"Holy smokes!" President Obama Releases Full Pre-K Plan

[bigtree]

Ezra Klein ?@ezraklein
Read Obama's full pre-k plan. which got Nobel laureate James Heckman to say, "Holy smokes!" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/14/read-obamas-pre-k-plan/ …


from Dylan Matthews at Wonkblog:

President Obama used his State of the Union address to launch a push for massively expanding pre-K and other early childhood education programs. But he was pretty vague about it. Not anymore. At 6 a.m. today, the administration released its detailed plan for early childhood education. Its three main components are:

A state-federal partnership to guarantee pre-K to all 4-year-olds in families at or below 200 percent of the poverty line, to be provided by school districts and other local partners, and to use instructors with the same level of education and training as K-12 instructions.

A massively expanded Early Head Start program — building on the existing program, which has proven very effective in randomized controlled trials — which provides early education, child care, parental education, and health services to vulnerable children ages 0 to 3.

Also expanding Nurse Family Partnerships, a program that has also earned top marks in randomized trials, and which provides regular home visits from nurses to families from pregnancy through the child’s second birthday, intended to promote good health and parenting practices.

Upon opening the plan for the first time (while on the phone with me) Nobel laureate and early childhood education expert James Heckman exclaimed “Holy smokes!” in approval. Your mileage may vary — see the full plan outline, courtesy of the White House, here.



Wonkblog: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/14/read-obamas-pre-k-plan/?print=1

[rgbecker]

1. Write your Congress people.

[xmas74]

63. Wish that would work.

Claire, though not liked here on DU, will be in favor of this plan. My rep? She's a joke-really. She is a horrible human being who refuses to run town halls and will gleefully vote against this.

[badtoworse]

2. How would it be paid for?

We don't have a pot to piss in.

[Orrex]

7. They could, I don't know, maybe not fund a few F-35s?

[Hard Assets]

49. Or drop the F-35 program entirely.

And screw Lockheed, permanently.

Signed, a disgruntled ex-Lockheed employee.

[bigtree]

10. yet

. . . we can't stop investing in the things which generate long-term growth. Educating our children pays dividends all throughout their lifetimes; both in preemptive savings and future contributions to the nation's productivity and innovation.

But, the answer about funding is more than obvious to anyone who's watched the trillions of dollars thrown away by Congress deploying record numbers of troops in pursuit of Bush and Cheney's boogeymen. President Obama has signed an increase in defense into law every year that he's been in office. No trouble finding that pot to piss in.

[Sancho]

16. hmmm..where did you get the idea that there is no money?

Since the 1950's, we've spent about half the budget on the military? Virtually nothing on education that compares...it's simply a matter of what's important.

Heck, we give more "tax breaks" and subsidies to big corporations than a preK program would cost.

[alp227]

61. Didn't the space race spark expansion of math/ science education?

[gtar100]

17. Really? Is that how you view ths US? Look around with open eyes... we are flush with wealth.

Just poorly distributed wealth. It's this attitude that we cannot afford to do anything that would be of benefit to people that keeps us stuck. Do you advocate we do nothing just to save the money?

Please see #10 for more details... if you're actually interested in being more than a stick in the mud.

This proposal has no direct benefit to me. My children have all grown up. But I enthusiastically support these measures because it is a positive action that can do a lot of good. And if you need a selfish reason for supporting it, it's because I want to live in a world that actually cares for children beyond the womb.

It's not that we "don't have a pot to piss in", as you say, it's that our priorities are all messed up and we are spending money in ways that are wasteful rather than helpful. Why on earth do you want a government that treats its people with such disdain? Austerity only makes things worse for most people. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Or one that dares to try and do better.

[great white snark]

29. Well said.

I like to think that we, when analyzing a new policy are the party of "who does it help" and they are the party of "how much does it cost".

[freshwest]

47. +1 to both of you. Well said.

[AllyCat]

21. Asking the corporations and wealthy to actually pay their fair share

not just an modest "increase".

[Botany]

3. great idea

Last edited Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)

What is the definition of an a-hole? The predictable response by a republican that this is a bad idea, we can't afford it but at the same time spending more than the next 20 nations in the world combined on war is still OK, and this is more "big government nanny state interference" with the family.

[Chorophyll]

4. I like your definition.

[JDPriestly]

35. To say nothing of what we spend to pour our cereal out of a fancy box every morning,

buy all our meat and fruit and vegetables in plastic bags, drive our cars to work every day even though we live in cities with (poorly organized and used) public transportation, have more TV stations than a person could watch in 20 lifetimes and pay sports personalities fortunes.

