 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Another Day, Another Stupid Utterance From the Governor | Main | Republican Legislators Push DUI Crackdown Legislation » January 31, 2008Overselling Pre-K
"Pre-K remains, dollar for dollar, the best investment we can make in improving the chances for our children's educational success," Bredesen said in his State of the State address in which he annouced he would seek an additional $25 million funding for pre-K. The only problem with that statement: It isn't true. On December 12, 2007, a report commissioned by the state Comptroller's Office and produced by Strategic Research Group was published that provides data that describes the benefit of pre-K participation as "limited" and with a "short impact," with even negative performance reported. You can read and download that 49-page report, Assessing the Effectiveness of Tennessee's Pre-Kindergarten Program: First Interim Report, by clicking this link. Did Gov. Bredesen not know what his own administration's study showed? Did he even know the study was done? The study, funded by the Tennessee Department of Education and the Tennessee State Comptroller's Office of Education Accountability, shows that pre-K education does not help white girls and actually hurts white and minority boys. It helps only minority girls. Given those facts, it is highly unlikely that pre-K is, as Bredesen claims, "dollar for dollar, the best investment we can make in improving the chances for our children's educational success." To be sure, there are cases where pre-K is a good thing. But the bulk of the research into pre-K over the past many years shows that its benefits are short-term at best. It is, most certainly, not the silver bullet that Gov. Bredesen pretends it to be. If the governor isn't going to pay attention to studies his own administration pays for, the least he could do is stop wasting taxpayers' money on them. Posted in Tennessee Government News
Comments
Millions of kids are not fortunate enough to have their parents teach them what a kindergartener should know to be successful in the 1st grade. Pre-K gives them their first opportunity to learn ABC's, 123's, colors, shapes and how to write their name. Kindergarten is their second chance. This gives the 1st grade teacher the ability to teach reading, writing and arithmetic without having to waste time teaching pre-k subjects. Pre-K is the solution to No-Child-Left-Behind. Posted by: Leon Taylor at January 31, 2008 1:57 PMWe won't get into an argument over whether or not pre-k is being established to do the job that kindergarten was supposed to do. The issue I raised isn't whether pre-k is good or bad - many Republican legislators voted for the pre-k program. The issue is whether Bredesen pays attention to serious research on the impact of pre-k done by his own administration when he decides to commit taxpayers to another $25 million in funding for it, and whether his rhetoric on the value of pre-k is supported by the research. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 31, 2008 4:08 PMThanks for this item. We are having the same discussion in Virginia, where Governor Tim Kaine (D) wants to spend $75 million on universal pre-K, even though it is of dubious effectiveness. The cost per child is something in excess of $5,000. This is more expensive than several preschools in affluent Fairfax County, in the DC suburbs. How many kids in Tennessee are supposed to be benefitted by the $25 million proposed by Bredesen? Posted by: Ron at January 31, 2008 5:44 PMIt is amazing how you have lifted one sentence out of an entire research summary and printed it as though it is the only thing it states. If you read the whole summary and report on the entire contents of the report you will find that the research group does not say that the pre-k program is ineffective. If you did your homework you would find that the research does support the long term impact of pre-k. Just as with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) you are narrowly focused on one thing rather than looking at the big picture and the long term effects of this program- productive citizens. I would much rather my tax dollars be spent on a preventive proactive program such as pre-k rather than on housing a teenager or young adult for 20-50 years in the state penitentiary. If you are going to report on something stick to all of the facts. Posted by: christina at January 31, 2008 10:10 PMYou've erected a straw man, christina, pretending we face a stark choice of having publicly funded pre-k or having a lot of teenagers and young adults in prison. There was a time when there was no pre-K at all - and the prisons were not teeming with teens and young adults. You also miss the point of my post - that the governor ignored the results of his own study in hyping pre-k as "dollar for dollar the best investment" we can make in education. Shorter version: pre-k isn't a bad thing, but it also is not the panacea its supporters imply. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at January 31, 2008 11:10 PMRon, the numbers I've dug up are $55 million and 17,000+ students (currently, before this latest proposed funding increase and expansion to more students.) That's about $3,200 per student. Spread over 9 months - most pre-k programs are not year-round - that's about $350 per month, which is much more expensive than private pre-k even in high-dollar Williamson County near Nashville. Limited short-term impact, high cost. There were many GOP legislators who, back when Bredesen first started pushing for universal pre-k, urged the state to create a limited, targeted pre-k program. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at February 1, 2008 6:56 AMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen has a physics degree from Harvard, so it's pretty certain that he knows how to read. The question, then, is did he read the recently published study from his own Department of Education on the effectiveness of pre-K education and not understand it, did he just not read it, or did he read it and decide to ignore it because it didn't fit what what he wanted to say about pre-K in his State of the State address?