The value of evidence is determined by its validity, reliability, and interpretation

I’ve been following with interest recent articles related to research about full-day kindergarten, as noted in a previous post.

An April 1, 2014 Globe and Mail article, which contributes to the discussion about what the research means and implies, is entitled: “Four questions about full-day kindergarten that matter more than test scores.”

The article concludes with the following paragraph:

• Even so, we would be wrong to expect that full-day kindergarten will fix all problems for every child, and perhaps both experts and politicians should have been more cautious about over-selling it, especially at the beginning. A universal system offered to all families will not produce the same results as the targeted, specially-designed interventions for disadvantaged children often cited in U.S. studies. Sweden took decades to create a preschool system that earns praises around the world (hopefully, we can learn from them and go faster.) Given the size of the investment we need to ask critical questions about the program, without making hasty leaps. Ideally, ongoing research will reveal how we can make improvements, not just to the kindergarten program, but the next grades as well. For now, at least one group appears happy to reward the program an A-plus: the families actually using it.

Updates

A Feb. 8, 2016 CBC article is entitled: “Motherisk scandal highlights risk of deferring to experts without questioning credentials: Lab’s flawed hair testing echoes Charles Smith scandal, with similarly devastating effects.”

A Feb. 10, 2016 Guardian article is entitled: “Opinion vs facts: why do celebrities so often get it wrong? Celebrities often make wildly inaccurate claims and comments to millions of people. But the workings of our minds mean we’re all prone to such behaviour.”

A Feb. 22, 2016 New York Tims article is entitled: “For Mark Willenbring, Substance Abuse Treatment Begins With Research.”