Blog
UPstate Blog
Take Action
News
Bill Watch
Stop UP!
FAQCA Lawmakers' Sneaky Backstage Preschool Maneuvers
The Mercury News ran an article on May 4, 2007 titled, "Lawmakers Quietly Considering Universal Preschool." It points out that despite the fact that Californians soundly defeated Prop 82, The Preschool for All Act, in June 2006, lawmakers are ignoring the vote of the people and engaging in backstage maneuvers to establish universal preschool anyway. So much for Lincoln's idea "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."David Kirp, the author of the article, has been duped -- like so many others before him. He writes that there is a "mountain of evidence that preschool, when done right, can achieve small miracles." That's a flat-out lie. David didn't do his homework. Instead, he relied on what preschool proponents spoon-fed him.
If he had bothered to do some research before he wrote the article, he would have discovered that the majority of the studies used to support preschool-for-all come from these sources:
The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project
The Abecedarian Project
The Chicago Child Parent Centers
RAND (which used data from the above reports)
All of the above reports focused on disadvantaged kids. Those results don't translate to the mainstream population which, by the way, RAND noted but stated that for the purposes of their report they would ASSUME applied to the advantaged as well!!! RAND acknowledged that there were no conclusive studies that showed middle class and up kids received any discernible benefit from preschool attendance. Regardless, the reports are widely referenced as "proof" that preschool works for all.
Another RAND study provides statistics on the economic benefits of sending kids to preschool. RAND claims they have no interest in supporting any particular agenda with their studies -- HOWEVER, both RAND studies on preschool have been funded by The Packard Foundation and their mission is to see universal preschool established nationwide by 2010. I'd say there's a HUGE conflict of interest here, calling the credibility of the RAND studies into question.
Interestingly, proponents rarely discuss the recent PACE study from Stanford/UC Berkeley. This one is in a category by itself. It was the first to study kids from many socio-economic backgrounds. While it shows a miniscule gain in math and reading for middle class and up kids, it showed they suffered tremendous loss in social/emotional/behavioral development as a result of attending preschool. The researchers determined the gain wasn't worth the loss. (If you follow the preschool reporting -- then you know that PRESCHOOLERS ARE BEING EXPELLED IN RECORD NUMBERS FROM PRESCHOOLS NATIONWIDE for behavioral problems.)
Hispanic kids (who did not speak English and who make up about 39% of the preschool population) received the most benefit, however, THOSE "BENEFITS" DISSIPATE AFTER TWO YEARS ATTENDANCE IN REGULAR SCHOOLS! How can lawmakers think of funding preschool programs that have no long-term benefit?
It is also important to mention that in a report on the PACE study it was noted that non-English speaking Hispanic kids were less likely to attend preschool. For them to benefit, they'd have to attend preschool and the only way to insure they do, is to make preschool MANDATORY! That would be a threat to parental rights and would undoubtedly guarantee a government monopoly on preschool, making it a threat to private preschool enterprises that are owned and operated by women and minorities.
Mr. Kirp correctly reported that 70% of preschool age children already attend preschool. Which begs the question: If the majority of preschool age children already DO attend preschools, why aren't they prepared for Kindergarten?
If political, education, and corporate interests are trying to convince the public that universal preschool is needed for kindergarten readiness -- why hasn't this preschool social experiment worked so far? If it worked, we should have seen better results by now.
The push to preschool has nothing to do with what is best for young children. It is merely a matter of serving special interest groups who care more about money than little kids. Shame on them! posted by Diane Flynn Keith @ 6/04/2007 09:40:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment