Pre-K is really just baby sitting. What looks to be progress doesn't continue past a year or two. If it did, you'd see real progress with the early recipients from 2008. Also, Newark has the same pre-K initiative. Look how great their schools are. Most of the students' parents are already receiving welfare, healthcare and other benefits. When is it enough?
4
The best preschool program for any child is a good mother who has the time to raise her own children until school age at 5. Preschool is great as long as it is not replacing the job of the parents. Why have children if they end up institutionalized in a government run pre-K?
9
@Melissa M. Kids really don't care if it's a man or woman raising them. Preschool and pre-k are extremely important to development, regardless of what happens at home.
21
@Melissa M.
I was a stay at home mom, but sent my kids to preschool part-time. In kindergarten, it is really obvious which kids don't attend preschool and they hold back the entire class. Also, stay-at-home dads are very common now.
17
Back here in the 21st century, everyone is just trying to do the best for their kids and society, and I can't see how less education is the answer. Public schools (which you hilariously refer to as "institutionalized" and "government run," bless your heart!) have a long tradition in the United States, something I learned in a public school. One of the best things about public education is that it creates a society of knowledgeable people, not just the wealthy, who can serve as role models for the next generation. Starting school when kids are thirsting for knowledge (3K and pre-K coincide with the "but why?" phase) seems appropriate and great for learning that a world exists beyond one's own doorstep.
22
The solution is simple: if you can’t afford the time or cost to raise a child, then don’t have one. Parenthood is as much a financial decision as an emotional one.
6
I really like the idea of Pre-K and do not at all conflate it with baby sitting, but just like all other education, how much are we willing to pay for it. I think nothing is more important that the first 6 years of a child's life and we should be willing to pay the billions we usually reserve for ridiculous defense spending to back it.
18
I do not understand all the vitriol and criticism in the comments. As I read the article, it seemed amazing to me. My son was in day care at my jobs (yes, the rest of America needs this) which was not free but boy was it helpful. He socialized, he tried new foods, he was toilet trained...this is not just to extol the virtues of day care, which are legion by the way, but to say that, for families that cannot pay for day care or who lack access to it, well, 3-K is a great solution to that problem. YES, we should fund this and more. When we talk about leveling the playing field, of increasing opportunities for all Americans, even the poor, aren't we talking about this?
Or is that not what America is about after all?
What happened to my son who attended day care from the age of 4 months until he started kindergarten? Gifted education all the way in the New York City public schools, including a specialized high school and a math major in college. (By the way, day care was the only part of his education we paid for until college.) What will happen to these lucky children whose educations are enriched from this early age? Why not the same?
28
I had the good fortune to be taught at age 4 by Granny.
No BA, nope. Maybe 5 years in a segregated school in
early 1900s South Carolina. But I learned to read~!
She sat her aging frame on the floor with me and drilled me
with flash cards.
She and Wiley also passed along the wisdom of the elders.
I haven't forgotten!
5
I’m 43 and recall that I went to “pre-K” 40 years ago in Massachusetts; it was called “nursery school” then, was run out of a local church basement, and my parents tell me they paid for it out of pocket but the cost was reasonable. I have fleeting memories of it, and all are positive.
I guess my question is why should pre- K be taxpayer funded, rather than designed to be an _affordable_ choice that parents can elect for their children if they so choose? K-12 is taxpayer funded already, and all I hear about on the news is how abysmal teacher pay is, classroom materials are, etc. Sounds like the _last_ thing we should be doing is tacking on 2 additional years to already barely-okay public school budgets.
4
The program will do nothing for responsible two-parent families that think their young children should be at home rather than in government daycare.
6
High quality means well-paid teachers with at least a BA degree and a specialty in early childhood ed. It means small class size. It means at least six hours/day, five days/week. It means classroom assistants who also have professional training. Parents are welcome, but they are not a substitute for professionals.
High quality does not mean an employment program for an economically distressed neighborhood where the school may be located. Childcare is a side bonus, not a goal.
While we’re providing salaries and benefits that make the field attractive to good people, let’s also work to insure that at least some of the qualified professionals look like the young children they are teaching. Full scholarships may be one way to achieve this.
Doing it right is not cheap up-front, but in the long term it is cheaper than doing it wrong or not at all.
17
What used to be first grade curriculum is now being taught in Kindergarten. This is why so many children had learning disabilities, ADHD, and attention deficit disorder. My 1950's classroom exhibited none of these issues and we had a half day Kindergarten that was basically social skills and play. At fours old I was home with my mom.
Early education should not have "reading assignments." I have advanced degrees in reading education and have taught thousands of children and adults how to advance their reading skills and always have to go back to basics: general language skills, like having a conversation that makes sense. You would not believe how many children of all ages can not do this.
28
@Kuhlsue: I have a neighbor who is a retired kindergarden teacher -- 40 YEARS in the classroom -- from the 60s to 00s.
She saw all the changes, and abhors them. Kindergarten used to be play! music and singing! finger painting! today it is TESTING and demanding kids learn numbers and letters -- stuff that used to be done IN FIRST GRADE.
They even have homework! she says "they have taken all the joy out of kindergarten".
4
That's the problem with preschool. Parent look at it like "free" childcare.
8
@Ryan-more like free public education. Which is what it is. And what it should be.
10
Boston also has near universal "pre-K" (goes by K-1 here) as well as limited K-0, primarily available to 3- and 4-year-olds with additional developmental challenges. It's been a huge boon to our 2-working-parent family and saved us over $1000 this past year in preschool tuition (we now pay only for after school care), and we were lucky to have him at a high-quality, low-cost nonprofit early childhood education center to begin with; some for-profit centers cost twice what we paid. It also saved my child from the unnecessary challenge of both transitioning into a totally new environment/routine/social group while also having to master the early basics of reading and math (not just letter and number identification and sound or quantify matching, which was very well taught). His K-1 teacher was also a properly paid, well trained professional educator, which I can't say for most of his preschool teachers, though some we're indeed excellent despite the relatively low pay.
12
@TMBM - Agree! Both of our kids went to one of the Early Learning Centers (ELCs) that are part of Boston Public Schools (ours served K-0 to grade 1). They developed writing and reading skills earlier than I would have imagined, but also had lots of "play" time - they were outside at least twice a day, sometimes more (playground 2X, nature walks for science class, walks around the city, gym class outside). They also had frequent field trips using public transportation (the T) - yes, even the 3-year-old classroom. A full-time music teacher, with music twice per week. The ELCs at Boston Public Schools are doing amazing things for younger kids.
11
Washington DC public schools have been ranked among the country's worst for decades --- our former President, unlike Jimmy Carter --- would not send his children there.
The schools don't need to provide daycare, they need to focus on the 7-10 year old demographic where the gap widens geometrically
6
@tobin
The gap in development actually begins at 18 months. This article is about pre-school where social emotional skills are developed (the #1 indicator of success in school and life, measured in Kindergarten). The point of public pre-school is to prevent the gaps that already exist in Kindergarten from happening as schools have a really hard time getting those kids caught up to their peers by age 10. Sadly, if by 10 they haven't, studies show they almost never do.
6
Used to be called Headstart.. and certainly much better than sitting around in front of the TV on a given day... and PS children could/should be exposed to a second language at this point in time. (After age 8, the brain's method of language acquisition totally changes.) Healthy food should be served -- and meals should be spaced ( 8:30 for breakfast; 10:30 for lunch does not do it -- but that is often the case.) There should be an area where the children can be outside (often not the case) and physical activity of varied sorts should be happening daily. Naps/rest -- may or may not "work." (Taught there -- HeadStart, Kg, some Pre-K) big differences amongst settings. Think of it as holistic school. .
Montessori methods can also be applied. So far as costs -- guess what-- a private Montessori program would cost less per child. (Teachers are paid under 25$ an hour in NJ).
