MinnPost Universal Pre-K Hurt Childcare Access Here are my first thoughts:
"We know which children need the most help if we really want to close the achievement gap and end generational poverty. And yet it seems people here are advocating for free Pre-K for all kids... Instead of making that money stretch further to help the truly unlucky kids through pre-k for low income household scholarships.
Now I understand that Ed MN wants more members, and middle income households would like free childcare. But wouldn't it be better to advocate for the unluckiest of kids who truly need the help?"
Useful Links:
9 comments:
Hear, hear! So long as it is available on a "free" basis to those who need it and want it for their child, that's great. I question the assumption that it is going to do these kids any good if run by the same public schools that cannot teach them anything in K-12, however. And it should be available in ANY school, public, private, parochial, on the same basis.
Careful, it's practically a Republican idea.
Nah... The GOPers would want to give it to the lucky kids also...
Early Learning Scholarships
The Early Learning Scholarships increase access to high-quality early childhood programs for 3- and 4-year-old children with the highest needs to improve school readiness for all young children. Children birth to 2 years old are eligible if they meet one or more of the following criteria:
- Child of a teen parent.
- Currently in foster care.
- In need of child protective services.
- Experienced homelessness in the last 24 months.
Priority for scholarships will be given based on family income, child poverty, one of the special populations as noted previously, and geographic region. Families must meet eligibility requirements as outlined in Minnesota Statutes, section 124D.165.
That is a much better use of public money. Used to help the truly unlucky kids...
Actually, it was a GOP bill to begin with. And so long as it's voluntary and NOT restricted to the public schools, it will help some, for a while. If it creates an attitude and behavior improvement it is probably worthwhile on that alone.
Voluntary Preschool Money Actually Pretty Much Just to the Public Schools.
That is why the Daycare Managers are complaining at MP.
From MP
"Thanks for sharing the links, John, but did you read the information contained therein? While it's clear you think Ed Mn is simply self-serving in its' support of universal pre-K, it would seem you need to respond to their claim that universal is more impactful than targeted services on all kids. In other words, what you think is most effective, and to do so is not illogical on the surface, is actually less so.
Two points to consider; you claim that students of middle income parents "do just fine". By what measure? Is it true of all students of middle class families? (no) Can you predict which middle class students will do just fine and which need more support as early as age 4, or are you willing to just play the odds, knowing that for many it's a losing bet." Terri
"Unfortunately they did not provide any sources to support their opinion. Or I would have read that also.
As for my view regarding Education MN, I think they are good people who are very confident in their capabilities and systems, even though they are leaving a large number of unlucky kids behind. Please remember that if one sees themselves as a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I think I could predict which children need extra assistance. Just look at the scholarship criteria as a starting point:
- Child of a teen parent.
- Currently in foster care.
- In need of child protective services.
- Experienced homelessness in the last 24 months.
I would likely add any child living in:
- a low income single parent home.
- a non-English speaking home
I would also recommend that these kids attend school year round until proficient.
Please remember the goal is to reduce the gap, not raise the capability of the luckiest kids." G2A
I sympathize with the problem of dealing with Utopians who think we can spend an infinite amount of other people's money to do something that really doesn't do anything for the bulk of the problem. If the problem is the "gap," does it not make sense to try to bring the bottom up, rather than move the bar up and leave the gap the same?
I agree that money targeted to the most at risk children 0-5 yrs old would be better spent than universal pre k for 4 year olds.
Post a Comment