Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell on Universal Preschool
In The Wall Street Journal, Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia and Reason Foundation Education Policy Director Lisa Snell explain why we need to protect our kids from universal preschool.
Elemenope|8.22.08 @ 4:32PM|#
"Fill them pews people! Get 'em while they're young."
"What, like the cigarette industry?"
"Christ! If only we had their numbers."
Citizen Nothing|8.22.08 @ 4:47PM|#
My wife's friends can't believe we're not already sniffing out preschools for our three-year-old twins. What the hell is wrong with people?
Citizen Nothing|8.22.08 @ 4:48PM|#
I guess I should say, what the hell is wrong with my wife's friends?
lurker|8.22.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Um, kids go to preschool at age 3 or 4, usually. What's weird
about sniffing out preschools for a 3-year-old?
Now, I know people who have shopped for preschools for their
fetuses. That's weird.
Justen|8.22.08 @ 4:56PM|#
An opt-in voucher program for preschools would be nice. Whatever
else may be said about pre-school, it's a much more positive place
for a kid to be while mom & dad are at work than a babysitter's
house, plopped in front of a television with a cup full of sugar
water.
The article mentions that Obama should be focusing on K-12 if he
wants to improve education; maybe they should read up on his
policies. The preschool plan is only a small part of the sweeping
education reforms he's been proposing and IIRC he's in favor of the
voucher system.
Elemenope|8.22.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Well, CN, keep in mind that in a two-income full-time household, you gotta put the kids *somewhere*. And since 40-gallon drums are considered cruel...
Elemenope|8.22.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Now, I know people who have shopped for preschools for their
fetuses. That's weird.
Some people are just *optimistic*, I guess.
Citizen Nothing|8.22.08 @ 4:59PM|#
My older sons went to preschool, and they turned out fine. But
as El points out, that was due to our being a two-income household
with a shortage of 40-gallon drums or closets with locks.
But folks seem shocked when they learn that we just might not go
the pre-school route with the twins. (My wife is currently staying
home with them.)
It's as if we'd said, well, that we were considering storing them
in 40-gallon drums.
Kolohe|8.22.08 @ 5:03PM|#
I totally buy the argument that these programs may be either not
cost effective, or not very useful.
But actively harmful?
You know, if say the ONDCP or MADD cherrypicked a single study
showing harm in the background of numerous other studies that did
not - and made that the headline and the lede for their story -
everyone would rightly call them out for their alarmist
wankerism.
|8.22.08 @ 5:07PM|#
The real irony of this is that the Reason website illustration
for this article is of Maggie Simpson having her pacifier taken
away by a humorless objectivist teacher at the "Ayn Rand
Pre-School" where they encouraged the kiddies to "find the pacifier
within."
Nothing funnier than unconscious self-parody! Thanks Shikha and
Lisa for brightening an otherwise-dismal Friday.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.22.08 @ 5:08PM|#
The thrust of the article had pretty much nothing to do with the headline.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.22.08 @ 5:17PM|#
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with pre-school
per se, but universal, tax paid preschool sets up yet another
government incentive that will skew personal choices.
Not to mention ten billion dollars down the rat hole with nothing
but green skidmarks in the federal wallet to show for it.
|8.22.08 @ 5:24PM|#
So what we need is a universal but optional "free" preschool that is available only for the kids of really shitty parents. That might take some clever marketing. Either that or a crack smoking/binge drinking room where the parents, make that parent, can hang out for 6 hours per day while their children are at the very least not being abused. Free admission with a WIC card?
Fluffy|8.22.08 @ 5:29PM|#
The article doesn't address this, but if there's no statistical
evidence that universal preschool helps kids, why is there such a
push for it? Why would Obama advocate for it?
Could it be a combination of:
1. Teacher's unions like it as a job creation program
and
2. It's seen as a way to provide child care to working women at
taxpayer expense?
Paul|8.22.08 @ 5:33PM|#
Why would Obama advocate for it?
Because it's universal... and it's for children. Are there two
words in the political vernacular that can be demagogued more?
Paul|8.22.08 @ 5:38PM|#
2. It's seen as a way to provide child care to working women
at taxpayer expense?
Speaking for myself, I have no problem paying child care for poor
women. Over my dead body will I pay child care for Bill Gates.
Gegs|8.22.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Eh. This strikes me as typically dubious policy wonkery:
(1) In principle, we oppose universal pre-school. (I'm with
you.)
(2) Therefore, pre-school is bad.
I'm against universal healthcare, but I still go to the
doctor.
I'm especially skeptical of the studies that rely on aggregate
indicators like test scores. Some schools and parents suck so
badly, they bring the average down.
