{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027151211361737676, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00835421888053467, 'mean_word_length': 5.319261213720317, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Universal Preschool – Developmentalists Enter the Fray

The rich alchemy of hunch and evidence has long shaped causal accounts of what social contexts and psychological experiences spur healthy child development. But when it comes to the controversial notion of state-run universal preschool, respected developmentalists are drifting onto thin ice. Jean Piaget, writing from the Sorbonne in 1957 and drawing from Johann Comenius, the 17th century philosopher, argued that ‘if the child is really a being in the process of spontaneous development, then individual study, independent exercises, and the transformation of capacities with age are possible’ [Piaget, 1967, p. 15]. Then, Piaget couldn’t resist contrasting his child-centered theory with the school’s mechanical notion of growth, simply focusing on ‘verbal and mnemonic transmission of adult knowledge through the teacher’s words to the pupil’s mind’ [Piaget, 1967, p. 15]. He was prophetic in the light of No Child Left Behind and enforced didactics now found in many contemporary public schools. Yet the casual blending of evidence on children’s growth with claims about institutions that aim to serve them can be risky. Witness how several respected developmentalists have jumped on the universal preschool bandwagon, including stellar thinkers like Deborah Stipek, Ruby Takanishi, and Ed Zigler. They have argued that the government should provide free preschool for all children, rather than focusing public dollars on poor children, the dominating priority over the past half-century. These and fellow scholars have been enlisted by well-heeled foundations to write op-eds and testify before legislative committees, that is, to lend legitimacy to a singular policy. Their heartfelt aims are virtuous. Indeed, the early childhood movement owes much to the work of developmentalists and allied social scientists, harking back to work of Arnold Gessell, Robert Hess, and Prof. Zigler – prompting the creation of Head Start. But the policy question today is no longer whether public action is desirable in lifting the early growth of young children, age 0–5, the issue is which children significantly benefit and through what kinds of preschool organizations. And the scientific question of how young children benefit from preschool classrooms – via what social and motivational processes – remains vastly undertheorized, beyond the