Universal pre-K for American children: why are we not doing this?

[Direckshun]

We have extensive evidence that pre-K education programs make a huge difference in the early learning trajectories of children (David Brooks accurately cites the the Perry and Abecedarian projects as stunning successes). There's evidence that it could reduce poverty and increase the most important aspect of America: social mobility. Social mobility is why America is America -- and universal pre-K helps make that possible.

Head Start has had a difficult time showing the same kind of successes, but many states have supplemented and refined it to actually produce effective results. The Obama administration's plan is to enhance these state improvements by providing funding, and measuring their results -- in other words, it's a perfectly federalist solution. States do all the work, the federal government measures their success and buttresses their efforts financially.

The key: score some incremental improvement through state experimentation. That improvement early in life becomes a key advantage later in life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/op....html?hp&_r=1&

When Families Fail
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: February 14, 2013

Today millions of American children grow up in homes where they don’t learn the skills they need to succeed in life. Their vocabularies are tiny. They can’t regulate their emotions. When they get to kindergarten they’ve never been read a book, so they don’t know the difference between the front cover and the back cover.

But, starting a few decades ago, we learned that preschool intervention programs could help. The efforts were small and expensive, but early childhood programs like the Perry and Abecedarian projects made big differences in kids’ lives. The success of these programs set off a lot of rhapsodic writing, including by me, about the importance of early childhood education. If government could step in and provide quality preschool, then we could reduce poverty and increase social mobility.

But this problem, like most social problems, is hard. The big federal early childhood program, Head Start, has been chugging along since 1965, and the outcomes are dismal. Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institution summarizes the findings of the most rigorous research: “There is no measurable advantage to children in elementary school of having participated in Head Start. Further, children attending Head Start remain far behind academically once they are in elementary school. Head Start does not improve the school readiness of children from low-income families.”

Fortunately, that is not the end of the story. Over the past several years, there’s been a flurry of activity, as states and private groups put together better early childhood programs. In these programs, the teachers are better trained. There are more rigorous performance standards. The curriculum is better matched to the one the children will find when they enter kindergarten.

These state programs, in places like Oklahoma, Georgia and New Jersey, have not been studied as rigorously as Head Start. There are huge quality differences between different facilities in the same state or the same town. The best experts avoid sweeping conclusions. Nonetheless, there’s a lot of evidence to suggest that these state programs can make at least an incremental difference in preparing children for school and in getting parents to be more engaged in their kids’ education.

These programs do not perform miracles, but incremental improvements add up year by year and produce significantly better lives.

Enter President Obama. This week he announced the most ambitious early childhood education expansion in decades. Early Thursday morning, early education advocates were sending each other ecstatic e-mails. They were stunned by the scope of what Obama is proposing.

But, on this subject, it’s best to be hardheaded. So I spent Wednesday and Thursday talking with experts and administration officials, trying to be skeptical. Does the president’s plan merely expand the failing federal effort or does it focus on quality and reform? Is the president trying to organize a bloated centralized program or is he trying to be a catalyst for local experimentation?

So far the news is very good. Obama is trying to significantly increase the number of kids with access to early education. The White House will come up with a dedicated revenue stream that will fund early education projects without adding to the deficit. These federal dollars will be used to match state spending, giving states, many of whom want to move aggressively, further incentive to expand and create programs.

But Washington’s main role will be to measure outcomes, not determine the way states design their operations. Washington will insist that states establish good assessment tools. They will insist that pre-K efforts align with the K-12 system. But beyond that, states will have a lot of latitude.

Should early education centers be integrated with K-12 school buildings or not? Should the early childhood teachers be unionized or certified? Obama officials say they want to leave those sorts of questions up to state experimentation. “I’m just about building quality,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan told me. The goal is to make the federal oversight as simple as possible.

