Posted on 02/15/2013 8:58:50 AM PST by ExxonPatrolUs
Proponents of President Obama’s universal prekindergarten proposal make a strong case for the potential benefits of such a plan. Studies of about 100 low-income kids enrolled in two pricey and intensive preschool projects in the 1960s and 1970s found the children, while not experiencing any permanen IQ improvement, developed life skills that meant they were more likely as adults to hold a job, own a home, and stay out of jail than counterparts in a control group.
More recently studies of broader, statewide pre-K programs, particularly in Oklahoma provide some further evidence of effectiveness, though the results are certainly not ,without dispute. Russ Whitehurst of Brookings call them “thin empirical gruel” that shouldn’t “satisfy policymakers who want to practice evidence-based education.” And in The Wall Street Journal, Maria Fitzpatrick, professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University, cautions “results show that only some children gain—disadvantaged children, particularly those in rural areas—and that the effects fade out over time.”
So where does that leave us? Is it worth spending $100 billion over a decade on an education program whose benefits might prove transitory? What’s the downside of a implementing a broad, quality program with well-trained teachers and small class size — other than failure? Well, wasting $100 billion is not an insignificant downside. And once the program is in place, politicians will be tempted to expand it further, creating another unaffordable middle-class entitlement.
Moreover, since the federal funds are likely to be funneled through public schools, the pre-K plan represents a further retreat from school choice. Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation worries about a crowding out effect and a resulting “reduction in private preschool programs, including faith-based providers and non-profit preschools, [that]will result in diminished parental choice and control in education. Universal preschool will limit choice for parents because it will be difficult for private preschools to compete with highly subsidized or free government-supported programs.”
Educator Chester Finn, in a 2009 Washington Post piece, recommends that instead of a pre-K program for all, policymakers should focus on the following:
1. Delivering intensive, targeted education services — preferably starting at birth and including parents as well as children — to the relative handful of children (one or two of every 10 babies) who would truly be unready to succeed in school without heavy-duty interventions. Most are children of poor, young, single mothers, often of color, who themselves have little education.
2. Redeploying pre-K funds and revamping existing programs, beginning with Head Start, to emphasize the cognitive side of kindergarten preparation (e.g., pre-literacy skills such as letters, sounds and shapes) and judging the effectiveness of such programs by the readiness of their graduates.
3. Beefing up school-reform efforts so that the classrooms poor children enter have high standards, knowledgeable teachers, coherent curriculums and the ability to tailor instruction to children’s readiness levels — and to accumulate gains from year to year rather than dissipate and squander them.
There might be a compromise to be had on this issue.
I’m looking for the candidate who will eliminate the Department of Education.
Far from imposing universal “pre-K”, we have to return education to the states and municipalities.
And, in the mean-time, get your kids out of public school. Grandparents, you may have to help.
Makes me think of a picture from the movie: “Agenda: The grinding down of America”
From Russia in the 60’s (?) - nurses taking care of babies - dozens on a table with an edge to keep them from rolling off. I know I saw that as a child when the good sisters were teaching us about communism and how bad it was.
Scary...
We had kindergarten, but it wasn't required and I didn't go.
I subsequently did well all through school. I don't think I missed anything at all. Somehow I figured out how to cut with scissors without their help.
Parenting is hard, but the rewards for FREEDOM LOVING AMERICANS is that we can have kids who'll fight the LIBERALS!!!
I thought Reagan was supposed to eliminate education. Then a few years later we end up with Bill Bennett preaching to us about values and crap like that. What happened? The Reagan administration is an object lesson in Big Government: it grows. That’s it. Doesn’t matter who’s in charge.
If it doesn’t grow, or is shrunk back, that’s merely a stutter step. Check back in later, and it’ll be ahead of where you left it.
1, kids don’t need to go to “preschool”; they don’t need Kindergarten, either!
2, we don’t need more governmental control over our children and thus, the whole citizenry! It never ends with these tyrants!
Wouldn’t want those babies to stay home with their moms and dads for a few formative years, now would we? It’s just another program and another billion or so. And after the first week, it becomes an entitlement and you can already almost hear the screaming about how we dare not cut funding.
This is not a function permitted to the Federal Government. However, to a Socialist Autocrat the proscriptions of a written Constitution have no effect.
However, provision is made for Impeachment, but Courage must find other sources.
And the last thing I needed to do with my son at 3 or 4 is put him in a regimented program. He needed to be a boy, doing boy things.
***
Yes, exactly. That was my opinion, as well, when I was raising my little guys.
Tomorrow-the world belongs to us!
Right when we should be cutting “social” spending, Hussein wants to spend more.
The guy is a walking disaster for America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.