 shortly after.

The researchers utilized a mental health screening test called the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) which Danish students take periodically to identify potential mental health concerns. Dee and Sievertsen compared the SDQ results of students who were born before and after January 1st at age 7 and again at age 11.¹⁹

Tests scores at age 7 showed a stark difference between the two cohorts. When comparing the “younger” 7-year-olds with the “older” 7-year-olds, the older students reported lower rates of emotional stress, inattention/hyperactivity, peer problems, and conduct issues, and higher rates of pro-social behaviors. Several years later, when the students took the test again at age 11, these margins had widened. The most dramatic difference was seen in rates of inattention, hyperactivity, and self-regulation.²⁰ The researchers noted that this supported existing literature emphasizing the importance of pretend play which is thought to improve abstract and symbolic reasoning and necessitates intellectual and emotional self-regulation.

Let the Children Play

Taken together, these studies undoubtedly paint a conflicting picture for formal pre-K and kindergarten programs. Why these state-run programs fail to achieve their long-term goals is uncertain, but most studies point to center-based care outside of the home as a common denominator. However, none of these studies examine the effects of early education in a homeschool environment.

Because pre-K and kindergarten programs in a homeschool setting can be tailor-made to fit the needs of the children involved, parents can potentially avoid the pitfalls of state-funded programs that are created for large classrooms. Depending on the state in which they live, homeschool families are free to choose when they begin formal or informal education, how long their young child’s school day is, and what curriculum would be most appropriate for their child.

Current research indicates that formal education at a young age has no real long-term benefit, and in many cases, harmful negative results. However, some cases are unique. 

A young child may see their older siblings working on their lessons in a homeschool and ask to participate. In such cases, it may be helpful to craft an age-appropriate curriculum for that child so that they can be included in your school day. Or, in cases of children who show advanced tendencies, formal homeschool education at a younger age may be valuable.

Current research indicates that formal education at a young age has no real long-term benefit, and in many cases, harmful negative results.

We recommend that further research be done specifically on homeschooling children at these early ages before further conclusions are drawn that lead to policy development.

So, should homeschooling parents formally teach their young children? While the answer to this question remains complex, there is one definite conclusion: You shouldn’t be required to.

Research has made it apparent that the practice can actually be harmful to children over the long term. Every child and circumstance is different, and home educators should be allowed to adapt to those situations. The choice of early childhood education should be left up to parents, not mandated by the state.