Didn't seem to hurt my kids to send them off for a few hours a day
to color, play, learn social skills, reinforce some learning about
numbers and letters, and learn some fun early lessons about science
and the like.
Neu Mejican|8.22.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Universally available pre-school would be a good thing on balance. Mandatory pre-school, not so much.
Neu Mejican|8.22.08 @ 6:00PM|#
For an alternative view on the evidence
Benefits and costs of investments in preschool education: Evidence
from the Child-Parent Centers and related programs
Judy A. Temple and Arthur J. Reynolds
Economics of Education Review
Volume 26, Issue 1, February 2007, Pages 126-144
The Economics of Early Childhood Education
...Depending on the assumptions made, our results indicate that
the benefit-cost ratio for the preschool program offered by the
Child-Parent Centers ranges from $5.98-$10.15. We find strong
evidence that the consistently positive economic returns of
high-quality preschool programs exceed most other educational
interventions, especially those that begin during the school-age
years such as reduced class sizes in the elementary grades, grade
retention, and youth job training.
Neu Mejican|8.22.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Also,
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5782/1900
Investing in disadvantaged young children is a rare public
policy initiative that promotes fairness and social justice and at
the same time promotes productivity in the economy and in society
at large. Early interventions targeted toward disadvantaged
children have much higher returns than later interventions such as
reduced pupil-teacher ratios, public job training, convict
rehabilitation programs, tuition subsidies, or expenditure on
police. At current levels of resources, society overinvests in
remedial skill investments at later ages and underinvests in the
early years.
Although investments in older disadvantaged individuals realize
relatively less return overall, such investments are still clearly
beneficial. Indeed, the advantages gained from effective early
interventions are sustained best when they are followed by
continued high-quality learning experiences. The technology of
skill formation shows that the returns on school investment and
postschool investment are higher for persons with higher ability,
where ability is formed in the early years. Stated simply, early
investments must be followed by later investments if maximum value
is to be realized.
Neu Mejican|8.22.08 @ 6:10PM|#
Of course, it matters how you implement preschool and what goes
on at the preschool...
A recent, nicely done analysis...(2008)
The provision of good quality preschool education from 3 years
of age is likely to produce further benefits, particularly when the
preschool center works closely with parents. Studies of successful
preschools by Siraj-Blatchford et al. (2003) indicate that
preschools that promote activities for parents and children to
engage in together are likely to be most beneficial for young
children, and this has implications for strategies to help
disadvantaged children start school with more academic skills and
maintain their educational achievement.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119394046/HTMLSTART
Neu Mejican|8.22.08 @ 6:25PM|#
A source for more research on this topic
http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=120
And an interesting report that looks at preschool's effect on
economic development at a state level.
http://www.ced.org/docs/report/report_prek_bartik_2006technical.pdf
LMNOP,
Nuanced... a nice compliment.
I think I deserve a beer...
|8.22.08 @ 6:35PM|#
Obama does not support vouchers for preschool.
The "high-quality programs he talks about are monopoly
public-school providers. These preschool advocates pay
"lip-service" to public-private partnerships but create regulations
that make it impossible for private providers to participate.
Requirements for pre-school teacher salaries to meet the average
K-12 teacher salary; BA degrees with teacher credentials, and many
other regulations ensure that nonprofit and for-profit preschools
are unlikely to qualify. Universal preschool diminishes the choices
available to families. Montessori, parent-co-op and
church-preschools do not qualify and cannot compete with
"free."
We already have near universal preschool in the private,
non-profit, and government sector. More than 70 percent of kids go
to preschool. We do not need a new government program.
Obama is proposing a $10 billion early education plan as part of an
$18 billion education plan--hardly a small part.
I know the headline is over the top. But as you all know, writers
have zero control over headlines.
Anyway, I'm going on the radio in Seattle David Boze show at 3:30
Pacific. here.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.22.08 @ 6:37PM|#
NM, the studies that indicate the kind of gains you suggest are
extrapolated from one study that involved massive intervention into
the lives of a very few kids.
Lisa Snell and Reason has debunked all of this nonsense and the
articles and policy studies are available right here at
Reason.com
Perfect example of how the advocates twist the truth is right in
the WSJ article where Heckler states flat out that
Advocates and supporters of universal preschool often use existing research for purely political purposes, says James Heckman, a University of Chicago Noble laureate in economics whose work Mr. Obama and preschool activists routinely cite. But the solid evidence for the effectiveness of early interventions is limited to those conducted on disadvantaged populations.
