Curtis J. Hill, San Benito County Sheriff-Coroner, wrote a
letter to the editor recently in support of Proposition 82. I mean
no disrespect to Sheriff Hill. No doubt he is a fine sheriff and a
competent coroner. But he has been sold a bill of goods on the
supposed advantages of universal preschool.
Curtis J. Hill, San Benito County Sheriff-Coroner, wrote a letter to the editor recently in support of Proposition 82. I mean no disrespect to Sheriff Hill. No doubt he is a fine sheriff and a competent coroner. But he has been sold a bill of goods on the supposed advantages of universal preschool.
The cornerstone myth that Sheriff Hill repeats so uncritically is as follows: “Decades of research show that attending quality preschool helps kids succeed in school and stay away from crime later.”
The fact is that all the available research, including the 2005 RAND study cited by the good sheriff, actually shows that attending preschool has those effects only for severely disadvantaged children. Middle- and upper-class children who attend preschool are no better off in terms of their educational attainments or involvement with the criminal justice system than their home-reared peers.
Even for severely disadvantaged children, the results demonstrated by research are mixed. The Chicago study indeed shows long-term benefits to disadvantaged children. But the UCSB study (2006) showed that the academic benefits conferred upon children by the Head Start program faded away after four years.
And the Abecedarian study showed that even after placing disadvantaged children in full day care from infancy with highly-trained professionals at a cost of $13,000 per child per year, the cognitive gains achieved by the children still did not bring them up to the level of a middle-class child raised in a loving home.
Even if we consider only the study with the best outcome, the Chicago study, it is hard to decide what factors are responsible for the beneficial outcomes. Did the disadvantaged children make those gains because they went to preschool?
Or did they make those gains because in the Chicago study, their parents took part in “a multifaceted parent program that includes participating in activities in the parent resource room with other parents (e.g. educational workshops, reading groups, and craft projects), volunteering in the classroom, attending school events and field trips, and completing high school, … outreach activities including resource mobilization’, home visitation and enrollment of children, … health and nutrition services, health screening, speech therapy, and nursing and meal services.” Was it the preschool, or the trained, involved parents?
The second myth accepted uncritically by Sheriff Hill is that Proposition 82 will result in quality preschool being available to all. In fact, at present 14 percent of California 4-year-olds attend state-funded pre-school.
The quality of the state run program is poor, according to the National Institute for Early Education Research: only three out of 10 quality standards are met, even though the program costs $3,000 per child per half-day. Why should we assume that the state will do any better on Proposition 82 preschool than it is currently doing?
To recapitulate: preschool does not benefit middle class or upper class children. A quality program may benefit severely disadvantaged children, but results are mixed. It is questionable whether results last more than a few years, and whether they are due to preschool or to increased parental involvement. It is very questionable whether the state can run a quality preschool program.
So the upside of preschool is, at best, questionable. Is there any downside?
Well, yes.
First, there is a study (Stanford and UC Berkeley, 2005) of 14,000 kindergarten students that shows that attending preschool resulted in more aggression, bullying and acting up, less sharing and cooperation, and less self-control, as observed by the children’s kindergarten teachers, compared to students who were raised at home. These differences were particularly strong for black children and very poor children.
Secondly, Proposition 82 will supposedly be funded by taxing “the rich.” But “the rich” includes businesses, and businesses are already leaving the Golden State in droves. Will chasing more employers away to Nevada help the employment rate, the economy, or the educational system of California? I think not.
Lastly, there is a clause that states that Proposition 82 will be fully funded, which means that if there are not enough “rich” to pay for free preschool for anyone who wants it, we will be taxed to finance the program.
Proposition 82 is a bad idea all around. Vote no.
Cynthia Anne Walker is a homeschooling mother of three and former engineer. She is a published independent author. Her column is published in The Dispatch every week.