Winning on Pre-K
This past week, Illinois Governor Blagojevich signed the first law in the nation that establishes the goal of universally-available public preschool for all 3- and 4-year olds in that state by 2010.
As detailed in yesterday's Progressive States Dispatch, this is just part of the trend of states taking bold actions in extending pre-K programs-- both to enhance early educational opportunities and ease burdens on working parents.
Just in 2005, state lawmakers increased pre-K funding by $600 million across 26 states, adding 180,000 more children to pre-school rolls around the country.
And the increased commitments to pre-K continued this year. As just one example, Tennessee announced that it will add 227 new pre-K classes to serve 5000 "at risk" 4-year-olds statewide, bringing the state total to 13,500, funded by a combination of state lottery and general revenues.
Still, most families across the country either have to pay for private programs or do without preschool for their kids, since fewer than 10 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds nationwide are in state-funded preschool programs. Because of this, states are increasingly moving towards integrating existing preschool programs into a more universal pre-K program that is seen as an extension of the overall K-12 public education system. In creating its goal of universal pre-K, Illinois is joining Florida, Georgia and Oklahoma as states with statewide preschool programs.
And other states are looking to join these pioneers; while California voters did not support a recent pre-K ballot initiative (partly some analysts believe because of general ballot initiative fatigue), the legislature did support a substantial expansion of preschool funds. And new Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has announced the goal of universal preschool for every 4-year old in that state, although the plan is not likely to be introduced until 2008 after a commission established by the governor comes back with recommendations on the best way to design and fund the program.
Check out the background and resources on the issue in the Dispatch, but its worth emphasizing that while progressive legislation is largely dead in the water in DC, states are moving forward, often dramatically in a case like preschool program expansion.
Every step in the right direction is to be commended, but there are other issues that should be addressed at the same time.
For example, parents in poor families talk to their children less than in better off ones. This is on top of the well-known lack of reading to kids and helping them with their school work. Some of this may have to do with less educated parents being less verbal, or perhaps, they have less time or energy to spend with their children, or perhaps, they think the proper parenting style is to let kids discover things on their own or with their peers.
So a program to improve parenting skills to go along with the pre-school classes for the kids would be a worthwhile addition. Better health and nutrition are also important. Hungry kids don't learn well.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
August 1, 2006 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this will do more to help improve outcomes for poor students than most of the features of No Child Left Behind. Many lower income children come into school with what amounts to an insurmountable disadvantage. Children who have not had a chance to develop verbal skills much less reading and social skills are dropped in with students with the whole array. Many never catch up, perhaps because school is never a pleasant experience. It also could make it easier for some mothers to work, providing additional resources at home as well.
August 1, 2006 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the most valuable thing that pre-K does is to bring surrogate parents (AKA teachers) into a child's life--especially during critical phases of early child development.
Increasing parenting skills is a noble pursuit, but it may be far better to get a child into a healthy learning environment, than it is for adult parents to learn better parenting skills.
August 2, 2006 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's understand something. This pre-K proposal, combined with longer school days in public schools, is nothing more than a hidden "day care" at taxpayers' expense.
August 4, 2006 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with that. Many societies provide day care for young children (either free or subsidized). There is a net gain to society, the children do better in latter life and the parents can go out and find productive work instead of being tied to the home.
So, in most cases, their is a net gain to society both social and economic. Public daycare is also cheaper than private and provides a service to those who can least afford private care. Public care also is subject to public ovesight which means the centers are better maintained and staffed.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
August 4, 2006 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally do not wish to pay for other peoples' choices. If they wish to have children, they can feel free to pay for the children that they have. But not foist the expenditures onto the backs of the taxpayers.
Your rather nebulous "rationale" could be used to justify expenditures for virtually anything. As long as you approved the expenditures, of course.
August 6, 2006 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the correct way to look at education is the reverse of what everyone thinks. You, as an adult, are paying for the education you received as a child. As a child you could not pay for your education, so society advanced you the money. As an adult you are now obligated to pay it back.
Your attitude is a perfect example of what Jared Bernstein has called the YOYO society (you're on your own). I don't ride Amtrak so therefore I shouldn't have to pay for government support of trains. Sorry, in a society such as ours everyone contributes to the general welfare and then uses the services that are appropriate for their needs. Bernstein calls this (we're in this together) WITT.
We have entirely too much YOYO and not enough WITT. Shouldering one's responsibilites is what makes one, what is called in Yiddish, a mensch. We could use a few more these days especially in our political leaders.
--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape
August 6, 2006 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink