9486 in the collection
Protect Our Kids from Preschool
Ohanian Comment: The authors, who work at Reason Foundation, a libertarian/free market outfit, just use an argument against universal preschool as a way to argue for vouchers. That said, we all have to come to grips with the issue of whether we would put our own children in preschool--or whether we are just advocating it for "those other kids." Preschool is now being set up the same way public schools have been set up for decades: as the cure for deep economic and social problems. It's easier to fund universal preschool than to provide working people with a living wage.
And then there's the issue of getting future workers for the global economy on the corporate treadmills younger and younger. We have here the corporate twist on the old Jesuit adage, "Give me a boy until age 7. . . ." Now it's Give me a child at age 3 or 4 and he's mine for life."
NOTE: Both authors hold degrees in communication.
By Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell
The only preschool programs that seem to do more good than harm are very intense interventions targeted toward severely disadvantaged kids. A 1960s program in Ypsilanti, Mich., a 1970s program in Chapel Hill, N.C., and a 1980s program in Chicago, Ill., all report a net positive effect on adult crime, earnings, wealth and welfare dependence for participants. But the kids in the Michigan program had low IQs and all came from very poor families, often with parents who were drug addicts and neglectful.
Even so, the economic gains of these programs are grossly exaggerated. For instance, Prof. Heckman calculated that the Michigan program produced a 16-cent return on every dollar spent -- not even remotely close to the $10 return that Mr. Obama and his fellow advocates bandy about.
Our understanding of the effects of preschool is still very much in its infancy. But one inescapable conclusion from the existing research is that it is not for everyone. Kids with loving and attentive parents -- the vast majority -- might well be better off spending more time at home than away in their formative years. The last thing that public policy should do is spend vast new sums of taxpayer dollars to incentivize a premature separation between toddlers and parents.
Yet that is precisely what Mr. Obama would do. His "Zero-to-Five" plan would increase federal outlays for early education by $10 billion -- about 50% of total government spending on preschool -- and hand block grants to states to implement universal preschool. This will make the government the dominant source of funding in the early education marketplace, vastly outpacing private spending.
If Mr. Obama is serious about helping children, he should begin by fixing what is clearly broken: the K-12 system. The best way of doing that is by building on programs with a proven record of success. Many of these involve giving parents control over their own education dollars so that they have options other than dysfunctional public schools. The Obamas send their daughters to a private school whose annual fee in middle school runs around $20,000. Other parents deserve such choices too -- not promises of subsidized preschool that they may not want and that may be bad for their kids.
Ms. Dalmia is senior analyst and Ms. Snell is director of education policy at the Reason Foundation.
— Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell
Wall Street Journal
2008-08-22
INDEX OF OUTRAGES
Pages: 380
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next >> Last >>
