The Pitfalls of Early Gifted Education — Research Showing That "Starting Early" Is Not Always Better

Why this topic is on parents’ minds

When you are raising a 2-year-old, there is a period when what others around you are doing suddenly starts to bother you.

• A child of the same age in months has started going to Baby Park
• A mom friend said, “If you don’t start by age 3, it’ll be too late for brain development”
• On social media, you happened to see a video of a child reading hiragana at a year and a half
• Every time a direct mail ad for educational materials arrives, your chest tightens: “We aren’t doing anything…”

“Am I falling behind?” “Am I crushing this child’s potential?”—feeling anxiety and guilt comes precisely from thinking seriously about your child’s future.

So in this article, we re-examine, from the viewpoint of research, the very premise that “the earlier you start, the better.” We aim to take you to the point where, after reading, you can feel, “I’m already doing what matters.”

Not “early education is meaningless” — Heckman’s theory of early investment

There is something we want to make clear first. We do not intend to argue that “early education is meaningless.” Rather, research repeatedly shows that investment early in life strongly affects later learning, health, and socioeconomic outcomes.

Heckman’s “rate of return to human capital investment”

Nobel laureate in economics James Heckman (2006)

The review “Skill Formation and the Economics of Investing in Disadvantaged Children,” published in the journal Science

integrated long-term findings from economics, psychology, and neuroscience, and presented the conclusion that “the earlier in life educational investment is made, the higher the rate of return (the benefits gained later).” This is the finding widely known as the “Heckman curve.”

The Heckman curve — the rate of return to human capital investment

The famous finding that the rate of return to investment before school (ages 0 to 5) is overwhelmingly high

Reading this far, you may think, “So it really is better to start early.” But what Heckman says “should be invested in” is not drilling hiragana, numbers, and English into young children ahead of schedule.

What should be nurtured is “non-cognitive abilities”

Heckman, Pinto, and Savelyev (2013)

A paper (in the American Economic Review) that reanalyzed data following the “Perry Preschool Project,” a representative early intervention program in the United States, into the participants’ 40s

shows something that goes further. The Perry Preschool Project provided 2 years of high-quality preschool education to children ages 3 to 4, and even in their 40s, the participating children had better outcomes than the control group in employment, income, crime rates, health, and more.

The important discovery here is that “what mediated the good outcomes in adulthood was not the IQ that rose in early childhood, but non-cognitive skills such as self-control, conscientiousness, and social skills.” After the program, the difference in IQ disappeared within a few years, but what had been gained on the side of character, attitudes, and behavior supported their lives over the long term.

In other words, what Heckman’s research supports is this structure:

• Putting time and energy into early childhood is itself certainly valuable
• However, what should be nurtured is self-control, curiosity, perseverance, and ways of relating to others (= non-cognitive abilities)
• Even if drills and memorization push up IQ temporarily, the long-term effect is meager

The question is not “whether to start early or not,” but “what, and how to engage.”

Then what about “academic getting ahead” itself?

Here is the main topic. How is “academic getting ahead”—drilling hiragana, numbers, English words, and so on into children early for their age—evaluated in research?

Here too, without rushing to conclusions, let’s line up several studies.

Study A: Play-based preschools vs. academic preschools — the difference reverses a few years later

The results of Marcon of the University of North Florida (2002)a study that divided 343 children attending public schools in Washington, DC, by type of preschool class (child-initiated / academically directed / middle-of-the-road) and followed them to 3rd to 4th grade of elementary school paint an interesting picture.

• At year 5 of school, there was no difference in academic achievement among the 3 groups
• However, by year 6 of school, the grades of the group that had received academically centered instruction before school were significantly lower than those of the child-initiated group

The researcher interprets this as “formal learning experiences that came too early for the child’s age may have slowed later academic growth.”

However, this study is not a rigorous randomized trial, and other researchers, such as Lonigan and colleagues, have raised methodological points. It is not enough to generalize that “the academic type is always harmful.” Even so, it is one important piece of data showing that one cannot say flatly that “starting formal learning early gives a long-term advantage.”

Study B: The cost of academic getting ahead shows up in “motivation”

Stipek and colleagues at UCLA (1995)

A study (in Child Development) that compared 227 children ages 4 to 6 in academically centered (didactic) programs and child-centered programs

reports a more direct finding.