Head Start and Education Week both have studied universal preschool
and have found that any gains vanish by 2nd or 3rd grade. Both of
these organizations have a specific policy axe to grind, so it is
pretty certain that they would prefer to have learned that for
every buck sucked out of your wallet society gets a ten dollar
return.
Bottom line is there is no study that shows that pre-school has any
lasting benefit whether it is Head Start or Universal Preschool in
any of the states that have implemented it.
And there is that ten billion dollars to think about. Over and over
and over.
|8.22.08 @ 6:41PM|#
"2. It's seen as a way to provide child care to working
women at taxpayer expense?"
Bingo
Neu Mejican|8.22.08 @ 6:49PM|#
TWC,
Lisa Snell and Reason has debunked all of this nonsense and the
articles and policy studies are available right here at
Reason.com
Perfect example of how the advocates twist the truth
I think your irony meter is on the blink.
FWIW, the studies I linked to are studies themselves, or
meta-analyzes of multiple studies... not extrapolations from a
single study.
|8.22.08 @ 6:49PM|#
If one may liken the existing public school system to a
building, when said building is unfit for human habitation -
falling to bits and infested with all manner of vermin - it is not
the time to build a new addition along the same lines and cram more
people into it.
If public education was merely mediocre, there might be an argument
for universal preschool.
Neu Mejican|8.22.08 @ 6:51PM|#
TWC,
Bottom line is there is no study that shows that pre-school has
any lasting benefit whether it is Head Start or Universal Preschool
in any of the states that have implemented it.
Meaning you have done a systematic review of the question and
looked at all the thousands of studies on the topic?
Can you give me a link to your methods section and a quick summary
of your findings?
Neu Mejican|8.22.08 @ 7:01PM|#
TWC,
But the solid evidence for the effectiveness of early
interventions is limited to those conducted on disadvantaged
populations.
Except when its not limited to disadvantaged populations, of
course.
Overall, the results of this study add to the evidence that
high quality public preschool education can improve learning and
development on a large scale for both targeted and general
populations. Although these results cannot be safely
extrapolated to state programs with weaker standards, these states
offer models that others could follow. As noted earlier, effects
were similar in size to those found in the Chicago-Child Parent
Centers study.
Five State Prekindergarten Study
http://nieer.org/pdf/MultiState1007.pdf
Of course this is a think-tank study.
Like the one from Reason, you should take into consideration the
potential bias that an advocacy group might bring to a study.
GG|8.22.08 @ 7:17PM|#
IIRC he's in favor of the voucher system.
No he's
not:
Response to Misleading Reports Concerning Senator Obama's Position on Vouchers
These misleading reports are particularly disturbing given that Senator Obama has laid out the most comprehensive education agenda of any candidate in this race - an agenda that does not include vouchers, in any shape or form.
6-Year-Old 4-Year-Old Stares Down Bottomless Abyss Of Formal
Schooling
SIV|8.22.08 @ 7:18PM|#
Neu,
I think Lisa Snell is Mrs. TWC.
Looks like she has done a bit of work on this stuff
|8.22.08 @ 7:20PM|#
Obama should be focusing on K-12 ending the
unconstitutional federal involvement in education if he
wants to improve education;
Fixed.
GG|8.22.08 @ 7:36PM|#
I wonder what ever happened to this proposal, which AZ Gov.
Janet Napolitano attempted to foist upon The Children™ back in
'05:
Plan adds 6
weeks to school year
Napolitano's panel also proposes more hours a day in class
The proposal being announced this morning in Washington, D.C., seeks a 210-day school year across the United States...
But that's not all: The report by a national task force Napolitano co-chairs also wants a longer school day. It doesn't say specifically how long, but it refers to a chain of charter schools where students attend from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. - and half a day on Saturdays.
Coming soon to a public school near you, no doubt, courtesy of your
not so child-friendly Democrat-controlled Congress.
Elemenope|8.22.08 @ 9:44PM|#
prolefeed --
I've always wondered how far to take the principle that the
Constitution is an end-in-itself. I agree that Federal interference
in education (including that black beast, the Dept. of Education)
is unconstitutional, but I am far *less* sure that by throwing
education to the market, everything will be improved.
Call it a lack of faith.
Neu Mejican|8.22.08 @ 11:31PM|#
SIV,
I think Lisa Snell is Mrs. TWC. Looks like she has done a bit
of work on this stuff
It appears that you are correct on that.
Even without that piece of info, I hadn't expected to convince TWC
of the possibility of a Reason.com employee being biased on the
issue...I will lower my expectations further.