It's entirely possible to write a curriculum detailing goals of all sorts -- knowledge, skills, physical, social, etc. and programs can/should be judged on the basis of children who are able (not all are) achieving various benchmarks. Group learning also involves children teaching each other and individual learning.
So what's the problem? The creche system aka Daycare in France offers care for the very young. (Personally, I think all kids should be on breast milk until 6 months-1 year.)
#Why we don't have Universal Single Payer ….. instead make lots of bombs
6
Can't we just let kids be kids for the first few years of their lives, like maybe through age 5?
13
@MIKEinNYC Cause the Parents are busy with their high pressure Jobs in SE DC
3
Yes, let’s add millions and millions of dollars to local districts to build more classrooms, hire more union employees, and provide them all with healthcare. Let’s raise taxes on everyone to do it.
The primary teachers’ salaries are already weighing down the most important high school teachers’ salaries and the best of them - those who can teach AP Physics, Calculus, Literature, Chemistry - are leaving in droves or just never choosing the career in the first place.
This is another well-intentioned fantasy of the left. Even the headline: “only three years to figure out childcare” is so telling: let the government raise your kid!
12
@Walker
"The primary teachers’ salaries are already weighing down the most important high school teachers’ salaries and the best of them - those who can teach AP Physics, Calculus, Literature, Chemistry - are leaving in droves or just never choosing the career in the first place. "....
I think, very few, on either the "left" or "right" would agree with that assessment especially the AP Physics, Calculus, Literature, Chemistry teachers.
7
@Walker The "government raising your kid" line is just more fear-mongering. The "government" is just the people, the voters, acting upon our collective will through democracy. I trust that more than any individual parent, frankly.
12
"Research also suggests that pre-K programs reduce the need for...raise students’ future... lower... and get parents back to..." Some additional issues to consider:
Research DOES NOT "suggest" as we move from analyzed relevant Data to derived Information-Knowing, to created Understanding. Which is likely to change over time and place as current gaps in critical information and technology are filled. It is likely that ranges of types, levels, and qualities of "unknowables" will continue to exist.
This article's writing style implies a series of + "cause and effect" outcomes from this system. Holding in abeyance the influences of everpresent realities' interacting dimensions of uncertainties, unpredictabilities, randomness and lack of total control, whatever one's efforts, timely or not, perhaps include "associated with." Also, targeted goals can/do occur, and we know not why? Which may be OK. Everything isn't measurable.
Whatever the preK program's outcome goals; theoretically and empirically posited/underpinned, it may be useful to frame them within the interacting, non-linear, multidimensional processes of: BEing aware. Attending. Perceiving. Sensing.Questioning.Questing-Exploring. Thinking. Feeling. Evaluating. Deciding. Risking. Doing, or not. Learning from the decision(s); the doings and not doings.Integrating. Failing to Fail better.
These processes and their ranges of necessary associated skills, tools and abilities enable our everyday coping. Adapting. Functioning.
2
Very inspirational! It's an example of what we ("society") can gain when we fund universal early childhood education for all children and families...let's make sure we leave no child behind.
12
Dr. Barbara Sizemore was the iconic pioneer of black community control of public schools expecting academic excellence from black students regardless of their socioeconomic status.
From the Chicago Public Schools to the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools to Dean of Education at Pitt and DePaul she led the way by practicing what she preached and researched.
Unfortunately white European American Judeo-Christian majority supremacy presumes that black African American children are innately and uniquely ignorant, immoral and lazy.
While all black kid students suffer, black boys are particularly vulnerable to being discriminated against in educational opportunities and are unfairly and unequally targeted for discipline.
The black public school to prison pipeline is real. See the works of Diane Ravitch and the play ' Pipeline ' by Dominique Morriseau
2
@Blackmamba
The studies of the impact of pre-K shows definite improvement for students from minority and poorer families that children who have not experienced it. They do as well as children from affluent families. But the effect diminishes after the third grade. The problem seems to be something that pre-K cannot address.