That’s crucial. There’s still a lot we don’t know about how to educate children that young. The essential thing is to build systems that can measure progress, learn and adapt to local circumstances. Over time, many children will migrate from Head Start into state programs.

This is rude to say, but here’s what this is about: Millions of parents don’t have the means, the skill or, in some cases, the interest in building their children’s future. Early childhood education is about building structures so both parents and children learn practical life skills. It’s about getting kids from disorganized homes into rooms with kids from organized homes so good habits will rub off. It’s about instilling achievement values where they are absent.

President Obama has taken on a big challenge in a realistic and ambitious way. If Republicans really believe in opportunity and local control, they will get on board.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

(Source.)

Yeah, the entitlement system not only saddles kids with debt but robs them of opportunity. Baby Boomers are the worst generation for a number of reasons but the ease with which they can rip off their children and grand children may be the most offensive.

We have plenty of cash in the Ed budget for this. We just need to mandate that 90 cents on the dollar spent on education goes to classroom expenses. We could free up a big chunk of capital that way. If it turns out there isn't enough cash form the pre k program I would be open to spending more because I know it isn't going to pay for some administrative lackey whose workday consists of day trading and angry birds. In short, show me dept of Ed can spend money effectively and efficiently and I am happy to support funding shit like this.

[Hoover]

I don't plan to educate my kids in government schools, so were is the opt out for people like me?

[Iowanian]

Home school is a choice. You'll use plenty of school resources.

Pay up, sucka.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by WhiteWhale

I was a complete social retard until 2nd grade.

I didn't have 'emotional problems' I just reacted emotionally because it was unfamiliar and I felt strange and isolated around other kids.

I got over it, but those formative years would have been much easier socially if I had some experience with kids prior to starting school. 5 years old is too late to start socializing kids. The longer you wait, the longer you set back their social development. Pre-k is a great way to do that.

Who are you to tell other parents when and how their children should be socialized?
Not everyone is like you either.

Quit being authoritarian about this in a free country. This is not a govt matter—there is also no Constitutional authority for the Federal govt being involved in such engineering or any education.

Some kids never socialize, despite going to public school. Look at the current socialization results today from that. . There was a time in America when there were neighborhoods full of kids interacting with each other daily outside before K. Kids did just fine, actually better in some ways then. Of course mothers were home then too.

Do you think our Founders were unsocialized too? There's something to say for playing outdoors in open space on their own than being crammed in buildings with some authoritarian adult bossing them around on what to do.

[petegz28]

great...."free day care!!!"

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by Hoover

I don't plan to educate my kids in government schools, so were is the opt out for people like me?

There is no opt-out for the tax system. Your recourse is voting for politicians who will lower the tax rates.

[HonestChieffan]

"The White House will come up with a dedicated revenue stream that will fund early education projects without adding to the deficit."

Tax Increases again......

[Prison Bitch]

Naw, I'm sure they'll cut from an existing social program to make the "investment" pay for itself.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Hoover

I don't plan to educate my kids in government schools, so were is the opt out for people like me?

Well, bye.

[RedNeckRaider]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

"The White House will come up with a dedicated revenue stream that will fund early education projects without adding to the deficit."

Tax Increases again......

Post 14~

[HonestChieffan]

"That proposal actually has several components, including financial assistance to help parents pay for infant and toddler care...."

More chilren means bigger paydays....I loves me some big gov

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

"That proposal actually has several components, including financial assistance to help parents pay for infant and toddler care...."

Isn't that already covered in the SNAP/WIC programs? Why do we need another?

[DementedLogic]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

(Source.)

Looks like the federal government is spending way too much on elderly people.

[RedNeckRaider]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

Looks like the federal government is spending way too much on elderly people.

Yeah after collecting from them for decades the bill has come due, how many trillions are they paying in interest on for the money that was promised to be in the SS fund again?

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by DementedLogic

Looks like the federal government is spending way too much on elderly people.

To be fair, that's because elderly people cost a lot more to take care of.