MinnPost Only way to Close the Achievement Gap
MinnPost High Quality Preschool for Kids Under 3 yrs Old
Here are 2 comments to start our discussion here. Rick here is stressing the importance "preschool".
"Our youngest son started kindergarten last fall at a public school in south Minneapolis, and it was a stark reminder that the so-called "achievement gap" is already firmly in place by that point. It seems like this is the single most important thing to realize when trying to address the problem. By age five, it's simply too late. The gap is already big enough that it cannot be overcome, and it only gets bigger as time passes.Now I agree that preschool is important, however to say it is required for success in life. That seems like a stretch, so I replied.
Both of our sons started preschool at 18 months. We intentionally picked a "preschool" over a "day care" and it is essential to recognize that, while there is overlap in their functions, the two types of institutions have significant differences (including, of course, cost). Thus, our sons arrived at kindergarten prepared to learn by virtue of already having had THREE-AND-A-HALF YEARS of actual classroom experience. Most of their peers arrived with exactly ZERO such experience.
As parents, we contributed to their readiness, of course, by reading and singing to them, teaching pre-reading skills, encouraging curiosity, etc. But there is no question that they had a gigantic advantage over their peers at least in part because we could afford actual education (instead of simple babysitting) on a daily basis starting very early in their lives.
There is no doubt that providing such educational opportunities for all children would be expensive, but if we really care about reducing the gap (which, societally-speaking, I sometimes doubt), then the expense should not be a consideration. If that's the way to solve the problem, and we want the problem solved, then the expense is not optional." Rick P.
"Though I agree with much of what is being said here and am a big fan of he Harlem children zone pipeline, expense is always an issue. Unless you are offering to fund it all personally.
Who are you thinking should pay for this?
Why shouldn't we be holding parents accountable for training their toddlers?
Toddlers don't need school to be successful, they need rules, consistency, play dates, love, someone to talk or read to them, experiences, etc.
Next you will be telling me that all poor kids are doomed to academic failure. Which we know isn't true." G2A
33 comments:
The usual solution to these terrible problems is to apply a little government magic and a whole boatload of taxpayer money. It is too bad that government never funded a great idea like Head Start… Oh, wait! Despite billions poured into the program to do essentially what MPP is suggesting, many studies have concluded that the program has accomplished essentially ZERO! Is it unreasonable to conclude that doubling the amount we spent on it would result in twice as much improvement? Twice zero isn't exactly advanced math, but our betters in the Legislature can't or won't do it.
I would enjoy reading the study, however it looks like I would have to pay for it. So where did your rant about government come from?
Here is a source for more information on this critical period in a human's life.
Zero to Three
I always find it fascinating how you dismiss the importance of early education. The reality continues to be proven more and more how critical this period is for brain development and how long lasting the consequences can be.
Now what to do about it to insure all those kids you insist on being born get adequate nurturing, training, nutrition, etc is another thing...
There you go again assuming that I am against childhood education or nutrition or whatever. Anything but. I am all in favor of early childhood education, I merely deny that government is an effective means of doing it. I abhor the mindset that believes that, if government doesn't do something, it doesn't get done at all. It's about on a par with the notion that government can do it better than parents, communities or private enterprise. Sources for my "rant" are easy to find, for example:
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/01/15/head-start-a-150-billion-failure/
Heritage Head Start Failure
So Mr Caring and Concerned, what is your plan to ensure that all children are nurtured, cared for, get good nutrition, and prepared for Kindergarten?
Not my job. How's that?
As I told the radio audience and the woman who wanted to "care for our children": Ma'am, WE do not have any children. I have children; you have children. I am responsible for mine; you are responsible for yours. If I am responsible for yours then they have to come and live with me, with my rules. And I'm not sure I have room.
So you "care and are concerned", but "it's not your problem".
That is an interesting position.
Exactly right. It's not my problem in the sense that it isn't the taxpayers' problem. I'm already doing my share with private charity and volunteer work, as it ought to be. I don't want to coerce others, through government, to do so.
The problem with charity is that many Americans don't seem to very giving of their time or their money. And often their giving is limited to their immediate community, or things that will help themselves. Or sometimes they are motivated by the disasters or pictures of dying children on TV.
Like their local church, school, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, etc. This of course works out really good for communities in which many people have extra time and money to share. However it likely doesn't do much for communities where most people are short on time, money, knowledge, etc and no one is showing it on TV...
And then there is the problem of people giving to only help people with their belief system. (ie "If I am responsible for yours then they have to come and live with me, with my rules.")
That's why I wrote this little piece of "blasphemy".