8
Sincere question --- why has the Chinese community, who are lower on the economic scale than the black community, figured it out with the highest scoring students in the country? Why are they able to make neighborhood public schools their own?
9
If there is a need for models of early education programs for children as young as three there are many good models to look to in Europe. Italy's Reggio Emilia Program is a model I studied for many years and is basis for many private pre-K programs in US. There are many other examples in Europe and they are government funded. They are in almost every case however not physically part of elementary schools but in a number of cases there is association for transition.
6
My kids are 7 and 5 and each went through two years of preschool in their DC public charter school. I'd like to respond, based on our experience, to some of the comments so far.
(I don't feel a need to get into it with people who think kids should only be home with a parent).
First, to the argument that resources should be focused on the kids who most need support - in principle I agree. We are not low income. The school has kids from a mix of backgrounds, both racially/ethnically and socioeconomically. As has been noted, having the program serve all income levels helps maintain overall political support, which is important even in a liberal enclave like DC. But it also has a democratizing effect: our kids are together, in the same boat, with the same resources, and learning about all kinds of lives and backgrounds. I think this is a great thing, and starting it at a young age is fantastic.
Second is the argument that kids shouldn't be forced into intensive learning at this age. I agree (based on instinct - I'm not an education expert). But the focus, in our school at least, is absolutely on social/emotional learning and play.
Finally - it's not "just daycare" (though I admire daycare workers too!). The teachers are phenomenal early childhood experts - as the article notes, DC pays for that - and is definitely a huge step up from the private daycare/preschool that we were in before.
We feel really fortunate, and I hope other cities follow DC's lead.
75
Most of the commentators here have obviously never seen high quality care for young children. The author glossed over a few things that might help understand.
The reason DC is paying these pre-K teachers well is they actually have early childhood education degrees, that include training in child development and teaching skills (directed as small children). High-quality child care has weekly themes, has a combination of self-directed dramatic play and teacher-led circle time type activities, has parallel play and then group play opportunities with blocks, Legos, kitchen, cash registers, and then likely even a safe space to run and maybe learn to ride a bike outside. There is ample staff that watches the kids, and helps mediate disputes which teaches valuable social skills .. better than many adults. The children meet a variety of adults and children from diverse backgrounds and with diverse temperments and personalities.
Many of these magical stay at home arrangements have tired mom who is also cooking dinner, cleaning house, and may not have any knowledge of how to care for their kids or the will to engage with them in a positive manner all day.
That and how many families really can afford a dedicated parent to watch one or two kids ... and what if these families break up and mom has no job skills and kids end up living in poverty.
Or if mom and/or dad are already in poverty. Or have health or mental problems.
Should their kids start school 4 or 5 years behind?
38
An important thing to remember about any education program, at any grade level, is that everything works for some students in some places, but nothing works for every student in every place. Any one-size-fits-all concept that comes with big expectations is bound to fail. Children mature at different rates, with noticeable differences between girls and boys as well as obvious differences based on socioeconomic status. Too often programs are deemed a failure if they don't succeed in achieving particular aims with every child, every time, everywhere.
That said, Washington DC is doing a lot of things right, especially for their neediest students. These kids are interacting with peers and adults, learning basic cognitive skills, and presumably getting a nutritious lunch. That beats sitting in front of the television at home or in substandard daycare, eating whatever is available. Serious problems such as eyesight, hearing, or learning disabilities can be spotted early, before the children fall far behind. Paying the teachers equivalent to primary school teachers is key. They are getting skilled teachers who want to be there and aren't being paid minimum wage with no benefits. Quality costs money. This program can be transferred and succeed, as long as expectations are kept realistic for the children and teachers both.
23
Three years old is too young to be learning from a curriculum. They are not square tomatoes to be packaged as future workers, but people who need to grow in their own unique ways. What they really need to know is they are loved and secure.
12
@Philip D - That happens at good early childhood development centres. It worked well for many children I know, including my kid and my grandkids. They all know they are loved and secure.
