Thread: Universal Preschool Is No Panacea

Take the damn government out of our schools and then maybe the teachers can teach and the kids can learn! More globalist BS. The no child left behind program is another UN agenda!



19 May 2006
Universal Preschool Is No Panacea
By Dan Lips

On June 6th, Californians will go to the polls to consider a new ballot
initiative-Universal Preschool for All-that could have implications for
taxpayers, families, and four-year-olds across the nation. Backers claim
that universal preschool will improve public education in America. Much
research suggests otherwise.

Proposition 82 would provide state funding for all four-year-olds in
California to attend preschool. The Golden State already spends more than $3
billion per year to send low-income children to preschool. The new program,
scheduled to cost more than $2 billion annually, would spread these
subsidies to middle- and upper-income families.

The California initiative is representative of a national trend. States
across the country are looking to early education programs to improve
student performance. According to the Education Commission of the States, 40
states and Washington, D.C., fund pre-K programs. Georgia and Oklahoma offer
universal pre-K to all four-year-olds regardless of family need. The
advocacy group "Pre-K Now" reports that 24 governors have proposed expanding
their states' preschool programs. For instance, Illinois Gov. Rod
Blagojevich (D) is supporting a plan to subsidize universal voluntary
preschool for all three- and four-year-olds in the state.

Backers of universal preschool assert that early education is a sure-fire
way to boost student achievement. Their theory is that investments in early
education ensure that students enter grade school ready to learn, leading to
lasting improvement in student performance.

But the case for universal preschool does not hold up to serious scrutiny.
Researchers Darcy Olsen and Lisa Snell surveyed the research on early
education polices in a new report for the Reason Foundation titled
"Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential Information
for Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers"
(http://www.reason.org/ps344_universalpreschool.pdf). What they found should
make universal preschool advocates think twice.

"We find strong evidence that widespread adoption of preschool and full-day
kindergarten is unlikely to improve student achievement," Olsen and Snell
write. "For nearly 50 years, local, state, and federal governments and
diverse private sources have spent billions of dollars funding early
education programs. Many early interventions have had meaningful short-term
effects on grade-level retention and special education placement. However,
the effects of early interventions routinely disappear after children leave
the programs."

Olsen and Snell draw a few important lessons from the research. This first
concerns what's called "fade out." While early education programs may
benefit some student groups (such as disadvantaged children) in the short
run, these benefits disappear over time. For example, a February 2006 study
by UC Santa Barbara researchers shows that the moderate gains made by
children who attended preschool disappear by third grade. A study conducted
by the National Center for Education Statistics comparing the benefits of
half-day and full-day kindergarten also found that the benefits faded out by
third grade.

Second, Olsen and Snell's report questions whether universal programs are
necessary for children from middle- and upper-income families. "The studies
conducted on mainstream children generally do not show benefits from early
education programs," they explain, pointing to a 2005 RAND Corporation
analysis which found that "children participating in preschool not targeted
to disadvantaged children were no better off in terms of high school or
college completion, earnings, or criminal justice involvement than those not
going to any preschool." While slim research evidence points to benefits for
disadvantaged children, giving subsidies to middle- and upper-class children
is just not justified by research.

A third lesson is that early education can actually be harmful to some
children's social development. A 2005 study of 14,000
kindergarteners-conducted by researchers from Stanford University and the
University of California-found that long hours spent in preschool negatively
impacted the social skills of white, middle-class children. "The report's a
bit sobering for governors and mayors-including those in California,
Florida, New York, North Carolina, and Oklahoma-who are getting behind
universal preschool," explained UC Berkley sociologist Bruce Fuller, a
co-author of the report.

Of course, the mixed research evidence is only one factor to consider before
jumping on the universal preschool bandwagon. Voters and families should
consider other important questions. Should families be encouraged to deliver
their children into government care at such an early age? Is the next step
making preschool mandatory, as some politicians have suggested? What are the
costs-to families, stay-at-home moms, and child-care providers-of replacing
the current child-care system with a government-subsidized program?

Campaign commercials make it sound like a vote for universal preschool is a
vote to improve children's futures. But the truth is more complex.
California voters-and families around the country-should look at the
research evidence on universal preschool and make up their own minds.

Dan Lips is policy analyst for education at the Heritage Foundation,
http://www.Heritage.org.

For more information on universal preschool research, see:
"Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential Information
for Parents, Taxpayers and Policymakers," By Darcy Olsen, Goldwater
Institute, and Lisa Snell, Reason Foundation, May 2006
http://www.reason.org/ps344_universalpreschool.pdf

It's just a baby sitting scheme and a total waste of tax payer money.

I'm glad to see a study that verified what I thought to be true since I was in elementary school. My friends went to Kindergarten. I didn't. I did better than they did. And I got to be a kid a whole year longer.

Stop all this foolish nonsense.

Agreed. I was reading at a very advanced level before I went to school. My oldest was reading, doing math, knew everything they went over till she was atleast in 4th or 5th grade. My youngest had more problems but was still ahead of the majority except in math. She caught up though. I unfortunatly did have to have them for short periods in a daycare situation and found it to be more a detrament than a help. Their "social needs" which I was accused of denying them, were the beginning of the end. I think it's just a way to get them used to being more controllable. I didn't press mine either. We learned by having fun and getting dirty and doing experiments. Both learned totally differently so it was a test more for me. My oldest was quite fond of bugs and snakes and anything wierd. But I didn't want to squelch her desire to learn so I had to buc up some. The youngest wasn't so hard. My house wasn't in the best condition but I let them be kids and spent alot of time with them. I only wish I'd had more and listned more to my gut and not the professionals.

Our kids did just fine until the government got involved!

Got that right!