Why isn't there any money for education, Social Security and Medicare? Because we spend, spend, spend on things we don't even want without realizing how much they cost us when you add them all up?

[Victor_c3]

5. sounds good to me

I grew up in a small town and there was only one pre-school program (private) that was available when I was a kid in the 1980s. Looking back at a picture I found recently of my preschool class, every kid in that picture ended up in the upper portion of my high school graduating class.

I wish I could find the data on this, but a while back I found a study that showed that for every dollar the state of NY spent on early childhood education was three dollars that the state of NY doesn't have to spend on things like incarceration and public assistance later on in life.

[LisaLynne]

9. Wow, yeah, I'd like to see that study.

That SHOULD be enough to shut up the "oh we can't afford it" crowd. I know it wouldn't be, but ... The thing that they refuse/don't want to get is that investing in people/education/etc does pay off in the long run, besides being the right thing to do. Why they refuse to acknowledge this is that they don't want an educated public. Cuts down on their profits in the private prison industry, among other things.

[Victor_c3]

15. I just did a google search on this

"correlation between early childhood education and incarceration rates" and I found a bunch of articles all showing the direct link.

I'm at work right now and I'm running between screwing off (i.e. posting on this forum) and actually doing my job so I can't go through all of the articles, but there is a ton of information out there in the form of scientific studies showing the huge benefits in crime reduction alone associated with early childhood education. If I find something really good, I'll post it.

If we want to make America strong and maintain our position as a world leader, we need to invest more in our kids. It is just a shame that we spend as much on our war budget as we do without even flinching yet coming up with more money to educate our kids will probably become a huge fight.

[JDPriestly]

37. Yes. Thanks for your post.

[colorado_ufo]

46. Easy call here.

With children of highly disadvantaged families, often those same families are dysfunctional in multiple ways. Very young children see their family as their universe and the pattern that they are expected to follow; it's nature's imprinting. When these children are exposed to other adults, new ideas, high standards of conduct, new playthings and activities, exposure to more of the world, sound foundations in basic education and increased socialization - not to mention healthy snacks and rest periods - this can only help found a more stable, forward-thinking human life.

[freshwest]

48. Well said.

[alp227]

62. 90s kid here. You got great points brother!

I think these links should help

http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-data-repository/cradle-to-prison-pipeline/cradle-prison-pipeline-new-york-2009-fact-sheet.pdf
http://evidencebasedprograms.org/1366-2/65-2

[BigD_95]

65. I would be that had more to do

with their parents then the pre-school program.

Think about it. One pre-school. So it wasnt common. The parents that sent their kids there cared about their kids education. So they probably looked over their kids the whole way through school.

[kelliekat44]

6. Partnerships will pay!! I would rather spend tax dollars on this than on the next fighter jet!!!

We all need to get behind this in some way. Kick butt, Mr President!!!!!

[lunatica]

8. It sounds pretty damn Progressive to me

[valerief]

11. Funding for for-profit charter charlatans, too? I hope not. nt

[michigandem58]

12. What do you teach? n/t

[savebigbird]

56. What do you have against teachers? n/t

[michigandem58]

60. ...

[brer cat]

13. He is coming to Decatur, GA (Yes GA!)

today to kick off his plan. As much as I loath Zell Miller, we have to give him credit for one major accomplishment: when the GA lottery was instituted, he earmarked a huge amount of the funds to establish pre-schools for 3-4 yo throughout the state. At that time GA led the nation in pre school education.

Thank you, Pres. O for a massive kick for pre-school education for all children!!

[Heather MC]

18. Dang 7 years too late for my boys but my future grandkids rock on!

We paid 14,000 for my oldest to go to 2 years of preschool. And 6,000 for my second. my youngest was able to use head start because he was diagnosed with a developmental delay. however because his birthday is in August they wanted to put him in Kindergarten as soon as he turned 5. i didn't agree with that so i found a jr. kindergarten class to send him too til his next birthday and he started kindergarten at 6.

I am glad we were able to do that for both our children, they are doing extremely well in school now. my oldest was invited into the gifted program in 4th grade. And he made the counties honors orchestra, my youngest is no longer in the special needs program, and he is reading and doing great.

My hope is one day everyone has that opportunity for their children to give them all the tools they need to feel encouraged, and confident about learning. we are not rich no where near it. we decided our boys education from the beginning was worth is worth any sacrifice we have to make.