G2A God Works In Mysterious Ways
So given this reality that charity simply can not or will not fulfill this need in our current society.
Do we as society let these kids within our borders continue to fail?
If you don't want us helping them through the government, how would you recommend we get more "Harlem Children Zones" going?
Or other different "private solutions"?
Or is this a better answer.
Comic 1
Comic 2
Comic 3
Video: Humanity Should Have Been My Business
"So given this reality that charity simply can not or will not fulfill this need in our current society."
There you go again, saying "if government doesn't do it, it doesn't get done" and I've already told you that isn't true. Imagine for a moment that the $1 Trillion the government will spend on welfare were to be left in the hands of taxpayers, instead, and public welfare were abolished. Are you really going to tell me that private charity (after some transition period) would not receive an adequate portion of that money and spend it with vastly better oversight and efficiency? You simply cannot KNOW that charity "can not or will not" until government quits taking all of the resources and promising to do all the work.
Yes, there are unfortunate "communities" and families, which is why churches typically band together and concentrate their efforts in areas of the most need. It simply makes sense and takes full advantage of fundamental human compassion, rather than isolating that humanity behind a tax collector forcing you to be "good" by their own definition.
As for your "blasphemy," you are correct. Government is not God, and God did not task governments with care of the poor. That is OUR job as individuals and we shouldn't be forced to give up that responsibility. Don't think rich people are generous? Notice how Bill Gates and Warren Buffett did NOT give their huge wealth to the government, but put it into private charity? As liberal as they may be otherwise, they know that government "can not or will not" do what needs to be done.
Charity was failing to fulfill the role adequately, that is why government got into the business in the first place... Just as mysterious ways says...
Please offer a source(s) for that assessment. Explain how a government handout, with no strings, is superior to individualized compassion with expectations of the recipient.
It is pretty simple... If the need requires $100 million. And people only willingly give $50 million. (numbers picked at random)
Charity fails to fund the need.
If the government mandates the raising of $150 million and funds the $100 million need. $50 million is "wasted" or goes to "make work", however the need is met...
It is inefficient and probably not as effective, however people do receive the food, heat, healthcare, shelter, etc they need to keep living.
And the recipients don't even need to conform to any particular groups belief system. (ie rules)
Sorry, but it's faulty math. You are probably right that at least 50% of the amount spent on welfare is wasted outright before it even gets to the recipients, but half of it that does is then wasted by giving it to people that could be providing for themselves-- either trapped by the system or gaming it. So, if private charity had only 25% of the money government now "steals from the rich to give to the poor," humanity would be better served all around.
History proves time and again that conservatives are more charitable than liberals, and that richer people find a need to be charitable out of their abundance. And human nature doesn't like being coerced into being charitable, or acting in gratitude for an "entitlement." Abolishing government welfare risks having a few people go wanting, but perpetuating it decreases the humanity of everyone.
Play with the numbers all you want, but there was a gap that private charity was not fulfilling and that is why the citizens voted to have the government do the job.
And though I use it at times, that "Conservatives are more charitable" statement is suspect at best. Though the tax code calls funding Church buildings, Synods, Diocese, Pastors, Priests, etc charity... It is questionable at best from my perspective.
Though maybe saving souls is as important as ensuring people are fed and kept warm. Or maybe not. I am not sure what Jesus would say.
This article is interesting, especially if 82% of church budgets really go to operations. That is about as bad as the government.
Church Budgets
"Play with the numbers all you want, but there was a gap that private charity was not fulfilling and that is why the citizens voted to have the government do the job."
Sources, please? (I've been wanting to say that. :-)
I think what you mean to say is that private charity consists of a certain amount of "tough love" and that we must allow people to decide to not work, and we must respect their decision to not eat.
I think we just crossed into the "low wage" discussion. I am sure happy I don't have to live on $7.50 X 40 X 52 = $15,600 per year minus payroll taxes... minus healthcare costs... Even with room mates, it seems impossible.
One unplanned expensive problem and then you can debt service fees (ie interest) to the mess.
History of Welfare
WP What History Teaches Us
It is kind of like compnies that ignore the needs and wants of their employees and then later complain that they end up with a union.
Two very interesting but different readings of history there. Unfortunately, neither of them address the modern welfare state-- highly costly and highly ineffective. Counterproductive is what I would call it.
But perhaps we are off topic, unless you want to consider that a government program so massively failed as welfare guarantees that a government program so massively failed as ECE will succeed if it is just made bigger.
The truth is out there.
