Two different conservative critics have lambasted me for saying in “Reign of Error” that early childhood education was a research-based way to improve the achievement of low-income students and narrow the achievement gap.
Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute called such a proposal “pie-in-the-sky,” as did a reviewer for the (ironically named) “Public Sector,” published by the conservative Manhattan Institute.
There may be many good reasons to attack my book and my policy proposals–even though each of them has a solid research base–but attacking pre-school education is simply bizarre. There are few policy ideas that have more research or more bipartisan support. It is frankly embarrassing when reviewers say “the money is all gone” or “we can’t afford it” or “the research isn’t there” or come up with some other half-cocked reason not to do what other advanced nations long ago recognized as valuable and necessary.
Today, Motoko Rich in the New York Times has an article supporting (yet again) the importance of early childhood education, but in this case, reporting on research showing that the achievement gap begins as early as 18 months. The implication is that starting pre-school at age 4 is already too late.
Let the defenders of the status quo take their argument to the New York Times and to Nobelist James Heckman and to Susan Ochsborn of ECE Policy Works or to others in the research community.
What they have amply demonstrated if they don’t care about poor kids or closing the achievement gap, only maintaining the status quo.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Diane, My research focus is in early childhood special education and I am infuriated when the willfully ignorant Petrillis of the world make such destructive, false claims. There are years and years of replicated peer reviewed studies that show the positive effects on children with and without disabilities of early childhood education (birth through age 8yrs.)
These people who know NOTHING about early childhood need to stop spreading their false dogma. That’s what it is- dogma.
It’s not even that he is ignorant of Early Childhood: he is also ignorant of the real-life problems of high-poverty schools and families, yet he blithely waxes poetic about how to solve them. And dammit, I resent it!
Sorry, wrote an “even” where there should have been a “just.”
Delighted that you stated that early childhood is birth to grade three!
National Association of State Boards pf Education redefined it twenty five years ago.
Along the lines of “sky pie”: Chester Finn of the Fordham Institute also writes about working “around” the system. In this post, I challenge him to No Excuses Change (the kind reformers outside of the consequences of their reforms like to pile on those in the line of fire) based upon his own high school experience. I call it the Exeter Reform Plan:
http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/rethinking-rethinking-schools-an-open-letter-to-chester-finn/
Ask any Kindergarten teacher if they see a difference between those who had Pre-K versus those who have not, and form a nation-wide policy based on their answers.
I each first grade and I can see a BIG difference between my students who went to pre-school and those who did not.
Meant to say teach; not each. Also, I’m not for Pre K doing K’s work…
just good old fashioned early childhood education that is developmentally appropriate for this level.
I am curious if the difference between students who went to pre-school and those that did not in later grades like fifth or sixth.
I just read that article in the NY Times and was encouraged to see the authors promoting early childhood education.
George was speaking toward the earliest years around pregnancy. Gabor Mate has an excellent new book about ADD called “Scattered”. It should be read by every parent and teacher.He speaks of the emotional component of learning and how even from the womb children sense the stress of the parent and, eventually, after birth, the lack of emotional interplay which leads to brain development, which is missing from the poor stressed out mother. Getting a child into a supportive emotional setting, which can be received from peers, helps the child’s brain development.
I am not certain that the curriculum is the answer, per se. If the child has an emotionally supportive home life, and then withdrawn from that, and placed in an instructive setting based on market forces and inexperienced teachers, I am not certain of positive results with this new paradigm from the Federal Department of Education and the Gates Foundation. Even adult teachers are becoming emotionally unhinged, where they can leave, while the children can not.
I have tried to read anything Mike Petrilli writes without my blood pressure going up. And once again, I simply cannot do it. I am ashamed to admit that I find myself wanting to do him bodily harm, although I *might* be satisfied with his presence as a volunteer in my kids’ school every day for a month.
From stop common core in CA facebook page comes discussion about news of
Pearson Acquiring ADHD Testing Company BioBehavioral Diagnostics
“The Quotient ADHD Test offers physicians, mental health professionals and educators objective assessment of ADHD.” http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/8/prweb11061295.htm
Terry Bug comments:
This will be used in the school health clinics to increase ADHD Dx and med Rx.
http://elephanttreefeatures.com/2013/09/03/common-core-adhd-diagnostics-and-testing/
This will surely “solve” all the problems…
Maybe he should read this….
http://articles.philly.com/2013-10-17/news/43110105_1_preschool-education-early-childhood-education-high-quality-preschool
Pennsylvania District Attorneys talking about the changing nature of their jobs, focusing more on prevention, less on correction. Even if you don’t like kids and want to give them a fair shot, it saves money!
