SPEAKOUT: Benefits of early education many
By Elena Bodrova and Jean Williams
Saturday, January 26, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
Speakout author Mary Renstrom ("Early education's benefits illusory," Dec. 8, 2007) expressed concern that the recommendations of Gov. Bill Ritter's P-20 Education Coordinating Council for early childhood education would be costly to Colorado taxpayers with little likelihood of having a positive effect on educational outcomes. We give voice to an alternative view of the recommendations for all-day kindergarten and high-quality preschool programs.
One of Renstrom's most powerful statements is that "children are best raised by a loving parent, at home." We acknowledge the importance of a loving home and family. At the same time, we also recognize that the most common experience for today's young children is that they spend some part of the day in a preschool program.
Children are likely to continue to spend time in nonparental settings, even if they have a stay-at-home parent. This will not change no matter what happens with Ritter's early childhood initiative. Our hope is that the programs will change from primarily custodial care to those truly promoting young children's development and learning.
There are many studies linking high-quality early childhood interventions with a wide variety of positive social, emotional and cognitive outcomes. Such benefits are not limited to low-income or at-risk children, but are documented for children from all backgrounds and of varying cognitive abilities.
For example, a recent large-scale study conducted by the National Institute of Early Education Research focused on the impact of state-funded pre-kindergarten program on children's school readiness.
In all five states participating in this study, all children were found to benefit from quality pre-K education regardless of race or family income.
The potential for preschool influences to fade over time, as noted by Renstrom, is a valid point because it highlights the necessity to also provide high-quality kindergarten and primary school programs.
A combination of high-quality early education followed by equally positive primary grade experiences has been proven to further develop, expand, enhance and deepen the impact of the most effective features of preschool programs.
For example, children participating in a comprehensive Chicago Child- Parent Center program, and its follow-up expansion in grades K-3, experienced outcomes proportional to the number of years children were enrolled in the program.
The most positive outcomes were documented for children who stayed in the program through third grade - these children needed fewer remedial services and had lower rates of grade retention and lower rates of delinquency than children who did not participate in such programs.
Academic scores were also found to experience greater increases as the number of years children participated in the program increased.
When researchers have examined the long-term effects of preschool programs, they have found that the influence of such programs lasts well into middle age.
For example, fewer students who participate in preschool programs are placed in special education during their school careers, their achievement levels at 10th grade are more likely to be in the average range, they are more likely to graduate from high school, three times as likely to own a home by age 27, and half as likely to end up on welfare or be arrested.
Preschool programs pay off economically as well. The financial benefit of preschool pays off in future societal benefits worth between $3.78 and $17.07 for each dollar invested. By any measure, this would be a good investment of taxpayer dollars.
There is strong evidence that universal high-quality early education programs deliver real and lasting benefits for all children and economic benefits for the communities that invest in them.
Elena Bodrova is the principal investigator in early education at the Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL). Jean Williams is the vice president for research and evaluation at McREL.
Comments
Posted by Gene on January 26, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Researchers" have found . . benefits of $3.78 - $17.07 for each dollar invested, and 3 x likely to own home by 27 years old. . . where do I start in offering opinion on this! Sure it was not $2.01? And did it ever occur to the "researchers" that over 27 years ago, that kid in preschool was probably from a family paying money for it themselves, with some aspirations in life beyond having some village raise their kids. Quoting experts and researchers does not impress me. What were their motives? What was the reason for the study? Do you think the National Institute of Early Education Research is going to do a study that says early childhood education is a waste of time? . . . I am all for education. But I also think this is just an extension of "It take a village to raise a child." A phrase that Mrs. Clinton took from socialist literature, and uses to promote more government involvement in your life. Most of all it is a Democrat give-a-way of someone elsee money to get votes. Bottom line. And the young urban professionals that can afford it also appreciate someone paying for their child's care.
Posted by vudumom on January 27, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
After being in the child care and preschool business for 17 years,the high quality preschool is a myth. Very few preschools are of high quality. Parents don't know what to look for and when on interviews the preschool director is putting on a show.I went to 25 preschools to find one great one. I taught preschool for 13 years so I knew what to look fo and what questions to ask. What I saw in preschools was appalling and alarming.Government should not be in the preschool business. There are not alot of quality prschools out there.Even though I was a preschool teacher both my children went to preschool for the learning(even though I could do it at home) and the social aspects of being around children,learning to respect teachers and having some fun outside of what I was doing with them at home.
My children were on a 1st-2nd grade level when they walked into kindergarten.High quality kindergarten? What a joke.It isn't happening in our schools. I had to teach my children at home most of the entire kindergarten school year just to keep the teachers from dumbing them down.
If you want children to go to preschool don't get the government in it and the tax payers to pay for it.It will be a waste of money and a disaster. Give parents a full credit tax write off for preschool on their taxes.
One other point I wanted to make . One year of preschool,called Pre-K does not make a child ready for school. Most of the children have behavior problems and other social problems. It takes a minimum of 2 years and preferably 3 years of preschool to get these children ready for school. The first 2 years are teaching them social skills,manners,how to treat one another,colors,numbers,shapes.the alphabet,sitting still when a book is being read.acting properly and so much more.
Pre-K is for a child who has these skills and is ready to learn to read ,write and do all types of activities to prepare them for kindergarten, You can't just put a kid in Pre-K and expect them to learn so much in such a short amount of time.It won't work and the preschool has to be of such high quality that it is almost impossible to ready a child for kindergarten,even in a dumbed down program.
Posted by mfrenstrom on January 29, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you to Ms. Bodrova and Ms. Williams for responding to my Speakout column. I have no doubt they found some benefits to early childhood "schooling". Determined researchers usually do find what they are looking for. But if the benefits of care for children by the state are so overwhelming, why stop at age 3 or 4? Why not simply eliminate parents altogether and have the state take over their care as newborns? Lest you think I say this in jest, it has actually happened in the Isreali Kibbutz and to a lesser extent in various communist countries --with grievous harm to children and families. The real question at the heart of this proposal is the role of the state vs. the role of parents. The more the state entrenches itself into the lives of young children and families, the more diminished the role of parents and family become. The "experts" hold academic achievement as a kind of lollipop in front of the parents eyes. Some parents, terribly afraid their children will be left behind in this competitive world, take the bait and turn their children over to the state and to educational "experts" at younger and younger ages. There is no evidence middle class children suffer from any great impediments to life success. If they do suffer as a group it is from the behavioral problems and emotional wounds caused by a lack of parental nurturing and influence in their lives. Encouraging and subsidizing non-parental care will only make these problems worse. Previous generations went without preschool or kindergarten, and often started formal schooling much later, yet academic achievement has declined or remained stagnant, and behavioral problems and mental illness among children has grown significantly in recent years. I am not opposed to pre-school per se, as long as it is seen for what it is-- an enjoyable time for kids and parents both--but truly an optional activity, that can never replace the loving care of a parent. What is truly disheartening is the response to these kinds of proposals from my fellow conservatives. They swallow these things whole, without any question, and refuse to uphold the principle of the primacy and importance of the family. For shame. Mary Renstrom, Centennial
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.