Neu Mejican|8.22.08 @ 11:33PM|#
Regarding Ms TWC,
Although a beautiful woman...
Ms. Snell holds a Master of Arts in Communication from
California State University, Fullerton.
She has a Master's degree in Science communication...I
am guessing she hasn't done that rigorous systematic review of the
literature. But hey, maybe she has training in meta-analysis
post-masters and I am wrong on that point.
No offense intended TWC, but I will continue to be skeptical
without further evidence presented.
|8.23.08 @ 1:35AM|#
I don't know WTF is wrong with Reason's website, but I've
written the post three times now, and it won't post.
I'm not having problems anywhere else so it has to be a Reason
screw up.
Neu Mejican|8.23.08 @ 2:17AM|#
From James Heckman:
http://jenni.uchicago.edu/human-inequality/papers/inv-young-rep_all_2007-01-31b_mms.pdf
"...Seventh, the economic returns to initial investments at early
ages are high. The economic return to investment at older ages is
lower. The technology of skill formation which we analyze in this
essay suggests a strong skill multiplier effect of investment.
Investment at an early age produces a high return through
self-productivity and direct complementarity. Early investment in
cognitive and noncognitive skills lowers the cost of later
investment by making learning at later ages more efficient. The
skill multiplier highlights the value of early investment. It also
demonstrates that there is no trade-off between equity (targeting
programs at disadvantaged families) and efficiency (getting the
highest economic returns), provided that the investments are made
at early ages. There is such a trade-off at later ages.
Eighth, CES-complementarity of early with late investments implies
that early investments must be followed up by later investments in
order to be effective. Nothing in the new economics of human skill
formation suggests that we should starve later educational and
skill enhancement efforts. Our evidence suggests that a portfolio
of childhood investments tipped towards the younger years of a
child's life is optimal. However, we should prioritize, and shift
our priorities, in a marginal fashion by redirecting a given total
sum of expenditure on skill investment to earlier ages relative to
how it is currently allocated toward disadvantaged populations that
do not provide enriched environments for their children."
A worthwhile read...but hardly the last word.
To be clear, as I said above, making preschool an option available
to all families makes sense, while mandating it for everyone would
not. Heckman's recommendations are in line with that
suggestion.
Obama's proposal, also seems in line with that.
"# Zero to Five Plan: Obama's comprehensive "Zero to Five" ...
Obama will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state
"zero to five" efforts and help states move toward
voluntary, universal pre-school.
Expand Early Head Start and Head Start: Obama will quadruple Early
Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for
both. "
Now, I personally think the Federal role in education should remain
limited, but I think Snell and Dalmia have presented a distorted
view of Obama's position...And their WSJ article is pure fluff and
puffery designed to drive home a partisan position. But, to be
fair, that is what they are paid to do.
smartass sob|8.23.08 @ 5:44AM|#
And there is that ten billion dollars to think about. Over
and over and over.
Not only that - if anyone thinks the cost would not increase well
beyond that, then he or she has been living under a rock for the
last fifty years or so.
|8.23.08 @ 10:01AM|#
I contend that plopping the kid in front of a tv with a cup of suger water is better for them then sending them to school. At age four, the last thing a formitive mind needs is the idea that it's all about the group over the individual. My five year old just completed her first week of kindergarden and I'm already worried that she's ruined. Anyone advocating en extra year of public school is just nuts
The Wine Commonsewer|8.23.08 @ 10:43AM|#
but I think Snell and Dalmia have presented a distorted view
of Obama's position...
Yes, because Obama really doesn't mean to have 0-5 universal
preschool that costs ten billion dollars.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.23.08 @ 10:44AM|#
I am guessing she hasn't done that rigorous systematic
review of the literature.
I'm sure your right in that Reason pays it's staff to go to the
beach.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.23.08 @ 10:46AM|#
if anyone thinks the cost would not increase well beyond
that, then he or she has been living under a rock for the last
fifty years or so.
The Quebec universal pre-school program was 33 times more costly
than projections.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.23.08 @ 10:48AM|#
My five year old just completed her first week of
kindergarden and I'm already worried that she's ruined. Anyone
advocating en extra year of public school is just nuts
Dude, you just made me shoot coffee out of nose all over the
screen.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.23.08 @ 10:52AM|#
Expand Early Head Start and Head Start: Obama will quadruple
Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality
for both. "
You apparently missed the part where Head Start and Education week
looked at the Head Start program over the last forty years and
determined it was of little benefit.
Given that these two organizations would have what you call a bias
in favor of public spending on pre-school programs they also would
have an incentive to present Head Start and UPK in the best
possible light.