15
@Philip D
I disagree. Having a weekly theme for even a 2 year old helps the child grow and even gives mom and dad something to talk about their kids, who could be pre-verbal or having trouble talking.
There are learning milestones that prepare children for pre-reading and then reading or for counting objects and then doing math or for exploring their world through questions and then science.
Sure, there is no need to do worksheets or math problems on the board, but there is so much that a good teacher can offer a young child.
Whether they want to be future workers or not is immaterial, but then again, most people are going to be workers to support themselves, so maybe growing that incredibly powerful brain and that incredibly great body in a healthy way will make them a happier more effective worker who can make good money and maybe solve the world's problems.
And maybe some of these kids will come out of poor or otherwise underprivileged families. Fantastic!
17
@Philip D
Something like 90% of neuronal connections are formed in the first four years of life. So having children in an enriched environment is very beneficial.
26
When my kid was 3 all she wanted to do was play. Beyond providing good daycare while mom/dad work, I don't honestly see the value in starting school at 3.
11
@DS I have family members who have their children in daycare early with excellent results. Children are sponges and they are resilient. The other upside is that "technology" is not the babysitter as it ends up being in the home. There is real value, social and emotional, when children are in good, well-run programs with a diverse group of children and caregivers.
7
@Debbie Well to each his own. My daughter is a doctor now and while I sent her to pre-k she never paid attention there, never learnt her ABCs, numbers or any other "useful" information, as I said all she wanted to do was play. I agree with you however on the social and emotional benefits -- just not the educational benefits.
3
@DS
In a good daycare, preschool children play in ways that build their thinking, motor and social skills, sometimes directed by a teacher and sometimes entirely on their own initiative. The children in a good daycare have easy access to toys, art materials and books. There is no value in prematurely forcing young kids to acquire skills (e.g. reading) they're not ready for, but there's immense value in providing children with a rich environment and well-trained teachers to help them maximize their potential.
11
There is Pre-K and there is Zero-Three pre-school care. It's beyond baby sitting but is actually well baby and well child care as well as early childhood education. It helps child to grow and develop better and helps to address needs that if ignored can lead to struggles for the rest of their lives. It is expensive, though. Good child care costs as much as many low income people earn.
We as a country need to openly discuss this so that all, parents or not, understand it and what providing and not providing means to our whole nation. There are definite benefits which may not be easy to measure in dollars to make evaluating the cost verses benefits analysis rational.
8
Why not stay at home with their mothers and/or fathers as long as possible until kindergarten? That’s what is best.
And everyone makes choices. If you can’t afford children then DO NOT have them. Period. And save your breath with the excuses for bad behaviour.
17
@Simon What is your basis for saying what's "best"? How does that square with the fact that children throughout most of human history lived with far more caregivers than just their parents? And are we to leave the child's early years, which are by nearly all accounts, critical to the child's mental and emotional development to the vagaries of an untrained stay-at-home parent? Children seem to benefit from being in a social setting and having an enriched environment that is nearly unattainable for all but the most dedicated and well-off parents.
17
@Simon,
Unfortunately, a lot of people think as you do. But often, it is not best for children to stay home with one parent, even if that parent is a good parent.
Children need to learn to be social beings -- by interacting with others, and adults need to not be isolated. Everyone needs a web of social connections. We used to live in neighborhoods, and before that in tribes, where many people helped to raise the children. Now we often live alone in our houses, with no socialization for the children, and no needed support system for the individual parent.
30
@Max Farthington
Good parenting skills are passed through the generations.
2
My Daughter went to a Head Start program from age 3. I'm not convinced it helped my children, but my wife could get some peace and quiet and slowly get back into the working world. Hopefully one day the city can pay for childcare from 6 months.
4
I'm not sure why this article completely fails to note that pre-K seats in DC are awarded by lottery. My son was fortunate to get into a pre-k 3 program near our house, but there were plenty of kids in the neighborhood who did not get in and were left with untenable public options. We moved within DC and we could not get him into the neighborhood pre-k 4 program, so will have to drive him 25 minutes each way every day. That said, we have been very pleased with the pre-k program so far and the drive is a small price to pay.
