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

[dales]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =171967971

Obama Pushes Preschool Plan, Won't Discuss Cost




by The Associated Press

February 14, 2013 4:54 PM


DECATUR, Ga. (AP) — Raising hopes among parents who want preschool for all, President Barack Obama on Thursday rolled out a plan to vastly expand government-funded early childhood while keeping the price tag a secret.

Republicans, wary of high costs and questionable outcomes, made clear they have no intention of signing a blank check.

Setting up yet another clash with Republicans over spending and the proper scope of government, Obama in his State of the Union address proposed working with states to make high-quality preschool available to every American child. Two days later, he played blocks and gave fist-bumps to kids in a preschool classroom at the College Heights Early Childhood Learning Center in Decatur, casting the plan as part of a moral imperative to give every child a shot at success.

"The size of your paycheck shouldn't determine your child's future," Obama told about 600 teachers and parents at the Decatur Community Recreation Center, singling out Georgia as a model for making universal preschool a priority. "Let's fix this. Let's make sure none of our kids start out the race of life already a step behind."

The White House offered the first details about Obama's plan Thursday, describing it as a "continuum of high-quality early learning for a child, beginning at birth and continuing to age 5." The government would fund public preschool for any 4-year-old whose family income is 200 percent or less of the federal poverty level — a more generous threshold than the current Head Start program, which generally serves kids from families below 130 percent of the poverty line. All 50 states and the federal government would chip in.

Obama also proposed letting communities and child care providers compete for grants to serve children 3 and younger, starting from birth. And once a state has established its program for 4-year-olds, it can use funds from the program to offer full-day kindergarten, the plan says.

Conspicuously absent from Obama's plan were any details about the cost, a key concern among Republicans. Obama's aides have insisted the new programs would not add to the nation's nearly $16.5 trillion debt, but they won't say what else will be cut to offset the cost, offering only vague allusions to cutting entitlement spending and closing loopholes.

In a conference call with reporters Thursday, two of Obama's top policy aides declined five times to explain how much the program would cost.

"Details on that will be released with the president releases his budget in the coming weeks," said Roberto Rodriguez, the White House's top education adviser. When asked again about the costs, officials went silent before a press aide joked: "Great, we'll take the next one."

The price tag for expanding preschool to more than 4 million 4-year-olds is potentially staggering. For instance, the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with close ties to the Obama administration, proposed a $10,000-a-child match to what states spend. That effort could cost tax payers almost $100 billion over 10 years.

Democrats and Republicans have already gridlocked over where to find $1.2 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade mandated by the so-called sequester; it's difficult to imagine they could reach consensus on those cuts plus agree on further cuts to offset expanded preschool.

In fact, the sequester cuts themselves could devastate current pre-kindergarten programs, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Thursday, if Congress doesn't find a way out by March 1, the date the cuts kick in. "Doing that to our most vulnerable children is education malpractice, economically foolish and morally indefensible," he told senators on Capitol Hill.

Weary of proposals by Obama they say blow up the cost and reach of federal government and still licking their wounds from November's election, Republicans are in no rush to sign off on Obama's preschool plan or any of a number of other initiatives he pitched in his address on Tuesday.

"That whole playing well with others, by the way, is a trait we could use more in Washington," Obama said to a mix of laughter and applause in Decatur. "Maybe we need to bring the teachers up every once in a while have some quiet time. Time out."

A day earlier, House Speaker John Boehner said involving the federal government in early childhood education was "a good way to screw it up," a sentiment echoed by Rep. John Kline, who chairs the House panel on education and said Obama must answer basic questions before expecting Republicans to get on board.

"Will the plan be affordable? We all want to give children a solid foundation for a bright future, but that also means we can't saddle them with even more debt," Klein said.

Republican lawmakers also were eager to press Obama for specifics lacking in his speech. For instance, leaders on the Hill were curious if this new expansion would be part of existing programs such as Head Start in the Health and Human Services Department, or if it would start a new program inside the Education Department. They also wanted to know if the new effort would funnel money to states or local governments, or if Washington would administer the program as part of a national pre-K program that is unrivaled in size.

Obama has said he wants to partner with states, but the mechanics of such a joint project were far from clear. White House officials did say the new pre-kindergarten plans would be set up by states and independent of Washington's meddling with the details.

Speaking broadly about its virtues, Obama said such an initiative would shrink the achievement gap for poor and minority students and strengthen a competitive workforce that would attract companies to create jobs in the U.S.

"This works. We know it works," Obama said. "If you are looking for a good bang for your educational buck, this is it right here."

Republicans and conservatives have questioned the effectiveness of Head Start programs, citing studies such as a Health and Human Services Department report last year showing that, while at-risk students enrolled in the pre-kindergarten programs saw tremendous gains in vocabulary and social development, those benefits largely faded by the time students reached third grade.

Scores of other studies, however, were more favorable toward the program, which has been shown to make at-risk students more likely to complete high school and avoid criminal arrests. In pure dollars and cents, academics called it a smart investment.