Let's be generous and say that Head Start has been a net nothing.
Not good, not bad, as the studies have indicated. Why do we want to
go ahead and spend many more billions of tax dollars on a program
that doesn't do anything?
It's like the digging holes to get dirt to fill up the holes you
dug up yesterday.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.23.08 @ 10:55AM|#
I will continue to be skeptical without further evidence
presented.
I think My Man SIV presented you with a pretty comprehensive list
of further evidence. Just a mouse click away, dude.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.23.08 @ 11:08AM|#
I hadn't expected to convince TWC of the possibility of a
Reason.com employee being biased on the issue...I will lower my
expectations further.
And well you should, because frankly, my bias is that tax paid
public education should be abolished entirely. Most libertarians
worthy of wearing the decoder ring will agree with that.
DRINK!
There are two arguments with respect to any proposal on the table
that involves government. The moral and the practical.
The stone tablet handed down from the mount says that neither you
nor Obama has a moral right to take 10 billion dollars from
Gillespie to send Jesse Walker's kid to pre-K. Even if it makes her
a genius.
You don't get to take my gun because your neighborhood is iffy. You
don't get to round up gays and send them to re-education camp
because your pastor told you they were hell bound anyway.
Pragmatically speaking, UPK is largely ineffective and any gains to
be had evaporate by the middle of elementary school.
Since 70% of all kids are already participating in pre-k programs
of one kind or another it is bad policy to spend billions upon
billions of dollars to offer free pre-k which will effectively put
private providers, church programs, and the YMCA out of
business.
The private sector is already doing a decent job of filling the
market demand for pre-k.
As the girls pointed out, if you want some improvements in our
abysmal public education system then you need to move to a system
(like our university system) where the money follows the student
rather than locking the student into a poorly performing
neighborhood school.
Think about it. What if your college choice was restricted to
whatever college happened to be in your neighborhood? Sorry Bud, we
don't care how smart you are, you ain't going to UC Berkeley,
you're going to Goldenwest College because you live across the
street.
|8.23.08 @ 11:43AM|#
Being a global warming alarmist who believes cheap reneweable fuels are just around the corner is one thing. But trying to convince people that pre-K works? That's something else altogether.
Neu Mejican|8.23.08 @ 11:49AM|#
TWC,
I'm sure your right in that Reason pays it's staff to go to the
beach.
I think My Man SIV presented you with a pretty comprehensive list
of further evidence. Just a mouse click away, dude.
There is a big difference between the reports published by Reason
and a rigorous systematic review of the scientific literature.
Dude.
You apparently missed the part where Head Start and Education
week looked at the Head Start program over the last forty years and
determined it was of little benefit.
You apparently missed the part where all sides need to be presented
to make a determination. But if you want to play cherry picking tit
for tat...here.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/reports/first_yr_execsum/first_yr_execsum.pdf
Now, I will state again that I think the federal government has
little role to play in education. Education is a local issue for
local governments to figure out. Additional options for parents
with limited resources that result in an enriched environment for
their children are a good thing. But the devil is in the details.
How a program is implemented is what matters. Vouchers or tax
credits in one community may work. For others, a different model
may make more sense.
A change in emphasis towards earlier educational enrichment is
seems to be indicated by the bulk of the research I have read. I
haven't done that systematic review yet, however, so I will remain
skeptical of claims from either side. Particularly when they
pretend the issue is settled.
|8.23.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Additional options for parents with limited resources that
result in an enriched environment for their children are a good
thing. But the devil is in the details. How a program is
implemented is what matters.
I asked Uncle Santa for a Ferrari, but I got a fucking Trabant.
Neu Mejican|8.23.08 @ 12:03PM|#
Pragmatically speaking, UPK is largely ineffective and any
gains to be had evaporate by the middle of elementary
school.
Although this has not been conclusively demonstrated, if true one
might ask why.
This paper may have something to say about the causes of this
observed fade in benefits as kids get older.
http://www.santafe.edu/research/publications/workingpapers/06-02-006.pdf
Neu Mejican|8.23.08 @ 12:09PM|#
I know the headline is over the top. But as you all know,
writers have zero control over headlines.
Writers do have control of their own words, however...
"If anything, preschool may do lasting damage to many
children."
Even the studies which not behavioral issues do not make this
claim. Behavioral differences are noted to be minor with few kids
exhibiting behaviors that would warrant the label "damaged."
"that may be bad for their kids"
Again, you are overstating. There is a difference between "benefit
has not been demonstrated" and "evidence of harm."
Neu Mejican|8.23.08 @ 12:21PM|#
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.
Build it and they will come?
