The potential pitfalls of universal pre-K
Megan McArdle of the Daily Beast expands upon this issue of quality and also proposes that universal Pre-K should be aimed only at those who are considered ‘at-risk.’
“There’s no evidence that I’m aware of that pre-school helps middle class kids; it helps poor kids because it makes up for the stuff that middle class parents do (reading readiness, for example), and poor parents can’t or don’t. …”
Taking a completely different approach to question the effectiveness of Pre-K, Rachel Ryan of the Huffington Post describes the effect of children who are prematurely separated from their mothers.
“A study released by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development found that the “more time children spent in child care from birth to age four-and-a-half… the less likely [they were] to get along with others, as more assertive, as disobedient, and as aggressive.”"
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The federal government has ZERO constitutional authority regarding education. End of story.
Charlemagne on February 15, 2013 at 10:58 AM
The problem with the “at-risk” definition is that the standard will be changed and expanded by the Left over time, sure as a bear dumps in the woods. For an example look no further than the debacle known as The War On Poverty.
The Department of Education (or whoever would be overseeing the “universal” pre-k program) would do whatever it takes to expand its role and increase its size over time. Bureaucracies are self-serving…it makes no difference to the government employees if their policies actually work or not in the end. They want their jobs and employment stability, first and foremost. It’s human nature, and one of the main reasons why Big Government fails the citizenry.
visions on February 15, 2013 at 11:03 AM
True, but lets not kid ourselves that this has anything to do with education. It’s goverment subsidized babysitting. Period. Another attempt by the government to shield people people from the consequences of irresponsible behavior.
tommyboy on February 15, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Compulsion regarding indoctrination…oops public school is morally wrong. Not to mention how bad it is for the children. Kids should be allowed to play when they are children…putting them into school before 6 or 7 is wrong.
The best bet is to homeschool…keep your kids out of the grip of the propaganda.
PierreLegrand on February 15, 2013 at 11:12 AM
Cheep. Cheep. Cheep. I bet the programs cost the same.
Ridiculous.
Fleuries on February 15, 2013 at 11:14 AM
“on the cheap” = more creative accountants
tommyboy on February 15, 2013 at 11:19 AM
The problem here is that the left does not want parents to do these things. They do not want parents to be the first and primary educators of their children, as they have always been. They want the kids to be turned over to the government for education and indoctrination. The earlier they can get the kids under their care, the better chance they have of raising more good little progressives.
Shump on February 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Jobs program for union teachers, more dues paid into democrat party pockets, more “free stuff” to buy votes with – what’s the downside here?
Rebar on February 15, 2013 at 11:26 AM
As if there’s no problem this country has that can’t be solved by more free stuff.
Paul-Cincy on February 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM
Actually, studies prove that it doesn’t help poor kids.
Every study on Headstart shows that the kids enrolled in Headstart show NO advantage over their peers who weren’t in Headstart by the 3rd – 4th grade. In fact, once these kids are exposed to the information, they catch up to their peers whose parents started reading to them early.
I have a friend who is an elementary school councilor in a school of ‘at risk kids’. She says she cannot discern which kids were in headstart without looking at their files.
LilyBart on February 15, 2013 at 12:00 PM
You could always keep your kids at home…
I had a conversation with a colleague years ago. He told me that his kids being in day care 12 hours a day wouldn’t hurt them, and that I only thought that having a parent at home was good because that’s what I had done. I said, no, I did that because I think it’s best for my kids. He had the cause and effect backwards. I made a lot of sacrifices to stay home with my kids, and I’m paying the economic price now (lost years of paying into a retirement fund, which puts off when I can reture by a long time, if ever). But it’s worth it.
Bob's Kid on February 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM
I guess soon the feds will mandate that kids are taken from mom/dad at age two and stay in fed control from there on?
I seem to recall other countries that did that with their kids in the past!
L
letget on February 15, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Kids are amazing learners on their own…they decode language all on their own. The idea that they have to learn reading and writing at 3 years old is crazy. They have to learn how to have fun and play…they have to learn why life is worth living first!
PierreLegrand on February 15, 2013 at 12:05 PM
NPR says the Pre-K is the panacea and without it kids grow up to be b-list crack dealers and prostitutes.
The Feds really have no role to play in education at all – the creation of the DoE unexpectedly coincided with crashing standards of achievement.
CorporatePiggy on February 15, 2013 at 12:07 PM
Head Start is a complete failure .
They want to control your kids
ASAP , that’s what it’s all about .
Lucano on February 15, 2013 at 12:08 PM
Pre-K doesn’t work and a waste of money. We can’t afford it.
nazo311 on February 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM
Silly Rabbit. Everyone knows that the only solution is a top-down, statist, one-size fits all “solution.” Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both told me so.
besser tot als rot on February 15, 2013 at 12:25 PM
universal pre-k… universal college… universal health care… who will pay for this?
also. it’s sad that government wants to take kids from their parents sooner and sooner, and increase school hours and reduce summer vacation. the more time kids are not in school, the more they can- gasp- learn on their own and think for themselves. big government doesn’t want that.
uh, no. i learned reading and writing and three. it helped me a lot when i started school. but it was fun to read though! kids should be learning reading at three! although… from parents, not from government.
Sachiko on February 15, 2013 at 12:40 PM
They should learn to read at three if that is fun for them. If not, not. No reason to make kids hate learning at 3 years old. I have two kids who have sat in front of the refrigerator with those letter magnets just putting them in there over and over at 2-3 y/o until they learned what all of the letters were and what sounds they all made. The other four? Not so interested.
besser tot als rot on February 15, 2013 at 12:45 PM
exactly, but the reason its usually been targeted at poor people is that a lot of them are bad parents, and i really think the idea is the less time they spend with their twack head parents (moms/grandmas) the better
snoopicus on February 15, 2013 at 12:46 PM
Brainwashing must begin in the crib.
meci on February 15, 2013 at 1:16 PM
I used to work at a high end day care with a Pre-k program. Parents paid through the nose to have their darlings at our school, where there were French lessons and copmputer class, dance and movement classes, you name it. Don’t kid yourself, people. Day care is toddler prison, nothing less. The people that work there get paid minimum wage, and generally hate your children- not because they hate kids, but because your children are difficult and often spoiled from guilty parents who leave them in daycare all day. Also, you could be in a room for 8 hours with 14 two year olds- when does that ever happen in nature? Two year olds need a lot of one on one care and attention, and they just do not get it. I worked in the baby room for awhile- the other girl they had working in there was borderline retarded, and the babies were left to cry in their cribs all day, like some Russian orphanage- the bare facts are you can only hold two babies at a time. It was awful. Even though we were super poor, I stayed home with my kids- and yes, it was worth it.
Kristamatic on February 15, 2013 at 1:47 PM