I understand not everyone can afford to do what we did. That's why i am happy our president is willing to make that investment in our babies that alot of families may want to make but can't afford to.

[AllyCat]

23. Hear, hear! Good news.

It should not cost that much to send a kid to pre-school. In our town, the only secular program is our little parent co-op. We run a nice program and it has grown and we've added classes due to increased enrollment. With participation, we are able to keep the tuition to under $150 a month, but that is still a lot of money for many people.

[Heather MC]

26. I live in Northern VA

They overcharge for everything here

1 private school I called said the tuition was 10,000 dollars because they provided catered lunches I laughed and said how much if my kid brown bags it? the lady did not laugh at that.

The coops here are pricey too. Also I wanted in academic based preschool.

Most of the coops are learn and play

[kath]

57. But play is how young children learn.

4 & 5 year olds are not, repeat NOT, ready for "academics" as they are generally defined. Worksheets should be no part of a 4 or 5-yr-old program. Way, way, way too many of the programs out there are NOT developmentally appropriate. Pushing what used to be the first grade curriculum (and standardized testing) down into K and pre-K is wrong and can be harmful instead of helpful.
I fear that all this tax money will go to the wrong sort of programs.

Read David Elkind's "The Hurried Child" and his other books. Also check out what you can find about the project approach, constructivism, and the pre-schools in Reggio-Emilia Italy (the "Reggio approach&quot The NAEYC used to have (and probably still does) some very good materials on developmentally-appropriate practice. I think there is even a book called "The Developmentally-Appropriate Kindergarten" (or maybe that is the subtitle - no time to research right now)

[Heather MC]

58. it too late for me my boys are no longer pre-school age

I am not a fan of learn and play. i know their are tons of programs that do that and schools, but at the time i was more concerned with helping my son develop good skills for learning the would help him in a regular school setting. he was 5 going on 6. when i put him a jr. kindergarten program. he didn't start kindergarten until he was 6.

[mopinko]

19. hope that money gets used in some of the "underutilized" schools on the chopping block here

in chicago. i keep scream at the radio that if the school are underutilized, and in poor neighborhoods, now is the time for expanded preschool and lower class sizes.
maybe this will help.

[frazzled]

31. That's a good idea

Though I suspect that if there are still seven underpopulated schools in, say, Englewood, they might still have to consolidate to achieve such a pre-school program with cost efficiency and the best concentration of educational resources.

One of my suggestions for the district involves a different kind of consolidation, which I think would be of enormous value. When my kids (now in their 20s and early 30s) were young, because there was a desegregation program still in place, the public elementary school we chose to send them to (there was choice at that time) was spread between two schools, one in a middle class neighborhood, one in a nearby poorer and predominantly black neighborhood. At first I was leery of this situation of having to change schools midway through the elementary years, but it turned out to be the best thing in the world. The first school was K-3, the second 4-6. The benefits were:

(1) The K-3 school had a very gentle atmosphere overall. The oldest kids were around eight years old, so sending your five-year-old to Kindergarten was not so intimidating for them. All-school activities were able to be geared toward that age group. This worked even better in the 4-6 school, which is a very unified age group.

(2) Because there were twice as many students in each grade (say, 6 first grade classrooms instead of the three that would exist in a K-6 school), more refined divisions and attention could be given to different needs, by teachers sharing responsibilities. The six first-grade teachers, for instance, could each handle two different reading levels, so there could be 12 different levels and focuses to assign kids to, instead of a single classroom teacher having to deal with a wide range of skill levels in one class.

(3) Resources could be much more focused in each of the schools, making for more resources at each level and at a lower cost. For example, a library in a K-6 school has to have books across all seven grades. By dividing the schools in two, each could purchase twice as many books and materials aimed at just that age level for the same cost. It worked even for P.E. classes, where you didn't have to buy 7 different sizes of jump rope, but only 3, and thus could afford other equipment on the same budget.

All in all, this system was excellent for academics, for emotional development, and for cost effectiveness. In addition, it had the benefit of mixing kids from different socio-economic backgrounds, which was good for all.

[mopinko]

40. one of the schools on the block was half of such a pair.

NOBODY wanted to see that.

sounds like there should be more like them.

[frazzled]

44. Too bad, I think it's a good (and different) way of approaching early education

On the other comment you made, although I am all for smaller class sizes and think it's essential, it's still not economically viable to keep a building open that houses 500 kids if there are only 250 attending. The overhead of utilities, resources like library materials, cleaning services, and repairs to a bunch of different schools that are only half full is not a good use of resources.