8
@Max Farthington
I agree with you and I know plenty of people who are happy with public pre-k programs in DC --- however according to some (like @simon, above) better not to have children at all than send them to pre-k
2
My youngest is in high school, so I’m not 100% in touch.... but if you look at the most accomplished children in her cohort, you’ll see that they have parents whose primary role up to and well beyond age 3 was “parent”.
Why is there this assumption that low-wage daycare providers are more nurturing and better educators than parents? That the only true purpose of a parent is to “work more”? (Meaning, of course, for money. Because we must just want money. Money is the value.)
As a stay-at-home mom with 2 masters degrees in science, I battle constantly against this attitude which devalues everything I have contributed to society over the past 20 years.
35
@Hmm It's wonderful that you can afford to stay home with your children. Very few people have that as an option. Many either cannot make enough money outside the home to warrant it, and many others cannot afford to survive on one salary to justify staying home. It's not about valuing money, it's about valuing food, shelter, clothing, etc. Leaving aside your anecdotal assessment of your kids' peers, which as far as I can tell is unrelated to the article, I can tell you that I am in no way excited about paying the enormous sums I pay for NYC childcare to have other people spend time with my kids, and I'm grateful that I live somewhere where pre-K and soon 3-K will be options for my family. I suggest we should be glad that more families are able to access education and keep their kids safe during the day, which should in no way result in insulting their parents' values.
36
@Hmm
In some cases, you're right. In other cases, a pre-K program like this clearly offers something the parents cannot, such as teaching English-language skills to children whose parents speak a different language and may not have much English proficiency themselves. Instead of coming into kindergarten with little English language ability, those kids catch up to their peers. Or cases where parents have little education themselves, and cannot teach the basics of phonics. Not all parents have two masters degrees. Some kids come from homes wracked by alcoholism or drug abuse, and would get little attention if they stayed at home. Sure, it would be great if only people who are prepared to raise children had them, but that isn't the world we live in. Also, this program is not mandatory, so parents who are willing and able to stay home and teach their children can do so. It just provides a better option for the ones who can't.
23
@Nikki I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that sending children to play with their peers while their parents work means that the parents aren't prepared to raise children or are spaced out.
My son learned the alphabet at 17 months at his very caring (but by no means fancy shmancy) preschool. He has friends with whom he's grown up since starting when I had to go back to work. My spouse and I are well educated, which is how I know I do not possess the pedagogical tools to give my kids the kind of education they (and all kids) deserve.
I love spending time with them and wish we had more. On the other hand, I would still send them to preschool for at least part of the day to learn social skills that cannot be developed when home alone with a single adult. I am surprised and disappointed to see the attitude that school is some kind of substitute or punishment. Learning is a wonderful gift and I can't imagine depriving my children of that. You're free to feel otherwise, but please don't denigrate formal education in doing so.
18
I've worked in Pre-K programs for years. I have no problem with early preschool programs but not for any sort of teaching programs. Let them learn to socialize, explore the outdoors, swim, run and get dirty under supervision. Please don't teach them at that age. Let them teach themselves.
42
I'd like to understand what, if any, benefit pk3 provides to children in affluent, high socioeconomic status families. My gut tells me the answer is little to none.
I'm certain quality preschool provides crucial benefits for children in poverty and/or families with low educational attainment and limited time to provide intellectual stimulation and curiosity.
So, if we're going to spend scarce public resources closing the achievement gap, we ought to start with an understanding that "fair isn't equal" and those who won the lottery of birth into affluence should receive the lowest priority for funding. Make it universal for disadvantaged kids first, then build out if resources allow.
I'm also concerned that pk be used to serve the interests of wealthy strivers to push their kids to the front of the line on test scores, gifted and talented, etc. The programs should be pre-academic and designed to help kids who aren't getting everything they should in their home environments.
