I also question (would have to look further) into the studies.
There are many types of poverty. Painting with very broad strokes - there are 2 types of poverty in my area (and elsewhere I have lived in Canada).
1. People who are situationally poor. They may have had bad luck, be young, or made a few poor choices - but their poverty is often temporary. Many people who are situationally poor have excellent social and academic skills/resources.
2. People who are generationally poor and at-risk. There may be compounding factors - like growing up in rough neighbourhoods, poor nutrition choices, smoking, alcoholism/drug use, cycles of fostercare
Group A is very different from group B.
Group A is also far more likely to be in programs (including headstart type programs) than group B. Once upon a time I was on welfare in British Columbia. I was definitely type A. I was in a few programs that targeted young or poor moms - and you know who else was in these programs? Other type A moms. Heck, one mom had a partner that was getting his Masters. They were just poor at the time.
On the other hand, type B are very, very difficult to get into any program. I know. I have seen it.
So...saying preschool helps kids climb out of poverty may be misleading. It could be programs are filled with type A families and their kids probably would have been fine with or without preschool.
A study would need to compare type A families with and without preschool or type B families with and without preschool to be valid. Comparing A to B could give very skewed results.
Edited by purslaine - 7/30/11 at 12:11pm
Follow Mothering