• Children in academically centered programs did score higher on tests of letters and reading (no difference in math)
• However, the results on measures of motivation were consistently negative:
  • They rated their own abilities lower
  • They had lower expectations of academic success
  • They tended to depend more on adults’ permission and approval
  • They took less pride in their achievements
  • More children answered that they “worry about school”

It is reported that the same tendency was seen regardless of whether children were from low-income or middle-income families, and whether they were preschoolers or kindergartners.

“Differences appear on tests in the short term, but the cost shows up in something that lasts longer: ‘liking to learn.’”—this is the picture that Stipek and colleagues’ research painted.

How to read the two studies

A and B are separate studies, but they point in a consistent direction.

• Academic getting ahead → differences on skill tests in the short term (this is a fact)
• A few years later, the difference disappears, or sometimes reverses (Marcon)
• As a cost, “motivation to learn,” “self-efficacy,” and “a sense of security about school” can fall (Stipek)

In other words, the premise that “cramming academics early gives a long-term advantage” is not strongly supported by research. Rather, it has been shown repeatedly that “easily visible short-term results” and “what works in the long term” sometimes point in opposite directions.

The fact that “play” is supported by research

“Then what is supported?”—this is probably the most important part.

the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) (2018)

The academy’s clinical report “The Power of Play”

integrates recent findings from developmental neuroscience, psychology, and pediatrics, and states the following.

“Developmentally appropriate play—play with parents and peers—is a singular opportunity to promote social-emotional, cognitive, language, and self-regulation skills.”

In particular, play led by the child with the adult responding (child-led play) is concluded to support:

• Executive function (the ability to plan, concentrate, and hold back impulses)
• Language and vocabulary
• Creativity and problem solving
• Coping with stress and regulating emotions
• A secure attachment relationship between parent and child

In other words, from the side of research, “time to play freely,” “time engaging with parents,” and “time reading picture books together” are exactly the evidence-based “early enrichment.” This is not “doing nothing”; it is providing the stimulation the child’s brain needs most, in the most natural form.

“You’re already doing it” — what we’d like you to look back on

To the moms who have read this far, there is something we want to tell you again.

The ordinary time you spend with your child is itself what research says “works.”

• When your child points at something, you reply, “That’s a car (vroom vroom)”
• You turn the pages of a picture book together on your lap
• When asked “What’s this?”, you get down to eye level and answer
• You let your child touch mud at the park
• You cook together and let them try: “Want to crack the egg?”
• Before bed, you talk: “Today was fun, wasn’t it?”

All of these are what Heckman calls “investment in non-cognitive abilities,” what the AAP calls “supporting development through play,” and what Stipek’s research confirmed “supports motivation to learn.”

“We don’t go to Baby Park,” “we haven’t bought English materials,” “we don’t do flashcards”—from the side of research, these are not states in which something is missing.

If you still feel “I want my child to do something”

Of course, the feeling of “I want to bring in something in addition to engagement at home” is natural too. In that case, as a guide for choosing, here are viewpoints from research findings.

This is not a story of “the one on the right is bad,” but a guide that the younger the child, the more weight you give to the one on the left, the more consistent with research findings it is.

What you can do at home instead

Even without being strongly conscious of “early gifted education,” there are many things you are already doing at home, and things you can bring in with a little awareness.

1. Engage responsively

When your child points at something, makes a sound, or changes their expression—meet their eyes and respond. Many studies have shown that this alone is very strong stimulation, both in terms of brain science and language development.

2. Read picture books in a dialogic way

The method of reading not just aloud, but while asking questions such as “What’s this?” and “Why do you think that is?” (dialogic reading) has also been confirmed effective in meta-analyses. We introduce it in detail in the article on reading picture books aloud (Japanese).

3. Secure time for free play

Running around the park, playing endlessly with blocks, pretend play—time that at first glance seems like “not learning anything” is the most important “learning time,” repeatedly emphasized in the AAP statement too. Not packing the schedule too tightly is also a fine “educational decision.”

4. Music, songs, and word play

Singing songs, playing shiritori (a word-chain game), clapping to a rhythm. They cost almost nothing, and several studies suggest they help with phonological awareness (the foundation of later reading and writing) and emotional regulation.

5. Don’t rush to help when your child “can’t get it to work”

Can’t do up a button, the blocks fell down, the sock is inside out—rather than an adult stepping in right away, take time to watch over them: “You’re working hard.” This is the standard approach in research for nurturing the non-cognitive abilities (perseverance, self-control) that Heckman’s research showed to be “most important.”

In closing

When the words “early gifted education” are used in advertising, they often carry a message aimed at parents’ anxiety: “If you don’t act now, your child’s potential will close off.”