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-dubious-promise-of-universal-preschool
Dubious Promise of Universal Preschool
I don't have any idea what should be done to help the poor children and to close the academic achievement gap. However I am pretty certain that denying the importance of the first 5 years of a child's life is definitely not the answer.
And I don't think anyone is going to let society test and do a credit check on prospective parents before allowing them to have and raise children.
Or if they are irresponsible enough to have one by accident, I don't see folks letting us just take the infant and give it up for adoption to "qualified "parents.
Since these are out, it seems to me that we will have to keep thinking. Or we can just say, "they aren't our problem".
If you are concerned about irresponsible parents, why not do something that would require them to be more responsible? How about a law requiring that mothers give out a father's name before collecting child welfare, or not giving welfare at all for a child born while on welfare because there is "no man in the house"? How about requiring work for all welfare recipients (knowing that some are more "able-bodied" than others, but all can do SOMETHING)?
Then, how about requiring that every parent CHOOSE a school with the $10,000 voucher we're going to give them? I'll even include a taxpayers' $5000 check for 1 year of pre-K, if you like. There are so MANY ways to tackle this little problem, none of which start with a one-size-fits-none government program.
From my perception, the ideas in your first paragraph do nothing to help the children. In fact it would apparently starve the "no man in the house" kids. So I am not sure where these came from.
I still owe you a post on vouchers.
Ummm, it seems to me that /I/ am not responsible for "starving" kids in those welfare households. The parents, both of them, are responsible, period. Now if they are trying and not making it, sure I want to help. But unless and until we demand that they first take some responsibility, they won't. Remember when welfare was supposed to be "a hand up, not a hand out"? (probably not, it was over 50 years ago.) And a reminder that all of these proposals have some suitable "transition period" built in. You don't fix three generations of poverty and dependence in six weeks.
Hunger for yourself is a great motivator, and anyone for whom hunger in their kids is a "never mind" should lose them. We have provisions for that. But until hunger nears the motivation is zero. You can't continue the current system and expect people to work their way off of it.
Are There No Workhouses Comic
I'm guessing you object to Mr. Scrooge, and perhaps you are right. But if Scrooge is paying huge sums to the government to care for the poor, he has nothing left for private charity and rightly objects to being criticized for not giving away what's left. Of course, the modern day Scrooges are people like John Kerry and Joe Biden, who give about 1/10 of their outrageous salaries and fortunes to charity, while Republicans average several times that percentage of a much more meager income. There is no virtue, IMHO, in putting somebody else's money where your mouth is. And no sense to throwing money at a problem when that only makes it worse.
With ~30% of my taxes going "to help the less fortunate", I have times when I share your perspectives...
If 4/12ths(33%) of my income goes to the government. (ie tax free day ~May 1st) And the government spends 30% of it on the "less fortunate". That means I am apparently tithing before (33% x 30% = 9.9%) before I give another 6% of my net income to the "less fortunate".
I wonder how Jesus would view this math. I am guessing the government didn't fund much "less fortunate" care back when Jesus was around telling us to tithe and give to Caeser that which is Caeser's...
This may be worth its own post...
You've pointed out the basic conflict for those of the church-going persuasion. I always ask whom Jesus charged with looking after the poor, and the answer is not "Caesar." When government steals tax money to "care for the poor" (and doing it in a miserably counterproductive way) they are usurping that right and responsibility from us-- not only the means, but the inclination. In the meantime, they build an "entitled" class which has no sense of gratitude or obligation to those providing for them. Thus government "robs" both sides of the exchange.
Before moving on to something else, should we agree that the facts are in and universal pre-school run by government is pretty much worthless?
I'll have to give that more thought.
If the 0 to ~3 yr time frame is as critical as these researchers are saying, no wonder HeadStart's benefits would be limited. I assume they only get the kids at age ~4 for a couple of hours a day for ~170 days per year.
Seems pretty impossible to believe that any program like this could overcome the damage caused at home during the first 5 years by questionable to poor parenting.
The question is how to improve the home and social environment that indoctrinate and/or delay these small minds with habits, belief systems, etc that limit their potential.
Freakonomics Ambition
Freakonomics Teaching Parents
ABC Perfect Parent
The problem isn't that Head Start "can't overcome 4 years of bad parenting," but that a year or two of Head Start is NO DIFFERENT than a year or two of parenting. Kids that have private preschool, or engaged parents prior to school, have a marked advantage. (source: my own kids)
It just isn't worth $8030 per kid per year to run Head Start and get nothing in return. Now if you want to suggest giving those parents a $3-5000 voucher to find their own preschool, feel free.
Post a Comment