70% are already making this choice according to the article. The
incentive is already there. Obama's proposal changes the dynamics
of the market, but it is not forcing preschool on anyone.
Somehow this strikes me as similar to the arguments that McDonald's
is incentivizing poor eating habits with their dollar menu.
Neu Mejican|8.23.08 @ 12:33PM|#
"If anything, preschool may do lasting damage to many
children."
Notice also that the claim is that the demonstrated academic and
cognitive gains of preschool are lost quickly. Somehow, however,
the damage it does is lasting.
|8.23.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Since the
local school board has pretty much
solved all of the
problems with
public education around here, giving them a challenge like
educating toddlers seems like the wise thing to do.
Right?
The Wine Commonsewer|8.23.08 @ 3:32PM|#
NM,
I don't think we have much to discuss because you have made it
clear that you have no problem with taking other people's money to
fund tax supported programs so long as somebody somewhere says it's
a good idea.
Well, have at it dude, dig deep, send in an extra ten grand or so
with your 2008 1040. Don't forget to mark the memo section
universal pre school fund. Just don't ask me to do the
same, because in my judgment it is a waste of money.
That, incidentally, is the difference between choice and force.
You'd like to force the rest of us to do something we may not agree
with or may not find of value.
I am more than happy to allow you the choice to help fund any
pre-school program you find to be of value.
This isn't Monty Python's Argument Clinic, and I'm not arguing in
my spare time. I'm moving on to the honeydew projects.
Enjoy the weekend.
herodotus|8.23.08 @ 3:33PM|#
She has a Master's degree in Science communication...I am
guessing she hasn't done that rigorous systematic review of the
literature. But hey, maybe she has training in meta-analysis
post-masters and I am wrong on that point.
No offense intended TWC, but I will continue to be skeptical
without further evidence presented.
OK, in the first place, there are no masters degrees in 'science'.
At least not from any reputable institutions.
And you aren't skeptical, you are a partisan.
But most of all, the notion that only specialists in a particular
field should discuss the subject matter of that field (which is
what your 'systematic review of the literature' comment is
intimating) is a particularly egregious version of the Professional
Fallacy. The biggest problem with this is that it attempts to cloak
prejudice with 'professional standards'.
Like academic sociologists somehow don't have an axe to
grind.
Like the only evidence worth looking at is what they have already
examined.
I mean, come on, it's not like we are talking about real
science here.
|8.23.08 @ 10:04PM|#
Somehow this strikes me as similar to the arguments that McDonald's is incentivizing poor eating habits with their dollar menu.
If McDonalds was the federal government, the employees were
required to have a BA degree, the hamburgers were paid for with tax
dollars, and then provided to consumers at no charge you might have
an analogy working for you.
|8.23.08 @ 10:16PM|#
There is a big difference between the reports published by
Reason and a rigorous systematic review of the scientific
literature. Dude.
Scientific literature? What?
We think ten kids would have gone to jail if they hadn't gone to
pre-school that year so we've arrived at a net benefit to society
of 30 times the cost of incarcerating the kids that didn't actually
go to jail (course we don't really know why they didn't go to jail)
plus the value of their contributions to society over a lifetime in
terms of taxes paid and social benefits accruing because they are
designing light rail instead of flipping hamburgers, except we
really can't say that they would have flipped burgers if they
hadn't gone to preschool but we really don't know shit from
breakfast and we just think it might end up this way.
Had you read the fifty some odd pages of the Reason/Goldwater study
you wouldn't have changed your mind but it would not be so evident
that you hadn't done so.
Neu Mejican|8.23.08 @ 10:37PM|#
Herodotus,
OK, in the first place, there are no masters degrees in
'science'. At least not from any reputable institutions.
Of course, that was an allusion to Dr. Science, an old
comedy radio show.
But most of all, the notion that only specialists in a
particular field should discuss the subject matter of that field
(which is what your 'systematic review of the literature' comment
is intimating) is a particularly egregious version of the
Professional Fallacy. The biggest problem with this is that it
attempts to cloak prejudice with 'professional
standards'.
Actually, a systematic review is a methodology and can be done by
anyone with the proper training. It need not be done by "insider"
experts. It does, however, require that you know what you are doing
and is a very labor intensive undertaking. Most masters programs
would not include the proper training...particularly in a
Communications department. I have not seen Reason conduct any
systematic reviews.
But more to the point, Snell and Dalmia were being held up as
experts on education, because they have done some journalism on the
topic for an ideology-based think tank. Hardly a credible source
for unbiased information, imho. The WSJ article demonstrates that,
btw.
