User:Kevahcoles/HighScope

Article Draft
By the time children were 10, there wasn't much of a difference in how children in the two groups performed on tests of cognitive ability.

Because the study was conducted in the 1960s, researchers have been able to follow the children who went through the Perry Preschool Program through adulthood. Economist and Nobel laureate James Heckman has found that adults from the treatment group were "much more likely to graduate high school, much more likely to make earnings, much more likely to go on to college, much less likely to commit crime." At age 19, 67% of the preschool group graduated high school, compared to only 49% of the control group. 59% of the preschool group was employed, and 32% of the control group. Within the preschool group, 38% went to pursued higher education, while only 21% of the control group did. There was a 20 percentage point difference between the two groups in regards to having ever been detained or arrested (31% for the preschool group, 51% for the control).

Heckman also found multigenerational benefits of the program: children of participants in the program appear to have benefitted. According to Heckman, "We find some very strong effects. The children of the participants are healthier. The children of the participants are also earning more. They have better social and emotional skills, are more likely to graduate high school and go on to college, less likely to engage in the criminal justice system, so they're less likely to be incarcerated or even have ever been arrested."

Peer Review-Katelyn Nels (3/7/22) ~


 * 1) I really like how you include that in 1960, there was not much of a difference in test scores between the two groups. I also really like how you are then able to go on and explain how each group progressed through school with data to support it.
 * 2) I think that you should start off by defining what the two groups you are comparing before you start getting right into the study conducted, just so any confusion for the reader is eliminated. Along with this I would also define what the experimental group is and what the control group is.
 * 3) The most important thing to change in this draft is just to be specific and define what you are talking about. Other than that, it is looking really good so far.
 * 4) I really liked how you included so much data, and I think I am going to try and incorporate some more data into my article because it makes the article stronger and more reliable.

Peer Review Sctbr


 * I think you have done a good job of improving the neutrality of this section by removing the sentence "Results were initially disappointing" from the original article.
 * I wonder if you can cite the data to Heckman himself, instead of to Spring, even though Spring does provide authority and avoids any risk of introducing your own interpretations. You could perhaps cite to both of them for different parts of your statement.
 * I would consider changing the phrase "because the study was conducted in the 1960s, researchers have been able to follow the children who went through the Perry Preschool Program through adulthood" for a couple reasons. First, the sentence structure strikes me as a little clunky. Second, I'm not sure that it is necessary. Third, "researchers" is unspecific and could perhaps use a citation.
 * I might consider paraphrasing the extended quote from Heckman which makes up the second paragraph of your section. I think that Wikipedia generally does not like extensive quoting (though I might have my own personal disagreements with this).