This is a terrible conundrum, and I don't know which side to believe. But there are actual facts to be had here, not just emotions, and nobody seems to be doing the research. I was reading the article in the Tribune today, and it presented both sides: the District says it's facing a $1 Billion deficit next year and that a whole bunch of schools are running at far under capacity, due to loss of population. The vocal parents are saying this is not true. Well, it's either true or not true, so why can't the Tribune investigate?

We know, for sure, that the City of Chicago lost a lot of population in the last decade. It was a big story, and if you google it, you will see it was covered by many news outlets, especially the aspect of the population loss being largely in African American communities (which would mean the South and West sides, predominantly). That's a fact, but just how much school population did that migration affect?

The 2010 Census reveals that Chicago's black population is leaving -- to Houston, to Dallas, to Atlanta and to the other black talent-magnet cities of the 21st century. And in some cases, they're moving to the smaller cities of the Deep South that were once points of origin for the Great Migration.

The 2010 Census showed the city of Chicago lost 200,000 people over the last decade. The city now has about as many people as it did in 1910. There are 181,000 fewer African Americans in the city, a whopping drop of 17 percent, and 72,000 fewer in the region as a whole.

At the same time, an influx of Latinos, many of Mexican ancestry, presents a notable counterweight to the black exodus. Latinos are increasing their share of Chicago's population, and there are 25,000 more Latinos in the city now than in 2000. And more and more, Latino immigrants are "skipping the city" and heading straight to the suburbs, where jobs and cheap housing can more easily be found.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/chicago-black-population_n_917848.html

The District may be exaggerating; but the opposition seems to be ignoring some facts altogether. What is the truth and why doesn't the media provide better investigative reporting instead of the usual "he said/she said" coverage? No one wants to see their school closed and consolidated with another. Change is hard. I hope this can happen with minimal disruption to people's lives, with actual improvements in educational impact rather than more wreckage, and with savings that can help the city schools heal and modernize.

I guess that's hoping for too much.

[AllyCat]

20. I would LOVE to be a home nurse for a program like this!

What an amazing plan this is on all levels. Birth to Three is fantastic and we have had positive experiences with 4K in our area for ALL children.

[SunSeeker]

28. I hope folks like you would be. It would save kids' lives. nt

[vlyons]

22. It's not just about where do we get the money now.

I can think of lots of ways to fund it, starting with Wall St and DOD. We could raise the income tax on hedge funds that currently pay only about 15%, we could tax electronic stock and bond trades at 0.03% per $100. We could cut DOD programs.

More importantly, think how much we will save long term by not having impoverished children grow up without preschool learning and be condemned to fall farther and farther behind peers with each year, become school dropouts, and then start a life of crime as the only way to generate income.

I hope the Republicans fight this to the max, so that Americans turn against them and vote more of them out. The stupid party will probably do just this.

[coluccim]

24. How long until we start closing the "underperforming" early start schools in "bad" areas?

More frequent wellness checks and screening, I agree with.

[liberal_at_heart]

34. that is my concern

They will tie these federal dollars to performance and then you will have schools pushing children to read when they are not ready. Helping children live up to their potential is a great goal. It is how they go about it that is the problem. You can not force learning improvements and that is exactly what they are doing.

[Squinch]

52. I have a lot of these same concerns. I am also concerned that they will now take 3 and 4 year olds,

sit them at desks for 7 hours a day so they can learn testable and measureable skills, and the whole thing will actually be a negative rathet than a positive.

I love Obama, but his trust in his education advisors is completely misplaced, and he is facilitating the conversion of public schools into a corporate boondoggle. We already have curricula across the country that are completely inappropriate for the neurological development of 5 and 6 year olds, now I fear we will move that down to 3 and 4 year olds.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

25. This plan will do more against Gun Violence than almost anything else

Children who are cared for and have good nurturing surroundings with plenty of stimulation are more likely to grow up healthy and mentally sound and well socialized. They will have more non-violent options and less likely to choose violent options.

The sins of parents are visited on children, usually in the form of psychological abuse and bad parenting. Pre-K and Kindergarten are great foundations to give children an alternative view on opportunity and life.

[oregonjen]

27. Often, preschool is the first place where developmental issues are addressed

Parents will get support to give their children what they need. Early intervention is best.

[JDPriestly]

30. This could insure a great future for America.

My only criticism is that it should not be means tested. Every child regardless of the wealth of the family should be eligible.