And you aren't skeptical, you are a partisan.
Which party am I a member of?
Which partisan positions did I advocate?
Let's review:
1) On balance it would be a good thing if preschool were available
to anyone who wanted it for their child. How best to do that is an
open question, imo.
2) It should not be made mandatory.
3) The federal government doesn't have much of a role to play in
education policy as it is a local issue.
4) Local communities should decide what approach is best for
them.
5) The jury is out on whether preschool benefits are limited to
just the disadvantaged, or whether they would be of benefit more
broadly.
TWC,
you have made it clear that you have no problem with taking
other people's money to fund tax supported programs so long as
somebody somewhere says it's a good idea.
More accurately, policy should be based on the best evidence, and
not the opinions of those who have predetermined conclusions prior
to assessing that evidence.
Pragmatic considerations are only part of the story, of course.
Many programs would not be justified no matter their
effectiveness.
Of course, vouchers are just as much about taking money by force as
are any other methods of funding public education. I am not sure
what your position is on vouchers, but Reason has certainly
advocated this approach. Given that your wife is is Education
Director at Reason Foundation, she may have had a hand in the
decision to advocate for this approach. Given that taking money
from me to send someone else's kids to school will involve force no
matter what, I prefer that the money is spent in the most effective
way possible...that may be vouchers in some communities. In others
it may involve publicly owned school delivering the service. Either
way, the devil will be in the details and careful oversight should
be part of the package to be sure that the money is spent
effectively.
Neu Mejican|8.23.08 @ 10:47PM|#
Some Hamburger flipper,
You mean this article?
http://www.reason.org/ps344_universalpreschool.pdf
Again, journalism does not equal a review of the evidence. Pretty
color pictures and all.
Ever hear of a thing called "peer review?"
It's a pretty low bar, sure, but at least there's a bar.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.24.08 @ 1:51PM|#
Of course, vouchers are just as much about taking money by
force as are any other methods of funding public education. I am
not sure what your position is on vouchers, but Reason has
certainly advocated this approach.
Of course vouchers are about force.
The larger point is that tax paid public education is not EVER
going away. In that context it is important find a way to force
improvements in public education. Vouchers may be one way to do
that because it gives students and parents the right of exit from
failing and/or dangerous public schools.
A better option is when the per student funding follows the student
when she bails out of a failing school and moves to the good school
across town.
|8.24.08 @ 2:18PM|#
Vouchers may be one way to do that because it gives students
and parents the right of exit from failing and/or dangerous public
schools.
Surely you overstate the shortcomings of public education.
Are there actually any failing or dangerous public schools TWC? Not
isolated incidents but
something drastic like a system in the top twenty of the nation
sizewise with a graduation rate of < 50%. Someplace
where police roam the halls and metal detectors are the
norm?
Neu Mejican|8.24.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Surely you overstate the shortcomings of public
education.
The problem is to extrapolate from the specific case to the general
case. Problems with certain school districts do not indicate
problems in others. If we had a uniform public school system run by
the federal government then a critique of "The PubliK Skools" might
make sense.
In the current situation, however, it is best to target those
critiques to the districts where they apply. Even more effective is
to target the criticism at the level of the specific school.
I have worked in schools in the same neighborhood that were of
radically different in quality. In NYC, for instance, I worked at
two schools in Harlem that were across the street from each other.
These, of course, served the same neighborhood, dealt with the same
challenges, and the two schools were night and day. One was
orderly, successful and full of educational activity. The other was
nothing but discipline problems and distractions with little
learning going on.
Neu Mejican|8.24.08 @ 4:00PM|#
TWC,
Vouchers may be one way to do that because it gives students
and parents the right of exit from failing and/or dangerous public
schools.
Yes, the may be one way. It is important, however, to verify that
they result in these improvements for a specific community.
A better option is when the per student funding follows the
student when she bails out of a failing school and moves to the
good school across town.
If you amend that to "a better option for some communities may be
to have the funding follow the student" then I would agree with
this.
No one model will be right for all communities in a country of 350
million.
|8.24.08 @ 6:45PM|#
The problem is to extrapolate from the specific case to the
general case. Problems with certain school districts do not
indicate problems in others.
The problem may be you didn't look at the table I linked to. The
1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 11th and 13th largest districts in the
whole country have H.S. graduation rates < 50%. I'm TLTG all of
the districts police presence.
Isolated incidents or damning evidence that the public education
establishment is failing? Certainly enough to give a prudent person
reservations about adding pre-schoolers to their not demonstrably
successful mission.
The Jesuit's have a saying
Give me a child until he is seven, and I will give you the man.