DCPS pushes academics faster than is developmentally appropriate. Pretty much all kids are ready to learn to read by 7, perhaps 50% are ready at age 5. DCPS pushes reading at 5 forcing many kids to senselessly struggle. Finland teaches reading at 7. Guess who has better outcomes?
Pk3 for underprivileged kids should be about helping them be ready for developmentally appropriate school experiences in kindergarten with their more affluent peers, not pre-SAT tests.
Maybe it should begin at age 1.
10
@Ben Segregating economically disadvantaged kids into public programs and leaving more affluent ones in private programs is exactly how support for these public programs erodes. Further, I believe the kids benefit from mixing kids from different social strata and backgrounds and ensuring that they are all familiar with each other and the school environment when kindergarten starts. Though perhaps we want to award public elementary school spots on the basis of economic disadvantage, too?
18
@Max Farthington
Wasn't DCPS part of the cheating scandal? didn't they graduate a whole class of high school students who hadn't attended classes ? Wasn't it NPR that reported the story that DCPS covered up? didn't they also expose Rhee for firing minority women teachers replacing them with white teachers? didn't the last chancellor work out a special deal so that his child could go to an elite school while other parents had to deal with a lottery?.
I read all those stories in the NYT and NPR weren't true someone at the Times was misleading the public.
Everything that comes out of the mouths of Washington DC is based on a mistruth. Maybe I am just to cynical but this rosy picture they paint around prek is probably just a mythical rosy picture, where are the measurable numbers that show success and what do they do when a little one is struggling? how are the parents involved? does Appletree have certified early childhood educators, social workers on the premises?
In NYC public schools the NYT, Post, Daily News investigate ,write the truth about everything that is seriously wrong with education ,and the figureheads in charge. Test scores,, racial diversity are published all the time. This feel good article is a, whitewash of the truth and if you drill deep into the numbers another ugly story is hiding in the darkness.
The NYT should do an in depth story because this is an insult to parents who are in search of a good experience for there little ones.
@Max Farthington I understand the concern. But, the reality is all kids arrive at elementary school in kindergarten because the law requires it. Reserving high quality public pre-K slots to disadvantaged kids helps them arrive in kindergarten as school ready as their more privileged peers who show up in kindergarten.
An alternative DCPS has done is use PK3 as "bait" to get affluent parents to enroll their kids in lower performing neighborhood schools. The parents do it, take the free pk and then use that subsidy to help pay for private school.
There are schools in DC that essentially turn-over the majority of kids in kindergarten because the pk was just being used as free daycare by parents with no intention of keeping their kids there. Tyler Elementary in Ward 6 is one example. I could give several more.
And, the truth is, most affluent parents in dc don't want to send their kids to schools with a high proportion of at-risk kids who haven't ALREADY received supports to address their home environments, ptsd, poor nutrition, inappropriate behavioral models, etc.
I'm hopeful it is driven by classicism rather than racism and wealthy parents don't care about color, they just don't want their kids to "mix" until the disadvantaged kids have been nurtured in a positive and safe environment. Giving slots to disadvantaged kids and getting them "mix-ready" by kindergarten when the richer kids come is what can break that pattern.
And, the wealthy kids will do just fine.
3
Proof of most of the long-term benefits of Pre-K programs come from long-term HeadStart studies. Early on these societal benefits were not apparent as the focus was on academic skills measured by standardized testing which are wholly unreliable before third grade and not much use after that. We need to stop worrying about measuring results, and focus on designing a school system based on established educational psychology and child development science which means putting in trained teachers and letting them teach.
19
This public school and charter public school effort to provide preK to all Washington, DC kids is working. The kids are doing great. What’s lacking is sufficient follow thru to help all these kids beyond kindergarten. If we can do as good of a job teaching after kindergarten as we have in this relatively new pre-K program, all kids can do well. So far, DC has not done what it takes to help all kids grow and learn. No one is accountable to make it happen. It’s not a Charter or a DC public school thing alone as schools in both spheres have problems. It’s a lack of overall leadership problem.