Why do we think that the children of the wealthy are more ready for school at ages 5 and 6 than the children of the poor?

I know they do better once they get there, but how much better could they do if they were in a pre-school class rather than left alone with a nanny?

[SunSeeker]

41. Rich kids do better in school for a lot of reasons we have yet to address, but this is a big one.

Poor parents can't buy their kids a nice house with a quiet bedroom to study in. And these parents are uneducated themselves or speak limited English, thus making it difficult when it comes to helping with homework, etc. Also, poor parents are often out working two minimum wage jobs, leaving behind their latch-key kids. I was one of those kids. I managed to succeed despite that, but my brother didn't, nor did most of our childhood friends.

And don't worry about the rich kids. Rich kids already go to pre-school; they're just left alone with the nanny evenings and weekends. And the pre-schools they go to are the fancy, $1,000+/month private kind. They would definitely not go mingle with the great unwashed in any pre-school funded by this program. That said, this program only helps you if you are 200% or below the poverty level. That's not rich; that's $47k/year for a family of four. That's barely middle class.

http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html

[SunSeeker]

32. Another amazing proposal.

...that we should already be doing like the rest of the civilized world.

[Myrina]

33. A couple things:

Actually, Head Start isn't really that beneficial, long term. Did a research paper on it for undergrad, sad to say but the detractors are right.

Second, are these kids going to be subject to standardized testing, Michelle Rhee/Arne Duncan style?

Third, are 'charter preschools' now included? If so, say buh-bye to what's left of the Public School System.

Sigh.

[reformist2]

36. +1. I've also read how head start dosn't work long-term. Sad, but apparently true.

[liberal_at_heart]

39. It probably doesn't work because you can't just give young infants support and then yank it out from

under them when they get older. A child doesn't know how to read by the time they are 5. Sure they learn abc's, but first grade, second grade, third grade, and so on are just as important in the process of learning how to read as pre-k is. That is why we have a k-12 school system. All grades are important. All grades need support. How can the kids possibly know everything they will need to know by the time they are 5? Are we honestly going to tell a 6 yr old, "Sorry your extra support is gone now. You have the head start you need. It's up to you now."? It never has made any sense to me.

[kelliekat44]

38. Long term...like how long. Or is it high schools are not that beneficial long-term?

Head Start is a great program and could be much better if people worked harder to get good teachers for reasonable salaries. Need more evidence than a school paper.

[FarCenter]

42. How does this relate to day care?

Now that my grandson had entered kindergarten, my daughter and SIL's life is more complicated since the kindergarten hours are not a whole work day.

Taking more kids out of daycare and putting them into pre-K would seem like a major complication for young parents, unless the pre-K schedules are set up to cover an entire work day.

[joanbarnes]

43. What a concept?!? Investing in our children and our future.

[ReRe]

45. PO's Pre-K Education Plan

.... Sounds good on the surface. I have long wondered how to raise the HS graduation rate. This may be the key. But how many of those red states will refuse it for their Pre-K children?I like it.

[Hard Assets]

50. My son is almost 4.

He now needs a bit of OT to catch him up a little bit on his fine motor and knowing where his body space is.

Naturally, his insurance shows that OT is out of the network, so we'll have to pay something too.

[ReRe]

51. I think you meant to reply to someone else?

...because I don't understand your question.

[glowing]

53. Why not just make it like school and not put a poverty

threshold on it. Actually, create a Natiinal DayCare program for children. For the before 5 yr olds and for school kids, before and after school care. It is truly an expense to have kids languishing in the lackluster provisions of differing care in this country... Not to mention the after school at risk issues. People have to work, well damn it, companies need to pony up some tax money for needing people to work for them.

Feminist groups have had to spend so much time defending the rights we should supposedly have, that we haven't been able to push forward and demand some damned compensation for our labor and families having to have 2 people work to scrape by. I'm sure that's some of the reason we still have to fight for birth control, because if we didn't we wouldn't have that distraction to hold us back from demanding better quality lives for us and our children!

[hue]

54. This is STELLAR!!! Education at a time when children learn by osmosis!! This will make a difference!

This is a most positive act!!!! Thank You President Obama!!!!

[savebigbird]

55. Good idea, but

I smell vouchers.

[MissMarple]

59. Fabulous! Absolutely fabulous!

And on a more serious note...

Now, let's bring back mandatory home ec ...with cooking, cleaning, budgeting, child development, and health education.

[BigD_95]

64. He should be releasing a full jobs bill

[Schema Thing]

66. Go away. This is a thread about pre-k.