As mentioned in a previous post, there are those out there that are opposed to Obama’s agenda on preschool education. Although many of the arguments are solidly formed and to be expected, there are a few out there who seem to get public education confused with propaganda.
While I would welcome healthy debate from those opposed to the plan due to budget concerns, which I would counter with research that it makes more fiscal sense to invest in preschools than in prisons and every dollar spent on early childhood education returns four dollars in the form of savings on prisons and adult welfare programs (according to James J. Heckman in the Economist and on Slate)
Some may be skeptical of the effectiveness of preschool programs, and liken them to glorified babysitting, I would hasten to mention that Head Start and other (good, quality) preschools do have a curriculum that works with children on social skills, early number sense, word sense and other aspects that will help them to make the adjustment to school and part of Obama’s plan is to increase the minimum qualifications for preschool teachers. This 1999 report from the Brookings Institution recommends this and is quite similar to Obama’s plan – too bad we had to wait 10 years for a president to notice it!
I would also defend expanding preschool programs to those who would deem Head Start and government-funded preschools to be social welfare by reminding them that one way to judge a society is by the opportunities that it provides for its children – all of them. I would also point them towards a report by the Illinois State Board of Education, who concluded the following:
Preschool programs for low-income children yield personal benefits for the child and substantial long-term benefits for society. Intervention programs that expose the children to high-quality, enriched learning environments have long-term attitudinal effects that persist during the years of public education and beyond.
Because of the high-risk nature of poverty environments, children from low-income families are particularly receptive and responsive to high-quality preschool programs. Without preschool services, these children are more likely to require special services during the school years that will yield less impressive results and that have been shown to be more costly and disruptive to the educational process. (page 12-13 of the PDF)
However, there are always a few radicals out there. On September 9, 2008, Jake Tapper of the ABC News blog Political Punch quoted Obama during his presidential campaign speaking of his desire reform preschool education and expand Head Start. A comment posted by James Danley at 5:42p.m. the same day, claimed “Sen. Obama and the Liberal Left want to provide free preschool so that they begin indoctrinating more of our children even earlier with their Liberal ideology.”
Meanwhile Lindy of Lindy’s Blog (Where Mom is Always Right) seems to agree that there is some sort of conspiracy in place when she wrote in her post Obama: Pitting children against parents on Oct. 28, 2008:
In the past I have talked about Obama’s “Zero to Five” plan, which seeks universal preschool, including government-run boarding schools and in-home parenting courses, among other things. As if that weren’t bad enough, here’s a new one
I’ve noticed before that the left seems to have an affinity for attempting to subvert the minds of young children and teenagers, and to turn them against their parents … It is wrong, it’s despicable, and it scares this concerned parent. I suppose that wanting to teach my own children the principles that are important to me is aligned with my abhorrence of government intrusion into aspects of life where it doesn’t belong.
Lindy, it would be wrong, it would be despicable, if it were TRUE! I don’t see anyone trying to subvert parental authority or to turn kids against their parents. On the other hand, I do see people trying to create hysteria by taking an extreme point of view and vilifying anything they don’t like. Certainly that is something that can be done in the United States. My wish is that we let even our youngest children know that right and provide them with an education that will allow them to learn others’ points of view and have the widest range of information possible in order to form their own opinions.
Brother Nathaniel Kapner of Real Jew News wrote on Nov. 2, 2008:
with Obama’s Early Learning Challenge Grants to the states, we will be witnessing the final takeover of state independence by a central authority, the Federal Government. This central authority will be run by a sociopath in the presidency with no moral compass & with greater powers, namely, the psychologically impaired, Barack Obama. (Obama’s “Zero To Five” Big Brother Plan)
Kapner seems to believe that there is a Zionist movement within the U.S. government that is Anti-Christian and seeks to poison infants with “Gay Curricullums” [sic] This entry was so full of hate that it was difficult to read, but at the same time humorous because of Kapner’s truly dizzying logic.
[...] the young to be political tools for a leftist agenda – you can read more about that in the post Opposition to the Zero to Five Plan. It is important to note that, for FY 2007, nearly 40% of participants in Head Start were White [...]
TeacherJay: I appreciate your point of view. Contrary to your opinion, my goal is not to create hysteria or villify anything. I don't think you read my whole post, which was mainly in reference to the Obama campaign's children section of their website. I would suggest reading the entire post before going into large exegeses on them.
I read your whole post, Lindy. Including the parts where you accused the Obama campaign of using children as "weapons" against their grandparents. This is a bit strong don't you think? The article actually was a list of ways that kids can get involved in the campaign – to be a part of the change that was sweeping America, to do something with their parents. Who do you think let the kids read the page, who came to them with those ideas – their parents. Nobody was trying to remove the parents from such a decision.
Go here to read my full thoughts on the zero to five plan: http://lindyborer.wordpress.com/2008/08/31/obamas...