Well in fairness Petrilli didn’t exactly say that pre-k isn’t valuable. He said the data show that Head Start gains are small and/or diminish over time. He said there are selection bias issues for understanding the potential of other programs that have been brought to scale. (Of course there are several ways to deal with selection bias issues if you’re intent to study a question…so the handwringing was a bit odd…)
I think the real issue was highlighted by the other reviewer who dismissively mentions “the social welfare system implant[ing] itself in the school house with sufficient resources to ensure every child’s health and happiness.” These reviewers seem to think that a highly efficient teaching system can level the playing field on the “output end” regardless of what things look like at the “input end”. Both of them speak of teenage mothers and absent fathers but offer no indication of a broader understanding of poverty and inequality in this country.
As Marie and George mention above, deficits can start building in poor homes before age 5. From physical health to vocabulary, many high quality studies have been done to document the differences. It makes no sense whatsoever to act as of 5 days a week of “no excuses” schooling could possibly bring closer the outcomes of my children, for whom no expense has been spared since before they were born, and those of another mother who has to leave her children with cousins and neighbors in a gang-infested neighborhood while she works two low-wage jobs (with no health insurance or PTO) an hour away.
While it may be true that there could be better data about ROI on early childhood programs, this is just another attempt to sidestep the poverty issue. Somewhere along the line the effects of poverty must be dealt with. Since we are talking about human beings who follow a developmental trajectory, it only makes sense to begin addressing deficits before they compound. Vocabulary “enrichment” worksheets in 4th grade is surely an inferior solution than making the learning environment of a poor child more similar to that of a middle class child from the very beginning. But it certainly is way cheaper.
“He said the data show that Head Start gains are small and/or diminish over time.” This is what every reactionary has said about early intervention/early childhood education since the Nixon era. In 1970, the Westinghouse-Ohio University study showed there was no change in IQ after poor children participated in Head Start. The results were touted by Nixon to cut expenditures to the program. The problems with Westinghouse were deeply methodological and the efficacy question is too narrowly focused on a static IQ score. So, too are the “studies” sited by the current crop of rt. wing barbarians, static test score washout is the justification to try to end all EI programs.
Further, Head Start & early intervention/preschool are not designed to change IQ or inflate static test scores. They are designed to help children do better in school. After completing Head Start, fewer students are assigned to special education, fewer students were retained, they were less likely to drop out,and girls who became pregnant in HS were more likely to return to complete high school.The effects are long lasting, primarily due to parent’s increased participation and changes in parent’s values and hopes about their children.
The key contributing and interrelated program characteristics related to positive outcomes are:
1. Age of Intervention- the earlier the better
2. Adult-child ratio- the fewer the children the better
3. Number of home visits- the more the better
4. Direct participation of parents- the more the better
5. Services for FAMILIES, not just the child- the more the better. (Lazar, Darlington, Murray, Royce, Snipper, & Ramey (1982)
These findings have been replicated over & over & over. Petrilli can take his mendacious pie hole and shove it. (I apologize for the rudeness but I can’t help it.)
Thanks for sharing this.
Would like to clarify that the name of the Manhattan Institute blog is PublicSectorInc.org. We focus on the latest news, analysis and research about the issues facing the American taxpayer in the face of Public Sector Inc. It provides a national forum to probe problems and develop solutions at the state and local level.
Thanks, back when I was a conservative, I worked as a senior fellow for the Manhattan Institute. Went to Albany to testify on behalf of charter schools. The understanding was that we conservatives would cleverly appeal to liberals by talking about “saving” poor minority kids from “failing” public schools. The trick worked. The liberals fell for it, and New York state got charters. Since then, Manhattan Institute has gone even farther to the right. Still working to privatize public education and giving awards to those who do it best.
The supposed liberals have been falling for a lot of tricks lately, now haven’t they?
Trying to make the older relatives in my family (die-hard liberals) see that has not been easy. Liberals often love money more than they want to admit. The Democrats in NC seem lost in the sea of Gates money. . .getting in line for the charter movement.
Ho hum. And then I get the “well, education has always been controversial” line.
Per early childhood, I have been a music teacher in many early childhood settings (wealthy church settings, and federally funded programs). I think one of the reasons they are of value is because of the number of working mothers anymore. Also, regression to the mean (occurring around age 8–which might be what some say indicates that the benefits do not “last”) is not a reason to not have a positive and nurturing environment (with finger play and music and art and safe toys) for young children. In fact, maybe they are better off with their mothers (if she is going to be sure they have safe toys, fingerplays, music and art and safe outdoor time), but with the reality of poverty and moms working, that is not a realistic bet. (I heard on the radio that was an argument conservatives offer up for not funding it—that they are better off with mother).
What percentage of that which is most important in life is learned BEFORE kindergarten? Check it out.
