Pre-K Govt. Schools? -or- More $$$ From Teachers Unions

[oldr_n_wsr]

Oldr--there was a time when most people did not enter kindergarten (when I was in school in early 60s, only about half of those in my first grade class went to kindergarten, e.g.), then it became routine (and ultimately mandated in many places); likewise with graduatung from high school. Times change. What is sacrosanct about K-12? Yes, we can, and should, continue to ask how early the formal educational process should begin. And yes, we cannot replace parents, but then we can try to give kids who are neglected with a leg up; it's a small cost considering the alternative.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. Kindergarten was standar when I grew up. (born 1958). I know back then it was mostly a two parent home and one "bread winner" which meant someone (usually mom) was home all day with the kids. I know todays reality is different as there are plenty of two working parents or single parent families for whatever reasons.

I know my wife and I struggled with finances when our kids were young, but we made a decision to keep one of us home with the kids. Sure we didn't have new cars like other families in the district, nor did we have landscapers and lawn cutters and all the other things people paid service for. But we made it through and I think in the long run we made out better. I remortgaged twice, lower payments both times but many of those who had their new SUVs every three years and upgrades on their houses evry 5 years now have their houses/stuff on the auction block.

Parents (both) need to get involved, and get involved early in their childs development. Gov cannot replace the parent involvement. If it does, then we might as well hand the kids over at birth and wash our hands of their upbringing.

[dgs49]

Dear Rubie:

An anecdote, if you please: Many years ago I was sold on the idea of getting a water softener for my house. The salesman came around, talked about all the benefits, sold us on the idea. We had the equipment installed and tried it out for a year.

After a year, we evaluated the pro's and con's, looked at the cost, and had the equipment removed.

Head Start was a good idea. One that offered some promise at a time when the Education establishment was looking for some explanation as to why - many years after Brown v Board - the integrated school systems were still producing minority and poor kids who were simply not measuring up. Head Start began with the hypothesis that if you enriched the cultural environment of "disadvantaged" kids, those differences would be eliminated.

Didn't work.

Try something else. This is not "never try anything," it is keep trying something else until you find something that works. And if something demonstrably DOESN'T WORK, then you get rid of it or simply let it die.

[Scooter]

Many years ago I was sold on the idea of getting a water softener for my house. The salesman came around, talked about all the benefits, sold us on the idea. We had the equipment installed and tried it out for a year.

After a year, we evaluated the pro's and con's, looked at the cost, and had the equipment removed.

There's a difference between being duped into buying a solution for a problem that doesn't exist, and attempting to craft a solution to an actual problem. If you were too stupid to realize that your water wasn't hard enough to get any real benefit from a water softener, then you deserved to get taken by the con man who sold you one.

As to the alleged failure of Head Start:

In a 2009 article evaluating Head Start, researcher David Deming published one of the most sophisticated evaluations of the program to date, using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. This study compared siblings and found that those who attended Head Start not only showed stronger academic performance, as shown on test scores, for years afterward, but were also less likely to be diagnosed as learning disabled, less likely to commit crime, more likely to graduate high school and attend college, and less likely to suffer from poor health as an adult.

Head Start is associated with significant gains in test scores. Head Start significantly reduces the probability that a child will repeat a grade.

[Big RR]

Scooter--I think you're wrong re the softener, what he said he did was use it for a year and then evaluate how it worked for him; he didn't go to poll all his neighbors and then make a decision because many, or most, of them saw no improvement. As an individual, he tried it out and reached a conclusion--even if it worked for 90%+ of his neighbors, he would have stopped using it because it didn't work for him. Likewise, if it achieved a result he wanted, he would have kept it even if 90%+ of his neighbors found it useless.

And that shows the difficulty in using the mean as a basis for qualifying how well somethhing performs; even if Headstart is shown not to be a benefit for a majority of those in it (and the evidence is divided here as you point out), it clearly works for some. IMHO it would make more sense to build on it and see what might make it more useful for more students than to throw out what worked for some and tell them they can no longer have access to it.