Like I said in that post: We made the decision for me to stay home to raise our children. We're not wealthy, but we make responsible decisions with our money to make it work. Why should we have to use even more of our hard-earned money to pay for others' preschool and daycare? (Which the plan covers.) We're part of a large portion of the population that doesn't think the answer to every social or economic ill is ANOTHER government program. I realize there are children coming from bad homes that could benefit from preschool programs, but guess what? We already have them, and we are lucky enough to live in one of the most churched, generous countries on the planet, who give generously to charities and work through churches and other organizations (like Head Start) to provide for these children.
I simply don't place all of my faith in the government to do everything for me, mainly because I would be very disappointed most of the time.
I read this post as well… where you said that UPK was "designed to cut the ties between parents and their young (impressionable) infants and children". On the one hand you are afraid government is going to replace parents, yet you do not like the idea of someone coming to a home rather than children going to a center. You seem to mock Government-run schoolhouses, yet what are the public schools?
Where exactly did you read that Obama's preschool plan would make it mandatory? On both the Campaign Website and now on the White House Website is written: "help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school." Did you read this on an official website, or did you pass by it on another blog and decide to repost it, thus getting more and more people riled up over something that wasn't true in the first place?
You asked, "How exactly would universal pre-school keep kids from dropping out of high school, one of the greatest predictors of violent crime, poverty and drug abuse?" and (in one of your comments) "And this of course all rests upon the supposition that preschool (and daycare, starting from birth) is beneficial for children. I don’t aggree with that premise, nor has any study concluded that it is beneficial."
I must respond by asking if you read my post? Studies HAVE shown preschool to be beneficial. I listed some in this post and the previous one, but maybe you didn't read the whole post… if you would like to see some even more evidence:
* Here is a 2006 study who "find that children who attended preschool enter public schools with higher levels of academic skills than their peers who experienced other types of child care"
*There is also a 2005 poll of Kindergarten teachers "can readily see the difference preschool makes" and nine out of ten teachers agreed that "'substantially more' children would succeed in school if they all had access to high-quality pre-K".
You wrote: "Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not judging preschool." How are you not? You seem to be saying that publicly-funded preschools will be taking money away from you. It sounds that you don't want to pay for other children to go to preschool, only your own. Or, maybe the real problem is that they are low-income children. You and your family had to make a "sacrifice" so you could stay home with the kids, right? Others should have to do the same. Isn't that just a justification for withholding an education from some segments of the population and thus giving your own children an advantage when they begin school?
You tried to paint a picture of a communist-like state where children would be forced to go to government-run preschools to be brainwashed and called it totalitarianistic (not a word). I don't agree.
If I had the time, I would love to read all those posts in their entirety, as I am hesitant to comment on something extrapolated in another readers opinion. However, I will say it did give me a chuckle to picture my own kids' pre-school teachers trying to corrupt their minds and turn them against. It's the job of that age to work "against" me, so to speak, __I also don't get my feathers ruffled at what does, indeed, appear to be a judgment agaisnt pre-school, or at least against those parents who use it. Some of us have to, and the implication that we are less responsible w/ our money else we would manage to keep the kids home is just silly. ____
From a education-enthusiasts' viewpoint, I can see your side, TeacherJay. And, my quick answer (or surface commentary) is that I agree w/ universal pre-school (just as I do to universal healthcare.) Kids in the Head Start system still fall through the cracks when they hit elementary. It's the cycle of institutionalized poverty. I also would add an alternative view: That it's not the less-prepared, impoverished, "head start grads" that pull the rest of the class down, but the "rest of the class" that helps to sprinkle the less fortunate through those cracks. ____Regardless, it is all an interesting debate. From the perspective of a non-educator, but mother of two young children, I find that the culture of Motherhood these days is one of judging, indeed sometimes villifying, the choices that other mothers make. From the claims that breast-feeding makes kids smarter, to the claims that pre-school AND at home kids are better prepared for Kinder (as the "studies" seem to change every so often) – all are unfounded as far as I am concerned.
Breast v. bottle; SAHM v.WAHM; to pre-school or not to PS? These are silly debates brought about to assauge the anxiety of today's parents (mothers, really.) Anxiety that, this psychotherapist is sad to say, is brought about by the the psych. "industry," which has commercialized parenting. It's now a commodity, rather than something one just does. And this anxiety is a relatively new thing – our parents simply parented, and they did well in spite of mistakes. Some fed by bottle, some worked outside the home,while others ran the home, and some even (GASP!) spanked. But none of those decisions bought any of us tickets to Harvard, or the local community college, nor will they now.
But then again, my own choices have been inconsistent b/w studies: I breast-fed, stayed home for some, then hit up pre-school, and now I even let my kid go to pre-school when I have a day off! So what do I know? And what do I care? If my kids become junkies and flunk out of school, they can blame it on their mother's need to work – if they wind up the next (or first) female President, mommy's breast can take all the credit.