Even in states like Georgia, showcased by Obama in his remarks Thursday, the results have been mixed. Georgia made a commitment to universal pre-K in 1995 and it's been a slow climb, with about 60 percent of eligible children currently enrolled. And Georgia's high school graduation rate is among the lowest in the nation.

___

Elliott reported from Washington. Associated Press writer Jim Kuhnhenn and AP White House Correspondent Julie Pace contributed to this report.

[rubato]

John Keegan in his book "Fields of Battle" discusses his decades-long experience with different educational systems and praised that of the US from the 1940s to the 1980s. He said that he felt we should pour money wastefully on education because of the size of the long-term benefits.

I agree with him.

The Republican option is to take away as much as possible from the future and give it to the rich of the present. Our grandparents made a much better choice and we got the benefits of it. Their choice to sacrifice for our parents education and then for our education gave us the country with the best research institutions in the world. We have an obligation to do the same. Or we can fuck the future to make the US of the future more like the Mexico of today.

Our character as a people will be written in what we sacrifice for; how much we will give up in the present for the sake of the future.

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

The Federal Government's own data indicate that after 20 years and more than 100 billion dollars sunk into Operation Head Start, THERE IS NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE between third graders who have been in the program and a comparable demographic that has not. No difference.

So while it may be a wonderful babysitting program that keeps tens of thousands of otherwise unemployable housemothers (I won't say housewives because most of them are single mothers) employed and on the government's teat, it is a complete failure at the mission for which it was created.

And in true Democrat fashion, Barry wants to double down on failure.

So what else is new?

[Big RR]

Since when have republicans substituted the benefit to the collective vs individual achievement. Yes, there are problems, and, yes, the statisitics don't show that all (or even most) have benefitted--but some clearly have. Rather than throwing out the program as worthless, why not take the points that do help some and expand on them--making it a better program? These children are our future; can we really afford to give up on them so early on?

[oldr_n_wsr]

How many of us (40-50+ yo_ went to pre-k? I know I didn't. Most (all? as I can;t think of any) people I know from my childhood days did not go to pre-K. Yes the world was different then and the single breadwinner was king and moms were housewives and all that other crap. It seems to me that pre-K now is nothing but a government subsidized day care. Just give the families some help, keep one of the two parents at home (oh wait, we have much more signle parent households. Well why don't we go after the abandoning parent to pay for this?)

During our early married years my wife and I sacrificed much material comfort and reliable transportation. We both thought it would be best for one parent to stay home with our children. Since my "potential" was greater then hers (although it was debateable at the time) she stayed home and I went to work (and school to better our predicament). We were in the red for many years, but we made it by being frugal and sacrificing.

Too many people now think they "deserve" better. Maybe they do but maybe they need to check themselves. Not all comes right away. It takes work and sacrifice. And even then, sometimes you don't get what you think you deserve. No one "deserves" anything but the chance to get ahead. As soon as you think the gov is going to do for you, you have given up.

[Joe Guy]

Just give the families some help, keep one of the two parents at home (oh wait, we have much more signle parent households. Well why don't we go after the abandoning parent to pay for this?)

We do. Child Support Services gets money from the absent parent when one parent receives government assistance. They will also go after the absent parent if one parent doesn't receive government assistance and the absent parent refuses to pay child support.

During our early married years my wife and I sacrificed much material comfort and reliable transportation. We both thought it would be best for one parent to stay home with our children. Since my "potential" was greater then hers (although it was debateable at the time) she stayed home and I went to work (and school to better our predicament). We were in the red for many years, but we made it by being frugal and sacrificing.

Too many people now think they "deserve" better. Maybe they do but maybe they need to check themselves. Not all comes right away. It takes work and sacrifice. And even then, sometimes you don't get what you think you deserve. No one "deserves" anything but the chance to get ahead. As soon as you think the gov is going to do for you, you have given up.

Good for you for having a parent at home. I think part of the problem is that we only hear about those who rely on government assistance from the media and from people who like to complain about people living on welfare.

It doesn't make good press or incite enough arguments to talk about all of those who make sacrifices every day to raise their children.

[dales]

I went to Pre-K in 1957.

This was to get me out of the house.

Bored to tears, it was just a gawdammed baby-sitting service, I HATED it!

My daughters went to pre-k to give them a "leg up" on the others.

But they actually LEARNED THINGS and enjoyed going fo a few hours.

[Lord Jim]

How about a voucher system for pre-K? Especially for the financially disadvantaged?

Oh wait, that wouldn't put any money into the coffers of the NEA or the campaigns of their servants in the Democratic party....

One of the most shameless and disgraceful things the Dems did when they won back control of the House was to end the voucher program for the poor in the District of Columbia....

[Big RR]

Voucher systems can sometimes work, but I could not support one which would put money in the hands of a religious entity running a school and using it to teach their religion; I don't want government telling a religion what it can or cannot teach, nor do I want religions using public money to spread their "news", good or otherwise. So long as they are properly supervised, I'd have no problem supporting nonsectarian private schools, but I don't necessarily see it better than public schools--that control could prove to be difficult and costly to do.