I would not recommend giving a child to Jesuits, communists, Branch Davidians, or the public school establishment. Identical reasons apply.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.25.08 @ 2:13AM|#
J Sub, just to be clear, I am fully in favor of abolishing
public education entirely.
[polishes the decoder ring on his shirt sleeve]
Are there actually any failing or dangerous public schools TWC?
Not isolated incidents but something drastic like a system in the
top twenty of the nation sizewise with a graduation rate of <
50%. Someplace where police roam the halls and metal detectors are
the norm?
Reason's Director of Education wrote extensively about Locke High
School in LA and then Drew Carey et al made that totally awesome
film. See Reason.tv
The school my kids go to is pretty good. But if you live in South
Central LA or in Bumfuck Arkansas you lose.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.25.08 @ 2:14AM|#
BTW, some very bad news. NoStar is in intensive care and his 12
year old daughter was killed in a motorcycle accident today.
Jesus Christ, sometimes life just sucks.
|8.25.08 @ 5:54AM|#
NoStar: "Higher gas prices have not reduced
my time on the roads, but I have switched from my pickup truck to
my motorcycle for most trips. Started this back in
Febrrrrrrrrrrrrrrruary and even now, it is a bit cold in the
mornings.
On the other hand, my daughter loves being taken to school on the
bike no matter what the weather. You can see the envy on her
friends faces."
April
24, 2008, 7:41pm
"Jesus Christ, sometimes life just sucks."
Indeed. :(
bob|8.25.08 @ 11:09AM|#
Neu Mejican, bravo
Education is the key, and it does not take much looking to see the
system needs improving.
That is why education is an ever changing system looking for
improvement. Realize that under the present system daycare workers
are required less training than those people doing your fingernails
or cutting your hair. Is your appearance more important than this
countries children? Instead of talking against any proposed
improvement. Find a better way for all the countries children and
forget the only mine are important attitude, and maybe your
children will grow up in a better society.
Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 1:14PM|#
JsubD,
The problem may be you didn't look at the table I linked to.
The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 7th, 11th and 13th largest districts in the
whole country have H.S. graduation rates < 50%.
This may say more about the fallacy that economies of scale are a
positive in education. My experience has been that smallish to
mid-sized districts do a better job than large districts. I believe
it has to do with the distance between the decision makers and the
kids.
A good option to get the economies of scale advantages and the
small district advantages are for small districts to form coops for
purchasing common items/services. It has worked well in New
Mexico.
|8.25.08 @ 6:33PM|#
Neu Mejican wrote, "A good option to get the economies of scale
advantages and the small district advantages are for small
districts to form coops for purchasing common items/services. It
has worked well in New Mexico."
This approach would also work well for a local federation of
private schools. So why don't we: Just get rid of the politicized
districts altogether and privatize the dysfunctional public school
system? Make educational costs (or gifts intended to defray such
costs) completely tax-deductible at State and Federal levels (or
grant dollar-for-dollar tax credits)? Create a needs-based
scholarship, funded through private donation and administered by a
tax-exempt non-profit? I think that this situation would result in
a) at least as many students being educated as are now handled by
the public schools; 2) more parental involvement in and oversight
of education; 3) the opportunity for the proliferation of many
small providers, who can cater to special needs and provide more
individualized attention than available with present options.
I want "universal education" and everyone to have a fair shot at
finding educational success. After close observation of the public
school scene for almost 40 years, and very close observation of my
area's local private school scene for the past decade, I think
privatizing the education "system" offers the best chance of
achieving the goals. Those who cling to the socialist education
establishment model will soon be seen as actively damaging
children, if they aren't already.
|8.25.08 @ 6:44PM|#
# The Wine Commonsewer | August 25, 2008, 2:14am | #
# BTW, some very bad news. NoStar is in
# intensive care and his 12 year old daughter
# was killed in a motorcycle accident today.
# Jesus Christ, sometimes life just sucks.
My wife and were saying that last line about the recent, premature
death of our cat, our personable, furry friend and lord of our
house for the past nine years.
TWC's news about NoStar put our situation in its proper context,
all the moreso when my son called from college as I was reading the
posting. We had just dropped him off at his quarters in Berkeley
last night, and reading TWC's note made me want to hear his voice:
then, there it was.
Every moment with the ones we love is a gift, folks. Enjoy them
all.
My thoughts, sentiments, and best wishes go out to Bill Kalles and
his family.
Kant feel Pietzsche|8.27.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Good grief! The New Comprachios have struck again!
This isn't about increasing cognitive ability, this is about a
little extra head start in "socializing" the proles.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245