From the side of research, that premise itself has weak grounds in places. What matters, rather, is that:

• Investing early is itself meaningful (Heckman)
• However, what should be nurtured is not skills measured by drills, but non-cognitive abilities such as self-control, curiosity, and perseverance (Heckman et al. 2013)
• Formal getting ahead, even if it creates differences in the short term, can disappear or backfire in the long term (Marcon, Stipek)
• Play and responsive engagement are the strongest enrichment (AAP)

Eating meals with your 2-year-old today too, reading picture books, laughing together—that time is, from the side of research too, the core of early enrichment. There is absolutely no need to let the messages in ads chase you into overwriting that time with anxiety and impatience.

Research details

Primary sources

StrongHeckman, J. J.2006Science, 312(5782), 1900-1902

Study design: A review paper in economics, psychology, and neuroscience (published in Science)

Scope: An integrated analysis of long-term follow-up data from representative early intervention programs in the United States (the Perry Preschool Project, the Abecedarian Project, etc.)

Main results: The rate of return to human capital investment is higher the earlier in life it is made (the so-called “Heckman curve”). However, what should be nurtured is not only cognitive skills but also non-cognitive skills such as self-control, motivation, and social skills. It concludes that early investment is far more cost-effective than remedial interventions later in life.

Limitations: The participants are mainly children from disadvantaged families in the United States. Because it is a review paper, it does not present new data.

StrongHeckman, Pinto, & Savelyev2013American Economic Review, 103(6), 2052-2086

Study design: A mediation analysis using long-term follow-up data from the Perry Preschool Project (a randomized controlled trial)

Participants: 123 children ages 3 to 4 in Michigan in the United States, starting in 1962-1967 (58 in the intervention group and 65 in the control group), followed to around age 40

Main results: The intervention group had better outcomes than the control group in employment, income, crime rates, health, and more. It showed that while the IQ that rose in early childhood was caught up with by the control group within a few years, non-cognitive skills such as self-control, conscientiousness, and social skills statistically mediated the long-term outcomes.

Limitations: The sample is relatively small (123 people). The participants were from socioeconomically disadvantaged African American families. Caution is needed about external validity for families in general.

Marcon, R. A.2002Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4(1)

Study design: A longitudinal follow-up study in Washington, DC, public schools (not randomized)

Participants: 343 children with experience of different types of preschool class (child-initiated / academically directed / middle-of-the-road) (96% African American, 75% eligible for subsidized school lunch). Followed to years 5 to 6 of school.

Main results: At year 5, there was no difference in grades among the groups. At year 6, the grades of the group that had experienced academically directed preschool were significantly lower than those of the child-initiated group. It suggests that formal instruction that came too early may have had a negative effect on later motivation to learn and grades.

Limitations: It is not a rigorous randomized trial, and there may be selection bias. Lonigan and others have raised methodological criticisms, and interpreting the results requires caution. The region and social groups covered are limited.

StrongStipek, Feiler, Daniels, & Milburn1995Child Development, 66(1), 209-223

Study design: A comparative study of different educational approaches (quasi-experimental design)

Participants: 227 children ages 4 to 6 (including low-income and middle-income families). Academically centered (didactic) preschools and kindergartens were compared with child-centered preschools and kindergartens.

Main results: The academically centered group scored significantly higher on tests of letters and reading (no difference in math). On the other hand, on measures of motivation, the academically centered group was consistently negative: lower self-ratings, lower expectations of success, greater dependence on adults, less pride in achievement, and more anxiety about school. The same tendency held across economic classes and age groups.

Limitations: It was not fully randomly assigned. It is a study in urban areas of the United States, so caution is needed in generalizing to regions with different cultural backgrounds.

StrongYogman, Garner, Hutchinson, Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, et al. (AAP)2018Pediatrics, 142(3), e20182058

Study design: A clinical report by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) (a statement by a professional society)

Scope: A review of the effects of play integrating recent findings from developmental neuroscience, psychology, and pediatrics

Main results: Developmentally appropriate play (especially play with parents and peers) is an irreplaceable opportunity that supports the development of social-emotional, cognitive, language, and self-regulation skills and the brain’s executive functions. It warns that child-led play time has decreased in recent years because of overscheduling and increased use of digital devices, and proposes a “prescription for play” to pediatricians.

Limitations: Because it is a policy statement, it does not provide new experimental data. Parts of it are set against the social context of the United States.