4
I TAUGHT PRESCHOOL In a large city. One year I had a class of bright 4 year olds. I'd take them on hikes, telling them the names of plants. I read story books to them. I taught them to listen to me when I spoke quietly. At the end of the day, I made up "flash cards" with words from "word families," such as "cat, hat, sat, bat, mat, etc.). I made copies of the words and told the kids they were "money." At the end of the day before they went home, I'd ask who wanted to earn some money? The kids enjoyed the game. I got a thank you not from a mother who saw her daughter playing teacher with the cards she'd gotten to take home. One day when I asked, who wants to earn some money? A kid said, Mr. H. All you think about is money! I also did some language experience stories with them. And wrote down some stories they told me. I'd read through the stories with them and show them to the parents, suggesting that they share the story by reading it together with their children. I'm a big fan of preschool, because I know it can be fun and productive for the kids, their families and for the staff!
36
@John Jones
What made preschool fun and productive was your interaction with the kids and all the hard work you put into creating engaging lessons and all sorts of "teachable moments." That's the part of teaching that can't be scaled: a teacher's genuine care for his students.
I hear a lot about educational gaps and lack of fair action from those who could/should do something about it. But, if instead of criticizing lack of action, we can start doing something about it. People like you (qualified, smart teachers) can start recording lessons and sharing them online, or figure out ways to have small online classes where you can still interact with kids. People like me (who are not professional educators) can help with administrative tasks or anything else teachers need help with. :-)
There are a lot of caring people in the world who want to make a difference.
3
@John Jones
Thank you, John! Lucky kids!
1
Obviously, offering young children high-quality preschool is what we should do. But since there are plenty of high quality preschools (which have more federal regulation than private elementary schools), why are we starting a government run organization? We already know that model isn’t working. We know that different children needs different environments. And, by the way, dramatic play pre-k is not most low income children need if the objective is to equalize opportunity among economic strata!
Why doesn’t the government focus on fixing the public education system they already have and provide vouchers for families to chose an accredited preschool!
3
@CC Oh yes, lets "fix" the system by giving families vouchers that divert funding away from the very system we should fix.
I have my daughter in 3K in NYC, we live in a primarily low income neighborhood. What a bold statement to say that dramatic play is not what most low income children need, most low income children do need it, all children need it. Children from lower incomes have heard millions fewer words by the time they enter school than their peers, in turn they may not be able to express themselves or relate to their peers. I'm not an educator, but I VERY much doubt that you are either.
If you were really in tune with what the landscape is for quality childcare, I think you would see that this is most definitely the best path forward.
51
@CC Your underlying premise is highly questionable. "why are we starting a government run organization? We already know that model isn’t working." Do we know that? How? You seem to be simply repeating a widely-repeated, yet largely unfounded talking point. My kid goes to a public pre-k program in DC and, from my perspective, it seems to be working great.
23
@Sylvia A person who calls public schools a "government run organization" has a different agenda than ensuring all children receive quality care and education. I would go further and say one of the best things about childcare outside the home is that children get to see and interact with other people. This, to me, is so important, both educationally, and as a member of a society at large. I hope 3K is going well for you!
20
I can't see any flaws with Universal pre-K. Relatively cheap, great for the kids, allows parents to work more, etc...
30
"Studies show that high-quality pre-K can advance children’s linguistic, academic and social development. Research also suggests that pre-K programs reduce the need for special education placements, raise students’ future incomes, lower incarceration rates and get parents back to work."
Any ONE of these is a laudable goal for the individuals and society. Let's hope these programs don't get judged on having to be successful in ALL these areas.
23
@WLK And any one of those makes the Return on Investment worthwhile, even if measured only in dollars. I'd like to see numbers on the cost of a well financed pro-K vs. projected cost of increased crime, incarceration and lowered productivity without that boost in formative years. I'm sure there are few better investments society can make.
6