April 25, 2005

Pre-K Update: Informed Opinion

Today's Nashville City Paper editorial urges the Tennessee legislature to pass Gov. Phil Bredesen's pre-k program. The paper has yet to mention the Tennessee Center for Policy Research's excellent study showing that government-funded universal pre-k is a costly failure that does little or nothing to improve acadamic academic performance.

Perhaps the City Paper gets its news from The Tennessean, which has intentionally ignored the TCPR study in its cheerleading for the governor's proposal.

UPDATE: This week's edition of the Nashville Business Journal reports on the release of a study from MIT "confirming the importance of investment in early childhood education." NBJ reporter Holly Dolloff says the MIT study "provides additional credibility for Gov. Phil Bredesen's Pre-K plan now moving through the legislature."

The story goes on to say this:

The MIT study says children who receive quality early education are not only better prepared for elementary school, they also have better social skills, are more likely to graduate from high school and less likely to be on welfare.

The TCPR study doesn't say pre-k preparation is bad, it merely says that government-funded universal pre-k doesn't do much to improve academic performance long-term.

The reason for that is simple: most children arrive at kindergarten
already having received adequate pre-k preparation from their
parents. They don't need a government-funded pre-k program. Only
at-risk kids do.

State Sen. Jim Bryson, my state senator, recently tried to amend Gov. Bredesen's pre-k plan legislation to target it to at-risk preschoolers. His amendment was killed in committee. Bryson - who really ought to have a blog - wrote the following about pre-k in his latest weekly emailed newsletter:

Last week the Senate Education Committee passed the bill to establish a statewide pre-kindergarten program in Tennessee. The Senate Finance Committee will now review the bill before sending it to the Senate floor for a full vote.

In its current form, the pre-k program would be initially funded by $25 million in excess lottery funds as a down payment on the eventual cost of $150 - $270 million per year in state money and $50-100 million per year in local money. The bill is being touted as voluntary for school systems and for individuals. However, the Governor has stated that he would like for pre-k to be statewide and universal. The Governor has also stated that he would like to eventually see the pre-k funding included in the BEP (the state’s education funding formula). Essentially, inclusion in the BEP would make pre-k mandatory since school systems would have to pay for it in their matching funds regardless of whether they actually instituted the program.

On Wednesday, I proposed an amendment in the Senate Education Committee to focus the pre-k funds exclusively on at-risk students. My argument was that the state cannot fully fund the program for several years (the Governor "hopes" for full funding in 2010) and at-risk students undoubtedly gain the most from pre-k. Therefore, we should put our limited funds where they will do the most good, on at-risk students. My proposal was voted down overwhelmingly on a voice vote in the committee. Apparently, my colleagues and educators are comfortable with the stated "preference" for at-risk children even though it will not be the most efficient use of limited funds.

The pre-k train is headed down the same tracks as kindergarten did a generation ago. I went to a private kindergarten because the schools did not offer it. Yet, my children attended public kindergarten. Similarly, though my children did not attend a publicly mandated pre-k program, I’m sure their children will. This ever-earlier extension of public education begs the question, "How early is too early for children to be educated by an institution, even a well-meaning one?" I’m sure pre-k can help a lot of children, but I have serious concerns about the path we are traveling.

Also, we are starting a $200+ million state program that will eventually mandate $100 million in additional local spending. Where will the money come from? Today, the TennCare problem is not solved, we are simply delaying the TennCare financial problem for a year or two. Funding for TennCare will continue to be a problem. Also, the same educational establishment that complains about being underfunded, is aggressively pushing for a universal pre-k program. When it passes, will they will feel more adequately supported? I doubt it. Growing the pre-k program can’t help but restrict the growth in funding for other educational programs.

There are problems galore. However, if we are going to pass an underfunded pre-k program, we should at least spend the limited funds on those who need it most, at-risk children.

Government-funded pre-k targeted to at-risk kids would be a sensible policy. Government-funded universal pre-k, which is Gov. Bredesen's intention - is nothing more than a back-door way to get state government into the business of providing daycare.
___________________________________________________________
For more scrutiny of the Bredesen record, see Bredesen Watch.