Early childhood education is great if done at home or on a limited basis. It is when a child learns best but long school hours and an hour twice a day on a school bus are too much for their little bodies. It is best done at home where it can be a continuing learning experience without pressure. My daughter was reading and doing basic math at an early age but she was a very active child and so I had her in a church kindergarten mornings only where they did a lot of interesting projects and she loved it. Going to public school long hours would have been very hard on her. On the other hand my son was very bright he was reading at 2 and into all kinds of subjects and trying to put him in kindergarten at 5 was a disaster – he was in tears because it was “so boring”. This was in 1970 and I was accused of pushing the child and told he should stay at the level of the other children. He ended up going to private school at 8 where he was challenged.
I am on Chapter 16 of your book, and I agree with the majority of what you have written. BUT, this is one area where I disagree. It just seems counter-intuitive to argue that CC is developmentally inappropriate, but then argue that we need more pre-K, etc. Kids need to be kids, and starting them in school environments at earlier ages is not developmentally appropriate. What happens in state-run pre-K is much like what is happening in elementary school. Yes, pre-K might actually get to do a few art projects, but they are forced to sit still and complete worksheets, walk quietly through the halls, are allowed a limited recess time, and are forced to ride buses with much older children. It breaks my heart to visit a local elementary school, and see these four-year-olds acting like mini-adults. It isn’t healthy.
I get that these students don’t come from homes where they are being prepared for education, but starting schooling at younger ages is merely another band-aid. It is still not dealing with the core problem: family structure. We are a small, rural town with a lot of poverty. We have strong pre-K programs, but they don’t make a difference in the long term. And yes, I can say that because we are small enough that we see kids grow up and move from elementary to middle to the only high school. We have a constant thread of support from elementary through high school. Teachers and administrators who work well together to try to get kids to succeed. The kids who thrive and grow in an educational environment have parents who are involved and who have a sense of personal responsibility instilled in them from their parents. Yes, even the ones in the midst of poverty.
All too often, we see kids and parents with the entitlement mentality. Those are the children who never overcome the deficit of family structure. These ARE the kids who are in pre-K because it provides free babysitting. These ARE the kids who are given free everything because their parents “know their rights.” These ARE the kids who have parents who lie for them, who teach them to lie, and who will not work with the school to help their children. These ARE the kids who benefit from all of these social programs. And these are the same kids who never make it out of poverty. The programs don’t work, no matter how well-intentioned. Programs cannot replace parenting, and even though we know this, we continue to try to band-aid the problem with programs. The baggage these kids bring into school will break anyone’s heart. It isn’t fair that they have to deal with the “sins” of their parents.
We have to begin with the adults, but to create responsible adults, we have to instill it in kids. How do we do this when we have this vicious cycle of poverty that we continue to band-aid with programs? Sometimes ripping the band-aids off hurts, but it might be necessary to allow healing. Because of the paths my husband and I chose, we do ok, but we can’t do what many others do (and I want to add that some things that impact us are “unfair” or out of our control such as the fact that I have MS). We frequently reinforce that with our kids when they ask for the latest clothes or technology. We tell them that we made choices and we are where we are and that our budget does not allow for those things. Hopefully, my kids will either be happy with where we are and what we have, or they will be inspired to achieve more with a job that makes more money. It is this mentality that has to be instilled in kids for them to succeed.
Interesting item from Melbourne, Australia
http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/preschool-teachers-lasting-effect-20131019-2vtu0.html
Dear Mike,
I teach 8 different Kindergarten classes a week from two differing demographics (one that is from my district, and the other from a district that “rents” space and related arts staff). I invite you to teach my classes for two weeks in order to see the disparities in academic and behavioral development between those children having their first experiences in school compared to those who’ve had a background in pre-school.
Good luck!
Sincerely,
LG
Let’s stop blaming teachers, parents, and kids, and put the blame where it belongs! (Thank goodness for Diane Ravitch!)
So here the NY Times reports on one more study proving what should be accepted knowledge now: the “achievement gap” truly is in large large part a built-it result (and perhaps even goal?) of the extreme inequality that grows daily in this country (and others). Even the term “opportunity gap” clouds the issue. Low pay means parents work more to provide the basics for their children, and are around their children less, and more exhausted, than those who can live working only one job. Sure, part of an answer includes more pre-K, but the BIG answer is a BIG change in the structural inequities in our society which hit African American and other families of color hardest, and which affect a GROWING number of our children and their parents.
From this article: ‘Since oral language and vocabulary are so connected to reading comprehension, the most disadvantaged children face increased challenges once they enter school and start learning to read. “That gap just gets bigger and bigger,” said Kris Perry, executive director of the First Five Years Fund, an advocate of early education for low-income children. “That gap is very real and very hard to undo.” ‘
Thank goodness for the parents and teachers and students who are coming together around this country, and in other places on our planet, to declare the nakedness of the emperor, and to work together to answer the attacks on all of us. And thank goodness for people like Maya Angelou who are speaking out truths that need to be heard. Especially, thank goodness for Diane Ravitch who daily gives us materials, and communication vehicles and national attention, and her wonderful book, to arm and bind us into the powerful movement we must become.