Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

SPEAKOUT: Early education's benefits illusory

By Mary Renstrom, Special to the Rocky

Published December 8, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

Gov. Bill Ritter's P-20 Education Coordinating Council is advocating an expansion of government into early childhood education to the tune of nearly $300 million ("Panel calls for sweeping reforms for schools," Nov. 28). Unfortunately, this massive influx of dollars will have little positive effect on educational outcomes.

Contrary to what these council members would have us believe, there are no studies that show any lasting benefit to preschool or full-day kindergarten for the average child.

In fact, the preponderance of research on childhood well-being shows quite the opposite: Children are best raised by a loving parent, at home, and there is no benefit to earlier formal education. For example, the National Center for Education Statistics' study of 22,000 kindergarteners showed only small differences between half-day and full-day kindergarteners on academic achievement and, by the end of the third grade, that difference had completely disappeared. Other studies show a similar "fade out" effect.

Between 1965 and 2005 preschool enrollment in the U.S. soared from just 16 percent to 66 percent, yet test scores during this period have either remained flat or declined.

In addition, the case studies cited by "reform" advocates focus exclusively on "at risk" children who have enormous amounts of money and time lavished on them. Their results can simply not be realistically duplicated on a large scale. Studies on mainstream students generally do not show any benefits to preschool or full-time kindergarten. The studies cited have nothing to do with the majority of middle-class children, but it is the middle class that will surely pay for this expansion of government.

Some families may be deceived into thinking universal government-funded preschool or kindergarten will personally save them in daycare costs. Yet the more the middle class is taxed to pay for such illusory academic benefits, the more it must work. That means more women forced into the work force to pay for these additional taxes. And yes, I say forced. Surveys show a majority of mothers and fathers would prefer a full-time parent at home with their young children. A recent survey of working mothers indicates most would prefer part-time work over full-time employment.

Another hidden cost to this proposal is reduced choice. When government preschool becomes "free," the thriving private (mostly church sponsored) preschool programs will suffer, and many will inevitably close their doors, as has recently happened in Great Britain.

A large body of research, mostly ignored by the education bureaucrats and liberals, shows that the best predictors of a child's academic success are the mother's level of educational attainment, time spent in maternal care, and the quality of her verbal interaction with her child. Yet I haven't heard a word about legislation to encourage mothers to spend more time with their young children. Nor have I heard about innovative programs that would improve literacy and verbal skills among mothers.

Most parents instinctively know time spent with their children is time well spent and this is why the middle class practices intensive maternal care for children when they have the resources. Most mothers don't need the National Institute of Child Health to tell them that "longitudinal studies show" that too many hours away from mom leads to "higher rates of social aggression" (especially in boys).

So if government expansion of "early learning" doesn't improve long-term academic achievement for most children, drives private schools out of the marketplace, encourages nonmaternal care and its negative consequences, raises taxes and forces more women into the work force against their will - then why do it?

Mary Renstrom is a resident of Centennial.

Comments

  • December 8, 2007

    2:55 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    They do it because it's a feel good program.They don't care whether they have to raise taxes on the middle class and force a stay at home mother into the work force to support a program that doesn't work on tax payers anyway.I'm sick and tired of my tax money going to feel good socialist programs.So since I am a stay at home mother raising our children it's okay to put the squeeze on my family to give it to a family so their children can go to preschool that clearly has very little influence on whether a child succeeds in school or not.It has been shown that a household with two parents ,that have one as the caregiver and home raising their children do better in school.
    So my family suffers while the government wastes millions of tax payer dollars on programs for children that don't work because they have crappy parents. You can't undo crappy parents.That' a fact of life.

  • December 16, 2007

    11:39 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gary writes:

    It is not a early education program at all. All of these programs amount to one thing...baby sitting for free and the tazpayers pay for it. Not to mention a free lunch program attached to it as well. Yes sir....our tax dollars at work...

    Tax us until we are all in the lower income level...then who will pay the taxes to support us...????

  • December 18, 2007

    10:42 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    DR_Richard writes:

    I am always vaguely amused when a woman offers up an opinion that has a strong religious right tone particularly when it suggests that women should be at home raising children and being dutiful wives. I have to wonder if it is her opinion or if it was posted part of being a dutiful wife.

    There are a number of incorrect facts. There are a large number of peer reviewed studies which show that there is a lasting benefit to preschool or full-day kindergarten for the average child. One of them was conducted in Colorado Children’s Campaign which made a report to the Legislature in 2004 which showed an average per child (who got the quality pre-school and kindergarten) savings of $6,369.00/year in the cost of K-12 education. Since those savings would have to be returned to the voters under the Tabor Amendment, this would be a good example of tax dollars at work.

    But the concern in this letter is clearly not about the children or about taxes for that matter. The bias seems to be that Church day care enrollment will suffer as a result of affordable day care for all parents. It is unclear if this because parents in need of something affordable would drive them elsewhere or if providing financial assistance might make it possible for undesirable children to get in at the Church or if the Church day care might fail to meet the standard for quality child care. Those are all possibilities.

    Single parent families are now the majority in our country. As a single parent who often has to help out other single parents with childcare I understand the need for this kind of support structure. As someone who analyses the data and the financials from these studies I understand that the savings to the community, to the tax payers and to business would be substantial. But most of all as a parent and an educator, I care deeply about the future of the children in the community, all of them.