[dgs49]

The theory of preschools is that FOR KIDS WHOSE HOME ENVIRONMENT IS DEFICIENT, it can bring them up to the norm. But it doesn't work. Plain and simple. Put them in the same classroom with everyone else, and by the end of the first year there is no difference.

I sent my son to an expensive private pre-school program because as an only child we were concerned that he wasn't getting enough exposure to social activities in his peer group. His experience was severely impacted by the behavior of ONE UNCONTROLLABLE CHILD, who took up 75% of the attention of the "teachers" for the whole two years while he was there. To the constant complaints of other parents, the administrators just shrugged their shoulders and said they don't toss anyone out. EVERY SINGLE DAY, when we would ask our kid how pre-school went, we would get tales of how this one kid did one thing or another that tied up at least one teacher and sometimes more than one, trying to control the environment.

Then when he went to Kindergarten (rich suburban school district), the principle told us at orientation, "Those of you who may be concerned because you didn't send your kids to private day care should not worry. By December, all the kids will be at the same level." SO much for two years of pre-"education."

Expensive babysitting is all it is. Even if the kids enjoy it, so what?

And of course, it is unconstitutional as dog shit anyway, but who cares about such trivialities?

[oldr_n_wsr]

I went to Pre-K in 1957.

This was to get me out of the house.

Bored to tears, it was just a gawdammed baby-sitting service, I HATED it!

My daughters went to pre-k to give them a "leg up" on the others.

But they actually LEARNED THINGS and enjoyed going fo a few hours.

And who paid for the pre-k for your daughters?

I am not saying it is without merits, but is it worth the cost when after 3-4 years the difference between those who go and those who don't seems to be minimal. Why not work on what is wrong when the gains made before 1st grade diminish when they enter regular school. (aka poor schooling)

[Big RR]

Dog shit is unconstitutional? I guess I missed that. Is human or cat shit likewise?

[quote]Why not work on what is wrong when the gains made before 1st grade diminish when they enter regular school. (aka poor schooling)/quote]

Why not do both?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Can we afford it?
I read the other day that over 50% of CUNY and SUNY college students have to take some kind of remedial course in their first semester. (Newsday.com, can't link to it here) Seems a fundamental breakdown is happening and no amount of pre-k is going to change that.

Do we tell our kids that the money we are borrowing for their pre-k is part of the money they will owe (on top of whatever higher education debt they might incur later in life)?

We (American society) can't afford everything. It would be nice, but it's not reality.

[dales]

I went to Pre-K in 1957.

This was to get me out of the house.

Bored to tears, it was just a gawdammed baby-sitting service, I HATED it!

My daughters went to pre-k to give them a "leg up" on the others.

But they actually LEARNED THINGS and enjoyed going fo a few hours.

And who paid for the pre-k for your daughters?

I am not saying it is without merits, but is it worth the cost when after 3-4 years the difference between those who go and those who don't seems to be minimal. Why not work on what is wrong when the gains made before 1st grade diminish when they enter regular school. (aka poor schooling)

It came out of our pockets as I believe it should.

The socialization helped also to get my daughters used to ther children out side of our neighborhood. It was a co-op endovour with parents having to help out. It's still going.

[oldr_n_wsr]

It came out of our pockets as I believe it should.

Same here. You want your kids in pre-k, swimming lessons, gymnastics, whatever, then the parents shoudl pay. Don't saddle the rest of us with something you want for your children.

I think evey child should take swimming lessons, fewer backyard pool drownings. I sent my kids to swimming lessons and paid for them. They can swim very well now. They were not thrilled getting up at 7:30am during the sommers they went, but they appreciate it now. I don't believe the gov should pay for the lessons (although the town did build the pool they used, but we had to pay membership dues and fees for the lessons). Some things we, the individiuals with the responsibilities have to do/pay for ourselves. The gov is not the be all and end all.

[Big RR]

Do you feel the same about all public education?

[Crackpot]

And everyone can afford it? I'm lucky enough to live in a community that offers a lot of reasonable extracurricular public resources. But many others in the area don't.

[rubato]

The Federal Government's own data indicate that after 20 years and more than 100 billion dollars sunk into Operation Head Start, THERE IS NO MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE between third graders who have been in the program and a comparable demographic that has not. No difference.
... " ?

You're right. We should give up and do nothing. No one should ever try.

Fuck the kids fuck the future I want another $20,000 cruise vacation.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Do you feel the same about all public education?

No I don't. Publicly funded K to grade 12 I agree with. I think pre-K schooling is (should be) outside the scope of public schooling.
If not the question becomes, how early do we start? 1yo, 2, 3?
I read to my kids, my wife played with and taught the kids during those years.
I think pre-K is becoming a publicly funded babysitting venture.
We cannot replace the parents who should take a very active role in their kids education, from day one.

[Big RR]

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.